Assuming the theory of relativity is something you accept, how is that testable, observable and provable by your definition of those terms? What about predictability? If I can take 2 chemicals and predict how much of a third chemical will result from combining them, would that also be strong evidence of a theory (call it the theory of chemical combining) being accurate? That is, assuming I made a correct prediction
Scientific experiments, combining different chemicals is not based on souly on theories, but experiments, demonstrations and reproductions. If in fact you get quite good at predicting the outcome due to past experience and experiments, and finding your predictions are accurate.....does this mean you're qualified to make guesses about the origins of mankind or the universe? Or does it just make you a pretty good chemical mixer predictor? Theories eventually require being backed up by evidence of some kind in order to claim them as a viable scientific fact. I do not know enough about the theory of relativity in order to comment on that. Tossing around theories is healthy, putting them to the test is healthy, observing the results in our world and finding evidence is another story. Preaching them as fact without back-up is presumptuous and unscientific.
I believe you are saying that abiogenesis and evolution require that there be no God. Why do you think these things must exclude God? Do you think the Theory of Gravitational Attraction excludes God? He is not mentioned in it. The mechanisms don't seem to require Him. Why are you not opposed to that theory?
What about the Germ Theory of Disease? It doesn't mention God or demons. Doesn't this directly contradict the Bible? I may be wrong, so I will do some research. However, if the Bible says that disease is the result of spiritual warfare, why aren't you opposed to the Germ Theory of Disease?
This is assuming they even happened, which hasn't been proven. Therefore I am not obliged to believe they did, or that God required using evolution to produce what see observe today. It's not beyond God to do this however, nor is it beyond God to bring forth creation without evolutionary processes. You assume that I need to buy into evolution because it's a "fact", and God can come along for the ride. I'm not opposed to gravity, I haven't got much choice in the matter. It's the only thing grounding me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Gravity to me in no way excudes God, as any other universal law. For me it confirmation of a greater force and a creative one at that.
The bible speaks of the fall of mankind due to original sin which unleashed sickness, death and suffering. God is in complete control of preventing or inflicting if He wills it (e.g. plagues/punishments on cities for disobedience after ignoring warnings etc), but these things are often the result of our own sick planet and sin and something most of us suffer at onetime or another, one way or another in our lives. It does not in anyway cancel out God or the Devil. As there are many reasons sometimes for various sicknesses and though most maybe physical, there have been spiritual oppressions also that have caused real symptoms of illness. The bible also tells us of a time when all things will be restored. But until that time, human beings are to obviously use our intellect and scientific knowledge to do the best we can and put it into action to help our fellow man, as well as those with faith to put Christ's words into action. There are also miraculous healings too that occur, so God is very much a part of it too.
So no, I don't see the germ theory as being an issue in regards to the bible/sickness and suffering.
I may be a bit out of touch with your (Hovind's?) pronouncements so I hope you will pardon the question. What are the defining characteristics of a missing link?
I am not sure what you mean by Hovind's pronouncements? I haven't made any....????
How can I give definining characteristics to something missing?
