Creation: The big and the small of it

by Zechariah 85 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  pomegranate

  I said that "religious belief" has impeded scientific progress and still does.

  The list of scientists overrules your OPINION which has no validity.

  One need only consider the Catholic Church's persecution of pioneers in celestial mechanics,

  The pioneers of celestial mechanics were believers in God and the Bible. I believe your problem is lumping believers in with the Catholic Church.

  Most of the early scientists that were cutting edge were defiant of the church, as history plainly shows. NOW. If you said the CATHOLIC CHURCH had impeded scientific progress, then you would be speaking the truth. Believers in God and the Bible set scientific milestones.

  The people you cited may have believed in God but progress was slowed down in many fields by the necessity to reconcile scientific findings with preconceived notions about the universe.

  
  Which came from the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Most scientists were rebels of the church yet retained their beliefs. God and science do go together and do progress, as the list plainly shows.

  Certainty about the universe is thevery antithesis of the scientific method. Geology could not have developed without the absolute rejection of the idea of a global flood.

  Untrue.
• 

  Realist

  pom,

  doesn't it strike you that all these scientists were raised in a christian environment? don't you think it might be possible they were christians because of this upbringing - as they would have been moslims, hindus etc. if they would have grown up in asia?
• 

  Francois

  Pom, I can't believe that you deny that the Church has acted as a bar to scientific progress. We're not talking about religious men of science who discovered things here, we're talking about the CHURCH itself. You're mixing apples and oranges.

  The heliocentric model of the solar system was developed by Nicholas Copernicus, a very churchly dude, who was made to recant his model by the Church (or be burned at the stake) and who was forced by that same Church to spend the remainder of his life under house arrest. He is famously quoted as muttering under his breath as he was led away from his trial for heresy, "And yet it moves."

  The guy who invented the first barometer was similiarly treated by the Church when his scientific model required a vacuum at the top of the tube of mercury. "No such thing as a vacuum, " the Church intoned knowingly, "God is everywhere."

  I could make this list as long as I wanted, but I don't want to make it any longer since two examples are sufficient to disprove your allegation that the Church (not scientific churchmen) was not - and to some extent today - a bar to scientific progress. The Church's current opposition to experimentation with cloning, and for research in stem cell microbiology tells me that if the Church was still running the show, we'd STILL be in the intellectual Dark Ages.

  Frankly I think you should be able to argue your points absent making foolish and obvious mistakes about the role of the church.

  You might remember that, regarding Nicholas Copernicus, the Church didn't reverse itself and actually issue an apology to the man until 1978. On the same day John Wayne died in fact. Wonder if there's a connection?

  Religious people who aren't thoroughly grounded in science I think should avoid the subject altogether. Think. Religion and science have had many, many debates over the centuries. Religion has never - in the end - won even ONE of these debates. IMHO religion should concern itself with the scientist, and avoid science altogether. In the end, I believe it will be found that there is NO controversy or disagreement between the TRUTH of real religion and the FACTS of science. We're just not there yet.

  $0.02

  francois
• 

  Gedanken

  pomegranate,

  The Catholic Church is simply one example of the religious mindset which you are now demonstrating - thatis, an a priori determination of how the universe is, rather than one based on observation. Modern Geology absolutely rejects the idea of a Noachian flood. So your "Untrue" statement is idiotic. Modern Geology cannot and could not exist if the flood account were taken literally - nor, by the way can modern day celestial mechanics, and even Newton's laws of motion be reconciled with the flood account.

  Celestial mechanics developed because people made observations of the actual universe that eventually led to strongly held - and Biblical teachings such as a flat Earth - being rejected. The same thing has happened with evolution, and, incidentally the fact that the Solar System is chaotic. All of these ideas have steadily been opposed by ignorant "true believers" such as yourself.

  Philosophically, in rejecting the physical evidence for evolution you are behaving in exactly the same was as the Catholic Church did.

  Emotionally you are unable to deal with reality. Nothing will shake you from your "true belief" - so much so that you are unable even to understand the arguments you are battling against. In reality your opinions are just as sane as those as Woodworth's views on science as recounted in Golden Age.

  Gedanken
• 

  pomegranate

  Wait a second Frank. You either misread or are misunderstading. I WHOLEY say the Catholic church was a stymy for scientific progress. Go re-read what I wrote.

  We're not talking about religious men of science who discovered things here, we're talking about the CHURCH itself. You're mixing apples and oranges.

  No, you are not reading correctly. I say PLAINLY as in my previous post Catholicism was a deterrant to scientific progress.

  Frankly I think you should be able to argue your points absent making foolish and obvious mistakes about the role of the church.

  You better go back to school and take some reading comprehension tests.

  Edited by - pomegranate on 23 October 2002 17:31:9
• 

  Realist

  hallo gedanken,

  freut mich sehr etwas untersttzung zu bekommen!

  grsse aus salzburg!
• 

  pomegranate

  The Catholic Church is simply one example of the religious mindset which you are now demonstrating - thatis, an a priori determination of how the universe is, rather than one based on observation. Modern Geology absolutely rejects the idea of a Noachian flood. So your "Untrue" statement is idiotic. Modern Geology cannot and could not exist if the flood account were taken literally - nor, by the way can modern day celestial mechanics, and even Newton's laws of motion be reconciled with the flood account.

  There are modern geologists that agree with a global flood. Would you like me to list some of them for you with their credentials?

  Celestial mechanics developed because people made observations of the actual universe that eventually led to strongly held - and Biblical teachings such as a flat Earth - being rejected. The same thing has happened with evolution, and, incidentally the fact that the Solar System is chaotic. All of these ideas have steadily been opposed by ignorant "true believers" such as yourself.

  The Bible teaches no such thing as a flat earth. Calling me ignorant makes you less believable.

  Philosophically, in rejecting the physical evidence for evolution you are behaving in exactly the same was as the Catholic Church did.

  You have no idea what I believe. The physical evidence in no way supports a transitory developement of life.

  Emotionally you are unable to deal with reality.

  Whoa!!! Nicely crafted insults you're lobbing there big guy!! Does it make you feel right?

  Edited by - pomegranate on 23 October 2002 17:39:57
• 

  expatbrit

  Listing bible-believing Western scientists who have pioneered disciplines in the West proves nothing about how accurate their religious beliefs are.

  For instance, the following list is of Arab scientific pioneers, most of whom were Muslim. Does their pioneering scientific disciplines verify their Muslim religious beliefs? It does, if you agree with the reasoning of Christians who think that listing scientists who believed in Christianity verifies the Christian religion.

  Expatbrit

  THE ARAB ROLE IN SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY

  Scientists listed in chronological order Abd al-Malik Ibn Quraib al-Asmai (740-828) Zoology, botany, animal husbandry Muhammad Bin Musa al-Khwarizmi (Algorizm) (770-840) Mathematics, astronomy, geography, (algorithm, algebra, calculus) Abu 'Uthman 'Amr ibn Bakr al-Basri al-Jahiz (776-868) Zoology, Arabic grammar, rhetoric, lexicography Yaqub Ibn Ishaq al-Kindi (Alkindus) (800-873) Philosophy, physics, optics, medicine, mathematics, metallurgy Jabir Ibn Haiyan (Geber)(Died 803) Thabit Ibn Qurrah (Thebit) (836-901) Astronomy, mechanics, geometry, anatomy Ali Ibn Rabban al-Tabari (838-870) Medicine, mathematics, calligraphy, literature Abu Abdullah al-Battani (Albategnius) (858-929) Astronomy, mathematics, trigonometry Abul-Abbas Ahmad al-Farghani (al-Fraganus) (C. 860) Astronomy, civil engineering Muhammad Ibn Zakariya al-Razi (Rhazes) (864-930) Medicine, ophthalmology, smallpox, chemistry, astronomy Abu al-Nasr al-Farabi (al-Pharabius) (870-950) Sociology, logic, philosophy, political science, music 'Abbas Ibn Firnas (Died 888) Mechanics of flight, planetarium, artificial crystals Abd-al Rahman al-Sufi (Azophi) (903-986) Astronomy Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (Albucasis) (936-1013) Surgery, medicine (father of modern surgery) Abul Wafa Muhammad al-Buzjani (940-997) Mathematics, astronomy, geometry, trigonometry Abul Hasan Ali al-Masu'di (Died 957) Geography, history Abu Ali Hasan Ibn al-Haitham (Alhazen) (965-1040) Physics, optics, mathematics

  Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi (Alboacen) (972-1058) Political science, sociology, jurisprudence, ethics Abu Raihan al-Biruni (973-1048) Astronomy, mathematics. Determined the earth's circumference Abu Ali al-Hussain Ibn Abdallah Ibn Sina (Avicenna) (981-1037) Medicine, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy Abu Ishaq Ibrahim Ibn Yahya al-Zarqali (Arzachel) (1028-1087) Astronomy (invented astrolabe) Omar al-Khayyam (1044-1123) Mathematics, poetry Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (Algazel) (1058-1111) Sociology, theology, philosophy Abu Marwan Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar, Abumeron) (1091-1161) Surgery, medicine Abu Abdallah Muhammad al-Idrisi (1099-1166) Geography (world map, first globe) Abul Waleed Muhammad Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1128-1198) Philosophy, law, medicine, astronomy, theology Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274) Astronomy, non-Euclidean geometry Nur al-Din Ibn Ishaq al-Bitruji (Alpetragius) (Died 1204) Astronomy Jalal al-Din Rumi (1207) Sociology Ibn al-Nafis Damishqi (1213-1288) Anatomy Abu Muhammad Abdallah Ibn al-Baitar (Died 1248) Pharmacy, botany Mohammed Targai Ulugh Beg (1393-1449) Astronomy Abd al-Rahman Ibn Muhammad Ibn Khaldun (1332-1395) Sociology, philosophy of history, political science Portraits of 12 Muslim scientists in various fields
• 

  Realist

  pom,

  maybe you can list the evidence supporting a global flood.
• 

  pomegranate

  That isn't the issue. The issue is believers in God (whether Alah, Buddah, Jehovah or Harold Burbone) are supposed to have been a detriment to the sciences. Facts show otherwise.

  Ps. Some of the list I posted are Jews.