quote:
Some astronauts apparently didn't think it so devoid!
Really?
Can you show me any physics or engineering calculations used by anyone in NASA that utilized the spiritual?
quote:
Besides, going a relative few feet, to the moon, does not give us a creation date with the kind of info I was mentioning. Let's not try to hide the bad stuff in with the good stuff.
My point is that we don't use subjective spiritual ideas in science, because they are based upon personal feelings or revelation or interpretation of religious writing.
We use math and repeatable observations that anyone can do regardless of faith or lack of faith.
Faith and spirituaity may help someone's attitude, but it cannot inform the content of their work if they are to practive real science.
quote:
My own humble opinion was that the money would be better spent on mankind.
It was.
It increased our knowledge of nature by huge leaps and bounds.
quote:
But, surely you must realize I was talking about stuff like assumptions on light, and granny, and the big bang?
It's all science, so all of it excludes the spiritual or supernatural as an explanation.
If you deny the science behind the Big Bang, you also deny all other science, including the science that finds cancer cures and sends people to the moon and back, because the method is the same.
Science is science, no matter what you are studying.
quote:
I'll trade you 20 cures for cancer (are you sure there are real cures even?, yet?) for 400 causes for cancer some of this knowledge is causing.
Huh?
I don't understand what you mean.
ALL science "excludes the spiritual"
quote:
No, creation science doesn't,
Creation science isn't science.
Creation science doesn't use scientific methodology at all. It is religion dressed up in a lab coat and holding a beaker, dressed up as science but sharing none of the qualities of real scientific inquiry.
This is evidenced by the complete and utter lack of any increase in knowledge of nature or development of technology that has been discovered or developed using creation science.
Perhaps I am wrong, though. Do you know of any Creation science which has led to useful technlogy or techniques?
quote:
and many men of science through history worked with the Hand of God as much as they could.
40% of scientists today believe in God.
You are confusing a personal belief in God by an individual scientist with a Creationist trying to use "Godidit" as an explanation in scientific investigation.
The first person can do science as long as he follows scientific methodology, and the second has given up using scientific methodology.
quote:
Science, by and large is after all, inspired! Some good, some bad. Like the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there is both.
Mostly, science is inspired by evidence found in nature, and is current research is built on the work of scientists who came before.
quote:
So thank you for pointing out that one of your, (correct me if I am misinformed on the guy, as I don't know him well) atheistic, pagan, respected 'leaders' seems to indicate he believes in Demons!!!!!
Um, no, Carl Sagan never believed in demons.
In this book title, he is characterizing a society where people wallow in superstition, fear of the unknown, and ignorance as "demon haunted". He juxtaposes that with science being a "candle" to bring light to the darkness of ignorance and superstitious thinking.
...kind of like the Renaissance, with it's emphasis on knowledge, rational inquiry and that saw the beginings of real science, drew us out of the Dark Ages which were characterized by superstition, ignorance, and fear of the unknown.
Critical thinkers and skeptics don't create answers just to manage their anxiety--Karla McLaren
™ Version 4.2
