Nick:==
>> On a more general note, I suggest you think hard about what you are
>> trying to acheive in your posts. Since you apparently haven't noticed,
almost
>> everyone here is Christian and committed to reconciling science and
>> Christianity.
>
RL:==
>Depends on what you consider being a Christian anyone can say they are a
>Christian but you judge a tree by it's fruit. I have a real problem with
>believing those who profess to being Christians yet disguard huge books of
>the bible such as Genesis as mythology. If I worked at General Motors and
>never followed the manual on how to build cars I don't think I would be
>working there very long.
>
Randy, I think your real problem is that people disregard *your* interpretation
of large parts of the bible. Hugh Ross attributes the following statement to
Galileo:
"The holy scriptures cannot err and the decrees therein contained
are absolutely true and inviolable. But ... its expounders and
interpreters are liable to err in many ways." -- Galileo
Later on you wrote:
"It's disappointing Nick that you must result to insults to make your
point. If I have offended you or anyone else in anyway I am truly sorry."
-- RL
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is
a sincere statement on your part. Don't you see, though, that one of the
main reasons that people have reacted negatively towards you is that
your posts contain little else but insults? This is why I suggested earlier
that you see to your own rotting mouth before passing judgement on
others.
[...]
RL:====
>It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science
>but religion. Science, of course, involves observation, using one or more
>of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearting, touch) to gain knowledge
>about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one
>can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to
>understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of
>years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the
>simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first
>life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe
>the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 to 20 billion years ago,
>nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even
>10,000 years ago?). No scientist was there -no human witness was there eto
>see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.
>
I think you've made a valid point here that I tend to appreciate I think
more than most since I'm involved heavily with experimental work
wherein the distinctions between observations and theories are very
important. I wouldn't mind giving my answer to this criticism, but
hesitate for two reasons (1) I'm not too knowledgable on fine points
in the philosophy of science (2) I suspect it might be a waste of my
time in view of the nature of your responses in the past.
So, I'll put detailed criticisms of your point aside for the time being
and just note that one criticism that several people have had against
you is the lack of consistency in your arguments. For example, you
have previously stated that you think creationism is scientific.
In view of this and your above argument against evolution being
scientific I would have to conclude that creation scientists were
present and taking notes when God first created life on earth,
whenever that may have been.
[...]
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |