Posted on 04/10/2004 10:39:47 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Lol! Oh no, not at all. I just didn't recall how Mary came to be free from original sin. Past experience with you would indicate that you would want a source, so I referred you the best-known source for the info: the Holy Bible.
It is available for reading online at several locations, or I can send you a copy if you like. It contains some really fascinating reading. I think you would like it.
Hi Trib!!! Thanks for the pings, and sorry not to get back sooner: My home PC got fried over the weekend. Looks like some nasy infection...time for a new hard drive.
WRT the above italics: This is certainly a true statement. But the same thing can be said for the various theories of the universe that say that the universe is uncreated, that it had no beginning and thus is simply eternal (e.g., parallel universes, etc.). Same also can be said for Darwinian evolutionary theory, particularly WRT the "common ancestor." Problems of origins seemingly all fall into the category of "faith-based ideas."
Ditto determinist materialism: Though it denies faith or spirituality or consciousness as real, yet its own worldview is an "immaterial thing," not a part of physical nature per se. But the determinist materialist glides blissfully over this fact without noticing that he has embroiled himself in an impossible self-contradiction.
There's more I'd love to say, but I must get back to work now. Perhaps once my computer situation is fixed, I'll be back with more: This topic happens to be particularly timely for me right now, as I am engaged in a seemingly interminable debate with a scientist friend over just this question of origins.
It does for me, too. Do you struggle at all with "without confusion, without separation"?
(I'm not trying to argue. I'm sincerely fascinated by your comment.)
I don't understand the question.
No chance. The banned people started out with the intention of getting banned. Toward the end they were posting directly to Jim Robinson, and he was warning them to cool it.
In addition, they were badmouthing FR on another forum.
What are you talking about? If Arp, Tifft et al are so shunned in the community, why the heck are they getting published in Astrophysical Journal, and why are they getting money from the IAU to have conferences in far away places? He must be getting grant money from someone if he can afford to publish! Page charges are not cheap!
Telescope time on 4 meter class telescopes has been tight for EVERYONE. I could talk to the faculty and grads where I work who do optical observing, and I bet if I asked them if they felt their pet project got the telescope time it deserved they would say NO! For Arp supporters to go and bitch because they aren't getting any time at all is specious to me because of the above reason and because the models don't model the existing evidence AT ALL! Why would your throw telescope time and grant money at a project that has already shown to not be valid!? So it can be shown to not be valid in a different way? Telescope Allocation Committees don't work that way, they review proposals via academic merit, not on the what the observer has done in the past. Science is definitely a "What have you done for me lately?" discipline.
So far all I have heard from you are insults and accusations, which is pretty typical for an Arp supporter who has no clue how science is done. Keep it up!
No.
I had said:
Her "doctorate" comes from Pat Robertson's Regent University. Robertson is a fine fellow, but I have doubts about the scientific integrity of that institution.I like Robertson. I pretty much said so. Thus, there is no ad hominem aspect to my criticism. What I know about Regent comes from information that they choose to make public:
Our mission is to provide exemplary education, from a biblical perspective, leading to bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees for aspiring servant-leaders in pivotal professions, and to be a leading center of Christian thought and action.I therefore assumed a scientific outlook that is similar to that of the Institute for Creation Research, which has a similar mission statement (although they seem to have removed it from their website recently). As was later pointed out to me, the author's scientific degree comes from some other school, so my post was irrelevant to her scientific training. Indeed, Regent's website doesn't indicate that they offer any degrees in the sciences.
Source: Regent University's Mission Statement.
Actually, Robertson's scientific outlook may be just fine.
"Now creation science ... is really pretty bogus. ... I think there's a lot of hocus pocus in that stuff. ... Some of that stuff just doesn't meet the smell test."So upon reconsideration, I have no problem with Regent. They don't hold themselves out as a scientific institution, and Robertson's attitude about science doesn't seem troublesome.
-- Pat Robertson, Source: Answers in Genesis
Perhaps that's all you normally ever hear? The very pseudonym/nom-de-guerre you're using sort of indicates a chip on the shoulder against the whole world ('listen up all you ignorant bast***s, I'm gonna tell you how it really is...)
What did the world actually do to you that you're working so hard at getting even?
I have no opinion about that. I'm not qualified to expound on theological doctrines. That takes years of specialized study, so I'll leave such matters to the experts.
What did the world actually do to you that you're working so hard at getting even?
A whole post with nothing but a non-sequitur, keep it up!
I note that you didn't respond in any meaningful way to any of my points. You do have a substantitive response, don't you?
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.