₦airaland Forum

.

Good evening

Good evening

It has been said that no book, other than the Bible, has had a greater affect on society than Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that following the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859:

"Subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science." (The Mismeasure of Man, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1981, p. 72)

Darwin himself seemed to approve of the application of his evolutionary ideas to moral and social issues. In a letter to H. Thiel in 1869, Darwin said:

"You will really believe how much interested I am in observing that you apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those which I have used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different and most important subjects." (The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, edited by Francis Darwin, D. Appleton and Company, 1896, vol. 2, p. 294).

The feature of Darwinism most often cited by those who attempt to justify their moral and social views with “science” (evolution) is the concept of the “survival of the fittest.” This application of Darwinian dogma to human society and behavior is known as Social Darwinism.

One of the most insidious features of Darwin’s evolutionary speculation was that it sought to erase the fundamental differences between man and animals. This not only invited a comparison between man and the apes, but also between the “highest” and “lowest” humans. Blacks and American Indians were among the first to be singled out as being “lower” than Caucasians. In his book The Mismeasure of Man (chapter 3), Stephen Jay Gould pointed out that some anthropologists were not above falsifying their data to prove the “superiority” of the white race. For example, assuming brain size had something to do with intelligence (it doesn’t), many anthropologists intentionally exaggerated the size of Caucasian skulls and underestimated the size of skulls from Blacks and Indians. Social Darwinism thus came to serve as a “scientific” justification for racism.

It might be argued that Darwin would never have condoned this use of his “theory,” but his own writings reveal profoundly racist implications. In the sixth chapter of his book The Descent of Man, Darwin predicted that eventually evolution would increase the gap between humans and the lower apes through the extinction of such “evolutionary intermediates” as gorillas and Negroes! Darwin declared that:

"the break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the Gorilla." (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 201)

In an effort to promote the evolution of “higher forms” of humans, Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, founded the Eugenics Movement. Eugenics is the “science” which seeks to improve the biological makeup of the human species by selective breeding. Galton advocated the regulation of marriage and family size according to the genetic quality of the parents. He believed that if controlled breeding was applied to humans, as it was to farm animals, a perfect human breed could be developed. This concept of the “master race” was put into practice by Adolph Hitler in Germany in an effort to create a “pure Aryan race,” while exterminating “inferior” Jews.

German politicians and scholars first used Social Darwinism around the turn of the century to justify Germany’s increasingly aggressive militarism. The German militarist, Friederich von Bernhardi, praised the virtues of war in strong evolutionary terms in his influential book Germany and the Next War. Bernhardi declared that war, like Darwinian survival of the fittest, was a “biological necessity” and that it “gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things.” Bernhardi dismissed the whole idea of peaceful arbitration as a “presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development.”

According to Bernhardi, a study of plant and animal life clearly showed that “war is a universal law of nature” (as quoted by Ashley Montagu in Man in Process, World Publishing Company, 1961, pp. 76–77). Bernhardi’s book, published in 1911, had Germany’s highest official sanction and approval—three years later, Germany plunged the world into World War I.

By the time of the Second World War, we find the full “flower” of Social Darwinism in fascism. Hitler based his fascism on evolutionary theory, as is evident from both his speeches and his book Mein Kampf. Benito Mussolini, who brought fascism to Italy, was also greatly influenced by Darwinism, which he thought supported his belief that violence is essential for beneficial social transformation. Mussolini repeatedly used Darwinian catchwords in his speeches and ridiculed efforts at peace because they interfered with natural evolutionary process.

Good afternoon

Good afternoon

Good afternoon

Good afternoon

Babacele:
" likes to claim" ? ....but isnt it true that she played an unprecedented role in midwifing the Bible ? Why the Holy Spirit allow the Catholic church to play this big role may elude your understanding but it is a fact you can't wish away: that She gave the Bible to the world.

The Catholic Church did not write any part of the Bible. Moreover, even before the council you guys like to claim decided the Canon of the Bible sat, the Canon of the Bible had pretty much been set by concensus of use. How can you claim that the Catholic Church "gave the Bible to the world" with quotes like this? "Socialism, Communism, clandestine societies, Bible societies... pests of this sort must be destroyed by all means." The encyclical Quanta Cura Issued by Pope Pius IX, December 6, 1866

St Paul never knew the books of Proverbs, Revelation or Mathew were or would be in existence when he wrote his epistles and never talked about them nor was he aware that several holy writings would assembled, debated, some removed and others canonized and a 66 books compiled in one package called the Bible. Neither is any apostle or disciple of Christ aware that a 66 book had been ordained by God when each of them including John of the Revelation wrote their inspirations down , hence the ' do not add or subtract' claim was strictly for the book of Revelation and not for the bible that has been subjected to different additions and subtractions at different councils before the present 68,69 or 66 books depending on your choice of the Christian sects.

Again, I say that it would be credulous of anyone to believe that Paul never thought that his letters would be used as guidance by the churches, or that the apostles would write books which the churches would find useful. Don'the make it look like the Catholic Church prescribed to us the books in the Bible now. These books were in use before Constantine founded the Catholic Church.

Read!

Good morning

Good morning

Good morning.

Babacele:
Timothy 3:16-17 New
International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed
and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness........all scriptures are inspired of God in another words. St Paul was writing to Timothy when he said those words
. At the time St Paul wrote that ' all holy writings are inspired of God' ,he was only aware of the Torah and a few of the NT books which includes his letters which he never knew would be canonized along with books that came out long after his death like the synoptic Gospels which were compiled ,debated , some modified at different church councils before it was named the Holy Bible several years later.

It would be very credulous of anyone to believe that Paul never thought that his letters would be used as guidance by the churches, or that Paul never thought that the other apostles would write books which the churches would find useful. The Catholic Church likes to claim that she prescribed the Canon of the Bible. But with or without her, God's word would still be in the possession of His people.

"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." Col. 4:16

"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27).

The two verses above tells us that Paul intended that his letters be circulated among all the churches. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. So, whether they were held as one compiled book, or as different books, they're still Scripture. One can hold all the books in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation as 66 different books. He still has the Scriptures.

by Dr. David Menton on September 16, 2017

link: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/dating-game/

Much of the controversy between evolutionists and creationists concerns the age of the earth and its fossils. Evolution, depending as it does on pure chance, requires an immense amount of time to stumble upon anything remotely approaching the integrated complexity we see in even the simplest living things. For over 100 years, geologists have attempted to devise methods for determining the age of the earth that would be consistent with evolutionary dogma. At the time Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was “scientifically” determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, geologists firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, they discovered that the earth is “really” 4.6 billion years old. These dates indicate that for 100 years, the age of the earth doubled every 20 years. If this trend were to continue, the earth would be 700 thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion years old by the year 4000 AD. This “prediction,” however, is based on selected data and certain assumptions that might not be true. As we will see, selected data and unprovable assumptions are a problem with all methods for determining the age of the earth, as well as for dating its fossils and rocks. It has all become something of a “dating game” in which only the evolutionarily correct are allowed to play.

The most widely used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the “known age” of the rock strata in which they are found. On the other hand, the most widely used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the “known age” of the fossils they contain. This is an outrageous case of circular reasoning, and geologists are well aware of the problem. J. E. O’Rourke, for example, concedes:

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results (American Journal of Science 276:51)."

In this “circular dating” method, all ages are influenced by evolutionary assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved.

Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. The so-called “absolute” methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens—not their age. These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an “age” determination. This extrapolation is based on the fact that an unstable (radioactive) chemical element, called the parent isotope, breaks down at a presently known rate to form a more stable daughter isotope. In the case of radiocarbon dating, an unstable isotope of carbon (14C) decays into nitrogen (14N). This currently occurs at a rate that would be expected to reduce the quantity of the parent 14C by half every 5,730 years (the half-life). In other words, the less of the parent isotope (and the more of the daughter isotope) we measure in a specimen, the older we assume it to be.

Radiocarbon dating is actually of little use to evolutionists. There are several reasons for this. First, no rocks and relatively few fossils contain measurable quantities of carbon of any kind. Second, because of the short half-life of 14C, the radiocarbon method can only date specimens up to about 50,000 years of age. Essentially nothing of evolutionary significance is believed to have occurred in this “short” time frame. The most commonly used radiometric methods for “dating” geological specimens are potassium-argon, uranium-thorium-lead, and strontium-rubidium. All three of these decay processes have half-lives measured in billions of years. None of these methods can be used directly on fossils or the sedimentary rock in which fossils are found. All radiometric dating (with the exception of carbon dating) must be done on igneous rocks (rocks solidified from a molten state such as lava). These radiometric “clocks” begin keeping time when the molten rock solidifies. Since fossils are rarely found in igneous rocks, one can only date lava flows that are occasionally found between layers of sedimentary rock.

The problem with all radiometric “clocks” is that their accuracy critically depends on several starting assumptions that are largely unknowable. To date a specimen by radiometric means, one must first know the starting amount of the parent isotope at the beginning of the specimen’s existence. Second, one must be certain that there were no daughter isotopes present in the beginning. Third, one must be certain that neither parent nor daughter isotopes have ever been added or removed from the specimen. And fourth, one must be certain that the decay rate of parent isotope to daughter isotope has always been the same. That one or more of these assumptions are often invalid is obvious from the published radiometric “dates” (to say nothing of unpublished dates) found in the literature.

One of the most obvious problems is that several samples from the same location often give widely divergent ages. Apollo moon samples, for example, were dated by both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon methods, giving results that varied from 2 million to 28 billion years. Lava flows from volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon (which erupted after its formation) show potassium-argon dates a billion years “older” than the most ancient basement rocks at the bottom of the canyon. Lava from underwater volcanoes near Hawaii (that are known to have erupted in 1801 AD) have been “dated” by the potassium-argon method with results varying from 160 million to nearly 3 billion years. No wonder the laboratories that “date” rocks insist on knowing in advance the “evolutionary age” of the strata from which the samples were taken—this way, they know which dates to accept as “reasonable” and which to ignore. Of one thing you may be sure: whenever “absolute” radiometric dates are in substantial disagreement with evolutionary assumptions about the age of associated fossils, the fossils always prevail.

As far as the plausibility of evolution is concerned, it really doesn’t make any difference if the earth is 10 billion years old or 10 thousand years old. Indeed, if the whole of evolution were reduced to nothing more than the chance production of a single copy of any one biologically useful protein, there would be insufficient time and material in the known universe to make this even remotely likely. Time by itself simply does not make the hopeless evolutionary scenario of chance and natural selection more reasonable. Imagine if a child were to claim that he alone could build a Boeing 747 airplane from raw material in 10 seconds, and another were to claim he could do it in 10 days. Would we consider the latter less foolish than the former, simply because he proposed spending nearly a million times more time at the task? Our Creator tells that “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

Babacele:
that there was no book on earth called the Bible when John wrote the Revelation.

Which book then was Paul referring to in 2 Tim 3:16?

obisco4u:
Proof? Which world exactly?

Now, that is not the topic of the thread. This thread is about whether evolution could have produced the eye. Let us not derail it.

Create a thread on whether God created/could create a perfect world and invite me. I assure you, I'll answer every reasonable question you have.

obisco4u:
Can God create a perfect, flawless world? NOT A CHANCE!

The world was created perfect and flawless.

Bump!

Bump!

by Dr. David Menton on September 9, 2017

link: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/climbing-ladder-of-life-in-grand-canyon/

Several years ago, I was challenged by an evolutionist colleague to visit the Grand Canyon in Arizona. He assured me that a hike into the Grand Canyon would be a “sure-cure for creationism.” Here, he said, I would see that the many layers of rock forming the walls of the Canyon get progressively older as one descends from the rim (where the rocks are “only” about 60-million years old) to the bottom (where the rocks are said to be well over a billion years old). Then, he claimed, as I ascended the wall of the Canyon I would be climbing up the evolutionary “ladder of life”! He assured me that the fossils in each succeeding layer of rock would reveal the progressive steps of over a billion years of evolutionary history, ranging from the first living cells to the early reptiles. Surely, if one is to see physical evidence of the progressive stages of evolution anywhere on earth, the Grand Canyon should be the place to look. Well, after researching the Grand Canyon, I accepted the challenge to pay it a visit. In fact, I visited the Canyon on three different occasions and twice hiked its trails from river to rim. I discovered that not only are the evolutionist’s “missing links” truly missing—their whole “ladder of life” is missing!

The Grand Canyon is about 270 miles long and, in places, over a mile deep. Its walls reveal 21 distinct layers of mostly sedimentary rock. The deepest, and presumably oldest, layers of sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon are collectively known as Precambrian strata. For over 100 years, geologists have searched for fossils in Precambrian layers all over the earth in hope that they might see how the first living organisms evolved. In the Canyon, as elsewhere, Precambrian fossils are largely limited to curious dome-shaped, laminated structures called “stromatolites.”1 While there is some question whether these stromatolites are really a product of living organisms, similar structures are formed in our oceans today by mats of one-celled photosynthetic organisms called “cyanobacteria.”

The next three layers of the Canyon (Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale and Muav Limestone) are collectively identified as Cambrian strata and are said to range from 600 million to 400 million years old. Here, many fossils of trilobites, oysters, clams, corals, worms, and brachiopods are suddenly found. All of these are marine invertebrates, and all (with the possible exception of trilobites) have representatives living in our oceans today. Paleontologists speak of the great “Cambrian explosion” because, all over the world, these layers show the sudden appearance of fossils representing virtually every phylum of animals. In not a single case is there fossil evidence to show what their presumed ancestors looked like—they appear all at once and fully formed!

The next two fossil-bearing layers encountered in our climb up the Canyon’s “ladder of life” are the Redwall Limestone (said to be 300 million years old) and the Supai group (200 million years old). These layers contain fossils of more marine invertebrates, including three relatively simple types not seen in the lower layers—the bryozoans, crinoids and foraminiferans. All three have living representatives in our oceans today. The foraminiferans are of particular interest because they are a phylum of one-celled marine organisms that evolutionists consider to be among the first forms of life to have evolved a nucleus. Why then are these “primitive” single-cell organisms first encountered halfway up our “ladder of life”? So far, our “ladder” seems to be pretty much a “one rung” affair, with no obvious vector of evolutionary progress. It gets worse, however. The next rung shows evidence of footprints—but no feet!

One of the most amazing facts about the Grand Canyon is that no one has ever found a fossilized bone in the Canyon! Beginning in the Supai layer and extending upward into the Hermit and Coconino layers, countless fossilized footprints of over 20 species of amphibians and reptiles suddenly appear—but no fossils of their bones or teeth! The bones of tetrapods (four-legged animals) that could have made these footprints have only been found in more superficial strata located several miles away from the Canyon. Interestingly, the occurrence of footprints in strata well below the layers in which fossilized bones are first found is not unique to the Grand Canyon. Geologists concede that this is a worldwide phenomenon! How then can we consider the fossils in the geologic column to be a reliable record of evolutionary succession? Are we to believe that footprints evolved 150-million years before feet? Those who accept the Biblical account of Noah’s flood might prefer to think that the common occurrence of footprints in strata below those bearing the bodies themselves reveals something about how long these tetrapods could tread water before drowning!

Even more amazing is the fact that most of the fossil footprints in the Coconino are headed in the same direction! Are we to believe that for 10 million years amphibians and reptiles mostly walked in the same direction? Not only are the majority of these footprints headed in a northerly direction, but this direction generally slopes uphill! While camping in the Canyon, I heard a park ranger give a lecture on its fossils. She was quite serious when she explained that geologists now believe the reason most fossil footprints head uphill is that the reptiles who made them always walked uphill (leaving footprints), but had a habit of sliding down hill! Certainly, one could make a more plausible argument for reptiles running up hill to escape the advancing waters of Noah’s Flood, than one could for “lazy lizards.”

The top two layers of the Canyon are the Toroweap and Kaibab layers. Neither layer shows evidence of footprints of any kind and, of course, there is still no trace of bones. Fish teeth have been found in the Kaibab, but this is clearly a case of too little, too late. To add insult to injury, the Kaibab Limestone layer at the very top of our “ladder of life” shows the only evidence to be found in the Canyon of fossilized sponges! This is embarrassing to evolutionists, because sponges are a loose collection of living cells that are believed to be the first multicellular organisms to have evolved on earth.

It’s easy to come away from the Grand Canyon thinking you have made a startling discovery that evolutionists ought to know about—there is no evidence of evolutionary progress in the fossils of the geologic column! I was surprised to learn that evolutionists are already aware of this fact, although you would never guess it from the evolutionary indoctrination presented in public schools and popular media. Harvard evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould appears to have no illusions about the evidence for evolutionary succession in the geologic column when he says,

"I regard the failure to find a clear vector of progress in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. (Natural History 93:23)."

A hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon is a sure cure for evolutionism, but don’t expect to climb out on the “ladder of life”—it isn’t there!

butterflylion:
My guy this is even the least of the problem. They do not know that every single stage of their eye evolution was riddled with an insane amount of randomness. Before one single part of the eye was formed the chances of that happening were a mathematical improbability but somehow evolution got it right.

Somebody here now would come along and start trying to tell you how the eye is not perfect and that a perfect all powerful God should have made it perfect.

Sometimes you cannot help but laugh at some foolish talk from foolish people.

Hehe

by David Menton on August 19 2017

link: https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/can-evolution-produce-an-eye-not-a-chance/

The human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are then sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the sensation we call vision.

In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer:

"While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second."

If a supercomputer is obviously the product of intelligent design, how much more obviously is the eye a product of intelligent design? And yet, evolutionists are dead certain that the human eye (and everything else in nature) came into being by pure chance and the intrinsic properties of nature! Evolutionists occasionally admit that it is difficult for even them to believe such a thing. Ernst Mayr, for example, has conceded that:

"It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." (Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296)

Evolutionists rarely attempt to calculate the probability of chance occurrence in their imagined evolutionary scenarios. While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye, there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life. Over 100,000 different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function.

Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule. The average protein consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. It is the task of the genetic system in our cells to organize the assembly of the amino acids into precisely the right sequence for each protein.

Proteins have been called informational macromolecules because their amino acid sequence spells out information, in much the same way as the letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form a sentence or paragraph. We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English.

Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase “THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION” by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 × 1/27 × 1/27—for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a “virtual certainty” compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance!

The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 × 10⁶⁰⁰ different ways (that’s the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion cubic light years (about 1 × 10¹⁵⁰ computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a “room” full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10¹⁸⁰ combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our “room” full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!

Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, moreover, that “natural selection” makes the impossible, possible. But evolutionists were vigorously challenged on this claim by mathematicians in a symposium held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the proceedings were published in the book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution). Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at M.I.T. said:

The chance emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete.

I will leave it to the reader to consider the probability that an intelligent Designer and Builder can intelligently design and build an eye.

NairalandSARS:
Does this thing you wrote make sense to you?

Yes. The continuation of that post is in a post after the post below it. I can only post in bits for now.

On whether the universe is designed or not, it is surely up to nonbelievers to produce a credible alternative to design. And "chance" is simply not credible. For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened "by chance" is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected. But expectation is impossible without order. If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order--overwhelmingly intricate and ubiquitous order--against a random and purposeless background of chance. Frankly, that is incredible. Therefore it is eminently reasonable to affirm the the universe is not by chance, and therefore to affirm the conclusion, that this universe is the product of intelligent design.

johnydon22:
exactly the point i had here, we not know whether the universe is without beginning or not even if you go by the Big bang cosmological model

Since you would bypass the quote from Stephen Hawking, I say that the Kalam argument which I posted above(in 2 posts) precludes the existence of an eternal universe/universe without beginning.

johnydon22:
the summary is: there are observational implications that suggests a beginning but breaks down at a singularity to solve this he derived what he called "imaginary time"

At imaginary time the universe had a beginning but in real time it doesn't. i guess thats another way of saying "Modern science do not know whether the universe had a beginning or not" even Carl Sagan agreed to it in his book "the cosmos"

just read the damn book bro

Like i told someone above, The big bang proposes a beginning of the universe from a singularity but not the beginning of the singularity.

Imaginary time indeed.

Nothing conclusive can be said about the Singularity. The nature of the Singularity is not even known. In fact, whether it existed or not is pure speculation, just like the whole of the Big Bang theory.

johnydon22:
You may love to read "A brief history of time" by Hawkins he expounded more on the lectures and you will find the ideas touched things more than the lecture. it is better read than explained here.

Amnotundastanding. In the book, did Hawking explain the statement "the universe, and time itself, had a beginning..." in such a way that it no longer means that the universe and time had a beginning?

Now if the universe never began, then it always was. If it always was, then it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed—one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before—in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point—for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point—or any point before it. So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite. In other words, the universe began to exist.

Johnydon22