Is Astrology a science?

[Diamond72]

"Well, this is impossible, it can't be happening."

There are always people like me that keep them on their toes. My chance of being alive right now was one in 1200. There are people that would be ready to give up if they only had a 3% chance of survival. In the army I had a doctor walk in the room, tell me I should not be alive and he turned around and walked out. That was all he said.

 

[Diamond72]

I see someone was dishonestly misrepresenting
what I said.

You are the one being dishonest and you want to project that out on others.
People are always guilty of what they accuse others of.

 

[Astrid]

You are the one being dishonest and you want to project that out on others.
People are always guilty of what they accuse others of.

A faked quote is dishonest. Simple.
In the event-
I see you are falsely, (see bearing false witness" in your book) accusing me, so, by fact a d your figuring,
you are guilty.

Maybe. stay out of what does not concern you,
and stop ignoring your rule book.

 

[AV1611VET]

That logical train of thought might be fine, but whether it is or not, the evidence I have and live by is faith.

Good!

Same here.

Evidence can take a hike.

Also, the Creator says that no one has any excuse not to believe He Is,

That is correct.

... because all of His Creation everywhere is the evidence that He Is.

But it must be interpreted correctly.

Psalm 19 is my favorite Psalm.

I have it framed and hanging on my wall.

It's a beautiful Psalm about God's general revelation (creation) and His special revelation ( the Bible) to mankind.

But some people misinterpret them.

A good example is the constellation Gemini.

Academia, as a whole, sees Gemini as twins: Castor & Pollux.

But the Hebrews knew Gemini as one and the same Person: King of Kings & Lord of Lords.

When the sun went dark for three hours over the Cross, what did they see when they looked up?

Aries, the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Almost forgot - "lean not on man's understanding" / "level of our understanding"
but on Him and His Life, His Wisdom, His Knowledge, His Revelation, completely , in line with His Word and Plan of Salvation when or if and as He Reveals it. Jesus is our understanding, et al, all things in Him.

No argument there, my friend!

 

[AV1611VET]

I see someone was dishonestly misrepresenting what I said.

Speak plainer then, and you won't have to end up falsely accusing someone of being dishonest.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fossil evidence.

Show me fossils during the Creation Week.

Fossils came well after the Creation Week.

After Adam brought death by sin into the world.

This is why, when I'm debating Creationism, I don't like to stray outside of Genesis 1 or 2, or the debate will get buried in side issues like the Fall, the Flood, the Pharaohs, the Grand Canyon, anything and everything BUT the Creation Events.

Let's get the universe up and running first, before we get it dead and dying.

 

[Kylie]

How would they deem it a miracle prior to testing it?

I think you need to read my question again, because that's not what I was asking.

 

[Kylie]

Kurt Patrick Wise has a degree from Harvard University in Evolution, yet he is still a YEC creationist.

A degree in evolution?

You don't get degrees in evolution, as that is one part of a branch of science called Biology.

He has a degree in geophysics, and he is very clear that he rejects evolution because, in his own words, "To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it."

 

[Kylie]

Defender of illogic, right ? Good. Maybe, for this anyway.
I've seen many times that 'doctors' /maybe scientists also/
would only say : "Well, that's impossible - so it wasn't true in the past" that /someone/ had cancer or other terminal illness... when confronted with someone who months or years ago had inoperable, terminal according to doctors , disease; yet now they see the same person, properly tested , completely healthy , instead of deceased.

They might never admit that people get healed, and instead maintain the politically/medically chosen line = they never had the disease they were diagnosed with. It must have been faulty testing.

You completely missed the point. There have been no rigorous scientific studies to show this.

The idea that false positives occur is well documented, and that makes it a far more reasonable explanation that God came in to cure someone of cancer.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you need to read my question again, because that's not what I was asking.

Then what is it they are examining that you have never seen a report of?

 

[Kylie]

Then what is it they are examining that you have never seen a report of?

I said, "I've never seen a report of a miracle that was examined in a rigorous scientific manner and the conclusion from the scientists was, "Well, this is impossible, it can't be happening."

In other words, I've never seen a case where scientists have studied, using proper scientific method, someone who has had a miracle happen to them, and the scientists conclude that God performing a miracle is the only explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

I said, "I've never seen a report of a miracle that was examined in a rigorous scientific manner and the conclusion from the scientists was, "Well, this is impossible, it can't be happening."

In other words, I've never seen a case where scientists have studied, using proper scientific method, someone who has had a miracle happen to them, and the scientists conclude that God performing a miracle is the only explanation.

Okay.

Sorry -- I misunderstood you.

 

[Aaron112]

There have been no rigorous scientific studies to show this.

I said, "I've never seen a report of a miracle that was examined in a rigorous scientific manner and the conclusion from the scientists was, "Well, this is impossible, it can't be happening."

In other words, I've never seen a case where scientists have studied, using proper scientific method, someone who has had a miracle happen to them, and the scientists conclude that God performing a miracle is the only explanation.

Well, you're out of ... your depth then, or something like that... I don't know how to put it....
The so-called 'experts'/ scientists/ doctors/ powerful ones in charge/
were offered the opportunity to see such things, completely in their jurisdiction or expertise or field, many many times, or once...
and what was their reaction ? Sometimes no reaction at all - simply ignore it and it will go away they thought.....
Other times , when taken to a place to see things proven that would bring harm to their esteem, cause them to lose face, cost money, be contrary to their chosen profession,
they just refused to look at the evidence, so they could go back and say they did not see any evidence supporting either a miracle, or a fraud, or anything contrary to what they had been indoctrinated into protecting.
Billions or Trillions of dollars are at risk, at stake, in all of this,
and they will not give it up easily, nor willingly.

Is the evidence available ? Certainly, but you /anyone/ has to find it for themselves most of the time --- others are not permitted to publish it publicly, etc...

You can understand this, can't you , where like if a car supplier was able and willing and starting to bring cars to sell in a town, for five or ten percent, or even thirty percent, of what the other car dealers were selling for,
the ones who are able to stop that from happening will do so, at great expense, although likely only a fraction of the unjust profits of those making the most money... and even at the cost of lives, and obviously at any cost controlling the newspapers, television and any media that would even dare or try to actually reveal the truth publicly....

 

[Aaron112]

You completely missed the point. There have been no rigorous scientific studies to show this.

Well, how about results over hundreds of years ? Tens of thousands of results once known, now forbidden ?
Take time to look over this site >> and copy for your own use as much as you can.... it might be gone by tomorrow ....

Herbs, Plants, and Healing Properties – Page 8 – Legends of America

People on all continents have used thousands of indigenous plants and herbs for treatment of ailments since prehistoric times. Learn more about many of them

www.legendsofamerica.com

 

[Bradskii]

In the army I had a doctor walk in the room...

Hey, where'd you serve?

 

[Astrid]

A degree in evolution?

You don't get degrees in evolution, as that is one part of a branch of science called Biology.

He has a degree in geophysics, and he is very clear that he rejects evolution because, in his own words, "To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it."

Another quote describing intellectual dishonesty.

Who would want him on their team?

 

[Tuur]

Good grief.

You really think a test on three onces of water
can be scaled up to show how billions of tons
of ice five miles thick will behave?
Why don't you make a little glacier in your freezer
and watch it carve out a valley through a block
of granite.

.

It's called modeling. It's done all the time, whether it's a model of an aircraft placed in a wind tunnel or a computer simulation. Remember our point our contention? I wondered if an inundated ice cap would float, based on instances I've seen where ice covered with water didn't float, and you have stated that not floating was an impossibility. So the question is whether ice would remain adhered to a surface or float when covered with insufficient water.

I finished my "ice box glacier" experiment this morning. I've carefully poured chilled water over the top of the ice until the container was full, and have checked on it every several minutes until a second layer of ice formed at the top of the water (as confirmed by pouring it out and finding the original layer of ice securely adhered to the bottom). Just like what I remembered, the ice remained adhered to the bottom of the container, even though it's covered with over seven times the amount of water.

What's great about an experiment is that no one has to take someone's word for it. All they have to do is to conduct the experiment for themselves.

So, what have we learned from this? Simply that yes, it's possible for ice to adhere to a surface and for water to remain atop it instead of the ice popping to the surface. No more, no less.

Now, this leads us to something it would do well to think about. Science is inquiry, and that's what makes it fun. I thought I knew what the outcome of this experiment would be, but I didn't know. So I tried to find out with what's a simple, inexpensive, experiment, and in the process I had fun. Not because of the conversation here in this topic, but because I had a question and was looking for the answer. That's science in a nutshell.

Dismiss this little experiment if you wish, but I found an answer to my question, and had fun doing so.

 

[Diamond72]

Hey, where'd you serve?

I was in San Antonio Texas at the time. At the Walter Reed Medical Center.

 

[Diamond72]

Another quote describing intellectual dishonesty.

How is it dishonest if he has a conflict he can not resolve?
Don't you also have a conflict you cannot resolve?

Some of the most adamant anti-evolutionists still accept Micro Evolution. Even if they reject macro.