Posted on 02/03/2008 12:58:53 PM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
Some how I knew I’d see “No replies” when looking for an answer to your post...
For nothing other than to be a pain-
The only reason heliocentrism has any hold is that it is a simpler explanation.
Newton did talk about air. Gravitational attraction (9.8 m/s^2) on earth at sea level assumes a vacuum.
The equation of Gravitational attraction doesn’t include it, but that just gives you the downward force, it doesn’t include any other force that may or may not be acting upon the object. I included it so no smart alec would say (drop a balloon, falling isn’t a fact.).
That reminds me of a brochure I saw once for an atheist summer camp. And it talks about how the kids can admire nature, and how beautiful it is, and how it just came about “all by itself”.
Why does it matter how it came about? Why does God HAVE to be removed from classrooms?
Is the world any less beautiful when people talk about God?
Something about that questions troubles me.
I capitalize Scientist because it is a title or position; same as I would Engineer or Pilot.
Being ‘honest’ would entail what exactly? And yes, abiogenesis might well be a logical leap from evolution; but who is to say that the principles of abiogenesis were not well worked out by the Creator well before the universe was created? Once again it seems the Creationists attempt to limit God to what they think he did in the way they think he did it.
At his word the oceans brought forth life. This is perfectly compatible with abiogenesis according to HIS plan.
Just because God created a universe that was self sufficient and works according to fundamental rules does not mean he cannot and will not intercede. Indeed if one believes in the Bible one sees that he was often involved in the fate of nations and the fate of man. Indeed nothing happens in this universe that is not according to HIS will.
This doesn’t mean that he has to go in a tweak molecules to get them to go his way. All ways that they could possibly go are HIS way.
Ok, don’t let me get off track, I just have to make this little OCD moment of mine pass-
“Scientist” is not a proper title. If they were and Antrhopolgist, or a Biologist, that’s fine. An Electrical Engineer or an Air Force Pilot would also fit. But broad spectrum terms are NOT proper and usually are not capitalized. Such as soldier, cop, fireman, teacher, butcher...
Also, rank is proper, therefore “Lieutenant” or “Professor” or “Doctor” would be appropriate. But such a broad word is not.
Unless you want to go around saying “The report found one Witness to the crime”
“The Students were suspended”
“The Criminal got away from the scene”
Back to our regularly scheduled program...
“As I said 67% of Scientists believe in God.”
Then they need to use there “big boy” voices.
Food Fight!
Yes, I understand that, but it would be more proper to use my wording. I also think that the word "drop" does include the word "fall" in its definition.(at least the definition appropriate to this discussion)
I love what you say here. That is KEY, I think, and is how I view those who interpret Genesis literally. They are trying to measure/contain/delineate God...and it CANNOT HAPPEN!
That and it's the only physical model consistent with any kind of usable dynamics. You can map epicycles to account for any observable motion, but when you try to apply laws of motion, you're screwed.
Yes, I saw the trailer yesterday. Has the thread turned into a food fight? What a surprise.
Is the world any less beautiful if you study it?
I stand by my statement.
Am I beinng told I have to leave God out of my studies?
True, assuming the scientist who thinks that phenomena are capricious and at the whim of aliens or angels may not be motivated to look for natural causes.
There are not a lot of creationists doing field work in paleontology, or working in the oil industry.
Pinning down some people for answers is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
Well bless you for trying. If nothing else, both the reality here as well as your analogy are fun to watch.
No, it is not a dead end.
On the contrary, it was Newton's belief in an orderly, powerful God that led him to conclude the universe could be understood, investigated, and explained in an orderly way.
Naturalism provides no certainty. It assumes that everything always was as it is, and will continue to be so. It assumes stability.
Believing that God is in control, is a God of order, cannot change, and holds everything together gives a guarantee of stability for the length of time He has deemed. And He has told us that things will change, and has given us indicators to watch for, for when that time is coming.
If it's true that believing God did it ends all debate and inquiry for knowledge, then please explain why so many of the great men of science for so many centuries were devout Christian or religious men, like priests. And explain why some 67% of scientists today profess to believe in God.
By your reasoning, there should have been no scientific advancement until people concluded that there was no God and other explanations of where the universe came from and how it worked came on the scene. And there should not be any Christians who are scientists, and I know plenty with PhD's who are doing research. The facts don't bear your contention out.
Perhaps you can explain where it came from.
That very statement is why I have my Tagline.
It was repeated no less than 4 times to the attention of some on this thread.
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.