From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 23:46:28 EDT
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
pretty
> much the same in either paradigm. The only difference might be when
time
> becomes an issue. Such as when it comes to the Creation week of
earth's
> biosphere and the Flood Cataclysm. Witness evidence supplied by the
Holy
> 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
those
> who accord authority to the Bible or to those who accept the findings
of
> science.
Allen:
So far as I know, Del Ratzsch is not an SDA. He is a Professor of
Philosophy
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
magazines
do not publish material only by SDAs.
> Michael Roberts wrote:
> If you are willing to believe such unbelievable stuff then there is no
point
> 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.
Allen:
Boy! Someone sure pushed your buttons!!
The concepts present by Ratzsch are not SDA teaching. It is basic
philosophy
involving science which can be found on the internet. It appears to be
something which you know very little about. The two basic
presuppositions
(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,
rather
than just a Naturalistic basis.
> Michael Roberts wrote:
> Sorry to be blunt, but but those who want to add to the revelation of
Christ
> 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
the
> teaching of science because of the visions of a Victorian lady and not
to
> pretend that your beliefs have any scientific substance to them.
Allen:
Not only does it appear that you know very little about the
philosophical
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,
deliberately
malevolent.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 23:49:19 EDT