Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised

From: allenroy (
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 23:46:28 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: YEC Invasion"

    Michael Roberts wrote:

    > > Not at all. For physics and chemistry to be done they need at
    least these
    > two important presuppositions: 1) uniformity of law over space and
    time, and
    > 2) uniformity of processes over space and time. Both Naturalism and
    > Creationism have these presuppositions, so physics and chemistry are
    > much the same in either paradigm. The only difference might be when
    > becomes an issue. Such as when it comes to the Creation week of
    > biosphere and the Flood Cataclysm. Witness evidence supplied by the
    > Spirit through inspiration constrains the time since those events.
    > > Allen
    > Michael Roberts wrote:
    > This is simply appealing to a false understanding of the Bible with
    roots with
    > the so-called revelations to Ellen White. It is acceptable neither to
    > who accord authority to the Bible or to those who accept the findings
    > science.

    So far as I know, Del Ratzsch is not an SDA. He is a Professor of
    at Calvin College, which is not a SDA college. While, the article he
    wrote was
    published in an SDA magazine, it does not mean that Del is a SDA. SDA
    do not publish material only by SDAs.

    > Michael Roberts wrote:
    > If you are willing to believe such unbelievable stuff then there is no
    > in attempting any theological or rational discussion. It has no more
    to do
    > with the Holy Spirit than the cult in Waco some 10 years ago.

    Boy! Someone sure pushed your buttons!!
    The concepts present by Ratzsch are not SDA teaching. It is basic
    involving science which can be found on the internet. It appears to be
    something which you know very little about. The two basic
    (mentioned above) that are absolutely essential for science to function,
    I did
    not learn from any SDA source, but from atheist Stephen J. Gould. I
    merely note
    that these presuppositions can also have a Biblical philosophical basis,
    than just a Naturalistic basis.

    > Michael Roberts wrote:
    > Sorry to be blunt, but but those who want to add to the revelation of
    > are totally and utterly wrong and should not be regarded as anything
    but some
    > kind of heretic. It would be far more honest to say that you reject
    > teaching of science because of the visions of a Victorian lady and not
    > pretend that your beliefs have any scientific substance to them.

    Not only does it appear that you know very little about the
    concepts Ratzsch (and others) is talking about, you also know very
    little about
    SDA beliefs and history. And it appears that what little you do know
    about the
    latter is entirely erroneous, highly prejudicial, and perhaps,


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 23:49:19 EDT