The Genius of Charles Darwin

[Zebra 9]

Yes I agree to an extent, but that's like saying that a 6 cylinder car doesn't belong in a car lot because all the other cars have 4, 8 and 12 cylinder engines.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well how would God being a trinity effect science? He could be a mole that lives on planet Jimbobiah in the galaxy hippytopia and it would have no effect on earth's science. Do you agree?

I'm confused now. I thought your point was that beliefs DO influence scientific research?

Well, I think that anybody would agree with me when I say that your belief in the existence, non-existence, or anything else regarding the trinity will affect your scientific beliefs.

 

[Zebra 9]

@Mise, well if i have my facts wrong correct me, don't say I'm scientifically limited.
@Masquerouge, he may have been I was just pointing out that the big bag did not have a very large dirrect effect on planetary orbits.

 

[Zebra 9]

Some do, if they put forth a scientific principle.

I believe I forgot a "not", in my one post.

It should read:

"Well, I think that anybody would agree with me when I say that your belief in the existence, non-existence, or anything else regarding the trinity will NOT affect your scientific beliefs."

Sorry about that.

 

[Masquerouge]

Some do, if they put forth a scientific principle.

I believe I forgot a "not", in my one post.

It should read:

"Well, I think that anybody would agree with me when I say that your belief in the existence, non-existence, or anything else regarding the trinity will NOT affect your scientific beliefs."

Sorry about that.

Then yes, you will find more people agreeing with you, I think

 

[Zebra 9]

I hope so, because I'm not as "limited" in my intellect as some think I am scientifically.

 

[Zebra 9]

Also, did anyone, who is current on the evolutionary theory, watch that documentary? I want to know how scientific it was, because I was unable to watch it.


Yes, I watch those documentaries regardless of which theory the go by.

 

[Masquerouge]

I hope so, because I'm not as "limited" in my intellect as some think I am scientifically.

Well, saying that the theory of evolution applies to planet formation is a big mistake, and usually tied with people who tend to disregard ToE - hence why you got a lot of flak for that one.
Just saying that cos the evo/crea threads here can be... rocky.

 

[nihilistic]

[wiki=Young_earth_creationism]Wiki Article[/wiki]
I emboldened the text.
This isn't conclusive (I doubt I could find any thing conclusive you'd believe) but it shows that he at least felt God had created the universe, why else would he put a date on it?

P.S. I have no clue who authored that page, although I think it is correct since I have read that same fact in another place before.

Ultimately, whether Newton said it or not, whether Newton was sincere or not if he said it, are all quite meaningless; because:

1. He lived during a time when we knew (comparatively) little of the world. I'd imagine he would have a different opinion on these matters if he had known of evolution, genetics, chemistry (Newton was an alchemist), (modern) geology & mineralogy, modern physics, and modern astronomy.

2. Even if he had 'heretical' doubts he must have had known of the infamous trial of Galileo. If he didn't make some token gestures towards the Pope like almost every other scientist of his time did, he could basically expect himself executed and his works banned.

3. Science doesn't hold anyone, even its heroes, to be holy. We are perfectly fine with accepting stuff that Newton said that are supported by evidence while rejecting those aren't supported by evidence. Unlike religion, the credulity of a position in science does not depend on the person or text stating it but rather on the scope of evidence supporting it.

But then again, why Newton? Why don't you quote how Galileo recanted his 'heretical' heliocentric theory and accepted geocentrism? It's not much different.

 

[Zebra 9]

I noticed, but I hope I can make people realize that I don't disregard anything ToE comes up with. Instead I study it and decided how it could/could not apply to YEC. Then I make my decision on whether to accept or to reject it. Its not easy, and I try not to say something is impossible.

 

[bathsheba666]

...... where as the Genesis account, when taken literally, puts forth the scientific principle that God created the universe in 6 days. .......

That's not a scientific principle being put forward, it's merely an assertion.

 

[Mise]

Uhem, the big bag happened how many billions of years prior to the formation of the planets?

This is correct.

I don't doubt that energy that was left over (or was alleged to be left over) could have played a part

This is ambiguous and confusing. Are you referring to Cosmic Background Radiation? Because this is what people generally mean when they say "energy left over from the Big Bang".

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. In simple terms, all of the energy that is currently in the universe was concentrated into a single point. This energy still exists now, and is spread across the universe.

When you say "played a part", I have no idea what you mean.

but the prevailing theory (that is the evolutionary one)

As others have pointed out, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of planets.

is that the gases, rock, and other debris started pulling together by gravitational attraction

This is correct.

and as they pulled tighter the heat caused a swirling motion that eventually resulted in planetary orbits.

Heat was created when rocks, gas, and other debris started pulling together. But this has nothing to do with the development of planetary orbits. Large objects orbit each other as a result of gravitational attraction.

 

[nihilistic]

It should read:

"Well, I think that anybody would agree with me when I say that your belief in the existence, non-existence, or anything else regarding the trinity will NOT affect your scientific beliefs."

Perhaps. Some people are able to compartmentalize various contradicting ideas in their brains very well, and some of those people are scientists/mathematicians/engineers. Al Qaeda's suicide bombing cells are usually comprised of fanatic muslims who also have engineering knowledge, despite the principles of science and engineering making the thought of 72 virgins as a reward for martyrdom quite pathetic.

To paraphrase Dawkins (because I forgot the actual quote), the kind of universe that contains a supernatural intelligence is a very different universe than the kind of universe without it, even if it is not easily discernible in practice; thus, the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities is firmly a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Evie]

Dawkins is rather of the "Rabid frothing Atheist" variety, AFAIK.

Just because he says the question of God is scientific doesn't make it anything more than a fringe theory.

Rather like ID, at that.

 

[nihilistic]

Dawkins is the Atheist version of the Inteligent Design crowd.

What did he do what could be comparable with the enormity of the dishonesty of the ID crowd?

 

[Mise]

The existence of God may or may not be a scientific question, but the veracity of the biblical account of the creation of Earth and all life on it certainly is a scientific question.

 

[scy12]

Dawkins is rather of the "Rabid frothing Atheist" variety, AFAIK.

Just because he says the question of God is scientific doesn't make it anything more than a fringe theory.

Rather like ID, at that.

Dawkins is superior on this field than anyone who disagrees with him. And anyone who disagrees with him are the equal of the young Earth theorists.

 

[Evie]

Dawkins is superior on this field than anyone who disagrees with him. And anyone who disagrees with him are the equal of the young Earth theorists.

Your hero-worship of him doesn't make his position correct.

As far as I'm concerned, the sort of quote given by Nihilistic - the sort that hold that science and theism can never coexist- only serve to make atheists as a whole look bad, and to strengthen the position of religious fundamentalists who want to claim science is the enemy of God.

Nihilistic, see my edit, it explains where the comparison lies.

 

[Zebra 9]

@bathsheba666, so would you consider the Big Bag a scientific principle or an assertion? I do see your point though.

To paraphrase Dawkins (because I forgot the actual quote), the kind of universe that contains a supernatural intelligence is a very different universe than the kind of universe without it, even if it is not easily discernible in practice; thus, the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities is firmly a scientific hypothesis.

Please explain. Your other paragraph seems irrelevant, so I think I miss understood it?

Oh, are you saying that their educational achievements should have watered down their radicalism?

@Mise: Well if Cosmic Background Radiation is energy then yes (and we both agree that CBR is there, and so you understood me). Played a part as in it helped, contributed, etc. And I know evolution had no direct effect on planetary formation, but if you believe God created the planets then you don't bother with a theory to explain it so that theory I outlined is the theory that evolutionary scientists have come up with.

Large objects orbit each other as a result of gravitational attraction.

Could you get a source for this? I think it is partially incorrect. gravity attracts items directly towards each other, not around. If an object has enough speed though it will orbit.


I posted and you had posted alot, so I would like to say this. Science is not the enemy of God, only a nut would think that.

 

[nihilistic]

Dawkins is rather of the "Rabid frothing Atheist" variety, AFAIK.

Just because he says the question of God is scientific doesn't make it anything more than a fringe theory.

Rather like ID, at that.

As far as I know (I'm not a biologist), a good deal of Dawkins's theories are quite mainstream now in biology. For example, one of Dawkins's book "The Selfish Gene", is now considered a classic and his theory that the gene rather than the individual is the fundamental unit that natural selection works on, is now almost as obvious as natural selection itself.