Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[SIZE=6]The evidence of God in an expanding universe : forty American scientists declare their affirmative views on religion:
[/SIZE]
Additional Physical Format: Online version:
Evidence of God in an expanding universe.
New York : Putnam, [1958]
(OCoLC)644551871
Document Type: Book
All Authors / Contributors: John Clover Monsma
Find more information about:
OCLC Number: 1220012
Description: 250 p. ; 21 cm.
Contents: The origin of the world--
by chance or design? / Frank Allen --
A conclusive test / Robert Morris Page --
The lesson of the rosebush / Merritt Stanley Congdon --
The inescapable conclusion / John Cleveland Cothran --
The answer to the unanswered questions / Donald Henry Porter --
Let's look at facts, without bent or bias / Edward Luther Kessel --
Applying the scientific method / Walter Oscar Lundberg --
Physical evidences of God / Paul Clarence Aebersold --
Identifying Einstein's "Creative force" / Marlin Books Kreider --
Scientific revelations point to a god / George Earl Davis --
Plain water will tell the story / Thomas David Parks --
Nature's complexity and God / John William Klotz --
The most vital question confronting us / Oscar Leo Brauer --
Rank materialism will not do / Irving William Knobloch --
A personal God, viewed scientifically / John Leo Abernethy --
A young mystic proceeds to clear thinking / Russell Lowell Mixter --
Footsteps of God in the plant world / Gerald T. Den Hartog --
Facts from a forester's fieldbook / Laurence Colton Walker --
Things a fruit rancher's boy learned / Walter Edward Lammerts --
Trillions of living cells speak their message / Russell Charles Artist --
The reasonableness of theism / George Herbert Blount --
Geological directives / Donald Robert Carr --
Genesis I in the light of modern astronomy / Peter W. Stoner --
The great designer / Claude M. Hathaway --
Scholarly witnesses and a few observations / Merlin Grant Smith --
A look behind the "Natural laws" / Edwin Fast --
Chemical laws and God / John Adolph Buehler --
Science undergirded my faith / Albert McCombs Winchester --
Naturalism must bow to theism / Olin Carroll Karkalits --
God--
alpha and omega / Edmund Carl Kornfeld --
The universe under central control / Earl Chester Rex --
The validity of religion / Malcolm Duncan Winter, Jr. --
Wonders of the soil / Dale Swartzendruber --
Soils, plants, and a 4000-year-old explan[a]tion --
Man himself as evidence / Robert Horton Cameron --Laboratory lessons / Elmer W. Maurer --
Concord between science and faith / Wayne U. Ault --
God in medical practice / Paul Ernest Adolph --
Of flowers and the Baltimore oriole / Cecil Boyce Hamann --
The absoluteness of the certainty of God's existence, an epilogue / Andrew
Conway Ivy.
[SIZE=6]The evidence of God in an expanding universe : forty American scientists declare their affirmative views on religion:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=6][/SIZE]
[SIZE=6][/SIZE]
Additional Physical Format: Online version: Evidence of God in an expanding universe. New York : Putnam, [1958]
(OCoLC)644551871
Document Type: Book
All Authors / Contributors: John Clover Monsma
Find more information about:
OCLC Number: 1220012
Description: 250 p. ; 21 cm.
Contents: The origin of the world--
by chance or design? / Frank Allen --
A conclusive test / Robert Morris Page --
The lesson of the rosebush / Merritt Stanley Congdon --
The inescapable conclusion / John Cleveland Cothran --
The answer to the unanswered questions / Donald Henry Porter --
Let's look at facts, without bent or bias / Edward Luther Kessel --
Applying the scientific method / Walter Oscar Lundberg --
Physical evidences of God / Paul Clarence Aebersold --
Identifying Einstein's "Creative force" / Marlin Books Kreider --
Scientific revelations point to a god / George Earl Davis --
Plain water will tell the story / Thomas David Parks --
Nature's complexity and God / John William Klotz --
The most vital question confronting us / Oscar Leo Brauer --
Rank materialism will not do / Irving William Knobloch --
A personal God, viewed scientifically / John Leo Abernethy --
A young mystic proceeds to clear thinking / Russell Lowell Mixter --
Footsteps of God in the plant world / Gerald T. Den Hartog --
Facts from a forester's fieldbook / Laurence Colton Walker --
Things a fruit rancher's boy learned / Walter Edward Lammerts --
Trillions of living cells speak their message / Russell Charles Artist --
The reasonableness of theism / George Herbert Blount --
Geological directives / Donald Robert Carr --
Genesis I in the light of modern astronomy / Peter W. Stoner --
The great designer / Claude M. Hathaway --
Scholarly witnesses and a few observations / Merlin Grant Smith --
A look behind the "Natural laws" / Edwin Fast --
Chemical laws and God / John Adolph Buehler --
Science undergirded my faith / Albert McCombs Winchester --
Naturalism must bow to theism / Olin Carroll Karkalits --
God--
alpha and omega / Edmund Carl Kornfeld --
The universe under central control / Earl Chester Rex --
The validity of religion / Malcolm Duncan Winter, Jr. --
Wonders of the soil / Dale Swartzendruber --
Soils, plants, and a 4000-year-old explan[a]tion --
Man himself as evidence / Robert Horton Cameron --Laboratory lessons / Elmer W. Maurer --
Concord between science and faith / Wayne U. Ault --
God in medical practice / Paul Ernest Adolph --
Of flowers and the Baltimore oriole / Cecil Boyce Hamann --
The absoluteness of the certainty of God's existence, an epilogue / Andrew
Conway Ivy.
Uh huh. So you figured what a bunch of scientists thought 53 years ago was worth rehashing? Except you didn't even re-hash it, you just cut-and-pasted a book extract that doesn't give anything except, apparently, a list of the chapters (individuals essays, presumably) and the author of each chapter. This, to boot, from a long out-of-print work.
Got anything more substantive than telling us than "God must exist because the universe is expanding and Cecil Boyce Hamann likes flowers and orioles"?
I am an advocate of keeping up with scientific discovery in all realms, and my most recent read on the topic is Hawking's "The Grand Design." I loved the book, but do not share his belief about God. My God is big enough to handle the science, because frankly I believe it all comes from God.
In God life exists in all its many splendors and wonders.
God is not restricted to the small minds of men and it is patient enough to wait for us to expand our thinking to embrace it more fully.
Uh huh. So you figured what a bunch of scientists thought 53 years ago was worth rehashing? Except you didn't even re-hash it, you just cut-and-pasted a book extract that doesn't give anything except, apparently, a list of the chapters (individuals essays, presumably) and the author of each chapter. This, to boot, from a long out-of-print work.
Got anything more substantive than telling us than "God must exist because the universe is expanding and Cecil Boyce Hamann likes flowers and orioles"?
Well, how old is the "Origin of the Species", and you atheists seem to devour it with relish to this day. And you've seemed to have read the table of contents of the book quite well. I deem you ready to advance to reading the book itself. Congratulations!
Well, how old is the "Origin of the Species", and you atheists seem to devour it with relish to this day. And you've seemed to have read the table of contents of the book quite well. I deem you ready to advance to reading the book itself. Congratulations!
Atheists don't "devour" it, kiggy. Later scientists found it fascinating despite their initial hesitations (evidence and documentation don't lie, after all. Only Christians do that on purpose), and the evidence from Darwin's observations were sound and indicative of some sort of logical, non-magical process (unlike Genesis/Creation, which requires illogical supernatural and never-seen processes).
He speculated is all, but the terror that induces in the unthinking, closed-end theist's mind immediately forces a childlike reaction as if he were some sort of Anti-Christ devil-worshipper for even thinking about any other way than God's. Such is the mindset of the truly intransigent, paranoid and hard-headed. Few realize that Darwin held back for years with his determinations out of respect fo his wife's strong religious convictions.
It's too bad hardened, uninterested theists today can't show a little common respect and some level of decency for a professional, trained observer who actually glimpsed the facts and the consequences of DNA's ability to mutate and remain viable, all while passing possible improvements down to it's offspring, who continue the process to this very moment.
Q: how many of you have made a daring and dangerous trip, well before any navigation aids, radios, GPS, etc., to a far-off unexplored land, living in a tent and making serious, detailed observations about, well... anything?
But now, by comparison, how many of you simply read on some stupid Chrisitan Genesis website all the so-called [but never substantiated] facts that they put out for your thoughtless consumption, like so much luke-warm pablum for you to ingest and then, on cue, vomit back up? I thought so.
BTW, some sort of short vote count of apparently God-convinced "scientists" does little to convince anyone else but the stubborn. Example: if we went back even a few more years, almost everyone who called themselves "a scientist" has variously beleived in 1) a fla Earth, 2) the exitence of phlogiston in anything hat burned; 3) the abslute existence of an homunculus as the source of original like within all humans, 4) that the universe rotates around the earth, and that 5) a single God, versus the previously agreed-on several of them, decided one lonely afternoon to "Super-POOF" it all into existence. Unfortunately, He left some very inconsistent and improbable/impossible results, results that don't pan out under even the most cursory inspection.
Alternately, rational and independent thought has of course disproven all of these silly children's-level fairy-tales, and yet, on this very forum, there are those who buy into several of these silly ideas. And their proofs are always severely lacking, as you'd reasonably expect about any falsehood.
Do Know This Though: that, each and every year, literally millions of bright young educated people graduate from our universities and technical institutes worldwide. They have all seen and even conducted for themselves, the experiments necessary to confirm what they have been taught. They do not hide their eyes nor brains, as a scientifically illiterate Christian insists on doing. and there are, by a really simple vote, far FAR more of them than any 53 yr old list can ever hope to accomplish. They all believe in Evolution, an ancient universe and earth, and so on. The rational ones do, in any event....
Remember; there's always a few vocal idiots out there who will defend their ideals at all costs, including their own intellectual honesty, but if you can recognize them, you can also learn to avoid their toxic mindset. After all, they'd willingly have us all bludgeoned back into The Dark Ages for sure; that was after all, the intended goal of The Inquisition, the Crusades and other fab cultural events! The book burnings, the fatal exorcisms of established scientists... it'd be quite sad for the facts, the truth and education's modern ongoing efforts.
Witness: the ongoing verbal and written but unearned onslaught against the innocent man Darwin. It's obvious that the more important and prescient the discovery or facts that someone provides, the more strident the abuse against him!
But...that's how religion works! The glorious and relentless championing of vast ignorance Huzzah! Go God!
Whats funny is its a scientific fact already...Even Stephen Hawkings says the universe is expanding..but what he postulates is that one day it will all collapse on itself one day...I dont know if its bc he is in a wheel chair or what but he is not right with his interpretations of the universe...The universe will grow to infinity and eternity and the same precise calculation of gravity that holds everything together upon nothing will continue to uphold everything upon nothing
Well, how old is the "Origin of the Species", and you atheists seem to devour it with relish to this day. And you've seemed to have read the table of contents of the book quite well. I deem you ready to advance to reading the book itself. Congratulations!
1) No one refers to Charles Darwin in the present tense, unlike the OP:
"forty American scientists declare their affirmative views on religion"
2) No one presents a book abstract of The Origin of Species, crappily formatted, as any sort of evidence of anything.
3) Your equation of Laurence Walker, he of the "forester's fieldbook", with Charles Darwin, is certainly entertaining, though you surely did not have that intent. Perhaps Laurence had a telescope, too, and you'd like to compare him to Galileo, or Copernicus?
4) While Charles Darwin is indeed a fascinating historical figure, in the field of biology the post-Origin discoveries tell us vastly more than Charles Darwin's writings ever could, for since his time the genetic mechanisms that allow natural selection to occur have been discovered and exhaustively studied, as have the genetic material itself. Further, vastly more supportive evidence than Darwin probably ever dreamed might exist has been compiled. Similarly, to look back to the afore-mentioned Galileo and Copernicus, no cosmologist is citing them today when discussing the expanding universe. Really, your comparison to Darwin is at least apt in rightly pointing out the obsolesence of the work the OP breathlessly presents as though it was published yesterday. I'm sure you think whatever Walter-the-Fruit-Rancher's-Boy had to say has wondrous relevance. That's fine. Share with us his thoughts, why don't you, if you can actually scrounge up a copy of this long-forgotten book.
5) To address what went "whooosh!", right over your head, it's not the age itself but the relevance. Darwin, while again interesting, is irrelevant to modern theories of such things as genetic drift or the use of DNA to confirm the nest heirarchy of life. While indeed he at least once had relevance to biological evolition, I'm hard-pressed to understand what relevance the long-forgotten Walter Lundberg, who once wrote a book on antioxidants, has this discussion.
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all?
Of maybe you have a book extract from the 1950s that you want to post, because it -- again, the empty abstract -- "proves God in an expanding universe"? (whatever that means...)
Atheists don't "devour" it, kiggy. Later scientists found it fascinating despite their initial hesitations (evidence and documentation don't lie, after all. Only Christians do that on purpose), and the evidence from Darwin's observations were sound and indicative of some sort of logical, non-magical process (unlike Genesis/Creation, which requires illogical supernatural and never-seen processes).
He speculated is all, but the terror that induces in the unthinking, closed-end theist's mind immediately forces a childlike reaction as if he were some sort of Anti-Christ devil-worshipper for even thinking about any other way than God's. Such is the mindset of the truly intransigent, paranoid and hard-headed. Few realize that Darwin held back for years with his determinations out of respect fo his wife's strong religious convictions.
It's too bad hardened, uninterested theists today can't show a little common respect and some level of decency for a professional, trained observer who actually glimpsed the facts and the consequences of DNA's ability to mutate and remain viable, all while passing possible improvements down to it's offspring, who continue the process to this very moment.
Q: how many of you have made a daring and dangerous trip, well before any navigation aids, radios, GPS, etc., to a far-off unexplored land, living in a tent and making serious, detailed observations about, well... anything?
But now, by comparison, how many of you simply read on some stupid Chrisitan Genesis website all the so-called [but never substantiated] facts that they put out for your thoughtless consumption, like so much luke-warm pablum for you to ingest and then, on cue, vomit back up? I thought so.
BTW, some sort of short vote count of apparently God-convinced "scientists" does little to convince anyone else but the stubborn. Example: if we went back even a few more years, almost everyone who called themselves "a scientist" has variously beleived in 1) a fla Earth, 2) the exitence of phlogiston in anything hat burned; 3) the abslute existence of an homunculus as the source of original like within all humans, 4) that the universe rotates around the earth, and that 5) a single God, versus the previously agreed-on several of them, decided one lonely afternoon to "Super-POOF" it all into existence. Unfortunately, He left some very inconsistent and improbable/impossible results, results that don't pan out under even the most cursory inspection.
Alternately, rational and independent thought has of course disproven all of these silly children's-level fairy-tales, and yet, on this very forum, there are those who buy into several of these silly ideas. And their proofs are always severely lacking, as you'd reasonably expect about any falsehood.
Do Know This Though: that, each and every year, literally millions of bright young educated people graduate from our universities and technical institutes worldwide. They have all seen and even conducted for themselves, the experiments necessary to confirm what they have been taught. They do not hide their eyes nor brains, as a scientifically illiterate Christian insists on doing. and there are, by a really simple vote, far FAR more of them than any 53 yr old list can ever hope to accomplish. They all believe in Evolution, an ancient universe and earth, and so on. The rational ones do, in any event....
Remember; there's always a few vocal idiots out there who will defend their ideals at all costs, including their own intellectual honesty, but if you can recognize them, you can also learn to avoid their toxic mindset. After all, they'd willingly have us all bludgeoned back into The Dark Ages for sure; that was after all, the intended goal of The Inquisition, the Crusades and other fab cultural events! The book burnings, the fatal exorcisms of established scientists... it'd be quite sad for the facts, the truth and education's modern ongoing efforts.
Witness: the ongoing verbal and written but unearned onslaught against the innocent man Darwin. It's obvious that the more important and prescient the discovery or facts that someone provides, the more strident the abuse against him!
But...that's how religion works! The glorious and relentless championing of vast ignorance Huzzah! Go God!
That may be how your atheistic religion works, but that's not Christianity. Christians believe in an intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent God beyond the constraints of their own mindset, unlike atheist, who embrace the doctrine of Darwinism as fact, when it isn't. A Christian may call themselves a Christian, but that doesn't make it so, in answer to your examples above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Facts beget trashing.
boredatwork
