Originally posted by e4chris RJ posted a thread on DNA being devine, If you can think that as a creationist then chemistry is no problem... biology maybe
chemistry is a problem. creationists cannot comprehend how organic compounds and subsequently dna can come up through chemical reactions (with the right conditions) from inorganic chemicals.
but i do have to see something with my own eyes to believe it, anything else is just a theory,
Have you seen the round earth with your own eyes rather than just pictures? If not, is a round-Earth “just a theory”? (i.e. not scientifically proven)
[quote] I'm not saying a chemical bond does not exist, a professor told us that. [/quot ...[text shortened]... your own eyes -so is chemical bonds existing “just a theory”? (i.e. not scientifically proven)
Originally posted by e4chris If you believe in god, its not much of an extention to call him a creator, saying DNA is created by god, the big bang is the hand of god etc.... there is nothing wrong with that way of thinking, and a good scientist would agree it can't be proven wrong.
I suspect the 6000 year creationists don't really believe what they are saying, it is more pig headedne ...[text shortened]... can be verrrrry dumb, I knew one who was thick as two short planks, but not all of them are.
the yecs actually believe what they are preaching. one can only delude himself for so long.
Originally posted by e4chris There is muslim science tho, the early muslims were brilliant at it. Also where science does not have an explanation god is valid, Hawking said something like that.
muslim science isn't a thing. the thing you are referring to is science done by muslims. as in people who did science, without god, done good things, then went home where they were muslims.
link what hawking actually said. i doubt those were his words. when there is no explanation, a scientist will keep looking for one, not use anything that crosses his mind. what you believe in your spare time is your bussiness. nobody can take that away from you. but a scientist's duty, while at work, is to be a scientist.
Originally posted by twhitehead There is no such thing as Muslim science. Muslims often are scientists and do science just as some Christians do (and some Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and atheists). And there are still plenty of brilliant Muslim scientists.
[b]Also where science does not have an explanation god is valid, Hawking said something like that. If Hawking said that, he was wrong. Taking wild guesses as fact is never 'valid'.[/b]
heh i should have read your post before posting the above.
Originally posted by e4chris A photograph will do.. that counts
Well before any photo taken of a round Earth, it was a proven scientific fact that the Earth was round and not flat -so what would you say 'counted' then as proof?
There is muslim science tho, the early muslims were brilliant at it
Yes, there was much science done by early Muslims that was brilliant (I assume that is what you meant by "muslim science"?) but not because they were Muslims but, rather, despite of them being theists. Theism really gets in the way of science.
[quote] Al te]
Actually, he didn't. Although he did make an awful lot of very silly quotes I admit.
Theism really gets in the way of science.
only if you let it. by your reasoning, so would knitting, watching cartoons, being a vegetarian, being a football fan, reading harry potter, being a pacifist and a host of other occupations or states of mind that the scientist has.
i am a software developer and my theism doesn't get in the way of me writing good code(well, aside from the times i stop writing code to try and educate fundamentalists or angry atheists on rhp forums)
Originally posted by humy Rubbish! Indirect observation can and often is proof!
You don't have to see it with your very eyes for it to be scientific proof.
Any sane person would no that. I have never directly seen with my own eyes the round Earth -only pictures of it. And prior to some people going into space, nobody else did either. And yet it was a proven scientific fact that ...[text shortened]... it with his own eyes thanks to indirect observations proving it round. Do you deny this?
The earth was known to be spherical by the ancient Greeks and no doubt others through observation of the shadow cast by the earth during lunar eclipses. The clincher was sailing around the thing and failing to find an edge. Strangely, the flat earth nonsense was a 19th century phenomenon and the Flat Earth Society was founded in 1956.
Originally posted by Kepler The earth was known to be spherical by the ancient Greeks and no doubt others through observation of the shadow cast by the earth during lunar eclipses. The clincher was sailing around the thing and failing to find an edge. Strangely, the flat earth nonsense was a 19th century phenomenon and the Flat Earth Society was founded in 1956.
The ancients did the stick pointing straight up thing but I don't think lunar eclipses needed to be involved, They just stuck a stick in the ground and measured the length of the shadow at noon time, and did the same thing 700 miles away and measured the length of THAT shadow at noon which proved to be a different angle showing the Earth was round.
Originally posted by sonhouse The ancients did the stick pointing straight up thing but I don't think lunar eclipses needed to be involved, They just stuck a stick in the ground and measured the length of the shadow at noon time, and did the same thing 700 miles away and measured the length of THAT shadow at noon which proved to be a different angle showing the Earth was round.
That trick was used to measure the earth. To come up with it you need to know the earth is spherical to start with. One measurement involved a well at Alexandria that the sun shone directly down at middday on the summer solstice.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi chemistry is a problem. creationists cannot comprehend how organic compounds and subsequently dna can come up through chemical reactions (with the right conditions) from inorganic chemicals.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi Theism really gets in the way of science.
only if you let it. by your reasoning, so would knitting, watching cartoons, being a vegetarian, being a football fan, reading harry potter, being a pacifist and a host of other occupations or states of mind that the scientist has.
i am a software developer and my theism doesn't get in the way of me writ ...[text shortened]... e times i stop writing code to try and educate fundamentalists or angry atheists on rhp forums)
When i did chemistry i had this feeling the subject was pointed in the wrong direction, glaxo did this add 'disease has no bigger enemy then ... them' its just not true pharma spend the bulk of there money designing anti depressants, that market is huge ... 100 times bigger then the one for a given life saving drug. (I'm not saying companies should have to take that on alone) The rest of the chemical industry think 'lawyer' when someone says 'test'... A bit of spiritual guidance could be a good...
I believe anyone who is seeking truth and tries there best to look at evidence and test theory and keep as unbiased as possible can make a good scientist. Every model of origins has its flaws. Creationist in the YEC camp have to contend with the apparent age of the universe and evolutionist have to deal with issues too like where are all of the transitional species in the fossil record ? I think it's looking at a puzzle and trying to figure it out.
Originally posted by e4chris When i did chemistry i had this feeling the subject was pointed in the wrong direction, glaxo did this add 'disease has no bigger enemy then ... them' its just not true pharma spend the bulk of there money designing anti depressants, that market is huge ... 100 times bigger then the one for a given life saving drug. (I'm not saying companies should have to t ...[text shortened]... think 'lawyer' when someone says 'test'... A bit of spiritual guidance could be a good...
Glaxo is not chemistry. Stop confusing big business with science, they are not the same thing at all. Next you'll be telling us that the inventor of cement is responsible for the housing market bubble and the subsequent financial crisis.
Originally posted by e4chris When i did chemistry i had this feeling the subject was pointed in the wrong direction, glaxo did this add 'disease has no bigger enemy then ... them' its just not true pharma spend the bulk of there money designing anti depressants, that market is huge ... 100 times bigger then the one for a given life saving drug. (I'm not saying companies should have to t ...[text shortened]... think 'lawyer' when someone says 'test'... A bit of spiritual guidance could be a good...
not meaning to offend, but your post didn't have a shred of logic or coherence.
and i bet the atheists (and in fact so do i) take offence that the "faithless" chemical industry needs spirituality to do the right thing. spirituality is a way of life. it doesn't make one squeaky clean all by itself.
06 Mar '13 13:14
Can creationists make good scientists?
Back to Top