>Let us not confuse how God upholds the creation and the laws that we use to
>describe parts of it, e.g. solar system. The former we know nothing about.
>The latter are just humanly created models, viz. toys, which are useful to
>get us from one place of the solar system to another. Remember the map of a
>city which is never the real city. Our toy model of the solar system is not
>the real thing.
Let me ask what the deficit is in a GR description of the solar system?
Considering that GR is probably the most accurately verified theory as far
as predictions are concerned, exactly what is the evidence that it doesn't
fit reality? Is there empirical mis-fits between GR and observation?
>Once a defense lawyer told me that I would never serve in a criminal case as
>a juror. The reason: as I scientist I would demand too much proof.
>Therefore, all good scientists would be excused by the prosecution. I just
>cannot swallow the basic notion of evolutionary theory. It is too ambitious
>and it may be based on the false premise that the living came from the
>non-living with no supernatural help.
Reminds me of a cabbie upon whose jury I sat. He was protesting a speeding
ticket. The cop testified that the cab went from zero to 60 mph in 100
feet. While no one else on the jury understood what I was saying, I know the
cabbie didn't drive a dragster or a 737! Through my influence the jury let
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
Foundation, Fall and Flood