In this week's AR he writes...

Quote:

---

In other words, though even one
supernatural event undermines the philosophical
foundation of the whole modern scientific tradition,
the obvious existence of natural law in no way
undermines the supernatural.

---

Utter rubbish.

Modern scientific tradition is based on developing equations and ideas that usually fairly accurately predict the future.

No scientist believes that the equations ALWAYS work - they are approximations. Unfortunately, for Clifford, they predict the future MUCH more often and MORE more precisely than the imprecise and unspecified hand-wave that is short age creationism.

Poor guy - he wants so desparately to have a logical reason why evolution is wrong that he forgets to look at the whole picture.

The real sad thing is this nonsense is repeatedly touted in the SDA church's main publication.

/Bevin

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, for Clifford, they predict the future MUCH more often and MORE more precisely than the imprecise and unspecified hand-wave that is short age creationism.

---

ROFL

Not sure that's actually a response, Shane. Does the laughter connote the idea that the laws of science *don't* predict our everyday experiences more often and more precisely than miracles? That is, are you claiming that miracles that break the laws of science occur more often than just the normal functioning of those laws?

By the way, Clifford is wrong because he claims a single miracle would call into question the whole of the scientific paradigm: but the scientific paradigm effectively is disconnected from the miraculous... that is, a miracle is by definition an event inaccessible to scientific study (yeah, I know, the residue is able to be studied).

Ah well...

The laws of science do predict our everyday activities. Newton's laws of physics impact us everyday - but remember Newton was one of these Creationists that the secular evolutions don't really believe are real scientists. Imagine where we would be without Creationist Newton's laws of physics. Kind of makes one laugh when they hear secular evolutionsists insult and demean creationists.

Creation scientists do not disagree about the laws that predict our everyday activities. They disagree about the orgins of the universe. They don't disagree with the evidence. They disagree about what the evidence means.

Clifford Goldstein is a scholar and if one wants to discuss articles he writes, they should open such a discussion in a civil manner. When they start such a discussion like a raving secularist, with an inflated sense of self-importance, they should not expect anyone with any respect to take them seriously.

Cliff makes many good points. As to science, it is a religion with unnumbered thousands in its pews, each of who will wake up empty when the Almighty reveals His power.

It is a testament of unbelief when professed Christians care more for Porphyry then they do for the eternal Word of God.



gcw

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_creation_scientists.htm

/Bevin

Secular huminists just cannot accept that religous people can actually be scientists. They cannot simply agree to disagree and distinguish themselves of another opinion. They must assualt and attack creationists for even trying to be among them as the same class. It goes back to Daniel chapter 11 and the war between the King of the South and the King of the North, doesn't it?

Isaac Newton: Theology, Prophecy, Science and Religion

Quote:

---

.” Newton told Bentley that “ye diurnal rotations of ye Sun & Planets as they could hardly arise from any cause purely mechanical . . . they seem to make up that harmony in ye systeme wch . . . was the effect of choice rather than of chance.” Newton later added a concluding General Scholium to the Principia in which he made the argument from design explicit, proclaiming that “This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” The final line of the theological portion of the General Scholium concludes: “And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy”.

---

Quote:

---

There could be no mistaking Newton’s commitment to the design argument when, in the second (1713) edition of Principia, he added the natural theological apologetics of the General Scholium. Not only does he assert that the finely-tuned solar system could only have come from “the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being,” and that the stellar systems were “constructed according to a similar design and subject to the dominion of One,” but he goes on to discuss the nature of God’s dominion of his creatures and creation, thus confirming that the study of nature was meant to teach us about God’s character and attributes.

---

Quote:

---

Secular huminists just cannot accept that religous people can actually be scientists

---

Science is a VERY vague term, covering everything from particle physics to geology. It is unified by the fundamental idea of trying to produce models that predict the future most of the time with a high degree of accuracy.

Certainly a person can do this, while also believing in God and miracles, because miracles that violate the models that have been developed so far don't happen frequently.

There is NOTHING in this fundamental idea that says God could not exist, Jesus could not exist, or Jesus could not be the Son of God. The models that science has developed so far allow all these to happen.

This is Clifford's first fundamental error. He does not realize that science does not preclude miracles.

Clifford's second fundamental error is to think that, to be religious, one has to accept a short-age recent creationism. This is simply not true - there are many sincere Christians who believe that the evolutionary model most accurately predicts what we find un the universe around us, and who understand that the short-age creation model as currently proposed usually can not predict what we find.

I know lots of them myself, and am in that group myself.

I know it is convenient for you to equate atheist and evolutionist but it is a false alignment.

/Bevin

I have seen programs on Sky Angel which propose an evolutionic creation that occured over billions of years. There are a number of Christians and other religious people that embrace that. However these people do not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God in the same way that evangelicals that believe in the literal six-day creation do.

Seventh-day Adventists are a group of people called forth to preach the end time message which they believe to be found within the Three Angel's Message. This begins with a call to worship God as Creator, which according to the Fourth Commandment, is honoring the Sabbath day. Thus, while it is possible to be a Christian and believe in evolutionic creation, it is nearly impossible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and believe in the same.

Bevin, you sure didn't disappoint me. I have been wondering how long it will take you to post something about Goldstein after Shane started his thread on him.

Could you please tell us one evolutionist scientist that believes in miracles other than the miracle of bringing order out of chaos by the god evolution?

Gerry