Posted on 11/18/2009 5:58:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
New Scientist magazine is generally regarded by the secular community as one of the top-ranked science magazines in the world. However, a published opinion by a regular columnist demonstrated how “unscientific” and anti-God some of their articles have become—something we have documented before (see Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions).
Amanda Gefter wrote an article discussing multiverse theory, or the idea that our universe may be only one of many that currently exist. Such speculations attempt to explain away the appearance of design in the universe, because of, as we shall see, the spiritual implications. In an article called What’s God got to do with it she wrote: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Why would you impose the limitations and constraints of human comprehension on a creation of God?
Why would you think I would? I'm neither playing nor advocating the playing of either the old or new game. What are you talking about?
>We are in agreement, I think.
For the most part. I was using levels of regularity for my main criteria in comparing languages against “designedness,” we can also use natural-language for example:
English is akin to C/C++ in the regard that it [seems to] hold more exceptions than rules; especially in conjugation and pluralization. { mouse -> mice; house -> houses; goose -> geese; caboose -> cabooses & run -> ran; stand -> stood; eat -> ate; bake -> baked. } So no wonder English is such a difficult second language.
Japanese, on the other hand is VERY regular in respect to conjugation and pluralization. Pluralization is done implicitly when the subject is numbered or explicitly with the -tachi conjugation. ( I => Watashi; We/Us => Watashitachi.) and there are only two to four exceptions to the conjugation-rules (ie virtually none as compared to English).
Another “language” {I’m stretching the term a bit} that shows design would be Linear Algebra (Matrices & Vectors and such), which have a very regular extension/usage {even if the rules for, say, multiplication are a bit complex at first}.
>If only that we were in the room while scripture was being written would we know the original intent of what the person who write it meant, or that the Holy Spirit would reveal and teach us these things.
>
>NOT WILLING THAT NONE SHOULD PERISH
Actually I’ve always thought that particular passage is quite clear; God doesn’t _want_ to condemn ANY human to hell... it simply isn’t our [intended] place & it’s obvious that God places a lot of weight on our being made in His image. (Hell isn’t for humanity, but Satan and his demons.)
It’s a lot like parents saying that they don’t want to see their kid run over on the busy street down the block; God is saying that He doesn’t desire to condemn people. {Which you should give God thanks for because if I was God I wouldn’t be nearly as merciful.}
That was one one of the funniest comments I've read in a long time.
You are indeed the soul of wit.
You are missing the point here. Metmom, et al, have the gift of divine revelation and are infallible in their interpretation. They KNOW the truth. If you disagree with them on even the slightest point (not to mention the major points) you are an “evo-atheist” or some such crypto-pagan.
In the future, I would like you to accept that without any doubt they speak the eternal truth - that when they speak or post it is God's voice you hear and God's fingers on the keyboard.
However, there was also a Gardner Fox on Earth-C, the Captain Carrot universe (which was later reclassified as an alternate dimension, not an alternate universe).
“But the many worlds view asserts that there are parallel universes, one for each possibility. The multi-universe idea is a subset of this idea. But it goes further.”
—Wrong. The multi-universe he describes is completely independent of the many-worlds interpretation of QM. One is not a subset of the other - they have nothing to do with each other. Either one could be true and the other wrong, or both could be wrong, or both correct. (In some classification schemes the many-worlds interpretation is referred to as a “lvl 3 multiverse” and the idea that there are many universes each with different constants is a “lvl 2 multiverse”. Lee Smolin’s theory of “fecund universes” fits into that category.)
“Second, why cosmic inflation is used to support the multiverse notion is not understood by the writer of this article (me).”
—What’s being referred to is the “chaotic inflation theory”, another variant of a lvl 2 multiverse. Basically, pockets of dark energy within a universe producing new universes.
“Thirdly, string theory, or the theory that the universe might exist in multiple branes or dimensions, is presently completely unobservable and untestable. However, its advocates would also claim that it is not falsifiable, and therefore, it might be correct. To use this argument is completely circular in its reasoning and short on substance.”
—I challenge anyone to find a string theory advocate ever using such an argument.
Shhhhh....everywhere you look, there are secularist scientists coming up with ways to replace God. See ‘em up there right now, Jerry? In their little black helicopters...on whisper-mode.
....because that’s what science is all about...finding ways to replace God.
I forget — when was Earth-Prime discovered in the DC Universe? I have vague memories of some of DC’s stable of writers helping out the Flash (and thus Earth-One) back in the 70s using some kind of treadmill-like device to bridge the universes. Was Carmine Infantino revealed to be the villian?
AKA the fallacy of appeal to probability.
What was under discussion when metmom was accused of being "angry"? Whatever it was, the discussion has now been redirected to whether or not metmom is angry. That's how that works.
From everything I can tell, it goes back to a comment I made in post 45 to GGG about how science is being misused as a weapon with which to attack religion in general and Christianity in particular.
But of course that is too hot a topic because it is so blindingly obvious, so rather than address it, it’s better to attack the person who made the statement and deflect the argument so people either don’t see it or forget about what started the accusations in the first place.
Then all the focus is on a strawman that evos erected so as to waste creationists time knocking down instead of the actual issue, which is that science these days is being used as a weapon in the ideological was going on.
The worst part is, there’s very little objection heard from the evos on this forum about this misuse of science, which implies tacit agreement with what’s going on.
Evos themselves say that silence equals approval and consent.
Ack... fumble fingers.....
ideological was going on.= ideological war going on.
Spell check does have its limitations.
You are missing the point here. Metmom, et al, have the gift of divine revelation and are infallible in their interpretation. They KNOW the truth. If you disagree with them on even the slightest point (not to mention the major points) you are an “evo-atheist” or some such crypto-pagan.
In the future, I would like you to accept that without any doubt they speak the eternal truth - that when they speak or post it is God's voice you hear and God's fingers on the keyboard.
Is that anything like when the evos tell creationists how God did everything in the book of Genesis by using evolution and lots of time, and telling creationists that they're wrong if they read it differently and that they're cultists if they do?
Of course, it is, but I don't expect you to see that or acknowledge it if you do.
Especially if the word you misspelled was spelled correctly.
We have no proof the Universe is finite. Every day we look deeper and deeper, and all we find is more and more. Our 'problem' with dark matter comes from the fact that the 'mass' we calculate for the Universe is based on the assumption that all we currently 'see' is all there is. Which, again, we prove every day is completely wrong.
Remember. It is possible to read anger into the words of others, especially if (as in this case) you are lacking the facial expressions and tone of voice that usually accompany a conversation.
It is science that is being attacked by ininformed people who try to wrap religion up as science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.