Posted on 05/30/2002 7:40:53 AM PDT by Gladwin
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Since the first scientists were Christians who believed in G-d (the inventor of the scientific method was a Christian) I would have to call this assumption a late arriver. Do you know when it became a part of science and why?
Shalom.
The signal is non-random, but the behavior is not directed, except by physical laws of the universe.
Shalom.
I should not have said 'random.' The more correct term would probably have been non-directed, but there could be a more accurate term still. Pulsars are non-random and non-directed, and their signals contain no information.
Shalom.
"...insist on bringing up stupid things like ID."
"That guy had a brain. I guess that threatens the religious crowd here..."
I was talking about comments like the above.
And if you believe in an omnipotent God, who could have "kicked off" evolution, could He not have likewise created as Genesis (and John 1:1) implies?
Once you admit to the reality of a Supreme Being, then there is no need to explain Him away using "pure science".
Evolution - an interesting theory.
Christians certainly subscribe to some version of design, though it's not necessary for them to subscribe to ID as the specific mechanism.
I was under the assumption that we were talking about "science" here.
We are, sort of. As I see it, the question in play is whether "science," or more properly, the people conducting science, are behaving "scientifically" when they automatically (and often scornfully) rule out the possibility of God having a role in physical phenomena.
Unlike many people here, I find no conflict with Christianity and Evolution. And I find it odd that people who would otherwise claim that God is omnipotent, would also claim that He could not create the process of evolution.
Personally I don't worry too much about it. My belief in God doesn't hinge on the truth or falsity of evolution, which is, after all, no more than a possible mechanism for the expression of God's will.
From what I can tell, some of the Christians inhabiting these threads see it otherwise: that if evolution is true, then God does not exist. Ironically, by taking that position the anti-evolution Christians place themselves in full agreement with the "atheist evolutionists," such as those on this thread -- which suggests that those Christians don't even "have faith as small as a mustard seed."
He designed you, and you say he sucks?
God's ways are not our ways.
You were designed.
Actually, this is speaking only for myself (which I find safer) it has to do with His trustworthiness.
If evolution is true, then why was the book of Genesis written the way it was? You can say that G-d used metaphor to communicate a higher truth, but is it reasonable that He would use a metaphor that is so completely false when trying to teach the truth?
G-d knows what reality is. He is certainly able to ensure that His word conforms to reality while imparting truths to us.
Now, I know that there are issues with what scientists believe their research has shown and what Bible scholars believe the Bible says. I also know those issues aren't easily resolved with what we know now.
But I am sure they will be. Between now and then, all I ask is that the debate be reasonable and that people quit accusing each other of being brainless.
None of us are brainless, but we are all biased. It is part of being human.
Shalom.
Shh! You're not supposed to give it away. It is a parable.
I wish I could see 'em. But I can't.
Shalom.
I take it that life and reality are not as you would like it to be. (A bit spoiled, are we?)
You must have a terrible time accepting things you cannot change - makes for a very frustrating, angry life, does it not?
This was the struggle in the 19th century. Before that, people would include supernatural causes in trying to explain observed phenomena.
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
The Death of Spontaneous Generation: After a number of further investigations had failed to solve the problem, the French Academy of Sciences, in January 1860, offered a prize for contributions that would "attempt, by means of well-devised experiments, to throw new light on the question of spontaneous generation." In response to this challenge, Louis Pasteur, who at that time was a chemist, subjected flasks containing a sugared yeast solution to a variety of conditions. Pasteur was able to demonstrate conclusively that any microorganisms that developed in suitable media came from microorganisms in the air, not from the air itself, as Needham had suggested. Support for Pasteur's findings came in 1876 from an English physicist, John Tyndall, who devised an apparatus to demonstrate that air had the ability to carry particulate matter. Because such matter in air reflects light when the air is illuminated under special conditions, Tyndall's apparatus could be used to indicate when air was pure. Tyndall found that no organisms were produced when pure air was introduced into media capable of supporting the growth of microorganisms. It was these results, together with Pasteur's findings, that put an end to the doctrine of spontaneous generation.
When Pasteur later showed that parent microorganisms generate only their own kind, he thereby established the study of microbiology. Moreover, he not only succeeded in convincing the scientific world that microbes are living creatures, which come from preexisting forms, but also showed them to be an immense and varied component of the organic world, a concept that was to have important implications for the science of ecology. Further, by isolating various species of bacteria and yeasts in different chemical media, Pasteur was able to demonstrate that they brought about chemical change in a characteristic and predictable way, thus making a unique contribution to the study of fermentation and to biochemistry.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've had a couple of creo posts removed. Both were by the same raving idiot, whom I shall not name, but whose posts are always incoherent and rambling (unless he's doing a cut-n-paste job). In one case he accused me of being a commie, in another of being a gay nazi. No one reads that bozo's postings, but those items just had to go. They were irrelevant to the "evolution vs. creationism" issue anyway, except to demonstrate the insanity of one particular creo. I've never tried to get him banned.
Disclaimer--- this is an attempt at humor ---
Why did he stop short and not call you a Darwinist gay nazi? At least he would have been assured of being one third correct.
Tomatoes only, cabbage hurts.
Yes. Do you see the people of that time understanding the scientific mechanisms used that allowed for life to come in existence as it is now?
The point was to let them know that God was the reason for life.
And Christians dare to oppose Allah! They mock Buddha!!! They will not inherit Paradise/They will be reincarnated as monkey dung!
It's that word "natural" that's the problem. Since (as asserted above) God is not "natural," scientists doing science must assume that He plays a role in any natural process. Conveniently for the atheists, this approach guarantees that the scientific method must place itself in opposition to the possibility that God exists. It also guarantees that there is no possible "scientific" test that can demonstrate the action of God.
The logical system derived from this belief is useful. This does not prove the premise's truth, but it proves the usefulness of the premise.
The necessary and sufficient condition for the logical system is that phenomena must be explainable in terms of consistent mechanisms. There is no logical need for the additional proposition that God does not exist. The roots of that assertion rest in something other than scientific necessity.
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.