Posted on 08/07/2005 6:25:03 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie
That is completely and totally incorrect. (and odd)
It sounds like one of those Saul Alinsky "Perception is reality" deals - as if what we think about a physical entity or construct changes what it is.
Judging from your post, we were kids at roughly the same time. The ... mistrust ... in those days went both ways. Case in point: Mrs. Gumlegs was the product of a (gasp!) mixed marriage. She attended parochial schools, and reports that on the last day of school one year, the priest told her class to avoid speaking to Protestants over the summer. She raised her hand and asked if should avoid talking to her father.
She was always viewed with suspicion at her school.
Far too coherent.
That is what I said. It is obvious and correct. Obvious, unless one puts on blinders.
Big Bang: A short-hand label for the “precisely controlled cosmic expansion from an infinitely or near infinitely compact, hot cosmic ‘seed,’ brought into existence by a Creator who lives beyond the cosmos.” Facts for Faith Issue 3, 2000
Pat Buchanan should have done his homework before he embarrassed himself. Alvin Plantinga was talking about people like him when he wrote this:
"...how can Christian intellectuals-scientists, philosophers, historians, literary and art critics, Christian thinkers of every sort.... best serve the Christian community... One thing our experts can do for us is help us avoid rejecting evolution for stupid reasons. The early literature of Creation -Science, so called, is littered with arguments of that eminently rejectable sort.
We shouldn't reject contemporary science unless we have to and we shouldn't reject it for the wrong reasons.
It is good thing for our scientists to point out some of these wrong reasons."
"..I can properly correct my view as to what reason teaches by appealing to my understanding of Scripture; and I can properly correct my understanding of Scripture by appealing to the teachings of reason.
It is of the first importance, however, that we correctly identify the relevant teachings of reason. See #54
For those looking for their first clue- it is found here
WOW-- are they really afraid of all that? If so, I take those fears as prima facia evidence that they are stark, raving mad. I'll pray for them. ;)
Mashed potatoes theory/lumpy white death ... you?
unavoidable consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy
---
This very quote approaches meaningless or perhaps a loose faith structure itself. How can you have consequences without antecedents?
Say, if you can take a moment off from fornication . . .
;-)
Actually, it looks like win-win to me.
---
This very quote approaches meaningless or perhaps a loose faith structure itself. How can you have consequences without antecedents?
Your comment makes no sense.
He asked where the matter for the objects in the Universe came from. I answered his question. The Law of Conservation of Energy requires that the net energy of the Universe remain constant; since the expansion of space during the Inflationary Epoch gives rise to enormous increases in negative gravitational energy, something has to balance the "energy budget" to satisfy the Conservation of Energy Law. That "something" is the matter we see today in the form of stars, meteors, planets, comets, etc.
Thus, the Law of Conservation of Energy, operating on an Inflationary scenario, gives rise to exactly the right amount of matter (positive energy) to offset the increase in gravitational (negative) energy that occurs during the Inflation, which drives the Universe to a flat geometry of critical matter density, regardless of the initial conditions. IOW, the total energy of the Universe is zero. Emprical measurements (COBE, WAP) of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are consistent with this view.
Suggesting that "evolution" as taught and believed today is science is simply the highest form of religious superstition and demonstrates significant ingnorance of what science is. Whether that ignorance is willful or not is irrelevent to the issue that evolution, as the Darwinists posit, is nothing but blind, zealous religious faith...
It is superstition in the highest form.
In fact, Darwinism can NOT stand up to the rigors of the scientific method as defined by Sir Karl Popper...
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=264
A form of the legal brief noted above was used to conclusively demonstrate that psychology, according to the scientific method, is a pseudo-science. A version of that legal brief has been used in many states throughout the United States and courts now routinely use psychiatrists rather than psychologists if either party objects.
This brief was adapted from both legal precedent, and is modeled after Sir Karl Popper's requirement to verify something is "science" rather than junk or pseudo science such as Darwinism.
Darwinism and evolution and believed and taught today is nothing but a zealous religious faith. And its blind faith adherents are in a panic and a huff becuase their religion is being challenged as the science fraud that it is!!
Evolution is a FRAUD!
supression of the truth...
flame on!
There are many physical systems that increase in complexity. How about growing crystals? Plants? The world?
Well that certainly sounds like something you would expect from a presidential candidate incapable of getting 1% of the vote.
I can't believe that Steve Sailer is writing for this guy.
No - because the religion of Scientism
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.