1 edit
One scientist giving his opinion is hardly proof. Except of an inept scientist.
I bet you could find a scientist who has nonscientific opinions of hundreds of things.
Where did you earn your higher degree in field if you consider Jastrow's credentials as a scientist inept?
His training probably exceeds your pretensions here. It doesn't prove that he is right. He does have a right to an opinion. And he gave it.
Astronomers have by their own skills painted themselves into a corner. The NATURAL had a beginning. So what brought it about in all its laws by which science can evaluate the world must be transcendent and supernatural.
And he is not the ONLY non-religious scientist to admit this.
Now in your next post indicate your training in his field by which you evaluate his education as inept.
I do not worship science, I seek what is true and can be tested.
You mistake yourself for the person you would like to be.
You will follow the evidence as long as it doesn't lead to a transcendent Creator above which there could not be a greater one.
Since that is a threat to your imagined autonomy, you do not follow the science without vested interest in preserving your godlessness and autonomy.
Jastrow ALSO voiced his opinion about your types posturing like you respect science.
“There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.”
― Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom
@sonship saidShow your proof please.
@caissad4One scientist giving his opinion is hardly proof. Except of an inept scientist.
I bet you could find a scientist who has nonscientific opinions of hundreds of things.
Where did you earn your higher degree in field if you consider Jastrow's credentials as a scientist inept?
His training probably exceeds your pretensions here. It doesn' ...[text shortened]... examined the implications, he would be traumatized.”
― Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom [/quote]
@kellyjay saidThis is only true Kelly if you look at one fossil alone in isolation.
The only thing fossils do is lay in the dirt or whatever we find them. What we say about them is up to us.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou are not serious?
This is only true Kelly if you look at one fossil alone in isolation.
1 edit
A person who denies evolution of species, despite all of the fossil and DNA evidence for it, in other words a person who denies science, is, it seems to me, left with two options.
Either;
1. God created single - celled organisms and left them there for a few billion years, before he (assuming 'he' ) started to make more complex sea - creatures, and then he put some on the land; a few hundreds of thousands of them to start with, but he didn't like any of those so he killed them off and made new ones, then he killed them off and made more new ones. All of the dinosaurs, now extinct reptiles, mammals, birds and so on. Recently he started making hominids, none of which were to his satisfaction until....Us, homo sapiens, which he popped into the garden of Eden and thought 'yeah, that'll do, I'll make them self - conscious and see if they believe in me or not. If they do then regardless of what they get up to on earth I'll bring them up to heaven and give them a harp as a kind of welcome gift, and if they don't then no matter how good and righteous they are, they're £ucked anyway and they can burn in hell for eternity, because that's the kind of guy I am.
Or;
2. God put all of the fossils in the rocks and invented DNA just to confuse us.
Would any Christian reading this, who doesn't think that evolution of species happened, care to tell us which of these they subscribe to? A simple 1 or 2 answer will suffice.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidNo it isn't, scripture is evidence for people believing some total nonsense a couple of thousand years ago. Calling it a 'belief system' makes it sound almost grown up, but it's actually very childish.
Scripture is evidence for God.
You look at any belief system the foundational documents will be evidence about it.
Here's an edit; if what you say is true then Hindu teachings, Islamic scriptures and so on must be evidence for these religions and their gods, so they must all be true. You can't have it both ways.
3 edits
@Indonesia-Phil
Do you think the fossil of the archaeopteryx is a genuine indication of a part bird, part lizard "missing link" ?
@indonesia-phil saidYou don't think things through very well. Evidence is evidence, the weakness or strength of it will prove, not move the needle at all, or disprove something. Suggesting there is evidence, doesn't mean something is true, only that there is evidence, something to think about in terms of whatever it is we are looking at.
No it isn't, scripture is evidence for people believing some total nonsense a couple of thousand years ago. Calling it a 'belief system' makes it sound almost grown up, but it's actually very childish.
Here's an edit; if what you say is true then Hindu teachings, Islamic scriptures and so on must be evidence for these religions and their gods, so they must all be true. You can't have it both ways.
You want to suggest that every time evidence is presented that automatically means something is true? Maybe some think so when they look at science, or at least lean that direction, thinking they have things that can be pointed to, as if that settles if something is true. Evidence can only give us reasons to think so it doesn't not make something a fact, because we may not grasp what it is we are really looking at for some reason.
Evidence in any trial where events are under dispute, have both sides share all of the evidence. Some comes from the prosecutors for their side, while others for the defense side. Its all used, along with testimonies and so on, and hopefully truth is the end result, at least to a place of reasonable doubt or some other line.
@indonesia-phil saidYour way or the highway, false choices.
A person who denies evolution of species, despite all of the fossil and DNA evidence for it, in other words a person who denies science, is, it seems to me, left with two options.
Either;
1. God created single - celled organisms and left them there for a few billion years, before he (assuming 'he' ) started to make more complex sea - creatures, and then he put some ...[text shortened]... ies happened, care to tell us which of these they subscribe to? A simple 1 or 2 answer will suffice.
@sonship saidAs an aside, I note that this was not the kind of point you were pushing a few months ago when you were pushing the opinions of some podcaster with 'tertiary' qualifications in playing the guitar over one of the world's most famous and qualified historians of early Christianity and theology when you prefered what the guitarist believed about early Christianity.
Where did you earn your higher degree in field if you consider Jastrow's credentials as a scientist inept?