Posted on 02/03/2008 12:58:53 PM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
...For most of my life, I believed the answers to these questions were fairly straightforward. Everything that exists is created by a Loving God. That includes rocks, trees, animals, people, really everything. All along I had been well aware that other people, very smart people, believe otherwise. Rather than God's handiwork, they see the universe as the product of random particle collisions and chemical reactions. And rather than regard humankind as carrying the spark of the divine, they believe we are nothing more than mud animated by lightning...
Trailer requires Shockwave Flash:
Super TrailerMore trailers here:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.phpIMDB page:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
(Excerpt) Read more at expelledthemovie.com ...
So you are a Biologist.
LOL! Game point!
Sure, if you didn’t try to force your box on everyone else.
What you believe fits well in your box but doesn’t fit well outside the box. Just don’t go telling us we’re wrong because we deal outside your box and you won’t go there. There’s no way you can tell someone they’re wrong if you don’t know what you’re talking about (outside the box).
*chirp, chirp,....*
So what do current theories suggest that you look for to identify the mechanism that generated natural, physical laws?
"What research is suggested by the assertion that an unspecified entity or entities having unspecified capabilities, limitations and motives, did some unspecified thing or things at unspecified times and places with unspecified results?"
What research is suggested by the assertion than an unspecified non-teleological mechanism with unspecified capabilities and unspecified limitations that did some unspecified thing or things at some unspecified time and place to generate complex systems based on vast amounts of information that are independent of the carrier?
You already have it.
Science is our little box, and in Science we deal only with empiricism, and Science class should then only deal with actual Science and the empirical method. Glad we agree.
We Scientists do Science, and we like to keep Science separate from the E-meter crowd and the I.D. nonsense.
My positions are quite clear to those who are able to understand them. That they have been widely misrepresented has been quite well documented by others.
That small-minded people who cannot distinguish between belief and science and prefer to support their beliefs by the fallacy of appeal to ridicule is not within my control.
As for geocentrism, I was once a heliocentrist, but after realizing that GR was developed to explain the belief that the earth orbits the sun in the absence of evidence for such motion, I am honest enough to change my opinion irrespective of the ridicule that standing for the truth generates.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics (New-York: Simon and Schuster), 1961.
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
I prefer to stand unapologetically with men like Einstein and Hoyle rather than bow to the ridicule of boors.
If you think that characterizing Ben Stein as a franken supporter sums him up, then you definately are a fool.
As for Aquinas, or any pope, their beliefs certainly do not accurately characterize Christianity. Perhaps you meant mysticism?
Ooops. Can't go labeling it as nonsense just because it doesn't fit inside your little box.
Science is a subset of reality. It deals with the physical, material world. It does not concern itself with anything outside that, which is labeled by those within the box as *supernatural*.
We who deal with all of reality, can look into the subset and see if it's correct or not and if it's consistent within itself, because it also exists as part of the whole of reality; it is a subset of our reality.
Those locked within the subset cannot make any determinations about anything outside that subset because it is not part of their reality. While they may know a lot about what reality they deal with, they know squat about anything outside of that because of their self-imposed ignorance.
Therefore, since they know nothing about anything that is outside their segment of reality, they can't say it's wrong, or not true, or not real, or for that matter, pass any form of judgment on it at all.
The absolute best they can do is state that it doesn't fit in with what they know and doesn't make sense in their world.
Take out the “mystical” and I might somewhat agree, but the Lord did intend to give us reliable information, that we absolutely need to sort out the truth about all things.
God is not limited to space-time, and so, the creation cannot be viewed with regard to what God is or is not. Both space, and time are creations of God.
It’s still not nonsense. It merely doesn’t fit in your box. You can reject it because it doesn’t fit the system you’ve locked yourself into, but passing value judgments doesn’t work in your box either. Value judgments aren’t scientific.
Creationism is a particular interpretation of Genesis, that not all Christians hold to. Those few chapters in genesis can at best convey a minute fraction of information about what really happened.
But if God created the universe, and all in it, what better why to discover Gods actions than by studying the creation directly. No human language translations required, and there is no end to the creation to be studied.
Those who study Gods creation directly believe that evolution happend. I don't see any reason to doubt it.
Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:
Acts 17:26-27
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If there were no
one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.If
Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the
one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.Are we to believe that the
one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.
Acts 17:24-26 24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. Was LUKE wrong about this? 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 1 Timothy 2:13
If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word?? |
NIV Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Stein, an actor, writer and economist, has contributed $2,000 to Franken’s Minnesota Senate campaign. The two men have known each other for about 30 years.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303383,00.html“I’m struck by what an incredibly capable, hard-working guy he is,” Stein told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Thursday. “He’s a very smart liberal, he’s a thoroughgoing patriot, and I would feel better with him in the Senate.”
Only if you are the one who decides who a real Christian is, and who is not. Doctrinal disputes about what the Bible means have been going on between Christians since before there was a Bible.
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.