iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
11 Oct 2010, 8:21 pm
11 Oct 2010, 9:51 pm
11 Oct 2010, 9:52 pm
12 Oct 2010, 7:49 am
12 Oct 2010, 3:16 pm
12 Oct 2010, 7:28 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
12 Oct 2010, 10:53 pm
12 Oct 2010, 11:03 pm
12 Oct 2010, 11:06 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
12 Oct 2010, 11:25 pm
13 Oct 2010, 1:32 am
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
13 Oct 2010, 1:43 am
13 Oct 2010, 3:25 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, doesn't science evolve on its own? It is not as if the actual pioneers are irreplaceable, but they are replaceable. Even further, why would it matter the other beliefs of any scientist. Being a scientist does not depend on one's religious beliefs, and generally does not rely upon them. So, what point do you have, 'keet?
Although the individual pioneers of fields might be able to be considered replaceable, it is doubtful to me that if nobody had taken the initiative and just, instead, waited for the fields to evolve by themselves that it would be anything other than a whole lot of nothing happening. As per the religious beliefs of the pioneers, that pertains directly to Sand's implied argument and also indirectly to the nature of the motivation of the pioneers (although that wasn't what I was intending to bring up here, but merely a contradiction to Sand.)
The advance of science depends upon the interlocking of various theoretical contentions which may be totally independent of whatever other beliefs the different scientists may have had. Their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their scientific contributions. Newton had all sorts of kooky ideas not relevant to his huge scientific contributions and to tie his science to his religion is about as sensible as assuming his choice of clothing styles or food preferences were pertinent to his theories of physics.
Even if their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their aim to "know something of [God's] attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork", it still contradicts your blind assertion which you previously had made.
I assume this assertion is the one you refer to :
And, of course, those idiots that put their faith in reasoning and truth to make effective technologies of physics, chemistry, biology etc and whose products have been radio, TV, effective medicine, aircraft, and all sorts of civil engineering will be proved to be totally foolish when Jesus is reborn out of some knocked up virgin.
I guess you're correct
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
13 Oct 2010, 4:27 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, doesn't science evolve on its own? It is not as if the actual pioneers are irreplaceable, but they are replaceable. Even further, why would it matter the other beliefs of any scientist. Being a scientist does not depend on one's religious beliefs, and generally does not rely upon them. So, what point do you have, 'keet?
Although the individual pioneers of fields might be able to be considered replaceable, it is doubtful to me that if nobody had taken the initiative and just, instead, waited for the fields to evolve by themselves that it would be anything other than a whole lot of nothing happening. As per the religious beliefs of the pioneers, that pertains directly to Sand's implied argument and also indirectly to the nature of the motivation of the pioneers (although that wasn't what I was intending to bring up here, but merely a contradiction to Sand.)
The advance of science depends upon the interlocking of various theoretical contentions which may be totally independent of whatever other beliefs the different scientists may have had. Their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their scientific contributions. Newton had all sorts of kooky ideas not relevant to his huge scientific contributions and to tie his science to his religion is about as sensible as assuming his choice of clothing styles or food preferences were pertinent to his theories of physics.
Even if their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their aim to "know something of [God's] attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork", it still contradicts your blind assertion which you previously had made.
I assume this assertion is the one you refer to :
And, of course, those idiots that put their faith in reasoning and truth to make effective technologies of physics, chemistry, biology etc and whose products have been radio, TV, effective medicine, aircraft, and all sorts of civil engineering will be proved to be totally foolish when Jesus is reborn out of some knocked up virgin.
I guess you're correct
Yes, I am, for many of "those [scientists] that... [gave us] effective technologies of physics, chemistry, biology, etc ... " were believers in Christ.
13 Oct 2010, 4:49 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, doesn't science evolve on its own? It is not as if the actual pioneers are irreplaceable, but they are replaceable. Even further, why would it matter the other beliefs of any scientist. Being a scientist does not depend on one's religious beliefs, and generally does not rely upon them. So, what point do you have, 'keet?
Although the individual pioneers of fields might be able to be considered replaceable, it is doubtful to me that if nobody had taken the initiative and just, instead, waited for the fields to evolve by themselves that it would be anything other than a whole lot of nothing happening. As per the religious beliefs of the pioneers, that pertains directly to Sand's implied argument and also indirectly to the nature of the motivation of the pioneers (although that wasn't what I was intending to bring up here, but merely a contradiction to Sand.)
The advance of science depends upon the interlocking of various theoretical contentions which may be totally independent of whatever other beliefs the different scientists may have had. Their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their scientific contributions. Newton had all sorts of kooky ideas not relevant to his huge scientific contributions and to tie his science to his religion is about as sensible as assuming his choice of clothing styles or food preferences were pertinent to his theories of physics.
Even if their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their aim to "know something of [God's] attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork", it still contradicts your blind assertion which you previously had made.
I assume this assertion is the one you refer to :
And, of course, those idiots that put their faith in reasoning and truth to make effective technologies of physics, chemistry, biology etc and whose products have been radio, TV, effective medicine, aircraft, and all sorts of civil engineering will be proved to be totally foolish when Jesus is reborn out of some knocked up virgin.
I guess you're correct
Yes, I am, for many of "those [scientists] that... [gave us] effective technologies of physics, chemistry, biology, etc ... " were believers in Christ.
And therefore the atheists who gave us effective technologies are absolutely untouchable.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
13 Oct 2010, 4:57 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, doesn't science evolve on its own? It is not as if the actual pioneers are irreplaceable, but they are replaceable. Even further, why would it matter the other beliefs of any scientist. Being a scientist does not depend on one's religious beliefs, and generally does not rely upon them. So, what point do you have, 'keet?
Although the individual pioneers of fields might be able to be considered replaceable, it is doubtful to me that if nobody had taken the initiative and just, instead, waited for the fields to evolve by themselves that it would be anything other than a whole lot of nothing happening. As per the religious beliefs of the pioneers, that pertains directly to Sand's implied argument and also indirectly to the nature of the motivation of the pioneers (although that wasn't what I was intending to bring up here, but merely a contradiction to Sand.)
The advance of science depends upon the interlocking of various theoretical contentions which may be totally independent of whatever other beliefs the different scientists may have had. Their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their scientific contributions. Newton had all sorts of kooky ideas not relevant to his huge scientific contributions and to tie his science to his religion is about as sensible as assuming his choice of clothing styles or food preferences were pertinent to his theories of physics.
Even if their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their aim to "know something of [God's] attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork", it still contradicts your blind assertion which you previously had made.
I assume this assertion is the one you refer to :
And, of course, those idiots that put their faith in reasoning and truth to make effective technologies of physics, chemistry, biology etc and whose products have been radio, TV, effective medicine, aircraft, and all sorts of civil engineering will be proved to be totally foolish when Jesus is reborn out of some knocked up virgin.
I guess you're correct
Yes, I am, for many of "those [scientists] that... [gave us] effective technologies of physics, chemistry, biology, etc ... " were believers in Christ.
And therefore the atheists who gave us effective technologies are absolutely untouchable.
I'm not making that claim, however you would pretend that all scientists are atheists. It would make you feel better wouldn't it, if all who don the priestly white coat be of like mind with you?
