This is a very informative movie that addresses several of the issues of what we know about how this Universe was or was not formed in the beginning. There is much about the physics associated with it, and how the determinations of many have changed/are changing through the years, and resulting in very formidable conclusions.
What might be considered as a "preface" to this long movie, is written on this Y/T movie's home page.
The Signs of God's existence - 'Full Movie HD :
The attributes of the universe discovered by science point to the existence of God. Science leads us to the conclusion that the universe has a Creator and this Creator is perfect in might, wisdom and knowledge. It is religion that shows us the way in knowing God. It is therefore possible to say that science is a method we use to better see and investigate the realities addressed by religion. Nevertheless, today, some of the scientists who step forth in the name of science take an entirely different stand. In their view, scientific discoveries do not imply the creation of God. They have, on the contrary, projected an atheistic understanding of science by saying that it is not possible to reach God through scientific data: they claim that science and religion are two clashing notions.
As a matter of fact, this atheistic understanding of science is quite recent. Until a few centuries ago, science and religion were never thought to clash with each other, and science was accepted as a method of proving the existence of God. The so-called atheistic understanding of science flourished only after the materialist and positivist philosophies swept through the world of science in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Particularly after Charles Darwin postulated the theory of evolution in 1859, circles holding a materialistic world view started to ideologically defend this theory, which they looked upon as an alternative to religion. The theory of evolution argued that the universe was not created by a creator but came into being by chance. As a result, it was asserted that religion was in conflict with science. The British researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln said on this issue:
For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it. ...But the science of Darwin's time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and establishing itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning. As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them. (Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy, Gorgi Books, London: 1991, p. 177-178.)
As we stated before, the so-called split between science and religion was totally ideological. Some scientists, who earnestly believed in materialism, conditioned themselves to prove that the universe had no creator and they devised various theories in this context. The theory of evolution was the most famous and the most important of them. In the field of astronomy as well certain theories were developed such as the "steady-state theory" or the "chaos theory". However, all of these theories that denied creation were demolished by science itself, as we have clearly shown in the previous chapters.
Today, scientists who still keep to these theories and insist on denying all things religious, are dogmatic and bigoted people, who have conditioned themselves not to believe in God. The famous English zoologist and evolutionist D.M.S. Watson confesses to this dogmatism as he explains why he and his colleagues accept the theory of evolution:
If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. (D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation", Nature, no. 124, p. 233)
What Watson means by "special creation" is God's creation. As acknowledged, this scientist finds this "unacceptable". But why? Is it because science says so? Actually it does not. On the contrary, science proves the truth of creation. The only reason why Watson looks upon this fact as unacceptable is because he has conditioned himself to deny the existence of God. All other evolutionists take the same stand.
Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy. A geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Levontin, The Demon-Haunted World, The New York Review of Books, January, 9, 1997, p. 28)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXDDZrYOuAE
What scientists find unacceptable is superstition. Many scientists are spiritual and many have reached beyond materialism, especially physicists. It is the nonsense called religion and associated superstition that we find completely unacceptable.
The idea that science sees the Universe as a machine in the old material way is old hat and completely out of touch with current thought.
Quote from: Pimander on April 07, 2015, 01:50:28 PM
What scientists find unacceptable is superstition.
"Facts" based in a "good" book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0
Let's sing together:
QuoteLife is like an ocean voyage and our bodies are the ships
And without a moral compass we would all be cast adrift
So to keep us on our bearings, the Lord gave us a gift
And like most gifts you get, it was a book
I only read one book, but it's a good book, don't you know
I act the way I act because the Good Book tells me so
If I wanna known how to be good, it's to the Good Book that I go
'Cos the Good Book is a book and it is good and it's a book
I know the Good Book's good because the Good Book says it's good
I know the Good Book knows it's good because a really good book would
You wouldn't cook without a cookbook and I think it's understood
You can't be good without a Good Book 'cos it's good and it's a book
And it is good for cookin'
I tried to read some other books, but I soon gave up on that
The paragraphs ain't numbered and they complicate the facts
I can't read Harry Potter 'cos they're worshipping false gods and that
And Dumbledore's a poofter and that's bad, 'cos it's not good
Morality is written there in simple white and black
I feel sorry for you heathens, got to think about all that
Good is good and evil's bad and goats are good and pigs are crap
You'll find which one is which in the Good Book, 'cos it's good
And it's a book, and it's a book
I had a cat, she gave birth to a litter
The kittens were adorable and they made my family laugh
But as they grew they started misbehavin'
So I drowned the little frigers in the bath
When the creatures in your care start being menaces
The answers can be found right there in Genesis!
Chapter 6, Verse 5-7!
Swing your partner by the hand
Have a baby if you can
But if the voices your head
Say to sacrifice your kid
To satisfy your loving God's
Fetish for dead baby blood
It's simple fate, the Book demands
So raise that knife up in your hand!
Before the Good Book made us good, there was no good way to know
If a thing was good or not that good or kind of touch and go
So God decided he'd give writing allegoric prose a go
And so he wrote a book and it was generally well-received
The Telegraph said, "This God is reminiscent of the Norse."
The Times said, "Kind of turgid, but I liked the bit with horses."
The Mail said, "Lots of massacres, a violent tour de force."
If you only read one book this year, then this one is a book
And it is good, and it's a book!
Swing your daughter by the hand
But if she gets raped by a man
And refuses then to marry him
Stone her to death!
If you just close your eyes and block your ears
To the accumulated knowledge of the last two thousand years
Then morally, guess what? You're off the hook
And thank Christ you only have to read one book
Just because the book's contents
Were written generations hence
By hairy desert-dwelling gents
Squatting in their dusty tents
Just because what Heaven said
Was said before they'd leavened bread
Just 'cos Jesus couldn't read
Doesn't mean that we should need
When manipulating human genes
To alleviate pain and fight disease
When deciding whether it's wrong or right
To help the dyin' let go of life
Or stop a pregnancy when it's
Just a tiny blastocyst
There's no reason why we should take a look
At any other book
But the Good Book
'Cause it's good
And it's a book
And it's a book
And it's quite good!
Good is good and evil's bad
And kids get killed when God gets mad
And you'd better take a good look
At the Good Book
http://letras.mus.br/tim-minchin/1918534/ (http://letras.mus.br/tim-minchin/1918534/)