Science Stoppers

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, you're not.
And no, you didn't.

You're just playing the troll, and you're perfectly content with the solitary victory it confers.
Be sure to wipe off before mom comes downstairs again!

Look, a person who can read minds from a thousand miles away. 😴

I am watching a good video.

Astrophysicist and Christian Apologist Dr. Hugh Ross (Old Earther) in his customary civility discusses a number of interesting concept in this video.

Ie. The change in the New Athiests in recent years,
The source of the new aggressive form of atheism,
The most popular Atheist publication,
Three Humanist Manifestos,
Why Darwin developed his theories to comfort himself after his daugher's death,
His class with Carl Sagan,
Victor Stenger's book which Ross says is the "best" book out by the New Atheists - God the Failed Hypothesis (Ross apparently likes and has more respect for the science in this book than in Dawkins' best seller),
Dark Energy,
Ever expanding Universe,
Lawrence Krauss (author of "A Universe From Nothing" ),
"Six Cosmic Dooms",
Reasons for Optimism,
and many other interesting concepts

"Why The Universe Is The Way It Is"

YouTube

My recommendation of the video is not necessarily a wholesale endorsement of everything Dr. Ross has ever said. I find him an intriguing lecturer on science and Christian apologetics.

(Yes, yes, I know that some YECs like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have practically excommunicated him for not being YEC).

Originally posted by sonship
I am watching a good video.

Astrophysicist and Christian Apologist Dr. Hugh Ross (Old Earther) in his customary civility discusses a number of interesting concept in this video.

Ie. The change in the New Athiests in recent years,
The source of the new aggressive form of atheism,
The most popular Atheist publication,
Three H ...[text shortened]... t some YECs like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have practically excommunicated him for not being YEC).

Dr. Hugh Ross is definitely a decent scientist. However, his theology has serious problems because he continues to rely to the days of Genesis being long periods of time in order to compromise his science and the Holy Bible with the evolutionist's millions and billions of years.

Originally posted by C Hess

Not all humans have a moral sense. It seems to be intimately connected to brain activity,
which means that a damaged portion of the brain can lead to sociopathy.

I think recent research is suggesting that a small proportion
of sociopaths (/psychopaths) is actually beneficial to society.
Can we view that as "damage" ???

Originally posted by sonship
Why Darwin developed his theories to comfort himself after his daughter's death,

And we all thought he was a scientist wishing to broaden Man's knowledge . 😞

Originally posted by wolfgang59
And we all thought he was a scientist wishing to broaden Man's knowledge . 😞

Not me.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I think recent research is suggesting that a small proportion
of sociopaths (/psychopaths) is actually beneficial to society.

Really? How?

Originally posted by C Hess
Really? How?

I believe he is just trying to justify himself.

Originally posted by sonship
Darwin developed his theories to comfort himself after his daugher's death

Uh, no he didn't.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Dr. Hugh Ross is definitely a decent scientist. However, his theology has serious problems because he continues to rely to the days of Genesis being long periods of time in order to compromise his science and the Holy Bible with the evolutionist's millions and billions of years.

I know all about your criticism on Day Age interpretation of Genesis.

Originally posted by C Hess
Uh, no he didn't.

Uh, yes, he probably did.

1.) Doesn't mean his theory was necessarily wrong because it gave him comfort.

2.) Doesn't mean it was his only motivation.

3.) Darwin's struggles with theistic beliefs were influenced by personal tragedy.

Its arguable at least that he did take some comfort in his theory.

4.) Few scientists are totally above wanting to seek comfort in the face of personal tragedy in any way they may find useful.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] Uh, yes, he probably did.

1.) Doesn't mean his theory was necessarily wrong because it gave him comfort.

2.) Doesn't mean it was his only motivation.

3.) Darwin's struggles with theistic beliefs were influenced by personal tragedy.

Its arguable at least that he did take some comfort in his theory.

4.) Few scientists are tota ...[text shortened]... y above wanting to seek comfort in the face of personal tragedy in any way they may find useful.[/b]

So as a debating point it's somewhat sophomoric.

Originally posted by JS357
So as a debating point it's somewhat sophomoric.

What is having some attention to me these few days is the surprising differences in attitudes among philosophers about the nature of what science is and does.

I have a number of categories before me concernings schools of thought of the philosophy of science:

Rational Realism (or Scientific Realism)

Rational Nonrealism ( or Instrumentalism )

with subcatagories -
Rational Nonrealism - Constructive Empiricism
Rational Nonrealism - Phenomenalism

more subcatagories -
Instrumentalism - Pragmatism
Instrumentalism - Operationalism

Nonrational Nonrealism

Leave it to philosophers to analyze something to the Nth degree.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I agree. "God did it" is not good enough. Let's go find out *how* He did it. This is science's job. Evolution was a good start. Modern astrophysics answers other questions. Christians need not fear science. Science is the "how", after all. Teaching Creationism in schools doesn't do our kids any favors, it only teaches them that critical thinking, th ...[text shortened]... ly both sides can relax their "set in stone" mindsets, perhaps some true progress could be made.

"Let's go find out *how* He did it.

Don't have to go far. The answer is right there in His Word.

By faith!

Originally posted by sonship
Uh, yes, he probably did.

Uh, no, he didn't. Charles worked his entire adult life on the theory
of evolution, for many years before his daughter died. In fact, few people
seem to know that it was Erasmus, Charles grandfather who first presented
the idea of common descent in several of his writings. What was so
ingenious about Charles own work was the idea of natural selection. Before
his time, evolution was never taken seriously because it's unlikely that
random events alone could produce a stable form of speciation.