to Christians in this forum...

Unfortunately, it seems that there can indeed be an influence between who has the money and the power, and the nature of how science gets done. The Bush administration, in particular, has been accused of promoting bad science, and suppressing good science.But this is a matter that should go to a new "Is It Science?" topic. I'm not going to be the one to start it.Moose (note: not in "admin mode")

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Mnenth writes:

quote:

---

leviticus 14 never says that god caused leprosy...

---

Go back and read verse 34.

quote:

---

it provides an old testiment method for healing, which doesnt apply anymore, since jesus came.

---

Where in the bible does it say that?

Mnenth observes:

quote:

---

1 corinthians 7 is Paul saying that people should stick with their husband/wife, and not go around sleeping (fornicating) with other people.

---

Indeed it is. However in the course of doing so, Paul makes it very clear that he feels marriage is an undesirable necessity. This represents a drastic difference of opinion between Paul and Jesus.EDITED to correct quote command error.[This message has been edited by berberry, 04-03-2004]

What are you talking about? The word emotion doesn't even appear in my post.I have no fear in this matter. I never have and I never will.But apparently, I am so frightened of science that I allow myself to work in the field just so I can get myself on fear factor. Don't go making rash and un-educated statements about someone you don't even know. The only reason I put you in my post is because I had read how much you took issue with young earth creationists.If you consider a literal interpretation of Genesis dogma, then by all means, knock yourself out. I have no problem with viewing the Bible as the literal and inerrant Word of God. If you do, then that's your issue that has nothing to do with me. However, should a person view it literal (such as myself), then I have to look at the linear relationship of time and determine the fact that evolution runs counter to the doctrine of salvation.

Cynic1,If you are correct, and you may be, then we need different words for developement via natural selection and developement via artificial selection. Nearly everyone sees "evolution" and "intelligent design" as conflicting ideas, which, if you are right, is not the case.Confusion is not good. Neither is jargon, but....Stephen

I hate it when scientists steal words. Take "accelerate" for example. To normal people, it means "go faster." To science people, it means "to change velocity." It is a sad day indeed when highly accredited people of reason believe that one can be accelerating when one is slowing down. It makes me wonder if physicists get into car accidents when they hit the accelerator, forgetting that it isn't also a brake.The same thing happened with evolution. In common parlance, the word "evolution" simply means change over time. Our technology level has evolved, our culture has evolved, our language has evolved, etc. Now those word thieves have taken another perfectly good word and assigned it a more specific connotation than it should have. Maybe they didn't mean to, but that is what happened, and they should apologize and make up a new word.You may be right that we need different words for natural and artificial selection development in biology, I simply submit that evolution is a word that fits both. Perhaps a qualifier such as "NS" or "AS" before evolution (or whatever word biologists make up instead)?[This message has been edited by Cynic1, 04-05-2004]

quote:

---

But apparently, I am so frightened of science that I allow myself to work in the field just so I can get myself on fear factor. Don't go making rash and un-educated statements about someone you don't even know. The only reason I put you in my post is because I had read how much you took issue with young earth creationists.

---

That freaks me out more than anything you've said. So far, every scientific theory you've tried to use to support young Earth creationism have been shot down by people on these forums, including that second law of thermodynamics you posted in my thread that showed you had absolutely no idea how to apply the law regarding entropy. Yet, you claim to work in the field of science.

Where do you get this idea from, that Paul feels marriage is an undesirable necessity? I Corinthians 7:7, I suppose. "For I would that all men were even as myself (unmarried)..." But you miss the rest of the verse, "But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." That seems to say that both states, married or unmarried, are gifts from God.Regarding the subtitle of this thread, we should listen to both the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles because they are both God-breathed, and there are no contradictions.

funkman cavils:

quote:

---

Regarding the subtitle of this thread, we should listen to both the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles because they are both God-breathed, and there are no contradictions.

---

According to Romans 1, Jesus was the son of Joseph. According to Matthew 1 it was the holy ghost. Is Joseph the holy ghost?According to John 2 Jesus approves of drinking wine. Paul, in Romans 14, clearly does not.A few other NT contradictions:According to 1 John 3 whoever abides in Christ does not sin. But Paul disagrees, as he says in Romans 3 that all are sinful. Does the word 'all' exclude Christians?According to 1 John 4 God is love, but according to Paul in Romans 9 God hated Esau. Are love and hate the same thing when it comes to God?Sorry if you want specific verses quoted. Whenever I do that, I get cursed for taking passages out of context. I do not wish that you should read any of my quotes out of context, so in most cases I will quote entire chapters. I don't think it should be necessary that I link the relevant chapters. Your statement above makes it quite clear that you know everything the bible says, so it would be redundant for me to provide links.

quote:

---

But apparently, I am so frightened of science that I allow myself to work in the field just so I can get myself on fear factor.

---

Do you insert supernatural mechanisms in your hypotheses? Do you use a uniformitarian presupposition in your work? What I am getting at is this: You probably exclude the supernatural in the work you do, and yet you want evolutionists to accept a creationist theory that inserts the supernatural. Wouldn't you agree that science works best when excluding the supernatural?

I think this topic is terminally off-topic, so I will reply to Cynic1:

quote:

---

I hate it when scientists steal words. Take "accelerate" for example. To normal people, it means "go faster." To science people, it means "to change velocity."...

---

Indeed there are "common use" definitions, and more precise "scientific" definitions. In science "speed" and "velocity" are not the same. Speed is a rate of movement, and velocity is a rate of movement in a specific direction. Velocity is a vector quantity. An accelerating force can change the direction of movement, while the speed remains constant. A change in velocity without a change in speed. Also, in science, a slowing of speed may be looked upon as a result of a negative acceleration.

quote:

---

The same thing happened with evolution. In common parlance, the word "evolution" simply means change over time...

---

Indeed, that is the broad definition of evolution (see my "evolution" quote, in my signature). Thus the "fact" of the evolution of life. The nature of life on Earth has changed over time. The theory of (biological) evolution is the best scientific attempt at explaining the processes of the change.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Post number 14 Secondlaw is where you accuse me of "emotion", which was your excuse to challenge and boast about your YEC.There are eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.The literal hebrew, according to the best scholarship, has Genesis 1:2 saying "And the Earth became a waste and a desolation".Genesis 1:28 has God saying "REplenish" the Earth, and not "plenish".YEC is a reaction of fear to the CLAIMS of scientism/evolution.Evolution only disproves the God of Genesis IF the filter of your worldview is operating.The scientific evidence that supports evolution diproves Genesis/God only IF it is INTERPRETED to say so.SL : we are on the same side, but I go through life having to defend and pay penance for the nonsense of a young (6-7 thousand years) Earth. The Bible says a thousand years are like a day to God, and even though some TEists will seize on this it doesn't make evolution anymore true. It only confuses the matter and creates the backlash of fear/YEC.

I realize that sarcasm can be hard to convey in a couple of written paragraphs, but I thought I was laying it on pretty thick. I thought I was being fairly obvious when I referred to scientists as "word thieves." You didn't really have to give me the high school physics class explanation of the scientific usage of "accelerate." There are lots of words with multiple meanings, take the word, "run," for example.I'll try to be make the sarcasm more obvious in the future to avoid any more misunderstandings.

I apologize for forgetting about my post in 14.I understand that we are on the 'same' side regarding creation and evolution. However, I disagree with the interpretation therein.Formless and void is just as much a reputable exegesis of the text. Therefore, there is no factual basis to your claim of the best scholarship.In regards to 1:28. There word plenish would have no place in this manner and is not subject to the re- part. Besides, the definition of replenish (from Webster's) is as follows: to fill with persons or animals: stock. to supply fully. to fill with inspiration or power: nourish. The situation that you are trying to use in this situation is similar to the argument between regardless and irregardless. They mean the same thing and are not exclusive.I have no idea where you get your idea that young earth creationism is a reactionary method to fear. State your case using some sort of fact and let's dialogue about it. But I find it very frustrating that you are trying to make an emotional situation out of this. I have not come to you stating anything as derogatory as you have brought up regarding people who hold this belief. Doctrinally, young earth creationism is very strong. Scientifically, depending on what mechanism you want to evaluate, is also very strong.I have no idea what your past has taken you through, but having to 'pay penance' for a belief is nonsense. I have differing views from those in the Body and those out, but to allow myself to deal with those people and consider it penance because of something is far from my mindset. I could give a rip if someone has a differing point of view. I shall not be belittled because of it. As a Christian, I find anything other than YEC difficult to swallow, because of the implications to salvation. However, if that is what you feel is correct; then as I said before, knock yourself out. But, please, do not degrade me or my intellect because I do not agree and feel supported in that belief.

I wish I could give you a better answer that what I am about to give you, but it just can't come.My degree is in polymers and coatings. I have a b.s. My understanding is better placed in the mechanisms of chain combination and such. However, most of these have to do with inorganic matters, such as the contemporary term of paints, plastics...Therefore, my work does not incorporate base-line procedures such as you describe. However I can answer you this one thing. I run into occasions, as all people do, when something happens that just can't be explained. I will ponder it and look. I will pray, to my God, for insight into how this certain thing came about. I, then, will receive revelation from God about this. Revelation through reading, seeing, evaluating, anything and everything that could be a device for learning. And, yes, sometimes it comes as though from nowhere, but nonetheless, the answer is from God. God, to me, is the Author of all Laws. He is the Absolute. Things are not in chaos, because He exists. Therefore, I don't see a problem in reconciling the two.