Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Not a chance, Ira. If you feel that I need to ask for your forgiveness for telling the truth about your evo-atheist crusade, that says more about you than it does about me.
As for the questions I asked. You said you believe that Jesus Christ created the Universe and everything in it, and you also said you agree that he holds the Universe together by the power of His word. If you believe this, and you love Jesus Christ, then shouldn’t you boldly proclaim this to the evo-atheist scientists who are vainly looking for an evo-atheist explanation that ignores Jesus Christ?
Then why do so many evos on this forum mock creationists for that very thing? They've coined it *Goddidit*.
In the same way, if a history book of the future were to tell us that mankind almost perished in an all out nuclear war, if true said nuclear war will have left its mark in the real world, even if we were not there to observe it.
Yet people say evolution isn't science because it is about things that happened before recorded history.
Probably because of the intrusion of "Goddidit" into science. It's lazy, why try to figure out what happened when "Goddidit" covers everything? Even Newton, an extremely religious man, was careful not to use "Goddidit" to cover phenomena that his theories couldn't explain.
BTW, the term "God of the Gaps" (basically "Goddidit") was coined by a Christian evangelist warning Christians not to fill in what science can't yet explain with "Goddidit."
Evolution is not a hard science. It is an historical science that tries to reconstruct the unobservable, unrepeatable past. The same hold true for Creation and ID. The question is, which one of these competing hypothesis explain the past better. And as I have demonstrated in post after post, Creation/ID wins the origins debate hands down.
So that's the reason you post the articles they write.
I do not have to have faith that a tool works tomorrow. it either continues working, or I scrap it and get a new one.
Unlike you I do not accept that there is an “evo-atheist crusade.”
Science is neutral as far has religion. It takes no stance as far as the existence of God since that is part of the supernatural, and science only deals with the natural world.
It is possible to accept scientific evidence, and also have religious faith.
But then this has been explained to you many times; you just choose to ignore it.
“...besides that whole using outdated and already refuted arguments thing...”
IOW, you project alot.
But we already knew that!
But you do have faith that the results are real?
==Probably because of the intrusion of “Goddidit” into science. It’s lazy, why try to figure out what happened when “Goddidit” covers everything?
It does cover everything, but first you have to find out what God did before you can say what He did. In other words, wanting to discover what God did is arguably one of the most powerful motivations of scientific discovery in the history of science. “Godditit” certainly didn’t dull the scientific curiosity of Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Maxwell, Boyle, Galileo, Mann, Humphreys, Sanford, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Investigative science can see the results of miracles. But emperical science cannot entertain a theory which includes miracles, because scientific theories presuppose natural occurance.
If we actually observe a miracle, that miracle would be a “fact”, which would have to be taken into account.
If a miracle happened in the past, and we are trying to use a scientific theory to determine how something happened, that scientific inquiry will never conclude that something was a miracle. At BEST< the scientist will decide there is no rational explanation. But scientists hate that, so they will likely come up with the most plausible explanation that involves natural events.
They will, of course , be wrong; but it isn’t scientifically wrong, because it’s not like science said there were TRUTH in the postulation of the past. It’s only the evolutionists who try to argue that their pet theories of what happened millions of years ago are absolute truth, or observable fact — until something comes along to change it, and then they have different truths and facts.
Yes, you have explained why I should cheapen and compromise my faith in God’s Word over and over. How’s that working for you so far, Ira? All you and your fellow evo-atheists have succeeded in doing is to encourage me to post more and more Creation/ID links. So even though you refuse to become one of HIS servants, you have unwittingly become one of HIS tools.
funny. I in no way feel “tripped up” by people who say their is some sort of conflict between the OT and the NT.
Well, we're seeing the results of NEA run secular humanist failed public schools before our very eyes here aren't we?
In the desperate liberal world, up is down, down is up.
Isn't it amazing that public screwel indoctrinated liberals pretend to be the keepers of science, as if someone gave them and them alone the keys to science...
And as if that's not enough they demand to be Biblical scholars...you know while dismissing the Bible...
sooooo these people that have been indoctrinated as opposed to actually educated, it shouldn't be a surprise that they've been so hopelessly and sadly perhaps irreversibly ruined by liberalism, that they actually think they know what they're talking about; scientifically, biblically...you name it.
To them, when they say things like Jesus and/or God didn't mean the Bible to be authoritative...it makes perfectly sane sense to them. To normal people it sounds to us like exactly what it IS: unhinged liberal lunacy!
No shame, coupled with inusufferable liberal idiocy and they might as well be walking around FR with bright pink and purple neon lights in their taglines screaming "I'm a not-so-in-the-closet FR liberal lunatic".
As I have previously explained I am not an atheist
==If a miracle happened in the past, and we are trying to use a scientific theory to determine how something happened, that scientific inquiry will never conclude that something was a miracle.
I was talking about the physical effects of the miracle, not how it happened. For instance, creation scientists can use what the Bible says about creation to develop creation-based cosmologies, creation-based astronomy, flood geology, baraminology (study of the created kinds), etc. But you are quite correct, science would not be able to tell us how these things occured, but only the effect of the same. But then again, science doesn’t tell us where any of the fundamental forces come from, or how they are maintained, it simply describes the physical effects of the same.
God did it is exactly why Newton came to the conclusion that the universe was orderly and could be studied in an orderly manner.
Just because Newton arrived at a theory which explained the mechanical aspects of what we see, doesn't mean that God didn't do it and still doesn't do it.
God doing it isn't *intruding* in science. He was there in the first place and got kicked out, just like the evos and atheists have tried to get God kicked out of everything; science, public life, public schools, you name it.
There's this mentality that's shown up in the last few decades that Christians and creationists are trying to put God into science and that science is inherently and always has been, mechanistic in it's philosophy, when really, the concept that science and nature are divorced from God is fairly recent. Newton believed that you could learn more about God through the study of His creation through the scientific method.
The subject of whether God still constantly maintains and controls every little bit of matter and puts it precisely where He wants it, when he wants it, will always be a matter of philosophical debate, but neither side can say with certainty that their position is correct.
It's clear that God does interfere, for lack of a better term, in His creation on a regular basis. Miracles happen, prayer gets answered. That alone is enough for anyone to determine that God exists even if one has convinced himself that looking at nature isn't enough to figure that out.
Faith is not required to send a probe to other planets with precision navigation. Newtonian physics (based on Newton's theories)makes it possible to plot a course with precise predictability. You can use the same physics to plot the position of any object in the solar system at any point in time, future or past.
Newtonian physics is a subset of Einsteinian physics. Einstein's physics allow us to determine the age of the universe. Admittedly, it changes as new data comes in from further observations, but it is always in the range of greater than 10 billion years, not 6000. Again, no faith required. The speed of light is constant and cannot be exceeded. Distances in the tens thousands of light years can be measured rather precisely and millions of light years less so (but still fairly accurate). If this light has not been traveling for that time to reach us, then you and your fellow idiots need to come up with a cogenent new physics theory (with the math) that explains ALL the observed facts. It needs to explain everything from chemical reactions to nuclear reactors to celestial navigation to ballistics to biochemistry.
But then that might entail thinking and other forms of hard mental labor and many man-years to accomplish.
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.