Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,183
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 18:
Line 18: − + Line 24:
Line 24: − + Line 35:
Line 35: − + Line 110:
Line 110: − + Line 220:
Line 220: − + Line 227:
Line 227: − + Line 251:
Line 251: − +
HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.icr.org → https://www.icr.org (2), http://creation.com → https://creation.com (3), http://www.amazon.com → https://www.amazon.com
|author=Christine Dao
|author=Christine Dao
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|url=http://www.icr.org/article/3751/313/
|url=https://www.icr.org/article/3751/313/
|access date=02.02.2014
|access date=02.02.2014
}}</ref>|group=note}}, [[Isaac Newton]]{{#tag:ref|cf."This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "''pantokrator''," or Universal Ruler...Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.…It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy." ''Newton, I.: General Scholium. Translated by Motte, A. 1825. Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy''<ref>{{cite web
}}</ref>|group=note}}, [[Isaac Newton]]{{#tag:ref|cf."This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "''pantokrator''," or Universal Ruler...Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.…It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy." ''Newton, I.: General Scholium. Translated by Motte, A. 1825. Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy''<ref>{{cite web
|author=Christine Dao
|author=Christine Dao
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|url=http://www.icr.org/article/newton/
|url=https://www.icr.org/article/newton/
|access date=22.04.2012
|access date=22.04.2012
}}</ref>|group=note}}, and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and [[Natural causes|secondary (''natural'') causes]].{{#tag:ref|Adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] such as E.J.Larson often mistakenly portray these scientists from their position as "freely mix[ing] matters of supernatural and natural causation" without recognizing the real difference they made between primary and secondary (natural) causes.<ref>{{cite book
}}</ref>|group=note}}, and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and [[Natural causes|secondary (''natural'') causes]].{{#tag:ref|Adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] such as E.J.Larson often mistakenly portray these scientists from their position as "freely mix[ing] matters of supernatural and natural causation" without recognizing the real difference they made between primary and secondary (natural) causes.<ref>{{cite book
|pages=350
|pages=350
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
|url=http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarkable-History-Scientific-Chronicles/dp/0679642889
|url=https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarkable-History-Scientific-Chronicles/dp/0679642889
|quote=Indeed, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, William Gilbert, John Ray, and many other prior scientific luminaries freely mixed matters of supernatural and natural causation.}}</ref> Adam Sedgwick's review of the [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|''Origin'']] published in the Spectator on 24 March 1860 criticised [[Darwin]]'s theory for unflinching materialism and for utterly repudiating final causes.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles [24 Mar – 3 Apr 1860]|publisher=the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project |accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2734#back-mark-2734.f5|quote=C.Darwin referes to a passage in Sedgwick's review ([Sedgwick] 1860, p. 286): But I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism; … because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby indicates a demoralised understanding on the part of its advocates.}}</ref>|group=note}} A ''primary cause'' was meant to be a ''[[First Cause|first cause]]'' to explain singularities.<ref name="skeptics">{{Cite book
|quote=Indeed, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, William Gilbert, John Ray, and many other prior scientific luminaries freely mixed matters of supernatural and natural causation.}}</ref> Adam Sedgwick's review of the [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|''Origin'']] published in the Spectator on 24 March 1860 criticised [[Darwin]]'s theory for unflinching materialism and for utterly repudiating final causes.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles [24 Mar – 3 Apr 1860]|publisher=the University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project |accessdate=17-Mar-2013|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2734#back-mark-2734.f5|quote=C.Darwin referes to a passage in Sedgwick's review ([Sedgwick] 1860, p. 286): But I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism; … because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby indicates a demoralised understanding on the part of its advocates.}}</ref>|group=note}} A ''primary cause'' was meant to be a ''[[First Cause|first cause]]'' to explain singularities.<ref name="skeptics">{{Cite book
| author = Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
| author = Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
|date= 14 February 2002
|date= 14 February 2002
|publisher=BBC
|publisher=BBC
|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml
|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml
|quote=NARRATOR: If everything in the Universe was to be explained then String Theory and the Big Bang would now seamlessly merge and they'd complement each other perfectly. After all, one concerned the birth of the Universe and the other all the matter in it. It was surely a foregone conclusion. Physics seemed to be on the edge of glory, but it all went terribly wrong. Try as they might they just couldn't get the two ideas to merge and then, after 10 years of struggling, something even worse happened: their two pet theories now began to self-destruct. The first problem appeared with the Big Bang. The cosmologists had assumed that as they worked backwards in time they would eventually work their way back all the way to the beginning of the Big Bang. There would be no awkward gaps, but after years of end-less refinement there was one gap which refused to disappear, the most important one of all. ALAN GUTH: In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang Theory it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang. MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law. NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity. PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.}}</ref>
|quote=NARRATOR: If everything in the Universe was to be explained then String Theory and the Big Bang would now seamlessly merge and they'd complement each other perfectly. After all, one concerned the birth of the Universe and the other all the matter in it. It was surely a foregone conclusion. Physics seemed to be on the edge of glory, but it all went terribly wrong. Try as they might they just couldn't get the two ideas to merge and then, after 10 years of struggling, something even worse happened: their two pet theories now began to self-destruct. The first problem appeared with the Big Bang. The cosmologists had assumed that as they worked backwards in time they would eventually work their way back all the way to the beginning of the Big Bang. There would be no awkward gaps, but after years of end-less refinement there was one gap which refused to disappear, the most important one of all. ALAN GUTH: In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang Theory it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang. MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law. NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity. PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.}}</ref>
|publisher= JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(3) creation.com
|publisher= JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(3) creation.com
|date = 2009
|date = 2009
|url= http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_103-109.pdf
|url= https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_103-109.pdf
|access date=27.09.2012
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref> or in 'An interview with creationist physicist/cosmologist John Hartnett'.<ref>{{cite web
}}</ref> or in 'An interview with creationist physicist/cosmologist John Hartnett'.<ref>{{cite web
|publisher= Creation 25(4):37–39
|publisher= Creation 25(4):37–39
|date = September 2003
|date = September 2003
|url= http://creation.com/exploding-the-big-bang
|url= https://creation.com/exploding-the-big-bang
|access date=27.09.2012
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref>|group=note}} are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] object to God as a final explanation for ''ultimate cause'', yet they themselves have no explanation for the existence of the mass/energy of which the universe is formed and thus must regard it essentially as a ''brute fact''. Due to the [[law of causality]], [[explanation in science]], if it is to avoid [[infinite regress]], always leads to certain things that are regarded as ''ultimate''.<ref name="LENNOX"/> American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist Robert Jastrow closes his book ''God and the Astronomers'' with these words: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the ''power of reason'', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."<ref name="Jastrow">{{cite book
}}</ref>|group=note}} are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] object to God as a final explanation for ''ultimate cause'', yet they themselves have no explanation for the existence of the mass/energy of which the universe is formed and thus must regard it essentially as a ''brute fact''. Due to the [[law of causality]], [[explanation in science]], if it is to avoid [[infinite regress]], always leads to certain things that are regarded as ''ultimate''.<ref name="LENNOX"/> American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist Robert Jastrow closes his book ''God and the Astronomers'' with these words: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the ''power of reason'', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."<ref name="Jastrow">{{cite book
== External links ==
== External links ==
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological argument#Cosmological arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological argument#Cosmological arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf Daniel Schmidt: [[String theory]] and the origin of the universe—new idea, old problem]
*[https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf Daniel Schmidt: [[String theory]] and the origin of the universe—new idea, old problem]
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]