Is believing in Science
a Step of Faith ?
Copyright © 2001 Nando Media
By DAVID BALLINGRUD, Scripps Howard News Service
Hurricane forecasting faces challenges
Copyright © 2001 Scripps Howard News Service
TAMPA, Fla. - Thinking too highly of Max Mayfield could be a dangerous mistake, he says.
Mayfield, head of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, frets that satellite photos, computers and fancy TV graphics have led the public to believe that he and his team of specialists actually know where hurricanes will go.
"We do a little better every year," he said. "But I'm afraid people think we do a better job than we actually do."
D.Lim: People have faith in the advancement of human effort in prediction of hurricane. They do not know of it; they just think of it.
"Could be" is used, rather than the certainty of "is".
Do you really think science promises certainty? And scientists have certainty(even in their own field of expertise)?
Yet sceptics and atheists demand "absolute certainty" and "inerrancy" from Scriptures(the Holy Bible) before they would believe it.
Is such demand "just" and "fair", even "scientific"?
Copyright © 2001 Nando Media
By LEE BOWMAN, Scripps Howard News Service
Mayan civilization ended by sun cycle, study finds
Copyright © 2001 Scripps Howard News Service
(May 17, 2001 02:47 p.m. EDT) - A cyclical brightening of the sun may have prompted a severe 150-year drought that brought down the civilization of some of the ancient world's most accomplished astronomers, the Mayans, according to a study published Friday.
D.Lim: Who knows for sure? Who has known this before May 2001? And what did people think then? Errancy somewhere? Weakness somewhere?
Science did not know or teach of it yesterday? Then what will it teach tomorrow? Certainly not what is known today or yesterday.
Why then boast of its reliability and accuracy? It is not yet known.
And errantists put less faith in the Holy Bible than in such science.
The World of scientific studies is changing from study to study. How predictable is such studies and results/conclusion?
This "may have" speaks volumes concerning UNCERTAINTY.
It does not express "HAVE" - a certainty.
Almost certain is not absolute certainty. And sometime in the future, we are expecting new answers from new studies.
Is this drought worldwide, destroying all mankind? Why not?
How come there was 150 years of severe drought at one spot only? And such discovery come so late as not to have been known since our "Space Age"?
Should we not expect worldwide history recorded this drought? As for the flood event of Noah, sceptics demand worldwide historical record for its proof.
D.Lim: Often, non-Christians site some simple laws from Natural Science as proof of reliability of Science to base their faith upon. Hardly ever, do they turn to Social Science(such as Sociology, Psychology), Applied Science (such as Architectural Science, Archaeology, Anthropology), and Theoretical Science to uncover their folly.
Much of Science is personal conviction, imagination, assertion, faith over facts.
Mankind often attempt "Mind over Matter".
People believe in and work with "Theories", which are not facts or laws. People work with and for "conjecture".
For those who claim that Science is not imagination, please prove to us that "Time stands still at the speed of light", "Oxygen clears off fire and smoke in a burning building", "Mankind evolved from animals in the ocean", "Macro Evolution", "Homo-sexuals are born Homo-sexuals".
Copyright © 2001 Nando Media
By ROBERT C. COWEN, Christian Science Monitor
(May 30, 2001 09:54 p.m. EDT) - Chemists who study the beginnings of life on earth have penetrated a little deeper into its mystery. Research reported earlier this month shows how a common mineral could have sorted some of life's precursor chemicals into biologically significant groups. Other recent experiments demonstrate how the earliest life forms may have reproduced without the help of DNA or proteins, which are two ingredients thought to be essential in the evolution of life.
Molecular chemist David Bartel notes that "we will never be able to prove" how primordial life actually worked "because we can't go back in time." But scientists can do the next best thing. They can study the basic properties of relevant biological chemicals and "see if these are compatible" with the scenarios scientists invent, he says.
Dr. Bartel and associates at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., are exploring reproduction in this way. Today, DNA molecules encode an organism's genetic instructions. The closely related chemical RNA reads those instructions and transfers the information to the chemical machinery that makes proteins. These, in turn, enable life processes to work. When living cells reproduce, protein catalysts help their DNA make new copies of itself. The early-life puzzle challenges scientists to explain how the first life forms reproduced when DNA and proteins had not yet emerged.
Chemists have suspected that RNA might both encode genetic instructions and promote its own replication. If so, then RNA alone would have been able to jump-start organic life. Now, the Bartel team has shown, for the first time, that RNA can indeed replicate itself. No natural form of RNA can do this today. As the team explained in the journal Science, they used a process that mimics natural evolution to create an artificial RNA to do the job. The result is a form of RNA that can carry out the reactions needed to synthesize its own building blocks and hook these together.
The team has not yet copied a complete RNA molecule. But it has copied enough of an RNA template to feel it is on the right track. Team members consider this some of the strongest evidence yet that RNA chemistry could have promoted early life. The early life puzzle also challenges scientists to explain how certain prelife chemicals became biologically significant. Nonlife chemistry produced many different organic materials some 4 billion years ago on earth. These would have included amino acids, some of which are building blocks of proteins today.
Amino acids come in two forms that are mirror images of each other. Chemists call them left-handed and right-handed molecules. Nonlife chemistry produces these forms in equal amounts, but life chemistry uses mainly left-handed forms. The challenge for scientists is to explain how left-handed forms stood out in the primordial 50-50 mix.
Robert Hazen thinks minerals are the key.
Again, this doesn't prove prelife chemistry worked that way. But it does encourage Hazen to pursue his thesis.
Research sheds clues on evolution's early-life puzzle
Copyright © 2001 Christian Science Monitor Service
D.Lim: Is thoughts scientific conclusion?
Are the facts of evolution a matter of thoughts?
Natural forms of RNA have not been shown to reproduce or evolve by themselves. No experiment yet can demonstrate natural occurance of evolution in chemistry.
This team works on feeling rather than pure knowledge. Science works on feeling? On uncertainty?
Ideas are published before they are firm facts.
Liberals have discarded the reliability of the Bible due to uncertainties they believe to be a certainty. Should Liberals not discard Science and Scientific reasoning due to their uncertainties and reliance on feelings? Where is justice(in their approach)?
Isaiah 40 vv21-25:
v21. Have ye not known? have yet not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
v22. It is He who sits above the circle of the earth(not circular land), and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;
v23. that brings princes to nothing; that makes the judges of the earth as vanity.
v24. Yea, they have not been planted; yea, they have not been sown; yea, their stock hath not taken root in the earth: moreover He blows upon them, and they wither, and the whirlwind takes them away as stubble.
v25. To whom then will ye liken me, that I should be equal to him? says the Holy One.
Isaiah 40 v22. It is He who sits above the circle of the earth - (not circular land). A circular atmosphere. A circular field of gravity and forces. A circular view.
Not a square piece of flat land.
Not sitting on top of Atlas, on top of a ball. Certainly not mentioned in Greek Mythology.
Ancient Chinese phylosophy speaks of circular heaven/sky and square ground. Sitting on the circle of the earth is locating oneself above the world, above the ground, above mother earth.
v24. Yea. . . moreover He blows upon them, and they wither, and the whirlwind takes them away as stubble.
How is science controlling tornadoes and monsoon winds nowadays? Not even an accurate prediction a day ahead. Not even an accurate calculation of property loss and financial loss beforehand.
Errancy in calculation and prediction somewhere?
And yet you put your utmost trust in Science? Doesn't this spell of biasness all the way?
No fairness. No fair play. Just a twisted reasoning and people. A people of Science. Anti-scripture. Anti-God.
How reliable is Eschatology in Science? What are its last words? And who guarantees their freedom from errancies?
On June 30 2001, The US is launching a space craft(a NASA Observatory) to look for signs of the Big Bang.
This shows again that the Big Bang is just a theory waiting to be substantiated, rather than a proven law.
Non-believers of Religion and God have no law and proven experience to substantiate their faith and trust in Science. All that remains is a matter of faith.
Big hole in Hawking's theory
DUBLIN, Ireland - Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking lost one of the most famous bets in scientific history yesterday(July 2004) when he rejected the 1975 black hole theory that helped make his name.
D.Lim: Science is not a certainty, as those who dwell in primary school Pure Science and inflate it out of proportion would like the World to believe.
I, Rev. David C S Lim, ªL§Ó¸Û ªª®v, can be reached by internet ¤]¦b¤¬ÁpÊI¡R
Preacher.html
meshiah
e-mail ¹q¶l 
jesussaves91@hotmail.com
And remember - - God answers knee mail.
A Life changing show
What story is more trustworthy? Are Bible believing Christians more gullible than the best majority US citizens? Are news of science more believable?
What Ruler of Faith is Right? What principle do you follow?
Bible prophesy over scientific finding One day missing from our history.
Denominations/factions (Pt 1) Anti-Christ behaviour and tricks. Impostors (Pt 2)
Rev ±Ò¥Ü¿ý Ch16 - Frogs preaching ¥ÐÂû¯u¯«±Ð on the air . . .
Do we have Mother God? ? Do we need a balance?
Are homosexual act and desire mentioned in the Bible ?
How to be a pastor? ? How can my dream come true?
C¿q°ò·þªº±Ï®¦±N¤H±q®Ú¥»¦Ó²×·¥ªº´c¤¤±Ï¥X¨Ó¡AÂǵ۱ϥD¡A¦º¤`¤£¦A¬O²×·¥ªº´c¡A¥¦¤w³Q¸m©ó¥Í©Rªº¤O¶q¤§¤U¡C
§¹¥þªºµ½¬O¥ÑC¿q¦Ó¨Ó¡C
¦b¤Ñ¤W©M¦a¤U¥u¦³C¿q°ò·þªº±Ï®¦¬O°ß¤@¨Ï¤Hªº¸o±o³j¤Î»P¯«©M¦nªº³~®|¡C