Sucks to be you, doesn't it? Common ET goon, claiming someone is a troll...but hasn't enough self control to stop their own insanity...
Hi Barth, The more real and main problem with your lockdown argument actually about the idea that the natural world can only function because it was all worked out by the intelligent designs of a supernatural Giant Galactic Goblin, and how hard it would be to get that scientifically peer reviewed by scientists as a scientific hypothesis within science â¦. is that⦠it isn't science. You might have more luck getting the idea published by Marvel Comics, but I think you'll find it's already been done. regards., stu.
"Just like God promised" ? No way. That's not a promise. That's a vile and wretched trick. That is the description of a malicious , wicked and evil God. There is no decent human being , never mind a decent God who would do such a thing to someone like the character Adam in the story. Adam had no knowledge. He could not possibly know to understand what was right and wrong. In the Bible story, so called God didn't let him near the tree of knowledge. But did direct him to the tree of life, where God being all powerful, would know beforehand that Adam could not know to disobey was wrong. What an ugly, mean ,nasty, despicable thing God did to an uneducated , unknowledgeable, unknowing Adam. A God who would premeditatedly allow cancer, warfare, mass murder, ebola virus and malaria to be caused , because It deceived an innocent into something which could not be understood. What a crock your God is. How disgusting to think ideas of God should be worshipped by such stories.
Actually stu, we are in agreement. If one were to demand of the high lords of academia, its approval or verification, regarding the word of G-D, then it is no longer G-D speaking but rather man. Throughout the scripture, it is stated that man has fallen from his original state, and those who trust in the redemptive work of Christ, do so by faith. We are further likened to travellors, in the world but not of the world. Therefore, if we turn to the world, which has fallen to the point where it operates as a brute beast on its senses, and on what it can "know", to place its imprimatur on faith, then faith is easily handled and judged as unworthy by the sensual arts. And well it should be. The scriptures point outside of the boundaries of this world. It would be similar to that old Jefferson Airplane song that had a line loosely as this " Ask a western man about a tear and he will tell you about water and salt and the physical process; ask an eastern man and he will tell you about the love between a man and a woman" So, I agree that matters of faith, and indeed the tenants and doctrines of the christian faith have no business wallowing in the mire of the worlds concept of knowledge. As Overbeck rightly stated "..the antagonism between faith and knowledge is permanent and absolutely irreconcilable...." However, my problem with this issue of peer review is as follows: People of faith are also workers in this world, and they are engineers, chemists, biologists, physicists, etc.. These should have the ability to publish and debate their observations and thesis on the natural processes as they observe them along side of their peers. They are denied this function and ridiculed because these see the natural process as the handy work of the Creator. This view does not change the data they wish to put forth, but it does seem to change the gate code for entry.
No they should not if their work does not meet the required standards. There is no guarantee that a work is worthy of publication just because it's author has an academic or professional qualification. You want special rights just for religious cranks.
He certainly has all the trappings of kookiness. Disputes Special and General Relativity for which there is shed loads of evidence. Not to stop at half measures he also disputes quantum mechanics, without which, I might add, it is exceptionally unlikely that I would be typing this on a computer built around semiconductors.