Creation: The big and the small of it (page 2)

Gedanken

pomegranate,

Long on grandliquoence, short on facts.

Why is it that those who would speak up for God cannot do it without lying - most of all to themselves.

Gedanken

jrizo,

: The Bible has a lot to say, and a lot of it is showing how not to do things.

: Also it wasn't written as a scientific book, per say

That latter remark sounds exactly like what the WTS teaches when it's backed into a corner. For a WTS ex-POW you sure seem to have a nasty touch of Stockholm syndrome.

Tell me, what do you think of the Bible's way of determining adultery in a woman? Or how about that righteous man Lot who recommends that one throw out one's daughters to be sexually abused by a mob to save one's own skin. That is when he wasn't sleeping with them himself. The Bible definitely has a lot to say; not much of it particularly useful though.

Gedanken

StinkyPantz

Z-

You said:

What appreciation can they have for something they believe could and did happen all by itself.

The universe didn't happen all by itself but "God" did? Such a magnificent creature is far more amazing than a simple universe, surely he too must have been created.

pomegranate

Look. To blanket everyone that is religious or believes in God as stymying scientific progress is clueless as to the facts.

In another thread, I posted a list of some of the men of science who were either reigious or believers in God. Did you know that all the major disciplines of science were founded by men who believed? So, if this is in fact TRUE, which the facts can surely be found that it is indeed, then your statement is in fact, pure cow pucky.

Facts for you:

Scientific Disciplines Established By Bible-Believing Scientists

Discipline	Scientist
Antiseptic Surgery	Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
Bacteriology	Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Calculus	Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Celestial Mechanics	Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Chemistry	Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Comparative Anatomy	Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
Computer Science	Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
Dimensional Analysis	Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Dynamics	Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Electrodynamics	James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Electromagnetics	Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Electronics	Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
Energetics	Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Entomology of Living Insects	Henri Fabre (1823-1915)
Field Theory	Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Galactic Astronomy	William Herschel (1738-1822)
Gas Dynamics	Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Genetics	Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Glacial Geology	Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Gynecology	James Simpson (1811-1870)
Hydraulics	Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
Hydrography	Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Hydrostatics	Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Ichthyology	Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Isotopic Chemistry	William Ramsay (1852-1916)
Model Analysis	Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Natural History	John Ray (1627-1705)
Non-Euclidean Geometry	Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866)
Oceanography	Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Optical Mineralogy	David Brewster (1781-1868)
Paleontology	John Woodward (1665-1728)
Pathology	Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)
Physical Astronomy	Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Reversible Thermodynamics	James Joule (1818-1889)
Statistical Thermodynamics	James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Stratigraphy	Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)
Systematic Biology	Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
Thermodynamics	Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Thermokinetics	Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
Vertebrate Paleontology	Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

StinkyPantz

Nice list but do you notice that none of them lived during this century. The last one died about a hundred years ago.

Most people, even scientists want an explanation for our existence, they have the right to be wrong just like you do.

Realist

zech,

just because its hard for you to imagine something doesn't mean it is impossible. for me it is inconceivable how someone can believe in an invisible man in the sky who created the universe and who watches everything we do - nevertheless such people obviously exist.

Gedanken

pomegranate,

I said that "religious belief" has impeded scientific progress and still does. One need only consider the Catholic Church's persecution of pioneers in celestial mechanics, the opposition of many religions to Darwin, the continued opposition to evolution by modern day "Creation Scientists" and their followers and the opposition by people like George Bush to stem cell research on religious grounds to see that what I stated is and was the case.

The people you cited may have believed in God but progress was slowed down in many fields by the necessity to reconcile scientific findings with preconceived notions about the universe.

Certainty about the universe is thevery antithesis of the scientific method. Geology could not have developed without the absolute rejection of the idea of a global flood.

Gedanken

ps: the WTS emerged partly because of the crazy pseudo-scientific notions that were being nandied about in the 19th century as people had their religious beliefs challenged by new scientific findings.

Edited by - Gedanken on 23 October 2002 16:58:38

expatbrit

All of those scientists wore hats. Hats are therefore holy, and we should all wear them.

Expatbrit

Realist

Are there any big discoveries made recently that are revolutionary or world shattering

quantum mechanics, relativity, molecular biology, psychoanalysis, etc.etc.etc.

Gedanken

jrizo,

You really are getting desperate - here are some of the discoveries made since pomegranate's list was current:

quantum mechanics

relativity

genomics

quantum chromodynamics

etc etc.

pomegranate's arguments could be used to justify the flat earth, the idea that the earth is the center of the universe, etc.

But can you answer my question: would any evidence, in principle, be able to dissuade you from your belief in Creation? Or would you reject it just as you reject the evidence that evolution happened?

Gedanken

Creation: The big and the small of it

Share this