Dear Regner,If only that were true! Science should indeed be a method for enquiry but sadly science's original clear and tight definition has long been rejected for a more liberal definition. Pretty much any kind of idea is now taught in universities, colleges and schools (less the problems associated with them of course) as being the truth until another truth comes along. It is all very well blaming the media for disseminating false information but you don't hear much from the scientific community refuting their excesses. That should be a part of scientific integrity. There is an excellent verse in the Bible that describes exactly the so-called modern scientific processes: *//*^
/'always learning and never able to come to the //knowledge of the truth.' /My claim regarding evolution and the Big Bang is most definately, repeat definately not wrong! Without the rational acceptance of an un-caused first cause you have absolutely nothing to base your theories of origins on. I deliberately used the word 'rational' because it comes closer to giving a meaningful scientific attitude to origins. Your insistence that it is unimportant is a disgraceful scientific cop-out.
I cannot really believe that you think Paul's building analogy and the loss of the plans is worthy of intelligent consideration. You believe that matter somehow created itself, whereas I believe it was helped by an un-caused first cause. I think my belief is a more intelligent belief than your belief. Materialistically speaking and thermodynamically speaking, you cannot get 'owt from now't'.
Regards Jack Regner Trampedach wrote:
Jack, Of course there are problems - there are things we don't know yet. Will you please allow science that. And remember; science is a method for inquiry - it is not a set of facts. Anyway, none of that has anything to do with the claim of yours that I replied to, which was (paraphrased): "that without knowing HOW life or the Universe started, the scientific theories of evolution and big bang fall apart." That claim is wrong, and others have pointed that out too. I think it was Paul who used the analogy of a house and the blue-print for the house - the house will still stand, if the blue- print was destroyed. Regner Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:Sorry Regner but your Big Bang and evolution are both beset with serious problems. See the attachments to my reply to Paul's e-mail.Jack L----- Original Message ----- From: "Regner Trampedach" <art@xxxxxxxxxx>To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:58 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in scienceNot at all, Jack. Evolution does NOT rest on abiogenesis - there could just as well be a divine creation of life, some 3.4 billion years ago, that then evolved. As I have said before, evolution says nothing about HOW life STARTED. Just as the Big Bang model doesn't say why and how it all started. It does however provide us with a pretty good idea of what happened afterwards - as confirmed by observations. - Regner
