• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Why would it be unreasonable that a god (any god) could be a reasonable cause?
It is not unreasonable to say a god could possibly have caused the Big Bang. That is one of many possible causes that people have suggested. Nobody really knows what caused it.

But it is unreasonable to say we know a god has caused the Big Bang.

The problem is you seem to jump from "possibly could have" to "therefore certainly did" and that jump in logic is not, in my mind, justified.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Please support this premise.

2. The universe began to exist.

Please support this premise.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Causality is a phenomena of the space-time continuum. It requires a temporal context in orde to manifest. So, there's a hidden premise here: that the universe exists within an external temporal context. Please support that premise.

Whatever it is that is the cause of the universe will recover several principal attributes of God,

Please demonstrate that this god actually has those attributes... Because it seems to me that it is merely arbitrarily defined to be so.

so the the cause takes on the character of a personal Creator of the Universe.
How did that "personal" qualifier sneak in there?
Why can't the "cause" of the universe (assuming it even makes sense to call it a "cause") be a natural phenomena of some larger multi-verse or a quantum fluke or what-have-you? How was that ruled out.


Literally not a single word of this "argument" stands, when met with some decent scrutiny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athée
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
We know the cause of the universe--the Big Bang.

And the cause of the Big Bang? Nobody knows.

So if nobody knows the cause of the Big Bang, how can you be certain that the cause takes on the character of God?

Hmmm

To be technically correct, the big bang is NOT the "cause" of the universe. What it does is explain the development of the universe, after it already existed.
In a very real sense the big bang IS the universe.

As you may or may not know, we can only wind back time (through math / theoretical physics) until planck time. Which is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction..... after T = 0.

Currently, the origins of the universe (or the big bang) are unknown.

If we try to make the jump from planck time to T = 0, our models of physics simply break down.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Inference to the best explanation. What do you think caused the BB?

An undemonstrable entity being claimed to do something inexplicable in undemonstrable ways, with no evidence whatsover in support of it is.... no an explanation at all. It's not even a bad explanation. It's NO explanation.

It's just an empty, meaningless, worthless and useless claim.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Because whatever caused it must be an eternal entity with extreme power who exists outside space and time ect... All are priciples that point to God.

How did you conclude that it must be a "who"?
Why not a "what"?
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
It is not unreasonable to say a god could possibly have caused the Big Bang. That is one of many possible causes that people have suggested. Nobody really knows what caused it.

But it is unreasonable to say we know a god has caused the Big Bang.

The problem is you seem to jump from "possibly could have" to "therefore certainly did" and that jump in logic is not, in my mind, justified.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis

If you think that is false, you have reasons why, surely.

What are they?
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Please support this premise.



Please support this premise.



Causality is a phenomena of the space-time continuum. It requires a temporal context in orde to manifest. So, there's a hidden premise here: that the universe exists within an external temporal context. Please support that premise.



Please demonstrate that this god actually has those attributes... Because it seems to me that it is merely arbitrarily defined to be so.


How did that "personal" qualifier sneak in there?
Why can't the "cause" of the universe (assuming it even makes sense to call it a "cause") be a natural phenomena of some larger multi-verse or a quantum fluke or what-have-you? How was that ruled out.


Literally not a single word of this "argument" stands, when met with some decent scrutiny.

Visit my blog article over at:

http://www.mereapologetics.com
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
With regards to the kalam, an a-theory of time is assumed throughout.

In addition, in order for the kalam to be defended, one must first I think, attack the assumption that science will be able to, in principle, explain the existence of all matter, all energy, and the space-time manifold itself which is expanding, for if this is not done first, then the detractor of the kalam can always retreat to the position that science will one day be able to explain it all and we should exercise epistemic humility and wait for that day to come.

So I would be interested to hear from someone who thinks that the question can, in principle, be answered by science.

Anyone here hold that view?
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,469
1,453
East Coast
✟262,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Whatever it is that is the cause of the universe will recover several principal attributes of God, so the the cause takes on the character of a personal Creator of the Universe.


Edit: Here is a link to a short youtube video that explains the argument if anyone needs it.


I dunno. I don't buy the argument for two reasons.

(1) It seems to me it assumes some version of the Principle of Sufficient of Sufficient Reason, which is difficult to evaluate as being true. I'm thinking specifically of Van Inwagen's "Big Contingent Conjunctive Fact" as a counter example.

(2) The conclusions specifies one cause, though the quantifier "one" or "a cause" may not be warranted. Maybe a better conclusion would be that the universe has "at least one cause." Undoubtedly you would have to leave the deductive argument and insert some appeal to Occam's Razor, which also may not be warranted.

Additionally, it seems quite a jump from the conclusion of the argument to the conclusion that the cause is the Christian God.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I dunno. I don't buy the argument for two reasons.

(1) It seems to me it assumes some version of the Principle of Sufficient of Sufficient Reason, which is difficult to evaluate as being true. I'm thinking specifically of Van Inwagen's "Big Contingent Conjunctive Fact" as a counter example.

(2) The conclusions specifies one cause, though the quantifier "one" or "a cause" may not be warranted. Maybe a better conclusion would be that the universe has "at least one cause." Undoubtedly you would have to leave the deductive argument and insert some appeal to Occam's Razor, which also may not be warranted.

Additionally, it seems quite a jump from the conclusion of the argument to the conclusion that the cause is the Christian God.

Reasons for thinking 1. is more plausible than its negation are given:

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogony is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the universe. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4J8RnVYZe


Surely you don't think it more plausible to say that things can just come into being without any causal conditions whatsoever? If so, I would really like to hear your argument.

I think your misgivings about the quantifier in the conclusion is just nitpicking. Regardless of how you word it, you have a conclusion that serves as a grounds for examining the worldviews available to see which one better accounts for the universe coming into being.
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,469
1,453
East Coast
✟262,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Reasons for thinking 1. is more plausible than its negation are given:

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogony is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the universe. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4J8RnVYZe


Surely you don't think it more plausible to say that things can just come into being without any causal conditions whatsoever? If so, I would really like to hear your argument.

I think your misgivings about the quantifier in the conclusion is just nitpicking. Regardless of how you word it, you have a conclusion that is enough to make looking into theism reasonable.

What are your thoughts on Van Inwagen's Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact and it's problems of self reference?
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟66,806.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
An undemonstrable entity being claimed to do something inexplicable in undemonstrable ways, with no evidence whatsover in support of it is.... no an explanation at all. It's not even a bad explanation. It's NO explanation.

It's just an empty, meaningless, worthless and useless claim.
Wow, now that was just an empty, meaningless, worthless and useless response.
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟66,806.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
How did you conclude that it must be a "who"?
Why not a "what"?

Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person. - Francis Colins



Your tag is out of touch with reality:
1. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (1996).

2. Robert W. Faid, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Scientist, author of A Scientific Approach to Christianity.

3. Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985).

4. Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" (1982).

5. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" (1984).

6. Soren Lovtrup, "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" (1987).

7. Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", Fourth Estate, London, 1992.

8. Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, see Fact, Fable, and Darwin.

9. Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1983).

The following scientists (#'s 10-47) stated that "a critical re-evaluation of Darwinism is both necessary and possible" as found at "http://www.apologetics.org/news/adhoc.html":

10. ANDREW BOCARSLY, Ph.D. Chemistry, Princeton University

11. HENRY F. SCHAEFER III, Ph. D. Quantum Computational Chemistry, University of Georgia

12. ROBERT TINNIN, Ph.D Biology, Portland State University

13. Benjamin R. Vowels, Ph.D., Microbiology, UC Davis; formerly employed as Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

14. STEPHEN MEYER (Ph.D. in History & Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge), currently professor of philosophy at Whitworth College.

15. DAVID IVES, Ph.D, Biochemistry, Ohio State University

16. WILLIAM DEMBSKI, Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago), Ph.D. Mathematics (University of Chicago)

17. ROBERT KAITA, Ph.D. Plasma Physics, Princeton University

18. FRED SIGWORTH, Ph.D. Physiology, Yale Medical School

19. LEO ZACHARSKI, M.D. Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School

20. DAVID VAN DYKE, Ph. D. Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania

21. ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D. Biology, Ithaca College

22. ROBERT C. KOONS, Ph.D. Philosophy, UT, Austin

23. GORDON C. MILLS, Ph.D., Biochemistry Emeritus, UT Medical Center, Galveston

24. ROBERT PRUD'HOMME, Ph. D. Chemical Engineering, Princeton University

25. ALVIN PLANTINGA, Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

26. GEORGE LEBO, Ph.D. Astronomy, University of Florida

27. JOHN FANTUZZO, Ph.D. Psychology in Education, University of Pennsylvania

28. WALTER BRADLEY, Ph.D. Chairman, Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M University

29. DONALD L. EWERT, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute

30. DOUGLAS LAUFFENBERGER, Ph.D. Cell & Structural Biology, University of Illinois

32. JACK OMDAHL, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of New Mexico

33. JOSEPH M. MELUCHAMP, Ph.D. Management Science, University of Alabama

34. KIRK LARSEN, Ph.D. Zoology, Miami University (Ohio)

35. PAUL CHIEN, Ph.D. Biology, University of San Francisco

36. WILLIAM SANDINE, Ph.D. Microbiology, Oregon State University

37. H. C. HlNRICHS, Ph. D. Physics, Linfield College

38. WILLIAM STUNTZ, J.D. Law Faculty, University of Virginia

39. CHRIS LITTLER, Ph.D. Physics, N.Texas State University

40. JOHN ANGUS CAMPBELL, Ph.D. Speech Communication, University of Washington

41. T. RICK IRVIN, Ph.D. Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University

42. DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D. Biology, Eastern College

43. STEPHEN FAWL, Ph.D. Chemistry, Napa Valley College

44. OTTO HELWEG, Ph.D. Civil Engineering, Memphis State University

45. J. GARY EDEN, Ph. D. Elect. & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois

46. H. KEITH MILLER, Ph.D. Biology (ret.), Capital University

47. JOHN COGDELL, Ph.D. Elect. & Computer Engineering, University of Texas, Austin

And others....

48. Brenda Peirson, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Louisiana College, as seen in her testimony supporting academic freedom to challenge evolution.

49. Caroline Crocker, Ph.D. Immunopharmacology University of Southampton, as seen in Expelled.

50. Murray Eden, former professor of electrical engineering at MIT, sees chance evolution as "highly implausible" as seen in his article "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" in "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation", pg. 109.

51. Marcel P. Schutzenberger, Mathematician, Professor at Univ. of Paris, in "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" from "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Intepretation")

52. Pierre P. Grasse in "The Evolution of Living Organisms" (see og, 3m 607m 104-7, 210-11, 244-246)


53. H. S. Lipson, British Physicist (see "A Physicist Looks at Evolution" 31 Physics Bulletin 138, 138 (1980)).

54. EJ Ambrose, "The Nature and Origin of the Biological World" (1982)

55. R. Fondi, Italian paleontologist, in Dopo Darwin: Critica all' Evoluzionismo (1980)

56. G. Sermonti, senior editor of Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), professor of genetics at University of Perugia, and former director of the Genetics Institute of the University of Palermo (Italy), see: Dopo Darwin: Critica all' Evoluzionismo (1980)

57. Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) as seen in his address to the American Museum of Natural History (Nov. 5, 1981).

58. Chris Mammoliti, chief of the Environmental Services Section of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, publicly expressed doubts of evolution during the recent Kansas debates and member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

59. John Baumgardner, (Ph.D. in Geophysics & Space Physics, UCLA) geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. See Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate.

60. Roland F. Hirsch, see his Distinguished Service Award Address for the American Chemical Society Division of Analytical Chemistry

61. Leith, B. in "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London (1982).

62. Bird, Wendell R., 1991. The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and Abrupt Appearance. 2 vol. (NY: Philosophical Library). [original copyright 1988, renewed in 1989, 1991]

63. Cohen, I.L., 1984. Darwin was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. (Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications)

64. Coppedge, James F., 1973. Evolution, Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan)

65. Davis, P. in Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd ed. (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1993)

66. Dean H. Kenyon in Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd ed. (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1993)

67. Kerkut, G. A. 1960. Implications of Evolution. (Elkins Park, PA: Franklin Book Co.)

68. MacBeth, Norman, 1971. Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason. (Boston: Gambit.)

69. McCann, Lester J., "Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism". (College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN)

70. Moorhead, P.S. 1967. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo- Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. (Philadelphia: Winstar Institute Press.)

71. M. Kaplan, Eds. 1967. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo- Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. (Philadelphia: Winstar Institute Press.)

72. Spetner, Lee M., 1997. Not a Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. (Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press.)

73. Sunderland, Luther D., 1988. Darwin's Enigma. (El Cajon, CA: Creation Life Publishers)

74. Wilder-Smith, A. E. (now deceased). Earned doctorates (The first in physical organic chemistry, Reading U. England), master of seven languages, positions included Full Professor of Pharmacology, U. of Bergen Medical School, Norway; Full Professor of Pharmacology, U. of Illinois Medical Center (received 3 Golden Apple awards). See his The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. (San Diego, CA: Master Books, 1981).

75. Baum RF. Coming to grips with Darwin. Intercollegiate Review (Fall), p 13-23 (1975)

76. Bethell T. 1976. Darwin's mistake. Harper's Magazine (Feb.), p 70-75

77. Thompson WR. 1958. Introduction to the new centennial edition of The Origin of Species

78. Kurt Wise, Ph.D. Paleontology, Harvard (See The Origin of Life's Major Groups in The Creation Hypothesis)

79. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Theology (Yale), Ph.D. Molecular and Developmental biology (Berkeley). See Icons of Evolution.

80. Charles Thaxton, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry (Iowa State University), Department of Natural Sciences, Charles University. See The Mystery of Life's Origin

81. David K. DeWolf (Yale & Stanford), Professor of Law at Gonzaga School of Law in Spokane Washington.

82. Phillip Johnson, PhD., professor of Law at Berkeley. See, for instance, his book, Darwin on Trial.

83. Hugh Ross, (Ph.D. in Astronomy University of Toronto). Director of Reasons to Believe, see his, "Evidences for Design in the Universe".

84. Paul Nelson, Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Chicago), see his thesis On Common Descent

85. Mark E. Whalon, Ph.D., now at Michigan State University Center for Integrated Plant Systems, moderator of the Biological Evidence for Design session at the "Mere Creation conference.

86. Scott Minnich, Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho, speaking at the "Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe conference at Yale University".

87. Siegfried Scherer, Ph.D Biology (Univ. of Konstanz, Germany) Professor of Microbial Ecology at Technical University of Munich. See his talk, "Basic Types of Life: Evidence for Design from Taxonomy" at the "Mere Creation conference.

88. David Berlinski, Ph.D. (Mathematics, Princeton University): see the abstract for his talk, "Radical Darwinism" at Mere Creation conference.

89. Wayne Frair, Ph.D. in biochemical taxonomy (Rutgers), Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. See his comments at "Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Bridge to Nowhere?".

90. Don Batten, PhD (Agronomy and Horticultural Science, University of Sydney). See His biography.

91. Carl Wieland, MD. See his biography.

92. Andrew Snelling. PhD Geology University of Sydney. See his biography.

93. David Catchpoole, PhD. Plant physiologist. See his biogrpahy.

94. Donald Chittick, Ph.D physical chemistry. See his biography.

95. Jack Cuozzo, D.D.S. University of Pennsylvania. See his biography.

96. Henry de Roos, BS and MS - University of Guelph, Education degree - University of Western Ontario. See his biography.

97. Don DeYoung, Michigan Tech University (B.S., M.S., Physics), Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics), Grace Seminary (M.Div.). See his biography.

98. Ted Driggers, Ph.D. in Operations Research (U.C. Berkeley). See his biography.

99. Alan Galbraith, Ph.D. in watershed science is from Colorado State University. See his interview.

100. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, Louisiana State University. See his biography.

101. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. See his biography.

102. Gary Parker, B.A. in Biology/Chemistry, M.S. in Biology/Physiology, Ed.D. in Biology/Geology (Ball State University). See his biography.

103. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry). See his biography.

104. Tasman Bruce Walker, Ph.D. mechanical engineering. See his biography.

105. A.J. Monty White, Ph.D. Chemistry (University of Wales). See his biography.

106. Steven Austin, PhD Geology (Pennsylvania State University). See his biography.

107. Ray Bohlin, PhD (University of Texas at Dallas, molecular biology). See his biography or his book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change

108. Linn E. Carothers, Ph.D., University of Southern California, University Park, 1987. See his info page.

109. Eugene F. Chaffin, PhD Physics. See his info page.

110. Paul Ackerman, PhD (psychology) as seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page and his book, The Kansas Tornado.

111. Thomas Barnes, Physicist (deceased) as seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page.

112. Aw Swee-Eng, PhD (biochemistry) as seen at his info page.

113. Jerry Bergman, PhD (biology) as seen in his article, Some Biological Problems With The Natural Selection Theory.

114. Kimberly Berrine, Phd Microbiology & Immunology. As seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page.

115. Andrew Bosanquet, PhD Biology, Microbiology. As seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page.

116. David R. Boylan, Ph.D Chemical Engineering (Iowa State University), as seen listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

117. Larry Butler, PhD (biochemistry) as seen in the abstract for his talk, A Problem Of Missing Links At The Ultimate Primary Stage Of Evolution.

118. Harold G. Coffin (PhD, Zoology, USC). See his works, Fossils in Focus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977) or Origin by Design (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983).

119. Brown, Robert H. (Ph.D. in Physics) University of Washington, Seattle. See, for one example, his article, Science Through the Eyes of Biblical Writers.

120. Lane P. Lester (PhD, Genetics, Professor of Biology at Emmanuel College). See his bio or his book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change

121. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer, Ph.D. in physical anthropology. See the abstract from her talk at the Mere Creation conference.

122. Mark Armitage,

123. Forrest M. Mims, no science PhD but has published in leading scientific journals, books on electronics, and wrote for Scientific American. For a good understanding of him, read Defending Darwinism: How Far is Too Far? by Mark Hartwig.

124. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, United States Naval Academy (Ph. D., Mathematics, 1973, American University). See his My Intelligent Design Priority page describing some of his ID ideas and publications.

125. Art Chadwick, Ph.D. (Molecular Biology from University of Miami). See his Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis or A Creation/Flood Model

126. David A. DeWitt, (Dept. of Biology & Chemistry, Liberty University, Lynchburg). See his, Why Darwinism Is Incompatible With the Christian Faith.

127. William S. Harris, Ph.D. (nutritional biochemistry), Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. Member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

128. Jack Cashill, Ph.D., Executive Editor of Ingram's Magazine. Member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

129. Yongsoon Park, Ph.D. (Nutritional Biochemistry), a research scientist at the UMKC School of Medicine and member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

130. James E. Graham, licensed professional geologist, Senior Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm, member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

131. Henry Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering (Founder and President Emeritus of ICR). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

132. Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. (Biochemistry from UC Berkeley). Author of numerous books and widely known as a debater arguing for creationism. See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

133. John Morris, Ph.D. (Geological Engineering from Univ. of Oklahoma). President of ICR. See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists..

134. Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (Harvard). Member of ICR, see his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

135. Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (Colorado State University). Member of ICR, see his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

136. Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology (Texas A&M). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

137. Jay L. Wile, Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry (University of Rochester in New York). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

138. Danny J. Faulkner, Ph.D. in Astronomy (Indiana University), Professor of Astronomy and Physics *University of South Carolina Lancaster). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

139. Andrew C. McIntosh, Ph.D. Combustion Theory (Cranefield Institute of Technology). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207
 
Upvote 0

Athée

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2015
1,443
256
42
✟46,986.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Wow, now that was just an empty, meaningless, worthless and useless response.
The "clever" parallelism in your reply does not mask the fact they where your interlocutor made a valid critique of an argument (specifically that solving a mystery by apealing to a lager mystery does not actually improve our understanding) your response lacks entirely in substance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟534,373.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis

If you think that is false, you have reasons why, surely.

What are they?

In the beginning Thor created the heavens and the earth.

If you think that is false, you have reasons why, surely.

What are they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athée
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The "clever" parallelism in your reply does not mask the fact they where your interlocutor made a valid critique of an argument (specifically that solving a mystery by apealing to a lager mystery does not actually improve our understanding) your response lacks entirely in substance.

If when astronauts landed on Mars, they found what appeared to be machine parts and pieces of some sort of spacecraft in one of the Martian caves there, what would we be able to infer from their existence?
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
In the beginning Thor created the heavens and the earth.

If you think that is false, you have reasons why, surely.

What are they?

The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, it does not say Thor created the heavens and the earth.

Anything else?
 
Upvote 0