Summations Only

Hi designtheorist,I've not had time to read your entire post (I have to be off to work in a moment), but I do notice that this claim appears false. Where do you get that idea from? It sounds unlikely to me since Eddington was a Quaker, raised by Quaker parents. Sources that I can find refer to him as "a lifelong Quaker". Certainly he was an objector to World War One, because of his Quaker principles and that was well before the Big Bang existed as an idea.

---

-Added by Edit- I also think that your information about Sandage is wrong. Sandage did not convert to Christianity because of the Big Bang. He did convert, that's true, but only late in life, whereas he had been working on the Big bang all his professional life. Further, Sandage was very much of the opinion that science and religion were complementary but separate. I think it unlikely that he would have agreed with your position in this thread. He doubtless thought that the Big Bang was compatible with Christianity, but I doubt very much that he would have considered it to actually support Christianity. Here are some more quotes from Sandage;

quote:

---

In the case of scientific cosmology, the most one could say is that astronomers may have found the first effect, but not necessarily thereby the first cause sought by Anselm and Aquinas

---

quote:

---

Knowledge of the creation is not knowledge of the creator,

---

quote:

---

The answer to the question, "why", which I suppose down deep I was searching for in science, I realized itself had no answer in science. I forced myself to the statement that you’re asking the wrong questions or demanding too much for a proof. Why don’t you just begin to believe and see what happens?

---

William A Durbin writes of Sandage's conversion;

quote:

---

Again, this step was not necessitated by any implications of big bang cosmology or, more broadly, by the experience of beauty and truth in science.

---

You can read Durbin's whole article Negotiating the Boundaries of Science and Religion II: The Conversion of Allan Sandage. It goes into Sandage's beliefs about religion and science and his conversion at some length.I am also uncertain about your characterisation of Paul Davies as an agnostic, although in this case I think you've underestimated his religiosity. He comes across more as a theist to me, if not a very specific sort of theist. Adherents.com has him down as a deist.

---

Even if true, I fail to see how this matters. I don't care how many religiose scientists you can name. It's just an argument from authority.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Hi kbertche, What, they converted because of the Big Bang theory? Really? Because I checked the first three he cited and they were shite. The claim was that they converted specifically because of the Big Bang remember.Did your two convert because of the Big Bang? Because if not, you're making the same mistake that designtheorist is.They're also just bad examples in general. Neither is a physicist. Flew converted after succumbing to senile dementia, hardly anything for Christians to brag about and Smalley is an Old Earth creationist. These are lousy examples to use in an argument from authority. I mean, if you're going to make bad arguments, at least make bad arguments well.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Hi designtheorist, No. You will always get replies here, no matter how wrong you are or how little support you get. We will argue with any old nutter here. You'd get replies if you were arguing that the moon was made of chutney. We just like to argue. Bull. If you quote someone in support of your position, you imply that they... well, that they support your position. Quoting someone who disagrees with you is called "Quote mining" and it is a form of lying. Since you seem to think yourself above that sort of thing, perhaps you might like to be a little more careful who you quote. What? You haven't named any! You mentioned a few Big Bang converts, but all your examples were wrong. It is very easy to be unimpressed with a list with no names on it.Or don't you care that your claims have been proved false? Do you really want to keep plugging away at a falsified claim? Because that's another form of lying.Mutate and Survive

Hi Dr A, The really sad thing is that he's already been told this.

​

Twice.Once I would call an honest mistake. Twice seems like foolishness. But designtheorist has been told this at least four times now; that seems like either a deliberate lie or just a highly developed ability to avoid noticing inconvenient facts.So in other words, an archetypal creationist.Mutate and Survive