Comment deleted by an Administrator
Science is like anything else people do: when scientists are fat and contented, they tend to get sloppy. Probably no field of science was more contented and satisfied with itself in the 20th Century than astronomy. All the planets had been found, most of the galaxies had been identified and the only question remaining was whether dark matter existed in the Universe.
Then, in 1995, the SWISS blew Astronomy's secure Universe wide open with Mayor and Queloz's detection of 51 Pegasi b. And, it didn't end there. In barely 15 years, so many impossibles have been breached in the search for life and civilizations across the Cosmos it would take volumes to account for it all. Suffice it to say Stephane Udry's rule that "every place there can be a planet, there will be a planet" appears to be the new norm while Michio Kaku's dictum "Anything not proven to be impossible is mandatory" takes on a newer and far more expansive meaning.
Now, as we await the HARPS project's confirmation that Gliese 581 d has organic life, we can ponder the significance of Martinus Beijerinck's "Everything is everywhere. The environment decides."
None of this was on Astronomy's radar screen twenty years ago. Not even a hint. Then, one day it ended and all it took were a handful of SWISS sceptics.
P. S. If you want to see American astronomers and astro physicists with scowls on their face and smoke pouring from their ears, laud the Swiss. And, if you want to see their heads explode, ask they how many years it will be until America overtakes the SWISS.
Comment deleted by an Administrator
If scepticism in science is a good thing then is it not also good when confronting the unlikely scenarios presented by the Bible? If any one of us, and I'd venture to add Scott into the mix, was confronted today with the story of a virgin birth and 'the rest of the story' that makes up the backdrop for Christianity, I venture to say we would all meet it with a very healthy dose of scepticism.
That is for sure, and as planned. There is no doubt that ONLY God could have made Mary pregnant with no sperm being involved in the action.
The interesting thing is: that the family line of mankind was unbroken from Adam until Mary. When she conceived, her offspring (Jesus, not her other children) was the start of a NEW family line, not of the seed of man. If you follow this reasoning and teaching throughout the Bible (that is from Genesis through Revelation) you see that it was predicted long before the event took place. Again, this could have only been because God was the planner.
NO. Mary had other kids. (no HER other children)
If Jesus was the beginning of a new family line and he didn't have children then he was also the end of the line.
Just in time for the holidays...another opportunity to preach.
Which also has no scientific basis at all.
posted by wot53
over 2 years ago
The curse of sin that was brought into the family line of mankind since Adam was/is in each one of us. It was NOT in Jesus because of the previously mentioned fact. Therefore HE is the beginning of a new family line which includes anyone who trusts in His death as a penalty for our sin (fallen nature since Adam). As I said, ALL forseen in Scripture even as far back as the book of Genesis.
