Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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."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."
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...“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
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 !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
`
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.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
`
No you Brain-Dead Haysoos Cultist.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.
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.
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."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.
`
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."This is not the forum for sharing the sermons at your madrassah.
You're not known for "defeating atheists," you're known for brainwashed GodDidIt nubaggery....
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.
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.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.
`
`
...?God as creator and intelligent design have more observable and physical evidence.
Sheesh. You don't know?...?
It's called the Kalam Cosmological Argument.Sheesh. You don't know?
What's this argument called?
To back that up, we have the COBE from the discovery of the CMB which led to the Big Bang and...
- Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a First Cause.
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:
There are also the Fine Tuning Facts -- List of Fine-Tuning Parameters.
- 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).
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.
Thanks for answering the questions.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.
`
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.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.
First, you've put up giant and vacuous non sequiturs and wacky conflation/s.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.
And evidence. Whoops, you left that out. How very bizarre, considering science is the one arena where the evidence is all that matters.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.
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.We don't know/know yet. so it must be god/GodDidIt fallacy.
Your link of course, another kweationist apologetics website.
You "won again"?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.
