- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by xxxenophobeI never recall writting the word "handiork". If you are refering to "handiwork", any dictionary will inform you that it means, "Work performed by hand, or the product of a person's efforts and actions."
i was quoting you.. you tell me... drrr...
12 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerDr Robert Jastrow can speculate on what was prior to the bigbang all he wants , his speculation is in itself based on his premise that God exists , making a matter (for him) of faith, however that kind of deductive reasoning isn't science which uses inductive reasoning.
There is no branch that looks at a larger portion of God's handiork than do astronomers. The Scripture says: "The Heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork". (Psalm 19:1); "For the invisible things of h ...[text shortened]... of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
[/b]
I also noticed Scientists haven't burned him at the stake for heresy.
12 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou did so use the word "handiork"
I never recall writting the word "handiork". If you are refering to "handiwork", any dictionary will inform you that it means, "Work performed by hand, or the product of a person's efforts and actions."
It not xxxx's fault that he can read better than you can type, is it?
edit
who btw wrote this "There is no branch that looks at a larger portion of God's handiork than do astronomers.;"
if not you?
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerApparently Robert Jastrow isn't one of those 90% as he describes himself as an agnostic:
There is no branch that looks at a larger portion of God's handiork than do astronomers. The Scripture says: "The Heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork". (Psalm 19:1); "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen" (Romans 1:10). Ninety percent of all astronomers today believe in G ...[text shortened]... rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
[/b]
Robert Jastrow, Astrophysicist/Author science
Jastrow, director of the Mount Wilson Observatory, president of the George Marshall Institute and author of God and the Astronomers appeared on an installment of Ben Wattenberg's Think Tank which aired September 9, 1995. The topic was "Does Science Leave Room for Religion and Vice Versa?".
Jastrow was asked about his own beliefs and said: "I'm a committed reductionist. I think that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. But I also know that there is no way within my scientific discipline of finding out whether there is a larger purpose or design in the universe. So I remain an agnostic, and not an atheist. To profess a disbelief in the existence of design or of the deity is essentially, in itself, a theological statement which a scientist cannot make on the structure or on the strength of his own discipline. He can only make it as a personal belief."
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you see no significance in his statement?: "The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Apparently Robert Jastrow isn't one of those 90% as he describes himself as an agnostic:
Robert Jastrow, Astrophysicist/Author science
Jastrow, director of the Mount Wilson Observatory, president of the George Marshall Institute and author of God and the Astronomers appeared on an installment of Ben Wattenberg's Think Tank whi ...[text shortened]... ure or on the strength of his own discipline. He can only make it as a personal belief."
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerapparently Jastrow can't tell the difference between a mountain and a pile of what those theologians were sitting there for centuries doing.
So you see no significance in his statement?:[b] "The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
[/b]
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAssuming this is an actual quote, I'd have to see the full context to judge what he meant as you clowns are sooooooooo fond of quoting words of people out of context (perhaps it's what we call a "joke"😉. Do you see the significance of this quote: "But I also know that there is no way within my scientific discipline of finding out whether there is a larger purpose or design in the universe."?
So you see no significance in his statement?:[b] "The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe you could read his book, "God and the Astronomers." I think the quote you gave about him being an agnostic (off some obscure web-site) might be more obscure than the quotes obtained from the book that he wrote himself...
Assuming this is an actual quote, I'd have to see the full context to judge what he meant as you clowns are sooooooooo fond of quoting words of people out of context (perhaps it's what we call a "joke"😉. Do you see the significance of this quote: "But I also know that there is no way within my scientific discipline of finding out whether there is a larger purpose or design in the universe."?
12 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerEverything is based on assumptions. For example, you assume every second that you're not looking at a Bible that Bibles do exist and that the have in the past. However there does exist strong evidence in favor of the hypothesis. Here's one example:
Do you have any proof of this that is not based on assumptions?
The RNA world hypothesis states that early life forms lacked protein enzymes and depended instead on enzymes composed of RNA. This hypothesis relies on the premise that some RNA sequences can catalyze RNA replication. In support of this idea, we have created an RNA molecule that catalyzes the type of polymerization reaction needed for RNA replication.
http://web.mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/facresearch/bartel.shtml