In the past I have listened to videos from Behe. Great fellow. I am surprised this is under the heading of Cosmology. I guess it was a full moon when my mother conceived me.
The Bacterial Flagellum was what he was saying was a motor that could not be reduced and that there was no genetic path for nature to stumble its way to a rotor motor from a pump. There is something much less complex some against ID suggest it came from.
…
I was interested to hear that apparently the Omicron virus was the result of a Covid 19 virus infecting the same cell as a cold virus was in. (they didn’t get specific.) (a cold could be a covid virus.) And they say, I cant remember who they was… but they said that the copy process picked up some of the cold virus and mixed it in. it if was chopped up, I am no biologist to know if its possible, but it would explain the ability to add significant information to a species. (let me take a huge left turn.)
…
I speculated years back that Pray-mantis had done something similar becuase they seem to take on exact formations of some plants and flowers in color and shape. I speculated then that there must be a way to alter the DNA of the sperm or egg such to add in a chunk of DNA. Sort of like adding a trim package and that the trim package is part of the DNA that has the ability to change allowing flowers, dogs, donkeys even humans to do more than just combine DNA from a male and female.
…
I said that to say, Behe has a great point and I am an ID guy, but I am willing to pull apart any puzzle and look regardless of where it takes me. So If there was something that could have got sown into the DNA of the bacteria that would have made it have a Flagellum then cool. I think its to complex to get from point A to B but I am open to ways it could get there.
…
I think its a stronger argument to ask how can a baby be born where nerves can weave in and out of a spine and arteries form connecting everything in a blob of soup with no lab table or assistance from Google earth or google body (there is an invention for you.) You could make millions on that. but how its all done I find off the scale complex and to think an information system could develop so complex, it suggests Bill Gates is as dumb as punch in comparison. Windows? is that it? I know that is not scientific but I think right now we cant prove scientifically that there is a process like what happened to Omicron for every step or even very few. Its one thing to have that happen in a virus but it suggests it would happen in a sperm or an egg. Maybe it does any you know about these things.
Working with a phone email. Hard/ impossible for me to get on the discussion board from here.
TIA. Pretty sure that doesn’t mean A transient ischemic attack, which is what appears when I search. 
Your comment,
ID proponents and evolutionary biologists are looking at all the same evidence, only interpreting it differently.
This is a great question. I’ll be happy to respond when I can do so with better tools than an old iPhone and email.
I’m the meantime it is a bit beside the point I’m particularly interested in here.
I’m mainly interested in whether the peaceful in peaceful science is all pretension. I hope that isn’t seen as overly provocative. It is certainly not so as an end.
I quite long for peace (as Joshua alluded to in the video links) but see it as rare and only done in an artificial or manufactured way.
The guy that spoke of ‘destroying’ (my word. I don’t recall his exactly. Not available at the moment) Craig, although extreme seems the default apart from moderation.
Why?
That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
What is it about natural explanations that implies they can’t be the first cause?
Hello @FrankM and Welcome to Peaceful Science.
Can you tell us a bit about yourself?
What better foundation is there? Axioms and properly basic beliefs can only get you so far.
The large number of people who think cosmological arguments are claptrap, of course, will disagree. “Because William Lane Craig says so” is not a very persuasive argument.
Irrelevant.
I was not claiming natural explanations as “the first cause”, merely that they are, potentially, “something [that] existed prior to the Universe-as-We-Know-It”. Given that I made no assertion that this “something [that] existed prior to the Universe-as-We-Know-It” was itself ‘uncaused’, there is no reason to equate the two.
(Parenthetically, your statement further assumes that I place any importance on the Aristotelian concept of “First Cause”, or any reliance on the validity of WLC’s ‘explanations’.)
I don’t know. I suppose it’s not an “argument” in the proper sense, but there is an extraordinary correlation between “WLC says ‘X’” and “‘X’ is false.” When other evidence is lacking, the inference that X is false because WLC says X is true is, I think, fairly compelling. One will certainly be right more often than not, at least.
It would have been easier to type yes or no. 
I think that it is very much on point.
And my point is that whether one sees it as peaceful and respectful is very dependent on both one’s preconceptions and one’s level of understanding of the science.
I think that’s exactly right. And while I think that there is something to the notion that some IDC claims about biology are less obviously wrong than some IDC claims about geology, I can’t say that I think they’re THAT much less obviously wrong. It doesn’t take a thorough grounding in biology to allow a person to read most IDC books and realize he’s reading utter unmitigated garbage. A decent high-school-level preparation will do, and even that’s liable to be surplus to requirements in many cases.
I find myself frequently wishing that those who want to insist that IDC has some sort of place at the table of science, or that its assertions merit something more respectful than pointing and laughing, would actually pick up and read some of the horrid slop which the DI publishes. Foresight, by Marcos Eberlin; Darwin’s House of Cards, by Tom Bethell; Taking Leave of Darwin, by Neil Thomas, for example. I think there is a lesson in these. Let me step into my own domain of the law to explain by analogy.
I used to do what was often described as “property rights” litigation: civil rights lawsuits on behalf of landowners against municipalities and regulatory authorities. I was pretty good at this, and I won a number of interesting, contentious cases in US District Courts because I knew civil rights law, I knew property law, and I knew the weird ways in which these fields interact. Cases like that tended to turn on things like the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the not-usually-considered-exciting family of court decisions flowing therefrom, which might on their face seem to have little to do with the issues I was litigating.
Now, when one does “property rights” litigation, one starts to meet crazy hill-folk. And crazy hill-folk have their own constitutional law theories – the kinds of things that, if road-tested, would get you laughed out of a US District Court or, in a few extreme cases, disbarred. But the crazy hill-folk cheered my every success, as from their standpoint I was on the right side, even if I wasn’t taking matters quite to the level they’d like to see them taken to.
Anyone with an ounce of sense will know that while I might thank one of the crazy hill-folk for his kind words when he said I’d done a good job for a client, I would never hitch my wagon to the crazy hill-folk version of the law. I would never risk the credibility of my already-contentious work on the civil rights of landowners by associating it with things which are unscholarly, non-legal fantasy reconstructions of the law. Why? Let’s say I did. Let’s say that I decided that, along with writing about my views on Fourteenth Amendment litigation, I should also publish a book about how a person can declare himself a “sovereign citizen” and place himself outside the authority of the law. The moment I did that – even if I acted only as publisher and not as author – everyone would smell “crackpot.” And indeed, nobody could trust anything else I said at that point.
Well, that’s the DI. You’ve got an organization responsible for publication of some of the most hideous, laughable nonsense around. You’ve got Douglas Axe telling us that evolutionary biologists claim that evolution has stopped working. You’ve got Eberlin telling us that the “first-ever human baby” couldn’t have been born without a working cervix in the mother, ergo, evolution is impossible. You’ve got Jonathan Wells telling us that whale evolution is impossible by lying about a paper on the time for mutations to arrive and be fixed. You’ve got Neil Thomas telling us that cladistics is a “non-evolutionary” method of classification, and, by the way, that Darwin pretty much cribbed his work from Lucretius. It is wall-to-wall crazy. To say that you “respect” work of this character can only diminish your credibility as a person capable of worthwhile thought.
Now, let us imagine, for a terribly naive moment, that there are one or two characters in this drama who are not simply fools or mountebanks, and that they have truly worthwhile, truly interesting insights into biology, in the form of IDC propositions, which are well-supported by credible evidence and from which they can construct a plausible case for IDC. Would these people being willing to get in this clown car and put on a show with these fools? They would not. Just as I would never go hold a symposium on property rights law with a bunch of the crazy hill-folk, if there were credible IDC proponents, they would NEVER allow their name to be sullied by association with the kind of contemptible trash which characterizes Discovery Institute publications. They would, indeed, take pains – as I had to sometimes do – to DISTANCE themselves from that material.
When you do the subtraction to which this leads, you realize: there are no credible IDC proponents. Not one. And the demand that this hideous freakshow be treated with the respect it is due only leads to the easily answered question: “how much is it due?” If a person whose views are otherwise respectable pretends to respect it, this can only do harm: it allows those who are being fooled the comfortable thought that there may be something in this, after all. The cure to this addiction to nonsense is cold turkey.
YES.
Does Modern Cosmology Prove the existence of God?
YES.
One example:
Job 38:6-7
King James Version
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
This is proof that God being quoted here knew that there was several stars not just one that we call the morning star. You can only see one with the naked eye. But Modern Scientific advancement has allowed us to see that there are several stars very close to each other such that we couldn’t know till now that there was several.
God knew… Not only that. He knows how the world is fastened into the sky and he brings it up in relationship with Stars. We only now know there is gravitational forces that influence our planet like the north star (Polaris.)
So really, Science is just catching up to some of the most simplest things in Physics and cosmology. God is not catching up. Science is way behind and have just realized there are stars millions and billions of miles away.
I will look as I read over the next year to see any other mention that would Identify things Science will need to catch up too.
Hi, Scott. Out of curiosity, how do you think someone who is not a believer would explain this morning star phenomenon?
Sorry, no. The “morning star” is the planet Venus. Just one planet, not a star at all. What the “morning stars”, plural, could possibly be is unclear. And how they might sing is also unclear.
A planet is not a star.
True. But the bible doesn’t know that, and the “evening star” is indeed a planet.
And Job is apparently the oldest book in the bible… they say because of its writing style and content. So who ever wrote it and did the narration of God in that passage wouldn’t know the difference between a planet or a star.
Ah, memories. When I was a young ‘un, my parents moved from the civilization of Seattle to the chaw-spittle-stained hellscape of Skagit County, Washington. So after I swindled my parents into letting me move back to Seattle for high school, I used to take the Greyhound Bus up to see them. One day I was reading a passage from The Brothers Karamazov at the terminal, and I had the misfortune of being targeted by a creepy evangelist who saw what I was reading, saw that it had somethin’-or-other to do with the gods, and decided to enlighten me on just what that stars singing bit was. He thought that the reference to the stars singing meant the background radiation of the big bang. Why did he think that? Who the hell knows? And he was full of little factoids, like the legend that said that the early NASA estimates of where the moon shots should be aimed were off by an amount equal to the time one of those gods held the sun still so that somebody could win a battle. How that was supposed to work was less than clear, as NASA was probably not trying to calculate the position of the moon by extrapolation from thousands-of-years-old data, but was, y’know, probably looking at where the moon actually was. That didn’t stop him. Nothing could stop him. I think I heard about twenty of these “science in the Bible” stories before the merciful arrival of my bus and the happy discovery that he wasn’t getting on it.
That day I learned something: Apologetics generally is not only more stupid than we do imagine; it is more stupid than we CAN imagine.
None of that is true.
First, the object most commonly referred to as “the morning star” isn’t even a star - it’s the planet Venus.
Second, there are at least three “morning stars” visible to the naked eye - Venus, Mercury and Sirius.
Third, all three of those “morning stars” can be visible in the sky at the same time, with no need for “modern scientific advancement”.
Fourth, Sirius is not “several” stars close together, but two, and we’ve known about the second smaller one for more than a century.
Your ‘evidence’ for the existence of god is that the bible says things that you think are true, but which actually aren’t.
those other things are true as well. There are planets people can see and they could call them the morning star"s" but you assume that God meant planets when he said stars.
…
Secondly, there is more than 2 but 3.
Not counting the sun, the second-brightest star in all of Earth’s sky – next-brightest after Sirius – is [Canopus]. It can be seen from latitudes like those of the southern U.S. The third-brightest and, as it happens, the closest major star to our sun is [Alpha Centauri]. It’s too far south in the sky to see easily from mid-northern latitudes.
I only brought it up because we couldn’t know there was more than one star involved back then.
Now you can say what you like that God was not speaking about that start but was speaking about the planets as being the morning stars… You can argue that. I think he was speaking about a Star not a planet.
On another note. I am mostly interested in the closest stars to our planet because they would likely be where some Alien or Angel/Human like race would exist. Even at rapid speed being able to remove G Forces to accelerate to lightening fast speeds, it would take years to travel between stars. So, I would suspect the closer ones would be the only place we would find Human/Angel life. (this is about my other assertions and my belief that God himself in the form of Jesus is focused on these places as well not just earth.)
I suspect if there was anywhere we would travel too it would be Alpha Centauri which also has more than one star involved. three I think. And if the Bible is true and Jesus comes and picks us up, he will likely show up in about 250 years and stay for a bit more than 1000 years and then return to Proxima Centauri b. But then again, maybe that star will have problems first and this will be a trip to a whole other place on a milk run of sorts.
A reasonable person would expect an omnipotent being to ensure that the person transcribing his thoughts had done so accurately. Once this reasonable person is done wondering why an omnipotent being requires a transcriptionist in the first place, of course.
Sounds like you have a problem. Did you want God to put in a pop tart for you. We are lucky we have any writings that old. I don’t care if they wrote it upside down with a crayon. If you want God to write it for you and to edit, you don’t really grasp the situation you and the rest of the world are in.