"law" of evolution?
- Started
- Last post
- 90 Responses
- ETM0
Eagerly awaiting resolution to this debate:
- teleos0
I am FOR evolution, if you mean change over a long period of time.
I am AGAINST evolution, if you mean blind stochastic mechanisms making the change, like Darwinism.
I am FOR belief in climate change.
I am AGAINST belief in anthropogenic climate change.
- wrong0
i always thought the "missing link" was the species between apes and prehistoric man . . . were we looking for what links all of those species to previous mammals? if so, hooray!
- teleos0
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
- Dr. Robert Jastrow, Astronomer
- designbot0
I think these quotes from scientists are quite cool and interesting...they really break open the myth that science and God are somehow at odds.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
- There's are tons and tons more btw...just pulled a few.designbot
- What if you found out it was the Islamic God instead of your vision of God?DrBombay
- then you'd still have to deal with a creator and the possibility that you are accountable to it/he/she :)teleos
- Couldn't I ask you a rewording of the same question? To quote you Dr.B "Enough with the what ifs"designbot
- Speak when spoken to.DrBombay
- sorry DB, my rude comment was for the other guy.DrBombay
- He likes to try to make other people look stupid, you know like Jesus used to do.DrBombay
- it's all good :)designbot
- Jesus was the master at removing people's foundation for argument quickly...usually leaving them to the crickets.designbot
- I always thought he was prob a pretty nice guy.DrBombay
- that clinches it. there must be a god and purpose to all things!spifflink
- my favorite thing ever is appealing to authority. ever. for serious.spifflink
- hey spiff, again you are verging on troll. I don't get why you or anyone feel the need to make such comments? They contribute nothing to the conversation.designbot
- nothing to the conversation.designbot
- yeah Dr.B I think the 2 things almost anyone can agree on...Jesus really did exists (human or God) and that he was must've been a nice dude :)designbot
- neither do you then. keep trying to establish your own criteria for what constitutes 'conversation'.spifflink
- ..must've been a nice dude ;)designbot
- spiff, all you did was throw some sarcastic remark out...how is that a conversation?designbot
- its pointing out the absurdity of some things people put forth. seriously, quit whining.spifflink
- some of these scientists have done amazing work, so i am not disparaging them.spifflink
- whatever, "absurd" by your own biased definition. Why not contribute something real to the conversation instead of making dogmatic assertions?designbot
- dogmatic assertions?designbot
- my own "biased" definition? disparaging 'dogma' and embracing religion in the same breath? haha!spifflink
- well then i can't argue with THAT circular logic.spifflink
- All this because you can't man-up and admit what you said was more snarky comment than valuable conversation. LOLdesignbot
- I would say something but apparently I am tainted by "bias". I would argue with you but you'll pull more mental gymnastics to rationalize your supremacy.spifflink
- assert your brand of logic's supremacy.spifflink
- and i guess being "snarky" is a bannable offense or something. which is why NO ONE on QBN is snarky at all.spifflink
- sorry you feel that way. I'm all about in engaging in conversation with mutual respect.designbot
- Yeah, I know people are snarky all the time on here, not saying that.designbot
- chrisRG0
the problem with religious people is that when "you/science/anything" prove that wasn't god that "created the world, created us, designed us, etc us..." they will argue a step behind and so on and on, religion it is the biggest meme of our history and we needed it to be here today, but please, take that only as that it is, there is no such thing as god out there, if u ever studied a bit about it with an open mind you'd realize that.
- please read more books than only that one
- please travel more, know more countries, cultures, religions...
- please try to think at least one day in life: "what if..."than the last famous quote about the good/bad news:
- bad: no, there is no god!
- good: you don't need it anyway!