Random mutation + “natural” [unguided] selection = man
Teilhard has a lot of great things to say, pace his hasty position on “Piltdown Man.” I’ve been to conferences of the North American Teilhard Society and find them stimulating, challenging and prayerful.
It’s a pretty strong claim to say that every measurement of the oblateness of the earth since Cassini has been a fraud. Not only is it a strong claim: it is a ridiculous claim that you haven’t got the slightness evidence for. Let me remind you again of the measurements of earth flattening made in the 20th and 21st centuries:hecd2:
My point is that confirmation of Newton’s predictions were forged correct so that his heliocentricism could be shown to have been ‘proven’. I see you confirm this.
What exactly was the fraud? That the earth is oblate? That’s not a fraud - it’s a fact.
He did indeed, backing the Cartesian system of vortices. He has since been shown to be wrong.
I think that’s what’s called sour grapes. Newtonian mechanics is what works and is used for all non-relativistic engineering including calculating spacecraft trajectories. Rather successfully, I should add.
Really? Johannes Kepler, Christoph Scheiner - and then there is a rather fine astronomer called Galileo Galilei. Continuing, Jeremiah Horrocks, Hevelius, Huyghens, Edmund Halley. How many more do you want?
Well, apparently not according to the Church. But then, who are you going to believe?
Not exactly a very reasonable or scientific answer, is it? Well, I know that you don’t have a clue why this precession occurs. Not exactly a very competent amateur astronomer or cosmologist, then, are you?hecd2:
Because God created it so.
Ah, now we have something to work with. Why do you think that it is a reasonable hypothesis to claim that the claimed rotation of the universe around the earth creates the Coriolis force, the flattening of the earth, the preference for launching satellites from low latitudes and to the east, and the rotation of the plane of Foucault’s pendulum? If the universe were rotating round the earth, why would it cause these effects? What reference can you provide to support this assertion?
Well, I think that, generally speaking, they are attacking the ideas and concepts of the religious, not the religious themselves.
Including professional philosophers such as Dan Dennett and Vic Stenger?
Yeah, right. An “electromagnetic connection” for cosmology. Pull the other one. Talk about delusions of grandeur.
Of course not. Why should we expect you to share it? Just keep it to yourself, that’s by far the best policy.
Good - argue philosophy. Don’t disguise it as science.
It’s wrong because they are wrong. The Catholic Church teaches that anyone can detect God, from scientists to pizza delivery boys. Your argument proves what I’ve been writing for a while now: atheism needs scientists to support it, even though scientists cannot demonstrate, using science, that there is no God. Your argument also proves how false the statement that a method called science does not affect scientists and does not alter their worldview in a way that they believe, but cannot prove, that there is no God. In other words, there is no way science can support the idea that there is no God. So, scientists are simply choosing a belief system; one that excludes God.
Except, they are completely bogus. They calculate the probability of a given DNA sequence of 100 nucleotides assembling completely at random. Then they calculate the probability of the purely random assembly of a protein of 100 predetermined residues. Both calculations are entirely irrelevant to the question of abiogenesis and their conclusion that natural abiogenesis is impossible is completely unwarranted.
It’s a relatively short book. It didn’t take me long to read it twice. I read all sorts of books, not only ones that support my views, so, no, not contaminated
I hope you haven’t been “contaminated”
I don’t know how long it’s been since I felt I had the luxury to read a book over again.
Obviously we have very different perspectives on things, but I’m curious. Did you ever read “The Science Before Science” by Rizzi, or “A Meaningful World”, by Wiker (the same guy) and Witt? They both touch on evolution, but it’s not the main point of the books.
. In this case, I am thinking of writing a review of the Hahn and Wiker book for my website, hence the second reading making notes. I haven’t read either of the two books you mention. Should I?Who disguises it as science? Where? No-one has been able to produce a single scientific paper or textbook in which God’s existence is attacked.
You’re right, Alec. But multitutes use ‘scientific papers’ to propose He does not!..
I understand that it is your opinion and that it is also your opinion that the Church is an authority on the matter. However, many people accept neither your opinion, nor the Church’s.
I know. Funny then that scientists, the people who know most about how nature works, are the ones statistically least likely to detect God.
I don’t see how my freedom of expression argument proves any such thing. I also think you misunderstand. Scientists and atheists are not identical sets. Many, but by no means all scientists are atheists not because they are “needed” by atheism, but because that is the conclusion that their knowledge of the natural world leads to.
I think it provides evidence for many people of the lack of design in nature and the lack of necessity to posit God.
Some scientists - but there must be a reason why scientists statistically are less likely to believe in God and the answer as far as I can see is that a deeper knowledge of how nature works tends to undermine a number of the arguments for God’s existence.
So we come full circle. What’s wrong with that? As I said before:
Dear warpspeedpetey,