94% of the universe’s galaxies are permanently beyond our reach

[james bond]

I don't think you're going to score any points in the scientific community, but it made comfort you to know, Albert Einstein once said, " Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. " Not so comforting, would be that most scientists on this site or the line their views with Christiaan Huygins, who said, " The world is my country, science is my relation. " Best to stick with the religious sites, at least there all you have to deal with mostly are the agnostics.

You should stick in Rubber Room if you believe in atheist science. You may as join the other idiots if you believe that I don't follow what Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

[abu afak]

You should stick in Rubber Room if you believe in atheist science. You may as join the other idiots if you believe that I don't follow what Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught​

The scientist actually offers No solace to believers​

Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist of our time, and, because he was so smart, his opinions on non-scientific issues were often seen as incontrovertible. One of the most famous is a pronouncement much quoted by religious people and those claiming comity between science and faith. It comes from Einstein’s essay “Science and religion,” published in 1954.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

This quote is often used to show both Einstein’s religiosity and his belief in the compatibility—indeed, the mutual interdependence—of science and religion. But the quote is rarely used in context, and when you see the context you’ll find that the quote should give no solace to the faithful...

Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught

Albert Einstein offers to solace to believers

newrepublic.com

`

 

[abu afak]

Einstein Letter to Gutkind, 1954.
Sold at Christies a few years ago for $2.9 Million.

​

"..The word God is for me Nothing but the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather Primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.​

​

For me the unadulterated Jewish religion is, like All other Religions, an incarnation of Primitive Superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and in whose mentality I feel profoundly anchored, still for me does not have any different kind of dignity from all other peoples.".."​

Take your pick:

einstein gutkind letter - Google Search

`

 

[Stann]

Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught​

The scientist actually offers No solace to believers​

Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist of our time, and, because he was so smart, his opinions on non-scientific issues were often seen as incontrovertible. One of the most famous is a pronouncement much quoted by religious people and those claiming comity between science and faith. It comes from Einstein’s essay “Science and religion,” published in 1954.

This quote is often used to show both Einstein’s religiosity and his belief in the compatibility—indeed, the mutual interdependence—of science and religion. But the quote is rarely used in context, and when you see the context you’ll find that the quote should give no solace to the faithful...

Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught

Albert Einstein offers to solace to believers

newrepublic.com

`

I understood that when I said it, I thought he would gobble it up, I never expected that response. No good deed goes unpunished I guess. I'm bowing out of this mess. Have a great day !

 

[james bond]

Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught​

The scientist actually offers No solace to believers​

Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist of our time, and, because he was so smart, his opinions on non-scientific issues were often seen as incontrovertible. One of the most famous is a pronouncement much quoted by religious people and those claiming comity between science and faith. It comes from Einstein’s essay “Science and religion,” published in 1954.

This quote is often used to show both Einstein’s religiosity and his belief in the compatibility—indeed, the mutual interdependence—of science and religion. But the quote is rarely used in context, and when you see the context you’ll find that the quote should give no solace to the faithful...

Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught

Albert Einstein offers to solace to believers

newrepublic.com

`

Aren't you trolling the science forum with your religion? If you want to discuss Einstein's religion, then it wasn't Christian. He's not one I would consider on the creation science side. Anyway, that wasn't what was being discussed. You miss the key point, as usual.

 

[abu afak]

Aren't you trolling the science forum with your religion? If you want to discuss Einstein's religion, then it wasn't Christian. He's not one I would consider on the creation science side. Anyway, that wasn't what was being discussed. You miss the key point, as usual.

No you Brain-Dead Haysoos Cultist.
I'm just correcting the Misleading and Out of Context Einstein 'quote' ('quote Mining' it's called) with his Real opinion.

`

 

[Hollie]

Young Earth was a response to the old Earth the atheists made up to counter creationists who ruled the world of science. Afterward, this Darwinism led to Nazism, the Holocaust, eugenics, and other horrors of atheism in this world. Most of all evolution and evolutionary thinking of no God/gods. You are one who believe in these horrors and fake godless science that is not observable nor have any evidence.

This is not the forum for sharing the sermons at your madrassah.

 

[james bond]

No you Brain-Dead Haysoos Cultist.
I'm just correcting the Misleading and Out of Context Einstein 'quote' ('quote Mining' it's called) with his Real opinion.

`

So I'm quote mining. I can't just respond to a statement of "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and take it as a stand-alone statement and apply it to myself lol? I guess it bugs you to no end that "science without religion is lame."

Again, you don't answer why you don't reply to Stann? Is it because I'm known to defeat atheists and their science practically always on this forum? The evidence is that you always end up with ad hominem attacks against me while I point out the truth against you and the atheists.

 

[james bond]

This is not the forum for sharing the sermons at your madrassah.

You're still stuck on scientism or "the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything, that . . . science provides all the significant truths about reality."

I just pointed out "Science without religion is lame." However, that religion is only Christianity. If we have atheism or any other religion, then I don't know how science fits with it. Let's say we assume that there was no creator. Then we have no observable evidence and thus it fails the basis for science.

 

[abu afak]

...

Again, you don't answer why you don't reply to Stann? Is it because I'm known to defeat atheists and their science practically always on this forum? The evidence is that you always end up with ad hominem attacks against me while I point out the truth against you and the atheists.

You're not known for "defeating atheists," you're known for brainwashed GodDidIt nubaggery.
You have Never posted a shred of evidence for any 'god.'
while I and other Science posters have put up tons of evidence for evolution.

Go have milk and cookies with the rest of the patients.
`

`

 

[james bond]

You're not known for "defeating atheists," you're known for brainwashed GodDidIt nubaggery.
You have Never posted a shred of evidence for any 'god.'
while I and other Science posters have put up tons of evidence for evolution.

Go have milk and cookies with the rest of the patients.
`

`

It IS because of defeating atheists and their scientists all the time. Otherwise, you didn't answer my question of why not reply to Stann? You even had him on the run, but he got away.

Not only does evolution not have any observable evidence and not meet the scientific method, it does not fit genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts of living organisms.

Your science cannot square “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second, natural selection does not create a common ancestor and turn in into a new species through mutation. Finally, you and the atheist scientists ignore God as creator or intelligent design and continue to believe in the lie of evolution. God as creator and intelligent design have more observable and physical evidence.

Finally, you continue to use ad hominem attacks to try and refute my posts. It just means I have won and it's over.

 

[Anomalism]

God as creator and intelligent design have more observable and physical evidence.

...?

 

[james bond]

...?

Sheesh. You don't know?

What's this argument called?

• Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe has a First Cause.

To back that up, we have the COBE from the discovery of the CMB which led to the Big Bang and...

What all this means is that there is very strong evidence that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, then it had a first cause. And if it had a first cause, then it makes sense to ask what kind of first cause is necessary to explain the origin of the universe. It must be:

• A cause outside of the universe
• Capable of generating all the matter and energy in the universe
• Capable of generating all the order we see in inherent within the universe (more on this coming up).

There are also the Fine Tuning Facts -- List of Fine-Tuning Parameters.

We have the Origin of Information in the DNA, the Origin of Life and the Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines, and the Origin of Animals.

The three basic arguments are 1) Irreducible Complexity, 2) Specified Complexity, and 3) The Anthropic Principle.

As for evidence of God, we have:
Humans beings have a natural sense of God
Logic points to God
General observations support the evidence of God
History, literature, and archaeology support the evidence of God
Personal experiences support the evidence of God
Science supports the evidence of God

The above is part of the reason why creation science and ID should be taught in public schools.

​

 

[abu afak]

Sheesh. You don't know?
What's this argument called?

• Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe has a First Cause.

To back that up, we have the COBE from the discovery of the CMB which led to the Big Bang and...

What all this means is that there is very strong evidence that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, then it had a first cause. And if it had a first cause, then it makes sense to ask what kind of first cause is necessary to explain the origin of the universe. It must be:

• A cause outside of the universe
• Capable of generating all the matter and energy in the universe
• Capable of generating all the order we see in inherent within the universe (more on this coming up).

There are also the Fine Tuning Facts -- List of Fine-Tuning Parameters.

We have the Origin of Information in the DNA, the Origin of Life and the Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines, and the Origin of Animals.

The three basic arguments are 1) Irreducible Complexity, 2) Specified Complexity, and 3) The Anthropic Principle.

As for evidence of God, we have:
Humans beings have a natural sense of God
Logic points to God
General observations support the evidence of God
History, literature, and archaeology support the evidence of God
Personal experiences support the evidence of God
Science supports the evidence of God

The above is part of the reason why creation science and ID should be taught in public schools.

​

It's called the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
An ancient philosophical idea popularized by William Lane Craig in his 1979 book of the title.
Lane is a Christian Apologist
It is, of course, just a giant God of the Gaps: We don't know/know yet. so it must be god/GodDidIt fallacy.
Your link of course, another kweationist apologetics website.
`

 

[james bond]

It's called the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
An ancient philosophical idea popularized by William Lane Craig in his 1979 book of the title.
Lane is a Christian Apologist
It is, of course, just a giant God of the Gaps: We don't know/know yet. so it must be god/GodDidIt fallacy.
Your link of course, another kweationist apologetics website.
`

Thanks for answering the questions.

What do you mean by "just a giant God of the Gaps?"

>>We don't know/know yet.<<

Shouldn't you know by now? How many billions of years do you need?

See I have the answers, but the atheists here don't. I think you're missing WLC's key points believing in atheism and the big lie.

 

[Clyde 154]

94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.

Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.

Keep in mind: this is a snapshot, if we were ale to leave today at the speed of light. The percentage of galaxies we can never visit grows by the minute. If we just sit here long enough, there will be no galaxies in the sky, save for our own. (And then Hubble would lose the Great Debate!)

94% of the universe's galaxies are permanently beyond our reach

Even if we left today, at the speed of light, we'd never catch up to these unreachable galaxies as dark energy expands the universe.

bigthink.com

• The universe is expanding, with every galaxy beyond the Local Group speeding away from us.
• Today, most of the universe's galaxies are already receding faster than the speed of light.
• All galaxies currently beyond 18 billion light-years are forever unreachable by us, no matter how much time passes.

Thus far.......100% of our own galaxy (outside our own solar system) is beyond man's reach. All man can do is look upon the heavens and ask questions......then attempt to answer themselves through theory based speculation, assumptions, conjectures and subjective rhetoric.

What makes anyone assume that all universal planets, stars, moons, etc., are any different than that which is naturally occurring within own solar system? There are just so many elements in the known universe. Thus far Carbon based life is the only example of life that can be proven through science and the laws of physics. All life is carbon based........carbon may not be the greatest element found in life but is the most fundamental and essential to all life forms. Thus, is any surprise that all life is related through the basic element of carbon? What's surprising is the fact that some see this relation and claim that makes evolution a fact. In truth there has never been an example of life evolving outside its own species.....proving that adaptive evolution, i.e., horizontal evolution has its limitations and nothing new can be added naturally to a species DNA. Mutation never adds new DNA it takes away from existing DNA and is in actuality a deformation of a perfect DNA signature.

 

[abu afak]

Thus far.......100% of our own galaxy (outside our own solar system) is beyond man's reach. All man can do is look upon the heavens and ask questions......then attempt to answer themselves through theory based speculation, assumptions, conjectures and subjective rhetoric.
What makes anyone assume that all universal planets, stars, moons, etc., are any different than that which is naturally occurring within own solar system? There are just so many elements in the known universe. Thus far Carbon based life is the only example of life that can be proven through science and the laws of physics. All life is carbon based........carbon may not be the greatest element found in life but is the most fundamental and essential to all life forms. Thus, is any surprise that all life is related through the basic element of carbon? What's surprising is the fact that some see this relation and claim that makes evolution a fact. In truth there has never been an example of life evolving outside its own species.....proving that adaptive evolution, i.e., horizontal evolution has its limitations and nothing new can be added naturally to a species DNA. Mutation never adds new DNA it takes away from existing DNA and is in actuality a deformation of a perfect DNA signature.

First, you've put up giant and vacuous non sequiturs and wacky conflation/s.
The fact that all life (we know) is carbon based would Not in any way preclude life on other planets.
There are billions in the 'Goldilocks'/temperate possibility zone, many would have the right elements.

What you're really trying to show is that life is unlikely, NOT evolution.
Additionally, that abiogenesis is unlikely, NOT evolution.
Evolution only starts After life does, and does Not depend on how it started.
Evolution is a Fact as well as a theory on this planet.

So you're mixing and matching so many things so illogically your 'reasoning' is a total disaster.

Then you say there is no example of life evolving outside it's species.
In fact, ALL evidence points to exactly that, nothing else.
The fossil record (which gets filled in with 'Tweeners' more every year as only evo would predict) points to exactly that.
As does DNA and every other science discovered since Darwin.
Many sciences (or ie, fossils in the wrong age/geological strata) could have disproved it, NONE do.
All relevant ones help confirm it. None contradict it.. of course.

So from your initial really goofy conflations you went to absolutely Wrong.


`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ignoring the usual father spam...

Thus far.......100% of our own galaxy (outside our own solar system) is beyond man's reach. All man can do is look upon the heavens and ask questions......then attempt to answer themselves through theory based speculation, assumptions, conjectures and subjective rhetoric.

And evidence. Whoops, you left that out. How very bizarre, considering science is the one arena where the evidence is all that matters.

But you are trying to put your childish, magical beliefs on the same shelf as science. In order to do so, you must ignore the concept of evidence.

Your behavior is transparent, predictable, childish, and stupid. Just another desperate magical thinker, trolling a science board because he has nothing else to offer to support his childish, magical beliefs.

You bring nothing original to any of these discussions. You repeat the same pseudo-intellectual psychobabble that squealing cultists have been vomiting for centuries, whenever their iron aged fantasies collide with reality. Which is quite often. But what else can you do, besides throw little hissy fits? You have no evidence or good argument. So you are stuck brainwashing children and being laughed out of the room by adults. This is the life you chose for yourself. Own it.

 

[james bond]

We don't know/know yet. so it must be god/GodDidIt fallacy.
Your link of course, another kweationist apologetics website.

The creation science side knows it's not a fallacy nor God of the Gaps (I couldn't remember what it was). If anything, it is evolution of the gaps. Plenty of gaps as you admitted you do not know yet. How long do you need? You supposedly had 13.7 B years. It really is a joke when Kalam's Cosmological Argument shows what happened. You and the atheist scientists could not reply. Thus, the creationist side and I won again. Also, I presented the ID and other truths. What has happened is the you and other atheists continue to believe in myths and be wrong.

Where is the absolute proof? There really isn't any until we die and experience the afterlife. Thus, we have the creation science vs atheist science in S&T today and from the 1850s on.

 

[abu afak]

The creation science side knows it's not a fallacy nor God of the Gaps (I couldn't remember what it was). If anything, it is evolution of the gaps. Plenty of gaps as you admitted you do not know yet. How long do you need? You supposedly had 13.7 B years. It really is a joke when Kalam's Cosmological Argument shows what happened. You and the atheist scientists could not reply. Thus, the creationist side and I won again. Also, I presented the ID and other truths. What has happened is the you and other atheists continue to believe in myths and be wrong.

Where is the absolute proof? There really isn't any until we die and experience the afterlife. Thus, we have the creation science vs atheist science in S&T today and from the 1850s on.

You "won again"?
Forget the false standard of "absolute proof."
There is no such thing except in math.
Evolution has Overwhelming Evidence across the sciences, god has None.
You have never shown a shred of Evidence for god you Lying Lunatic.
`