For arguments sake, just suppose, hypothetically speaking, that the Bible is true, and we ARE created in God’s image. In that case we can infer that in the same way that human parents care for their children, providing the best they can in the way of toys and treats, building beautiful yards and playgrounds for them to play in, spending time with them laughing and relaxing and enjoying their company, etc., so too God cares for us.

But consider this: Could we replace our children with robots? Could we love and be loved by programmed machines that had no choice but to fulfil our every desire? No. Without choice there can be no real friendship or love. That is why (assuming the Bible to be true) God created mankind with the power of contrary choice.

Adam and Eve chose to reject God (sin), and we their descendants have all inherited that. (That is why in the biblical worldview we are sinners in need of salvation.) It would have been inappropriate for mankind to continue to enjoy all the wonders and pleasures God had provided, after we had given God the ‘big finger’, so to speak. So, God expelled us from the wonderland of Eden, cursed us with a finite lifespan, and made us work for our living. The parent-teenager analogy comes strongly to mind.

To a greater or lesser extent, all people choose to reject God from their lives and from society, and that is why there is so much suffering and injustice. It stems from a lack of God and God’s standards.

Humans are social creatures. We desire friends. We can infer that God wanted to create friends. But rather than create mere automatons, God used a method that will ensure that the friends He eventually gets will be true friends of the finest quality, who accept and love their Creator by choice.

Andrew Lamb

Indeed, macroevolution is a faith that unknown chemicals came together in an unknown way at an unknown place at an unknown time using an unknown process to produce life.

Whu? Is that serious or are you pulling our Poe?

There was no such thing as admitting ignorance in this article. If I were to tell you I had discovered the physical phenomenon of sub-sound-quantum-ice-gravitational-stringforce-with-cream-cheese theory would it be ‘admitting ignorance’ if you said you didn’t know what that meant? Or would it be much more to the point to simply state that the entire title is complete gibberish?

The author specifically stated that he felt the titles were all ’sound and fury’ in an attempt to sound legitimately scientific.

When searching the paper “Electrodynamic Origin of the Force of Gravity” I find astounding evidence that the paper was not written to prove anything. In the abstract it says the goal of the paper is propelled by the fact that “Modern Physics is inconsistent with the Christian worldview”.

We do not ‘invent’ science to fit our world view. We observe science and conform our world view to it. This is the equivalent of simply deciding that by your worldview standards yellow is really red, and then trying to disprove color wavelengths to support your “worldview”. In this case, worldview is synonymous with shoehorned ignorance.

It’s slightly interesting that I’d heard nothing whatsoever about this event, not even protests from the various old-earth creationists (old/young origin of life/humanity) who were excluded. Whereas if they actually did have a valid paper that unifies electrodynamics and “the force of gravity” - and treating gravity as a “force” nowadays contradicts General Relativity - then I’d have read -something- about it, I’m sure.

This kind of thing is embarassing. Creationists believe that god is omnipotent and omniscient, but somehow not smart enough to create the rich canvas of life that is evolution.

Evolution is not an affront to god, it is his paintbrush.

This childish insane religious woo-woo could only be possible in Idiot America.

This statement reflects an inability to distinguish science from apologetics. For those who aren’t clear on the difference, science begins with evidence and draws conclusion; apologetics begins with conclusions and collects evidence to support them.

What arrogance! Such statements are borne from secular intolerance to any competing origins model. It’s hydrogen gas-to-people or nothing - and no intelligence is allowed. Ironically, Rosenhouse blusters non-darwinists “fancy themselves highly knowledgeable indeed.” He also makes the frequent secular mistakes of equating science with the unobserved philosophy of macroevolution. Jason, science means what we can observe, test & repeat. No one has ever observed, tested or repeated macroevolution. Indeed, macroevolution is a faith that unknown chemicals came together in an unknown way at an unknown place at an unknown time using an unknown process to produce life. ‘How life began remains an open question’ says
David Deamer, Nature 454, July ‘08. ‘The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself.’ – P.C.J. Donoghue, Nature, v 445, p. 155 Yup - macroevolution is a fact!