The Master Mind of our time, Albert Einstein and Intelligent Design

Secular media and authors hate the phrase, "Intelligent Design". It is as if we as human kind won't give a supernatural Being any credit to our very existence even though we have to shut our ears, eyes and mouth in the very face of design in every facet and molecule of life around us. But I believe we are seeing a slow change in this, there is an awakening happening. Paul Charles William Davies also recognizes this,

“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics"

Coming to the point I want to make is that the greatest MIND of our time, that of Albert Einstein, also acknowledged the fact that design shows more than just creation by mere change - even if todays progressives and enlightened want to have it otherwise.

Einstein said in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which you can find in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire" (Updike 2007: 77)

Please note how Einstein sees the 'harmony of natural law' and states that this REVEALS: Intelligence. You really have to be blind not to see this!

Einstein wrote in a 1930 essay, "What I Believe,"

To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man (Isaacson 2007: 47).

Maybe Einstein didn't go to church, but He acknowledged his Creator in contrast to the 'great thinkers' of our postmodern time.

According to this intellectual, there is no space in time for accidents, even if Hawking wants it so.

The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence (Isaacson 2007: 46).

Albert Einstein believed in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists" (Isaacson 2007: 44)

Do you have GUTS? Do stand for something?

Once upon a time...
There was a man of God...
Someone who answered this call of God:
"The greatest want of the world is the want of men,--men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls are true and honest; men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole; men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall."
His name was Daniel - even in the face of death - He stood for truth, he stood for God!

Mark Zuckerberg BUYS WhatsApp!

Mark Zuckerberg BUYS WhatsApp!

Read what he writes on his facebook page:

I’m excited to announce that we’ve agreed to acquire WhatsApp and that their entire team will be joining us at Facebook.

Our mission is to make the world more open and connected. We do this by building services that help people share any type of content with any group of people they want. WhatsApp will help us do this by continuing to develop a service that people around the world love to use every day.

WhatsApp is a simple, fast and reliable mobile messaging service that is used by over 450 million people on every major mobile platform. More than 1 million people sign up for WhatsApp every day and it is on its way to connecting one billion people. More and more people rely on WhatsApp to communicate with all of their contacts every day.

WhatsApp will continue to operate independently within Facebook. The product roadmap will remain unchanged and the team is going to stay in Mountain View. Over the next few years, we're going to work hard to help WhatsApp grow and connect the whole world. We also expect that WhatsApp will add to our efforts forInternet.org, our partnership to make basic internet services affordable for everyone.

WhatsApp will complement our existing chat and messaging services to provide new tools for our community. Facebook Messenger is widely used for chatting with your Facebook friends, and WhatsApp for communicating with all of your contacts and small groups of people. Since WhatsApp and Messenger serve such different and important uses, we will continue investing in both and making them each great products for everyone.

WhatsApp had every option in the world, so I’m thrilled that they chose to work with us. I’m looking forward to what Facebook and WhatsApp can do together, and to developing great new mobile services that give people even more options for connecting.

I've also known Jan for a long time, and I know that we both share the vision of making the world more open and connected. I'm particularly happy that Jan has agreed to join the Facebook board and partner with me to shape Facebook's future as well as WhatsApp's.

Jan and the WhatsApp team have done some amazing work to connect almost half a billion people. I can’t wait for them to join Facebook and help us connect the rest of the world.

Student Support: Snowden elected rector at Glasgow University

More about Jesus played on Harmonica | Reinhardt Stander

More About Jesus | Eliza E. Hewitt



More about Jesus would I know,

More of His grace to others show;

More of His saving fullness see,

More of His love who died for me.



Refrain:

More, more about Jesus,

More, more about Jesus;

More of His saving fullness see,

More of His love who died for me.



More about Jesus let me learn,

More of His holy will discern;

Spirit of God, my teacher be,

Showing the things of Christ to me.



More about Jesus, in His Word,

Holding communion with my Lord;

Hearing His voice in every line,

Making each faithful saying mine.



More about Jesus on His throne,

Riches in glory all His own;

More of His kingdom's sure increase;

More of His coming, Prince of Peace.

Discipleship of Social Outcasts | Reinhardt Stander

Societies establish hierarchies. Wealthy or well-educated people usually acquire the highest positions.

Good moral citizens, the ordinary people, normally occupy the middle rungs on the social ladder. That leaves the bottom dwellers, those such as prostitutes, substance abusers, criminals, the homeless, and others. During Christ’s time, that list also included lepers and tax collectors.

Although hardened by sinful pleasures, and sometimes encased in self-constructed tough exteriors, the social outcasts were, and still are, easier to reach than the prideful, haughty, and self-righteous elite. Often, beneath the outcasts’ bravado lies emotional emptiness characterized by poor self-worth. Frequently, especially during the teenage years, such people openly rebel, frantically trying to establish a personal identity to compensate for the insecurities felt within. That identity is, purposefully, established in opposition to the wishes of whoever serves as the authority figure (often parents) for that person.

Jesus wasted no effort damaging their already diminished sense of self-worth. Instead, He created a renewed sense of personal value. He established that foundation by consistently loving and accepting the outcasts, whose hearts were often melted by the warm and loving receptions that they had received from Christ.

Overview on Bill Nye vs Ken Ham DEBATE

At last the debate took place that so many looked forward to! And the WINNER is...?

Bill Nye 'the Science Guy' and Ken Ham the 'Creation Expert' debated the old question about our origins: Evolution or Creation?

Both debaters made good arguments from the start and stayed with their arguments throughout the debate.
Ham stated that both him and Nye had the very same evidence, the battle is how they interpret the past."It's a battle over world views and starting points with the same evidence."

Ham then went to show that there's a great difference between observational science that do science in the present and historical science where 'faith' is needed since no present scientist lives in the past and therefore can't do any observation = science. Of cause he also showed different top scientists that are creationists, like Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI scanner.

Ham concluded his argument by stating: "Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era."

For the next 30 minutes Bill Nye brought his argument to the table. He started out stating the audience is sitting on layer upon layer of limestone that indicate millions of years with fossils that lived for a whole lifetime - how could that have formed in just 4000 years? 'THERE ISN'T ENOUGH TIME.'

Later Nye challenged Ham with, "If you look at the layers carefully... you never ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. You never find a lower one trying to swim its way to a higher one. If it all happened within such a short extraordinary time, would we expect to see some turbulence? If you can find ONE example of that... you would be a hero..."

Nye concluded his argument with the reasoning that we have Ice, Trees, Rocks and Starlight that are FAR older than 6000 years.

Of cause Ken Ham countered this with scientific data of hundreds of different natural, physical processes that show that the universe can't be billions or even millions of years old.

Nye replied, "I think this idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws we have now is at the heart of our disagreement."

And so it went on...

I would really liked to see a principle strictly applied to debates, where if a question is posed from the one to the other, the other is obligated to answer. Bill Nye sometimes asked questions that Ken Ham didn't respond to directly, and Ken asked a lot of questions that Bill never even referred to. What is the point of a debate if questions can't be DEBATED?

What I'm really impressed with is the spirit in which the debate was held. Both was absolutely respectful towards one another.

Of cause, Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist, warned Bill Nye:

Scientists should not debate creationists. Period.

Debates about the existence of God can be fun, they are not really that meaningful, but they are a debate about ideas and beliefs and can be worth effort.

Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon and an incredible scientific community consensus.  Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested.

Why would a scientist debate this? Nye would do more good on his own going on TV and discussing evolution and the importance of scientific education instead of giving Ken Ham any publicity and a public forum with thousands, if not millions of viewers, to spew his dishonesty. Ham is a snake oil salesmen and Nye just offered him up an infomercial to sell his product. Ham can repeat his mantra over and over; “teach the controversy”.

Later during the debate they were confronted with questions from the audience. One of the interesting questions were: 'How did consciousness come from matter?'

Bill Nye simply responded with, "I don't know. That is a great mystery." And Ham responded, "Bill, I want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from," Ham said, referencing the Bible, and adding that he believes man was created "in God's image."

I would like to propose that we have more events like these where we can have dialogue with one another in a respectful way, but yet very direct where we answer one another's challenges. These are issues that we need to face and events like these are critical to give information through where both opposite parties have the platform to confront and interrogate the 'facts' of the other.

Winner? Both did well, but as I'm not neutral and am a creationist myself I really think that crucial questions from Ham posed to Nye was not answered - like where did the laws of nature come from? Ham's challenges still stand...

to see the debate for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI