Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The wonder of science vs. the banality of creation
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 46 of 64 (503900)
03-23-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Jack
03-23-2009 6:04 AM


Newton's GodDidIt
It is my understanding that Newton's math showed that the solar system would not be long-term stable and his conclusion was that God helped maintain the stability and didn't work on the math any further.
He was, of course, wrong. Laplace and Lagrange showed how the solar system is stable (for long periods anyway) due to gravity alone.
This is an example of a scientist actually being influenced by his religious beliefs. And he was wrong and gave up too soon.
Now maybe someone will show us how a specific religious belief had the opposite result.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Jack, posted 03-23-2009 6:04 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 03-23-2009 10:27 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 52 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 11:18 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 54 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 11:51 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 47 of 64 (503901)
03-23-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by NosyNed
03-23-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Newton's GodDidIt
It is my understanding that Newton's math showed that the solar system would not be long-term stable and his conclusion was that God helped maintain the stability and didn't work on the math any further.
Really? I didn't know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2009 10:12 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 48 of 64 (503903)
03-23-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Sky-Writing
03-22-2009 6:03 PM


it didn't cause them any harm
or interfere with their accomplishments
High praise indeed. Sounds like herpes.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 6:03 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 64 (503904)
03-23-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 8:52 AM


Re: no law of nature evolves
Look at the amount of money spent on SETI. JUST to prove that there is more life than what the scriptures reveal.
You don't need SETI to prove that, a list of the organisms mentioned in the Bible is quite sufficient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 8:52 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 50 of 64 (503905)
03-23-2009 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Straggler
03-23-2009 4:00 AM


Re: Law of Nature
Personally I think even the notion of the "why" is a misconceived folly.
How insightful. All that scientific curiosity and wonder gone in a flash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 4:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 1:06 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 64 (503906)
03-23-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sky-Writing
03-22-2009 6:19 PM


Where is the Foundation of Evolution?
On what Law of Science does it stand?
The laws of genetics, obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 6:19 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 52 of 64 (503907)
03-23-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by NosyNed
03-23-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Newton's GodDidIt
Not an authoritative source by any means, but well said...
In the past people such as Keppler and Newton had no trouble giving God the glory for their work and for the order they found in the universe. They did not worship science but they used science to discover more about the world that they believed God had made. They did not see that their religion was interfering with their science, simply that it formed the basis for believing that man was indeed a rational being, that the universe was created by a rational being and could therefore be investigated in a rational way. This was for them a logical deduction.
Should religion restrict rational thought or scientific inquiry from pursuing its own conclusion
Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2009 10:12 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 53 of 64 (503908)
03-23-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by subbie
03-23-2009 12:01 AM


Only because their search for truth didn't end with the back cover of whatever sacred text they followed. This, of course, is what distinguishes them from cdesign proponents of various flavors.
Yet that's exactly what they were, Intelligent Design proponents of various flavors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 03-23-2009 12:01 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 03-23-2009 1:17 PM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2009 1:33 PM Sky-Writing has replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 54 of 64 (503910)
03-23-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by NosyNed
03-23-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Newton's GodDidIt
Now maybe someone will show us how a specific religious belief had the opposite result.
That would be a list of every founding member of modern science and that their religious beliefs being the mental foundation of their research.
Your counter would be anything they had written in criticism of their "religion". Galileo would have been one example you could use if he was actually changing his own belief system. But I don't think he bought into the Churches stand in the first place. I certainly don't believe the teachings from my own home church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2009 10:12 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2009 1:26 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 55 of 64 (503918)
03-23-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 10:52 AM


Re: Law of Nature
Straggler writes:
Personally I think even the notion of the "why" is a misconceived folly.
How insightful. All that scientific curiosity and wonder gone in a flash.
So you think that science can answer your "why" question then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 10:52 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 56 of 64 (503919)
03-23-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 11:38 AM


quote:
Yet that's exactly what they were, Intelligent Design proponents of various flavors.
Only someone totally ignorant of the mind set and practices of current cdesign proponentsists could make the claim that they bear any relation whatsoever to someone like Galileo.
Cdesign proponentsists start with the assumption that the bible is accurate, then look for ways to warp the evidence to fit within that assumption. Galileo looked at the evidence and came to conclusions in direct contradiction with with bible. They are polar opposites.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 11:38 AM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 4:15 PM subbie has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 64 (503920)
03-23-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 11:51 AM


Re: Newton's GodDidIt
That would be a list of every founding member of modern science and that their religious beliefs being the mental foundation of their research.
Where is this list of "every founding member of modern science", then? Only it seems that it will have to include a heck of a lot of modern scientists who've made foundational discoveries.
Your counter would be anything they had written in criticism of their "religion".
Even as arguments from silence go, that's fairly lame.
I have never written anything in criticism of Limburger cheese, but that does not mean that by default it can be assumed to be "the mental foundation of my research".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 11:51 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 64 (503921)
03-23-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 11:38 AM


Yet that's exactly what they were, Intelligent Design proponents of various flavors.
And here are some people who are not.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
Fortunately, science has moved on since the seventeenth century.
They don't share Newton's belief in alchemy, either.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 11:38 AM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by subbie, posted 03-23-2009 2:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 61 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 4:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 59 of 64 (503923)
03-23-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
03-23-2009 1:33 PM


What's more, there are over 1,000 scientists named Steve who agree with this statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
None of them are cdesign proponentsists, either. If around 1 in a hundred scientists are named Steve, Project Steve suggests that over 10,000 scientists feel the same way. Of course, we all know that none of these guys know anywhere near as much about 21st Century science as the "founders of modern science" (whoever they are) did.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2009 1:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 60 of 64 (503938)
03-23-2009 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by subbie
03-23-2009 1:17 PM


Galileo looked at the evidence and came to conclusions in direct contradiction with with bible.
There is no "direct contradiction" today, so there was none back then either. His conflict was with the church LEADERS who rarely cracked open a Bible themselves. Still a common problem in many denominations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 03-23-2009 1:17 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-23-2009 4:40 PM Sky-Writing has not replied
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 4:45 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024