Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GourmetDan
But the light from those stars we capture and study is direct evidence. Observable, repeatable, quantifiable and thus theory's can be extrapolated and put forth to the world community to apply scientific process and put those theory's to the test.

The evidence alone separates it from faith.
And in my opinion the scientific process is the best tool humanity has in "knowing" and explaining about our world and everything around us and it. yes there are still mysteries. Faith and science both seek similar goals at times, to solve those mysteries.
But you must have faith to believe in any of earths thousands of current religions.

Theology and philosophy is a different study then science.
And rightly so. If someone finds faith through science good for them. If someone finds no evidence of the supernatural in all our scientific endeavors good for them too. It is a personal choice in the end. Both sides would serve them well to be more respective of the other, and most certinaly do I believe. I think it is a small number from both sides the stir the pot.
242 posted on 09/27/2006 3:25:12 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies ]


To: Names Ash Housewares

Here you go.

Take a look at this site.

http://www.setterfield.org/relativityandc.html

What is observable and quantifiable can be interpreted in more than one way.

The 'scientific process' is limited *by definition* to natural explanations. Not the best 'a priori' limit to place on your acceptable explanations when supernatural vs natural is the question you are trying to answer.

It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science, *by definition*.

Don't be deceived.


592 posted on 09/28/2006 5:40:01 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]

To: Names Ash Housewares

Here's one for you from Halton Arp. He's the guy who discovered that redshift didn't equal distance and was refused telescope time for his discovery.

Such is how 'science' treats dissenters.

http://www.haltonarp.com/

Here's his Wiki entry for an easier read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Then see Tifft for his work on 'quantized' redshifts, which mean that redshifts don't represent distance, but some other quality of the object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

There are a lot more opinions of the evidence that 'standard science' would admit.

These guys are particularly interesting.

http://www.holoscience.com/

Have fun...


621 posted on 09/28/2006 6:23:58 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson