Scientific integrity and the gospel of Christ

WorldNetDaily ^ | 4/10/04 | Kelly Hollowell

[Tribune7]

This Easter weekend, I answer one of the more disparaging questions I'm asked by secularists. That is: "How can a true scientist believe in the gospel message of Christ?" The answer begins with a proper definition of science.

Science is the study of nature through empirical evidence. A truly scientific theory, by definition, must be testable by repeatable observations or experiments. Yet there are many observations in nature that cannot be scientifically tested. Take the creation of the natural world.

As explained by the big-bang theory, all the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg that inexplicably exploded. But nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it arrived. Neither has a single important prediction of this theory been confirmed. Even worse, it contradicts multiple principles, including the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass.

That means the big-bang theory is largely a faith-based idea.

[Ignatz]

The author is making a rather far stretch from this data point, however.

Do you mean her point about the Bible making reference to genetics before genetics were understood by man? If so, how?
In my opinion, even if she erred on the point of blood intermingling, that does no harm to her argument about the Bible and science.

[longshadow]

But distances keep growing.

.... which is mathematically indistinguishable from from rulers getting shorter.

:-)

[PatrickHenry]

I've somehow figured out that much.

[longshadow]

I've somehow figured out that much.

Which reminds me of a useful proverb that is unpopular with Gyno-Americans: "if you give a woman an inch, she thinks she's a ruler."

[PatrickHenry]

Yes, if the rumors are true, I'll bet you've needed that proverb a time or two.

[VadeRetro]

If he gave up lawyering the science threads, he'd have precious little left to do in them.

Amazing how many freepers have independently arrived at the same vile slander of the same innocent victim.

[VadeRetro]

I'm not getting the impression that you actually have much basis for your statement. Would there have been a big problem with admitting that?

[AndrewC]

Amazing how many freepers have independently arrived at the same vile slander of the same innocent victim.

No, it is not amazing. That is the typical behavior you and others have when you are unable or incapable of logically answering. It is called Ad Hominem.

[VadeRetro]

That is the typical behavior you and others have when you are unable or incapable of logically answering.

The argument known as "lawyerly obfuscation" doesn't require a rebuttal to its text, which may be literally correct. The text is always a distraction, a nitpick, a studied misinterpretation of what has been said previously. It is sufficient to point out what the argument is.

[Junior]

Which reminds me of a useful proverb that is unpopular with Gyno-Americans: "if you give a woman an inch, she thinks she's a ruler."

I'd always heard it end: "she'll demand the other six."

[Old Professer]

A sort-of manmade no-beginning, no-end device, all things are curious to those of us with small minds...:)

[Old Professer]

That's funny, the first time it happened to me, she said, "Put it back in the sand."

[Tribune7]

Say instead that the things in the universe--galaxies, rulers, paper plates, Brooklyn (sorry, Mrs. Allen), atoms, people, Dukakis/Bentsen campaign buttons--are all shrinking.

Whoa. Molebes.

[Tribune7]

:-)

[usastandsunited]

what ever happened to your buddy that used to write in blue fonts all the time ? I don't see any of his posts anymore.
actually, i kindof miss the dialog you two would have. very entertaining.

[usastandsunited]

Can somebody give me some examples of how some of the laws of nature have changed or evolved over time.
This is a serious question. Has the law of gravity always existed, or do we have evidence of a time when it didn't, or any of others.

[greenwolf]

# Expansion of the Universe
# Origin of the cosmic background radiation

Haven't Halton Arp and others pretty much destroyed the idea of interpreting redshift data to mean an expanding universe and big bang?

On top of that, even if the math showing an expanding universe today were believable (which it isn't), projecting that back to a point at which all the mass of the universe was at a point is sort of like assuming that the elasticity of a rubber band remains the same no matter how far you stretch it. In other words, it's basically a stupid use of mathematics.

[greenwolf]

That is: "How can a true scientist believe in the gospel message of Christ?"

Mainly by a process of elimination: after you weed out all the obvious BS amongst the alternatives, Christianity is about the only thing left. The alternatives to Christianity include islam which is basically a form of idolatry, budhism which the Tang and Sung tried to eradicate for real reasons and which obviously isn't going anywhere, and communism, naziism, secular humanism/atheism/darwinism and darwinism which is the basis of all that has pretty much been disproven, and Judaeism which is a sort of a private club and rich man's version of the whole thing which most people can't afford.

What does that leave other than Christianity?

[Physicist]

I merely pointed out your imprecision.

You have not. The key word remains "geometrically", meaning "as far as is permitted by geometry". Travel to Proxima Centauri may be economically forbidden, but it is not geometrically forbidden.

The fact remains I cannot get to Proxima Centauri by any existing means. That is an irrefutable fact.

I do refute it. An Energiya booster is physically capable of hurling your person fast enough to escape the solar system, and it is commercially available. There may even be enough energy for you to have a space suit. If pointed in the right direction, you may after many millenia pass as close by Proxima Centauri as you like--forsooth, even plunge into its chromosphere.

[vpintheak]

Are you stalking me?