- Joined
- Apr 12, 2019
- Messages
- 7,860
- Points
- 269
and for the Chinese soup
Other Post Not all scientists are atheist
- Thread starter Buster23
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 12
- Points
- 73
Scientific studies to validate a book of fiction is to my mind, an exercise in personal opinion. The myth of the Exodus for example, relates to an incident involving the Hebrews at the Reed Sea, not Red. There are two places this could, or did not, happen. Near 2. Eliat and on the 1. Nile Delta, both had reed seas. Its thought that the Hebrews crossed the Nile at Reed Sea 2 unmolested and made their way south towards what is today Saudi, towards Reed Sea 1. I cannot describe what happened here because I suffer now from memory lapses. But at the time of the tv documentary and hard scientific evidence, Reed Sea 1 lead to an area where a volcano in Saudi was 'erupting' which caused ignition by hot gas of burning bushes. Like all myths, some become 'fact' by nature of belief. Taking religion out of the equation totally, which we should, leaves the only religion of search, find, prove, science.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Messages
- 1,340
- Points
- 338
I have pasta packed for lunch, but I don't want to have to subscribe to organised religion to not go hungry.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
@Mordoror
Dude, I do respect your opinion, but you cannot tell me what to discuss or not to discuss here as long as all my posts are within the forum rules, we are in the Off Topic Thread right? Well if people really find this thread/topic stupid or offensive (lol), they always have the choice to ignore it, right? Or we can discuss without insulting each other.
I may be guilty of few fallacious arguments here as I am not really a good debater (nor a scientist for that matter) but I think I did answered your arguments as objective as I can. I think you are the one pushing to redirect the discussion on religious side like the ones you are talking above in your post when in fact the thrust of my posts are all focused on technical/scientific side of the discussion. I understand that you want this discussion to be science vs. religion but that is not the case in the real world because there are considerable number of intelligent/competent scientists as well as ordinary people who believe that science is NOT incompatible with the Scriptures and they are not going away, in fact they (dissidents) are growing in numbers.
M
Mordoror
Guest
Look Dude, what goes on my nerves is that i am losing my time to answer you in a developed manner and that your only answers were to accuse me of deflecting, desperate excuses and whatnot. Mind you, i have other things to do than to try to convince somebody embbeded in his faith and basing his understanding on a limited amount of sites and a limited knowledge of the topics he wants to discuss.
I am not the one that launched the subject and it seems that you did it only to get strenghtened in your position
I am not the one bringing science vs religion
In fact, you'll find no scientists plastering the net with subjects like "God doesn't exist, the creationnists are wrong, here is why ..." while you have plenty of the contrary, your subject being one of them
As if you and most of your kin were unsecure enough in your faith that you needed to convince the others.
For the last time, science men don't care. You'd find some of them who still believe in God or whatever superior entity they name without ressorting to direct attacks on science results and questionable pseudoscience approaches that are, as far as they are concerned, questionable and questioned.
Yes, when we read none sense pseudoscience, we answer. It's up to you to understand where is the limit.
Saying that the creationist BS is BS is not attacking faith. It's calling a spade a spade but it is not questioning if God exists or not. It's up to everyone to believe or not.
Now if you are to the point to believe that the Scriptures are literaly true, that's your right but it's mine to say that a bunch of things in the Scriptures and their interpretations are litteraly false as it was shown through the centuries. Again, it is not questioning your faith in God, it is questioning your belief in the literal reading of a book.
Because no, no matter you twist it, Earth is not flat, the Sun is not the center of the Universe, Men and dinosaurs didn't existed at the same time in a Eden park that encompassed all animals and Germs are not a divine punishment sent by Angels.
Mind you, there is a bunch of scientists who believe in God and the Scriptures but not the litteral reading of them
That's the difference. There is indeed people that believe that, having not all answers, there may be a superior entity to explain some things
And people believing that the Scriptures, which, i remind it to you again, are a bunch of chapters compiled arbitrarily at the Nicea Council in 325 AD are explaining all and everything in our universe and that all science discoveries over the past centuries are false. And what's better to debunk them (or promote confusion in audience mind) with pseudoscience. It's smell like science, quack like science but it is not science.
Regarding my last point, those clamping on this approach are doing exactly like the Talibans do, who believe that the Quran is the only truth down there...Exactly the same mechanism, just not the same book. You can see where it brings all over the news.
In the end, by focusing too much on the content of the Holy Texts and not the spirit of the Holy Texts, those people are ultimately losing themselves.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
Who created God? The Christian answer to this is no one because He is the infinite GOD (the alpha and the omega), He is a transcendent GOD, He created matter, time, space and energy and all the laws of nature in the universe, therefore he is not bound by these laws of nature, He is outside of matter, time, space and energy as we know it. Yes, you can say that this in the realm of the supernatural (metaphysics) and cannot be proven scientifically unless you see God himself, but it is basically no different from the hypotheses of evolutionists (i.e. big bang, multiverse, etc.) on the origins of the universe.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
Well as I said, if people really think that this thread/topic is a waste of time, they always have the option to just ignore it and avoid it getting into their nerves.
I think your constant accusation of pseudoscience and 'attack on science' is baseless and unfounded. OK, I grant your point in regard to correlating literal interpretation of the Scriptures with science, but do you consider Dr. Michael Behe's and Dr. Stephen Meyer's work on Intelligent Design (ID) or Dr. John Sanford on Genetic Entrophy as real science? None of their work invokes any passage in the Scriptures, it is in fact purely in scientific terms and methodologies.
I also find it funny that you keep on implying that creation/ID scientists believe in "flat earth", "sun revolves around the earth" or "germs sent by angels (?)", but this is totally false and none of these you will find in the sources (websites) that I have presented.
Lastly, I think it is grossly malicious of you to equate the creationism/apologetics to muslim extremism (talibans), creationists/ID proponents are only seeking objective and fair discourse over the origins, never did they have intent to forcibly impose their arguments (against evolution) as truth to anybody, I think it is the other way (evolutionists) around. Dude, I think your view in this regard is totally twisted.
M
Mordoror
Guest
1- Yes it is pseudoscience (or in other words, wrapping results that fit a not science narrative with some science like methods to push an agenda)
If it was science, it would have been peer checked, published in science journals, checked and confirmed. So far, it is only disputable claims that go against 99.9999% of the consensus (of things that have been demonstrated by accumulation over tenth of years)
I showed you some answers of specialists on datation about the C14 in diamonds for example. Your only answer was to accuse me of desperate side kicking.
Mind you, i would rather think that a specialist in his field is always more accurate that another scientist in another field as a rule of thumb (no matter the field or topic and leaving aside the creationist vs evolutionist discussion)
You can choose to believe the contrary, it's up to you but it would like believing the advices of a bone surgeon about a neurosurgery and not the advices of the neurosurgeon. So you can choose to believe Dr. John Baumgardner whose field of speciality was plate tectonics or somebody whose field of speciality is spectrometric datation.
You can choose to believe Dr S. Meyer (PhD in History and Philosophical science) rather than a biologist
You can choose to believe Sanford whose speciality was plant manipulation 30 years ago and not up to date scientists specialized in molecular clock of genes.
Again it is a matter of belief
2-Read them again, especially the first two. And in any case, they are member of the Creationnist Collegue which has for purpose to show that the Scriptures are accurate (Baumgardner in particular) and life was led by the Intelligent Design (or in other word God) for the others. It is dishonest to say the contrary
3-Look better, you'd find pseudoscientists members of the same collegue that are flat earthers. There are even triggering squabbles about their kin.
John Baumgardner for instance had a lenghty fight with one of his colleague about the veracity of plate tectonics and planet geology.
4- In your eyes maybe it is. For me it is the same mechanism. Ignoring science, attacking it in the name of what is written litteraly in a Holy Book
It is also called Christian extremism. If they never intended to impose their arguments (i am not talking especially about the few you mentioned namely in your post) you would not have as i said hundred of subjects plastered over the net trying to prove that God exists and that science results are a PoS and you would not have lobbies trying (and successfuly achieving) to have Creationnism teached as a science in schools.
As i said, on the other hand, you won't find a scientist doing the same things other way around. Hard core secularist would do that. Not science men, they have other things to do.
The burden of the attack lays on creationnist side, not on the science side. Period
As a matter of proof look Behe affiliation (The Discovery Institute) and its political purpose
Discovery Institute - Wikipedia
Wedge strategy - Wikipedia
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
1 - Or is it pseudoscience just because you (darwinists in general) say so? You are saying it was not peer reviewed nor published in science journals, but they were never given the chance to publish their work in those science journals in the first place. The truth is (and it is well documented) that there is concerted effort among darwinists to persecute educators and scientists by denying tenure, and even fired in some cases, for their belief or even just entertaining the possibility of evidence for design in nature or challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance and evolution. An example on this is the story of Dr. Richard Sternberg, an evolutionist and a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a research paper describing the evidence for intelligence design in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings, not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the scientist expelled from his position. You see more and more science people are challenging the theory of evolution because they are starting to see that intelligence design has valid arguments and evidences, and the only way for darwinists to defeat this idea/movement is through open/free debate in the science community. The question is...if the darwinists really have strong arguments and hard evidences, then why resort to censorship?1- Yes it is pseudoscience (or in other words, wrapping results that fit a not science narrative with some science like methods to push an agenda)
If it was science, it would have been peer checked, published in science journals, checked and confirmed. So far, it is only disputable claims that go against 99.9999% of the consensus (of things that have been demonstrated by accumulation over tenth of years)
I showed you some answers of specialists on datation about the C14 in diamonds for example. Your only answer was to accuse me of desperate side kicking.
Mind you, i would rather think that a specialist in his field is always more accurate that another scientist in another field as a rule of thumb (no matter the field or topic and leaving aside the creationist vs evolutionist discussion)
You can choose to believe the contrary, it's up to you but it would like believing the advices of a bone surgeon about a neurosurgery and not the advices of the neurosurgeon. So you can choose to believe Dr. John Baumgardner whose field of speciality was plate tectonics or somebody whose field of speciality is spectrometric datation.
You can choose to believe Dr S. Meyer (PhD in History and Philosophical science) rather than a biologist
You can choose to believe Sanford whose speciality was plant manipulation 30 years ago and not up to date scientists specialized in molecular clock of genes.
Again it is a matter of belief
2-Read them again, especially the first two. And in any case, they are member of the Creationnist Collegue which has for purpose to show that the Scriptures are accurate (Baumgardner in particular) and life was led by the Intelligent Design (or in other word God) for the others. It is dishonest to say the contrary
3-Look better, you'd find pseudoscientists members of the same collegue that are flat earthers. There are even triggering squabbles about their kin.
John Baumgardner for instance had a lenghty fight with one of his colleague about the veracity of plate tectonics and planet geology.
4- In your eyes maybe it is. For me it is the same mechanism. Ignoring science, attacking it in the name of what is written litteraly in a Holy Book
It is also called Christian extremism. If they never intended to impose their arguments (i am not talking especially about the few you mentioned namely in your post) you would not have as i said hundred of subjects plastered over the net trying to prove that God exists and that science results are a PoS and you would not have lobbies trying (and successfuly achieving) to have Creationnism teached as a science in schools.
As i said, on the other hand, you won't find a scientist doing the same things other way around. Hard core secularist would do that. Not science men, they have other things to do.
The burden of the attack lays on creationnist side, not on the science side. Period
As a matter of proof look Behe affiliation (The Discovery Institute) and its political purpose
Discovery Institute - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Wedge strategy - Wikipedia
And then you mentioned consensus, but is consensus really good for science? In fact there are so many historical examples of "scientific consensus" that put science in bad light > https://creation.com/why-consensus-science-is-anti-science.
As for your preferred specialist argument, what about Charles Darwin whose real field is in geology yet you regard him as the authority in biology/evolution. Based on your logic, you should not trust/believe Darwin about evolution and origin of species since his real specialty is geology and not biology.
2 & 3 - Since you are the one accusing them of believing in "flat earth", "sun revolves around the earth" or "germs sent by angels", I believe the burden of proof is on you. Hence, cite me any study or article on my sources listed below showing that they are really advocating these non-sense that you accuse them of.
Home - creation.com
Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.
Answers in Genesis
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.
answersingenesis.org
Discovery Institute
A public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.
www.discovery.org
Evolution News | Reporting on intelligent design and evolution
Original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.
evolutionnews.org
4 - Again, your view on this is twisted and malicious, I hope you realize that your are actually equating freedom of expression to violent extremism. In fact, by implication you are actually advocating censorship (as fascists/communists do) to ideas that challenges evolution (not science contrary to your assertion), this is not how true science works, science advances through presentation of new arguments/evidences and free debate on it and not by censorship. And by the way, lobbying is not illegal, as far as i know your side of the fence uses it too.
Lastly, if your so-called "Christian extremism" which you are equating to the taliban is really true, then can you cite me any atrocities committed by these so-called "Christian extremists" that is contemporary and at the same level as the talibans and other islamic extremists (i.e. ISIS)?
Last edited:
M
Mordoror
Guest
1 - Or is it pseudoscience just because you (darwinists in general) say so? You are saying it was not peer reviewed nor published in science journals, but they were never given the chance to publish their work in those science journals in the first place. The truth is (and it is well documented) that there is concerted effort among darwinists to persecute educators and scientists by denying tenure, and even fired in some cases, for their belief or even just entertaining the possibility of evidence for design in nature or challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance and evolution. An example on this is the story of Dr. Richard Sternberg, an evolutionist and a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a research paper describing the evidence for intelligence design in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings, not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the scientist expelled from his position. You see more and more science people are challenging the theory of evolution because they are starting to see that intelligence design has valid arguments and evidences, and the only way for darwinists to defeat this idea/movement is through open/free debate in the science community. The question is...if the darwinists really have strong arguments and hard evidences, then why resort to censorship?
And then you mentioned consensus, but is consensus really good for science? In fact there are so many historical examples of "scientific consensus" that put science in bad light > https://creation.com/why-consensus-science-is-anti-science.
As for your preferred specialist argument, what about Charles Darwin whose real field is in geology yet you regard him as the authority in biology/evolution. Based on your logic, you should not trust/believe Darwin about evolution and origin of species since his real specialty is geology and not biology.
2 & 3 - Since you are the one accusing them of believing in "flat earth", "sun revolves around the earth" or "germs sent by angels", I believe the burden of proof is on you. Hence, cite me any study or article on my sources listed below showing that they are really advocating these non-sense that you accuse them of.
Home - creation.com
Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.creation.com
Answers in Genesis
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.Discovery Institute
A public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.Evolution News | Reporting on intelligent design and evolution
Original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.
4 - Again, your view on this is twisted and malicious, I hope you realize that your are actually equating freedom of expression to violent extremism. In fact, by implication you are actually advocating censorship (as fascists/communists do) to ideas that challenges evolution (not science contrary to your assertion), this is not how true science works, science advances through presentation of new arguments/evidences and free debate on it and not by censorship. And by the way, lobbying is not illegal, as far as i know your side of the fence uses it too.
Lastly, if your so-called "Christian extremism" which you are equating to the taliban is really true, then can you cite me any atrocities committed by these so-called "Christian extremists" that is contemporary and at the same level as the talibans and other islamic extremists (i.e. ISIS)?
1- Ah again, the martyrdom red herring/fallacy argument
Today, in science, you have to get peer reviewed and published in a recognized journal. That's how it works. Period
It avoid shitty studies with poor methodology to be published (60 to 90% of articles are rejected everyday depending of the journal)
It avoid to have predatory/vulture journals recognized
And it allows the rest of the community to share work
If you have a breakthrough discovery that goes against the consensus, publish it with a strong enough methodology to have it reviewed. It ahppens every years. Of course, as it goes against the consensus, it will come under a scrutiny and will be checked approprialtely. But if there is nothing to go against, it will get published.
It happened for Giant viruses discovery recently, just a few days ago for a new system of symbiosis (a amoeba led in the electromagnetic field by symbiotic metal containing bacterias etc)
I find funny when some people, when they can't get their period of fame, accuse the others of persecution. It goes with your subject as it goes with many political subject, be it from the left or the right. That is just showing a big lack of modesty and honesty.
FYI the diamond C14 "article" was peer reviewed - i posted one example, there are others-
The methodolgy itself is questionable enough to have it rejected
In other words, this article is a PoS in form and content. Period.
As for the consensus thingy, consensus is good as far as it remains true. That's how science works. There was a consensus saying that virus cannot be about the nm size .... until µm size (giant viruses) were discovered. When the discovery was made, the claim came under scrutiny but was not attackable both in methodology and results. Hence the consensus evolved.
Darwin, was a naturalist as were a lot of life science scientits back then. He wa interested in paleontology, botanic, geology. Science was less specialized back then. Linné was a naturalist too interested in the same fields. Nowaday it is different. But why do i lose my time when you are not understanding what is science and are only ressorting to straw arguments.
2-3
These articles on the same creationnist site you like to quote (https://creation.com/inconsistencies-in-the-plate-tectonics-model ; https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_3/j26_3_120-127.pdf) were a criticism of the tectonic plate shift and answered in a lengthy way by Baumgardner who disagree with their content on the same site. See, even among themselves they squabble. And there, Baumgardner is in his field of knowledge ....
Check better
4-Yes i am a fascist. Godwin point achieved
Nice ad hominem attack. FYI Any religious extremism doesnt have to use violence. Political salafism has the purpose to get a sharia led society through political means (a theist society) . Exactly like some (most) christian extremist groupsI think it is useless to go against your gullible approach of the subject. If you want to believe creation.org, good for you. It's the same material than other conspiracy sites in term of being trustable or not. Have a good day with chemtrails, FEMA death camps and UN invasion troops too .....
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
Polar Bear Seminar: This Is the End
Recent months have witnessed a debate between Michael Behe and his supporters, on one hand, and Behe’s critics on the other, over arguments in his book Darwin Devolves about mutations in polar bear genes. The discussion has now come to end. Having heard what critics have to say and having responded extensively, we believe the evidence comes down decisively on Behe’s side.
evolutionnews.org
Recent months have witnessed a debate between Michael Behe and his supporters, on one hand, and Behe’s critics on the other, over arguments in his book Darwin Devolves about mutations in polar bear genes. The discussion has now come to end. Having heard what critics have to say and having responded extensively, we believe the evidence comes down decisively on Behe’s side.
Polar Bear Seminar: This Is the End | Evolution News
Barring startling new revelations from the research community, nothing more needs to be said. The evidence comes down decisively on Behe’s side.
evolutionnews.org
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
Why Human Reason Didn’t “Evolve”
The indispensable neuroscientist Michael Egnor, writing at Mind Matters, applies some needed intellectual rigor in disciplining atheist philosopher Justin E.H. Smith. In a new book, Irrationality: A History of the Dark Side of Reason, Professor Smith “argues that reason is inferior to the non-rational behavior of animals.” Egnor: “Think of the irony: a professor of philosophy, who is paid only to reason, uses reason to argue against reason. Welcome to the bowels of atheist metaphysics.”
According to Smith, writing at Aeon, “Philosophers and cognitive scientists today generally comprehend the domain of reason as a certain power of making inferences, confined to the thoughts and actions of human beings alone.” Well, not exactly. Reason, as Dr. Egnor reminds him, is nothing more or less than the ability to think abstractly, as opposed to thinking about physical objects.
...
evolutionnews.org
mindmatters.ai
The indispensable neuroscientist Michael Egnor, writing at Mind Matters, applies some needed intellectual rigor in disciplining atheist philosopher Justin E.H. Smith. In a new book, Irrationality: A History of the Dark Side of Reason, Professor Smith “argues that reason is inferior to the non-rational behavior of animals.” Egnor: “Think of the irony: a professor of philosophy, who is paid only to reason, uses reason to argue against reason. Welcome to the bowels of atheist metaphysics.”
According to Smith, writing at Aeon, “Philosophers and cognitive scientists today generally comprehend the domain of reason as a certain power of making inferences, confined to the thoughts and actions of human beings alone.” Well, not exactly. Reason, as Dr. Egnor reminds him, is nothing more or less than the ability to think abstractly, as opposed to thinking about physical objects.
...
Why Human Reason Didn’t “Evolve” | Evolution News
Egnor: “Think of the irony: a professor of philosophy, who is paid only to reason, uses reason to argue against reason. Welcome to the bowels of atheist metaphysics.”…
evolutionnews.org
An Atheist Argues Against Reason
Justin Smith is leading the way to the abandonment of rationality. There’s not a shred of reason in his essay.
mindmatters.ai
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
James Tour—leading scientist and Darwin skeptic
The enormously successful career of James Tour in organic chemistry is reviewed. His life-long study of organic chemistry helped him to understand the major scientific problems with the theory of organic evolution. Although he was born and raised a Jew in New York City, he became to Christian in college and this worldview has played a significant role in his family life, and especially in his success as a scientist.
Professor James M. Tour is Rice University Chao Professor of Chemistry, computer science, mechanical engineering, and materials science. A renowned leader in his field, he is the premier scientist at Rice University, and his work is often cited in leading scientific journals. After Nobel Laureate Rick Smalley’s untimely death, the prolific Tour has successfully carried on Smalley’s groundbreaking nanotechnology research. This ‘world-class scientist’ has revolutionized one of the most challenging fields of science.
Of the more than 720,000 scientists who published chemistry papers in academic journals during the last decade, Tour was among the ten most-cited authors in the world. He authored 135 papers during this time, and the Thomson-Reuters list of research most referenced by other scientists in their scientific work ranked him in the top ten. Tour’s scientific achievement “spans an incredible breadth, from building tiny cars and trucks out of molecules, to making computer memory from graphite, building tiny missiles that carry drugs to tumors and trying to cure radiation sickness.”1 Wade Adams, director of Rice’s Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, noted that Tour is an “incredibly creative … chemist. He makes molecules dance.”
One of his most recent achievements to add to his already long list was to convert shortbread into graphene, a high-tech carbon form that is a promising material for high-speed circuits. A single thick layer of graphene is strong enough to hold the weight of an elephant.
chemistry.rice.edu
The enormously successful career of James Tour in organic chemistry is reviewed. His life-long study of organic chemistry helped him to understand the major scientific problems with the theory of organic evolution. Although he was born and raised a Jew in New York City, he became to Christian in college and this worldview has played a significant role in his family life, and especially in his success as a scientist.
Professor James M. Tour is Rice University Chao Professor of Chemistry, computer science, mechanical engineering, and materials science. A renowned leader in his field, he is the premier scientist at Rice University, and his work is often cited in leading scientific journals. After Nobel Laureate Rick Smalley’s untimely death, the prolific Tour has successfully carried on Smalley’s groundbreaking nanotechnology research. This ‘world-class scientist’ has revolutionized one of the most challenging fields of science.
Of the more than 720,000 scientists who published chemistry papers in academic journals during the last decade, Tour was among the ten most-cited authors in the world. He authored 135 papers during this time, and the Thomson-Reuters list of research most referenced by other scientists in their scientific work ranked him in the top ten. Tour’s scientific achievement “spans an incredible breadth, from building tiny cars and trucks out of molecules, to making computer memory from graphite, building tiny missiles that carry drugs to tumors and trying to cure radiation sickness.”1 Wade Adams, director of Rice’s Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, noted that Tour is an “incredibly creative … chemist. He makes molecules dance.”
One of his most recent achievements to add to his already long list was to convert shortbread into graphene, a high-tech carbon form that is a promising material for high-speed circuits. A single thick layer of graphene is strong enough to hold the weight of an elephant.
James Tour | Department of Chemistry | Rice University
chemistry.rice.edu
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2019
- Messages
- 7,860
- Points
- 269
@Buster23
Although he was born and raised a Jew in New York City, he became to Christian in college and this worldview has played a significant role in his family life, and especially in his success as a scientist.
Would he have been a success as a scientist if he had not been a 'christian' - yes he probably would
Until he builds a time machine and goes back and see what happened then anything he believes is pure conjecture. No matter how good a scientist he is he obviously has a serious problem with religion as any right minded person would consider it to be just a bunch superstious rubbish to try and con people out of their money and to control them.
Although he was born and raised a Jew in New York City, he became to Christian in college and this worldview has played a significant role in his family life, and especially in his success as a scientist.
Would he have been a success as a scientist if he had not been a 'christian' - yes he probably would
Until he builds a time machine and goes back and see what happened then anything he believes is pure conjecture. No matter how good a scientist he is he obviously has a serious problem with religion as any right minded person would consider it to be just a bunch superstious rubbish to try and con people out of their money and to control them.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
Yes, it doesn't really matter if one believe in God or not, one could study and practice science, and be successful with it. The only problem is when "right minded" evolution scientists and scholars discriminate and persecute their God-believing peers and dismiss them as bunch loonies and pseudo-scientists.
You do know that most scientists and scholars in the world believed in a Creator or God before the introduction of darwin's theory of evolution right? Darwin did fooled most of them in those days and even until today. But since the 90's, a lot of scientists have already been questioning the validity of the darwin's theory of evolution, and in 2001, hundreds of darwin skeptics in the scientific community formally expressed their dissent from Darwinism and it has been growing since then>>https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/
Darwin's theory of evolution cannot explain the origins of life and the universe, darwin's evolution cannot explain the irreducibly complex structures in genetics or the fine tuning of the universe, it only points to Intelligent Design (by a Creator or God). Here is a good read for you if you have time >> http://www.discovery.org/a/24041/#problem3
And according to wikipedia, around 7% of the world population are agnostics and atheist (right minded people(?)), so 93% of the world population must be all crazy then
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Messages
- 1,340
- Points
- 338
And according to wikipedia, around 7% of the world population are agnostics and atheist (right minded people(?)), so 93% of the world population must be all crazy then
Some of those 93% believe that Xenu is an alien ruler of the “Galactic Confederacy, then you've got your Black Hebrew Israelites, The Prince Philip Movement who believe the Duke is a divine being, The Church of Euthanasia who go for the big four principal pillars: suicide, abortion, cannibalism (“strictly limited to consumption of the already dead”), and sodomy “any sexual act not intended for procreation”, and the Nuwaubians who maintain that Nikola Tesla came from the planet Venus. None of which is any more or less weird than the virgin birth/zombie Jesus/old bloke, big boat, big flood story.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
That would be interesting...I wish we have the actual statistics for those "other" folks you mentioned though.
