Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientific integrity and the gospel of Christ
WorldNetDaily ^ | 4/10/04 | Kelly Hollowell

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: easter; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-165 next last
To: VadeRetro
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.

81 posted on 04/11/2004 11:30:34 AM PDT by Ignatz (Scribe of the Unwritten Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
But distances keep growing.

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

:-)

82 posted on 04/11/2004 1:20:30 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
I've somehow figured out that much.
83 posted on 04/11/2004 1:23:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Why yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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."

84 posted on 04/11/2004 1:31:55 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Yes, if the rumors are true, I'll bet you've needed that proverb a time or two.
85 posted on 04/11/2004 1:35:13 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Why yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Physicist
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.

86 posted on 04/11/2004 3:03:37 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Me too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Ignatz
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?
87 posted on 04/11/2004 3:09:59 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
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.

88 posted on 04/11/2004 3:14:40 PM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
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.

89 posted on 04/11/2004 3:24:57 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
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."

90 posted on 04/11/2004 5:26:42 PM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A sort-of manmade no-beginning, no-end device, all things are curious to those of us with small minds...:)
91 posted on 04/11/2004 5:33:00 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Junior
That's funny, the first time it happened to me, she said, "Put it back in the sand."
92 posted on 04/11/2004 5:34:43 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
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.

93 posted on 04/11/2004 6:59:04 PM PDT by Tribune7 (Arlen Specter supports the International Crime Court having jurisdiction over US soldiers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
:-)
94 posted on 04/11/2004 6:59:42 PM PDT by Tribune7 (Arlen Specter supports the International Crime Court having jurisdiction over US soldiers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.
95 posted on 04/11/2004 7:04:51 PM PDT by usastandsunited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
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.
96 posted on 04/11/2004 7:07:18 PM PDT by usastandsunited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
# 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.

97 posted on 04/11/2004 7:17:19 PM PDT by greenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
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?

98 posted on 04/11/2004 7:25:10 PM PDT by greenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
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.

99 posted on 04/11/2004 7:27:55 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Are you stalking me?
100 posted on 04/11/2004 7:40:45 PM PDT by vpintheak (Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson