home
radioThese are reader comments for the article 'Two Sorts of Science'
Reader Comments
Posted by Neil Gussman in Philadelphia @ 13:19 on Jun 7 2006
I work for an library and museum of science in America. The books in our library date back to the invention of printing, most of them are, of course from Europe. I am sorry that in exchange for these wonderful texts we have sent Answers in Genesis back to you. Taylor says many serious scientists believe as he does. Can he name a Nobel laureate who does?
I work for an library and museum of science in America. The books in our library date back to the invention of printing, most of them are, of course from Europe. I am sorry that in exchange for these wonderful texts we have sent Answers in Genesis back to you. Taylor says many serious scientists believe as he does. Can he name a Nobel laureate who does?
Reply by Lowell Freeman in Wattsburg, Pa. , USA @ 02:16 on Apr 8 2007
Given the state of "science", what are the chances of someone who is outside the realm of "accepted thought" winning a nobel prize in science?
Alternatives cannot even get published for debate, much less win prizes.
Given the state of "science", what are the chances of someone who is outside the realm of "accepted thought" winning a nobel prize in science?
Alternatives cannot even get published for debate, much less win prizes.
Posted by Paul Poulton in Staffordshire UK @ 21:18 on Jun 6 2006
As Dr. Gerald Schroeder points out, who is right the Bible or the scientists?
They both are.
Time is relative to the gravity of the mass you are standing on. Compared to earth, time is slower on the sun but quicker on the moon.
The universe has a lot of mass in it.
Time can be 15 billion years in one place but only six days in another.
As Dr. Gerald Schroeder points out, who is right the Bible or the scientists?
They both are.
Time is relative to the gravity of the mass you are standing on. Compared to earth, time is slower on the sun but quicker on the moon.
The universe has a lot of mass in it.
Time can be 15 billion years in one place but only six days in another.
Posted by Sid in UK @ 20:34 on Jun 6 2006
I'm disappointed with Paul Taylor's article, as the last line should read, "There are no assumptions that agree with the bible."
When it comes to the age of the Earth and, for that matter, the univrse. Scientific evidence backs "these assumptions" up.
Why does Paul grasp at these straws? It is most probable that Paul knows that his readership has little, or no knowledge in basic geology or geography. Nor science.
I'm disappointed with Paul Taylor's article, as the last line should read, "There are no assumptions that agree with the bible."
When it comes to the age of the Earth and, for that matter, the univrse. Scientific evidence backs "these assumptions" up.
Why does Paul grasp at these straws? It is most probable that Paul knows that his readership has little, or no knowledge in basic geology or geography. Nor science.
Posted by Edmund in Tunbridge Wells @ 18:30 on Jun 6 2006
Answers in Genesis is a site for people who can't reconcile reality with their faith. Evangelical Christians don't need to be literalist Christians!
Answers in Genesis is a site for people who can't reconcile reality with their faith. Evangelical Christians don't need to be literalist Christians!
Reply by Donald Wood in County Durham @ 22:24 on Mar 26 2007
Answers in Genesis is a site for thinking people who want to reconcile their faith with observations made in the real world. I am a scientist with a PhD in Physics. I have worked as a scientist in the semiconductor industry for a number of years. I like to think that I can recognise science when I see it. Evolution is not science by any accepted definition of the word. It is a faith system. A world view. It doesn't explain the origin of information. It can't be repeated. It requires axioms that are provably incorrect - it disobeys both the first and second laws of Thermodynamics. No observation ever made by anyone has ever disobeyed either of these laws. So why accept a theory that disobeys both of them? That is a genuine question. The answer is that to accept evolution and billions of years is to write God out of the equation. If there is no God, we are free to do as we please. If the creation is just a myth, then maybe God is a myth too! Check out Psalm 2. People have always wanted to 'cast off their fetters'.
But praise be to God - he is gracious enough to accept us even if we are mistaken about these points.
Sir Isaac Newton was a literal creationist, and if my memory serves me well, he was a scientist too.
Answers in Genesis is a site for thinking people who want to reconcile their faith with observations made in the real world. I am a scientist with a PhD in Physics. I have worked as a scientist in the semiconductor industry for a number of years. I like to think that I can recognise science when I see it. Evolution is not science by any accepted definition of the word. It is a faith system. A world view. It doesn't explain the origin of information. It can't be repeated. It requires axioms that are provably incorrect - it disobeys both the first and second laws of Thermodynamics. No observation ever made by anyone has ever disobeyed either of these laws. So why accept a theory that disobeys both of them? That is a genuine question. The answer is that to accept evolution and billions of years is to write God out of the equation. If there is no God, we are free to do as we please. If the creation is just a myth, then maybe God is a myth too! Check out Psalm 2. People have always wanted to 'cast off their fetters'.
But praise be to God - he is gracious enough to accept us even if we are mistaken about these points.
Sir Isaac Newton was a literal creationist, and if my memory serves me well, he was a scientist too.
Posted by Raoul in US @ 15:10 on Jun 6 2006
Your argument that "we cannot do it again" is absurd. The chemical tests that scientists perform on rocks are indeed repeatable, which is why they have been accepted by the scientific community. If you wish to challenge these tests, you should do so directly rather than disingenuously making vague claims about their "big assumptions."
Your argument that "we cannot do it again" is absurd. The chemical tests that scientists perform on rocks are indeed repeatable, which is why they have been accepted by the scientific community. If you wish to challenge these tests, you should do so directly rather than disingenuously making vague claims about their "big assumptions."
Reply by Malc in USA @ 00:44 on Mar 28 2007
"we cannot do it again" means that you cannot go back billions of years to see the begining. And, there was a six year study I'm sure you'll be interested in called RATE. Short for Radioisotopes And The age of the Earth. This was done by highly qualified scientists and is but one example of "challenging the tests". Go to www.ICR.org...That is if your assumptions and biases aren't blinding you too much.
"we cannot do it again" means that you cannot go back billions of years to see the begining. And, there was a six year study I'm sure you'll be interested in called RATE. Short for Radioisotopes And The age of the Earth. This was done by highly qualified scientists and is but one example of "challenging the tests". Go to www.ICR.org...That is if your assumptions and biases aren't blinding you too much.
The opinions expressed in the Reader Comments are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms.
"ALL scripture is inspired of God & profitable etc" - God said what He did & how long it took - "In 6 Days God made the heavens & earth etc". "Evening & morning - 1 day".
Every radioactive dating method is deeply flawed & totally unreliable - for only God knows how much of the original elements were then present, how much has leached in & out, how much faster the decay proccesses were at Creation & Flood etc, & all the many other circumstances that hugely accerate any radio-decay [common ElectroMagnetics, as in lightning etc.]