RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT so wrong?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/27/2008 10:08:44 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 162
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Targum reads it like this, "...the sound of the Word of the Lord God walking in the garden..." Clear enough?
quote:
"Targum" refers to an Aramaic translation, not the Aramaic translation:
Are we clear, yet? No. Where did I say anything about Aramaic?
It was the divine Logos, the Word - i.e. Christ - who walked in the garden. And indeed, this has nothing to do with the OP.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/27/2008 10:17:49 AM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 118
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, science doesn't advance by method of proclamation and essentialsaltes (and the secular community) continues to think it does. I encourage everyone to look at both sides of the argument for themselves (ie: and visit www.halos.com and the website that essentialsaltes gave). A careful observation of the evidence and arguments on all sides is how science advances, the secular community (or essentialsaltes) simply disregarding something because they disagree with it is not.
Following your link, I see that of the 6 Gentry papers on cosmology listed at the site, one was published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, four were never published, and only one was published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, Modern Physics Letters A.
I looked at the Modern Physics Letters article. It is based on the assumption that the earth lies near the "center" of the universe, a location radically different from most of the rest of the universe.
Now, not only is there no observational evidence for this assumption, there is plenty of observational evidence for the opposite assumption. The fact is, the rest of the universe looks remarkably like the region near us.
I find it supremely ironic that you write so positively about this work, based on completely unsupported assumptions, while at the same time you disparage the "assumptions" used in radiometric and geological dating - things that are not assumptions at all, but are conclusions based on evidence.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/27/2008 1:15:09 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1361
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: robto
Now, not only is there no observational evidence for this assumption
Actually, it's based on the fact that everything seems to be expanding outward from us at a uniform rate in every which direction. Einstein speculates that it's because space itself is expanding and that we should see this same effect everywhere we go in the universe (ie: from other galaxies, but at the moment, we can't test that) but, if memory serves me correctly, even Hubble initially admitted (in a book or something) that it looks like we are the center of the universe (and then later Einstein speculated space expansion to explain that, speculating that we should get the same effect everywhere). Gentry explains this in his center of the universe videos and he quotes Hubble on that.
http://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm#cou
So to say that it's not based on any observable evidence is nonsense. It's simply based on a different interpretation of the same evidence. I'm not going to argue whether or not we are the center of the universe, we may or may not be, I just want to point out that it's not based on zero evidence. The initial reaction from those who discovered that it looks like we're the center of the universe was that it looks like the center of the universe. That would be the simplest, most intuitive conclusion. Of course, the secular community couldn't handle this so they eventually had to find a way to interpret the evidence differently (or "solve" the problem that this poses to naturalism, by asserting that we would have this same effect everywhere in the universe, which is a more complicated, non - intuitive, unfalsifiable explanation).
The same is true with the halos
quote:
Part of his appeal was based on the fact that no one would really know how to answer the claim "that the presence of Polonium halos in granite demonstrates that granite had to have formed suddenly (i.e., was specially created)."
http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/index.htm
The fact is, the simplest, most intuitive conclusion from the halos is that it suggests that the earth was created rapidly. Of course, the secular community can't accept the simplest, most intuitive conclusion because it poses a problem for naturalism so they must try to "solve" the problem that this poses to naturalism by trying to find other explanations (and Gentry responds to those attempted explanations on his website).
quote:
there is plenty of observational evidence for the opposite assumption.
Just a different interpretation of the same evidence.
quote:
The fact is, the rest of the universe looks remarkably like the region near us.
Actually, Jhud recently posted a more recent article showing this to be false.
The Solar System is Special
I would say that there is little to suggest that the rest of the universe looks remarkably like the region near us, despite efforts by materialists (and the secular community) to try to interpret the evidence otherwise.
quote:
I find it supremely ironic that you write so positively about this work, based on completely unsupported assumptions, while at the same time you disparage the "assumptions" used in radiometric and geological dating - things that are not assumptions at all, but are conclusions based on evidence.
Oh yes, because you can proclaim something not to be an assumption and because you can proclaim that something is a conclusion based on evidence, it must be so.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/27/2008 1:31:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
