Science Stoppers

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are arguments about whether Newton was the first of the modern scientists,
or the last of the mystics.

However you are getting into tricky territory as science as we know it today, or as
it existed even in the time of Darwin, let alone Einstein, was only really starting to
be invented.

It was also still more a branch of philosophy than ...[text shortened]... tion that took his name, but the first caesar is generally taken to
be his successor Augustus.

The Arab Alhazen (ca 1000 CE) is a candidate for early experimental scientist.

Of course he was a theist:

Wikipedia:

"Alhazen described his theology:

" I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

Originally posted by C Hess
Well, he dedicated his entire adult life to scientific research so I'd say he was a real scientist. 🙄

Not really. He may have dedicated his life to becoming a naturalist, but not a scientist.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not really. He may have dedicated his life to becoming a naturalist, but not a scientist.

Now I'm sure you have some weird creationist idea about what a scientist is, no doubt, but
to the rest of the world Darwin is considered one of the greatest scientists so far. He
looked at the natural world, formulated hypothesis, tested those hypothesis, wrote
numerous papers for peer review, and allowed the evidence to lead the way. You can't be
more scientist than that. Not only was he a scientist, but a brilliant one at that, to lay the
foundation for numerous new scientific disciplines. To call Darwin nothing but an amateur
naturalist is the equivalent of calling Newton a dabbler in math.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are arguments about whether Newton was the first of the modern scientists,
or the last of the mystics.

However you are getting into tricky territory as science as we know it today, or as
it existed even in the time of Darwin, let alone Einstein, was only really starting to
be invented.

It was also still more a branch of philosophy than ...[text shortened]... tion that took his name, but the first caesar is generally taken to
be his successor Augustus.

He was more than a theist and did not simply follow the convention of his day, he made a profound and diligent study of scripture. He was a deeply spiritual man.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He was more than a theist and did not simply follow the convention of his day, he made a profound and diligent study of scripture. He was a deeply spiritual man.

The clockwork physical world Newton posited was in principle, completely knowable and free of uncertainty.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He was more than a theist and did not simply follow the convention of his day, he made a profound and diligent study of scripture. He was a deeply spiritual man.

I don't see anywhere where I disagree with that.

However to save time I will be clear... I am prepared to accept that as very well being true...
So what?

I don't care that Newton was a theist and astrologer, and don't see why I should.

What's your point?

Originally posted by JS357
The Arab Alhazen (ca 1000 CE) is a candidate for early experimental scientist.

Of course he was a theist:

Wikipedia:

"Alhazen described his theology:

" I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

There are plenty of people who made great contributions to early science and mathematics,
not least the Ancient Greeks.

But in the west, the era of modern science as we know it today is generally considered to
basically start with Newton, and develop from there.

Whether or not that's entirely correct and/or sensible... [shrug]

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are plenty of people who made great contributions to early science and mathematics,
not least the Ancient Greeks.

But in the west, the era of modern science as we know it today is generally considered to
basically start with Newton, and develop from there.

Whether or not that's entirely correct and/or sensible... [shrug]

[shrug]

Exactly. I've seen Galileo and Francis Bacon being considered pivotal figures.

"Few will deny that Galileo is still seen as a principal founder and father of modern science. Bacon on the other hand is commonly seen as an influential footnote in scientific history, whose main lines run from Galileo through Kepler to Newton. Yet during his life, and with growing resonance in the decades following his death, Bacon's influence on the proto-scientific community of England and Europe was enormous, and admiration for his work was widespread and profound. Nevertheless, in a manner at least partially contrary to Bacon's probable hope, this [Bacon's] influence worked itself out along institutional and sociological, rather than technical and specific, lines. The culminating event directly traceable to specifically Baconian influence was the founding of the Royal Society in 1661. This extremely important predecessor of our own National Academy of Sciences traces directly back to Bacon's vision, in his New Atlantis, of a "Solomon's House", in modern terms an "Institute for Experimental and Theoretical Research.""

http://www.settheory.com/bacon_galileo.html

Like specific lines of scientific inquiry, the evolution of science itself builds upon work done by others.

Originally posted by JS357
[shrug]

Exactly. I've seen Galileo and Francis Bacon being considered pivotal figures.

"Few will deny that Galileo is still seen as a principal founder and father of modern science. Bacon on the other hand is commonly seen as an influential footnote in scientific history, whose main lines run from Galileo through Kepler to Newton. Yet during his life, an ...[text shortened]... ic lines of scientific inquiry, the evolution of science itself builds upon work done by others.

Indeed.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't see anywhere where I disagree with that.

However to save time I will be clear... I am prepared to accept that as very well being true...
So what?

I don't care that Newton was a theist and astrologer, and don't see why I should.

What's your point?

Starlight and the Young Earth by Dr. Charles Jackson

YouTube

Starlight And A Young Earth - Dr. G. Charles Jackson

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Starlight and the Young Earth by Dr. Charles Jackson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRe3DB5BIow

Starlight And A Young Earth - Dr. G. Charles Jackson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xdlmykLI58

Written rebuttals of the starlight argument for an old earth can be found by search, saving scads of time. One that offers at least 4 rebuttals is at:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/

These counterarguments are, roughly, inconstancy of light speed, non-rigidity of time, Biblical use of "cosmic local time" (more or less instantaneous arrival as seen by an observer traveling with the light), and simple supernaturalism (God could make it so).

If the youtube presentations are not adequately represented at this link, please tell us what is lacking in it.

Of course the starlight argument for an old earth would not be presented, if there were not a popular argument for a young earth. The question is, where is this argument presented and what does it say? Does it present scientific evidence? If you can link us to a scientific argument for a young earth, please do so.

That argument would help us avoid the conclusion that you have just presented an example of a science stopper.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He was more than a theist and did not simply follow the convention of his day, he made a profound and diligent study of scripture. He was a deeply spiritual man.

Yes. Pity such a brilliant mind was lost on alchemy, superstition and looking for Atlantis!

Originally posted by JS357
Written rebuttals of the starlight argument for an old earth can be found by search, saving scads of time. One that offers at least 4 rebuttals is at:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/

These counterarguments are, roughly, inconstancy of light speed, non-rigidity of time, Biblical use of "co ...[text shortened]... would help us avoid the conclusion that you have just presented an example of a science stopper.

It does not matter what the rebuttals say. God could do it any way he wants to.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes. Pity such a brilliant mind was lost on alchemy, superstition and looking for Atlantis!

It is also a pity that evolutionists are wasting their mind power on trying to prove the lie of the theory of evolution and billions and millions of years of earth's history when it is obvious that it ain't true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It does not matter what the rebuttals say. God could do it any way he wants to.

That is the exact science stopper the theist Plantinga pointed at.

If the originator of a thread were permitted to close a thread, I would do that here.