[Capuchin]

Of course not. Science can't prove that the sky is green or that I have 3 legs. Saying that science should prove everything is obviously folly.

[Canada_Sweety]

Of course not. Science can't prove that the sky is green or that I have 3 legs. Saying that science should prove everything is obviously folly.

Your examples above are of course ridiculous (no offense) seeing how we can see it with our own two eyes. But I mean like... science can't prove that the man next door could be the wanted serial killer.. things like that.

[Capuchin]

Actually, I think you'll find that forensic science is getting better and better all the time, and soon we will be relying on science for things such as that. Sure it can't now, but there's no reason why it shouldn't be able to in the future.

Some people would say that God is of course ridiculous (no offense).

[Canada_Sweety]

Fair enough..... but it still can't tell you things like that. Unless you stick someone in a giant fancy machine, science can't prove what someone is truly thinking & stuff like that.

[Canada_Sweety]

And I get that many people think the thought of God is rediculous and I'm not saying I'll respect their oppinion, but I will try to see their side of it and maybe debate them.:)

[Capuchin]

It can't at the moment. There's no reason why not in the future though. Science is continuously improving. So is the technology based on that science.

[Capuchin]

I'm glad to enlighten some of the misunderstandings you have about science :)

[inthebox]

I don't believe in emotions, I feel them. Don't you?

I agree emotions definitely have a evident biological effect; however, love is not emotions.


Can you see these same biological effects say in the brain of a mother that changes the diapers of the child, the brain of a soldier that jumps on a grenade sparing his platoon, the
Brain of a volunteer at a soup kitchen? All examples of love.


Grace and Peace

[Canada_Sweety]

It's not a misunderstanding so much as it is that I believe my religion over what complete strangers have to say. And there's also the fact that I am somewhat of a conspiracy person.. if you get what I mean....

[Capuchin]

I agree emotions definitely have a evident biological effect; however, love is not emotions.


Can you see these same biological effects say in the brain of a mother that changes the diapers of the child, the brain of a soldier that jumps on a grenade sparing his platoon, the
brain of a volunteer at a soup kitchen? All examples of love.


Grace and Peace

Yes.

Are you saying that you don't feel love?

[Canada_Sweety]

Course I feel love... hopefully everyone has FELT love at some point or other.

[Capuchin]

I was talking to inthebox. :)

[Canada_Sweety]

Haha.. I'm kinda dumb:p
And I wasn't sure so i figured I should answer just incase:)

[inthebox]

yes.

Are you saying that you don't feel love?

Love is active.
Love is patient, love is kind,. quite different from emotions.


I feel lust though ,




Grace and Peace

[Capuchin]

I'm sorry for you that you have never felt love, I certainly feel it, it's amazing, quite like no other.

[Starman]

Here is a partial list of Capuchin's simple-minded-people who just can't accept his we- got-here-via-dumb-luck idea.

ASTROPHYSICIST

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe... The impression of design is overwhelming". Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.


MATHETEMATICIAN/PHYSICIST PROFESSOR

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.


PROFESSOR OF PHIlOSOPHY

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version ).


MATHEMATICAL PHYSICIST

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

MATHEMATICIAN

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11) Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.

COSMOLOGIST

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.


MATHEMATCIAN

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17) Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57 Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57


ASTROPHYSICIST

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

ASTROPHYSICIST

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.

COSMOLOGIST

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.


ASTRONOMER

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9


BTW

Maybe he feels that he can set them straight via his "superior" scientific understanding. Me? I simply see it they way they do. Oh well, so much for the you have to be uneduicated to believe in a creator delusion.

[Capuchin]

Okay, an argument from authority, you realise, is not a particularly good one.

I have no problem with God creating the big bang. Knock yourself out. All that scientists have currently are equally untestable hypotheses. So that makes... 9 of your quotes irrelevant?

So, Flew and Tipler's first quote are what's left.

Let's start with Flew: He has had an interesting history. And has seems to have some problems with defining his beliefs. In December 2004 he retracted the quote that you have used, saying "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." He again restated this point in an interview in 2005. He does claim to believe in a God, but denies that it is a God of any of the revealed religions, saying "I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god".

Tipler? Where do I get started? Have you read his books on "the physics of christianity"? I doubt many christians would believe in it, let alone scientists. There are many half-truths and exaggerations in the books. And plenty of things that he states as fact which are not accepted as fact in the scientific community (e.g. that the standard model is complete and exact, and that we have a consistent theory of quantum gravity, both of which are plainly untrue).

Would you like me to go into the others and why they might not be the best people for you to be quoting?

(btw: Eddington died in 1944, where did this 1988 quote come from, do you have the source used in the source?)

[Canada_Sweety]

Sure... haha

[Canada_Sweety]

:Dthanks!

[Starman]

An apparent change of mind could be the result of academic coersion. So in my book it means veryt little. I belief Copernicus was forced to recant under duress. Yet his ideas as originallly stated were true.

Flew is a bad example for you to put forth since he still believes in God.
As for Tipler, many of the ideas which were once ridiculed are now accepted as valid.
So ridicule by the acamic establishment alone is a rather flimsy foundation for saying that he is unquotable in terms of his belief in God. Not to mention that it smacks of ad hominem. Here is a list of scientists who were opnce ridiculed but who were proven right in the long-run.

Excerpt

Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
Baird, John L. (television camera)
Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
Galvani (bioelectricity)
Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
Goethe (Land color theory)
Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
Lister, J (sterilizing)

Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
Zweig, George (quark theory)


Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary sources were provided but you seem to require secondary sources? This goes completely contrary to the standards of good research.

Irrelevant sources? I could have sworn you were pro abiogenesis. But if not, cool!


BTW
Fallacious reasoning and scientific dishonesty in unashamed support of the abiogenesis and evolutionary theory as well as academic harassment of creationists scientists identify evolutionists as a rather untrustworthy lot.

Piltown man= fraud

Nebraska Man=fraud

Embryonic Recapitulation=fraud

Feathered Dinosaur fossil=hoax


Excerpt


[b](Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2002, p. A12).

NEW YORK - When the smuggled stone slab first surfaced at a Tucson mineral show, it seemed the likely key to a mystery of evolution.

To the collector who paid $80,000 for it, the Chinese fossil had every appearance of a feathered dinosaur that flew like a modern bird. The purported missing link made headlines when National Geographic trumpeted the find in 1999, then caused red faces when it was revealed as a forgery a year later.

Researchers in China and at the American Museum of Natural History in New York now have completely deciphered the deception.

The find wrongly hailed as a crucial link between the dinosaurs and the birds actually does contain fossils of a dinosaur and a bird. But the only connection between them is glue.

In a study published recently in the journal Nature, the researchers revealed that the major part of the doctored fossil belongs to an ancient, fish-eating bird called Yanornis martini. Its lizard-like tail belongs to a small, carnivorous dinosaur previously identified as Microraptor zhaoianus...




Just to mention a notorious few.