What's right or wrong is what's generally accepted as right or wrong. There's nothing more to it. In some places and at some times, what is accepted as right or wrong is driven by religious ideology. In many muslim countries, it's ok to cut off the hands of a thief, restrict women from becoming educated, etc. It's not seen as wrong to them, but through our lens/perspective, it's hideous.
you should research the names on that list. i'm guessing they are all either long dead from periods when modern evidence wasn't available, not working in relevant fields, or christian scientists who believe in creation but accept that the earth is old.
Tell me this isn't romantic! Honestly, tell me how awesome a painter one would be to create this. I just can't believe this happened by chance. And yes I will respect you believing it was.
I think the Old and New Testaments are pretty clear as to what the standard was (accepted) for then....compared against what the standard is now....that is, in response to the advent (birth/life/death/resurrection...and coming again) of Jesus.
Science is beautiful and 100% support it! And I think science will one day prove that this wasn't by chance. Not maybe in my lifetime, not maybe in 100 lifetimes; but one day.
Like Darwin? I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. It's pretty evident that the religious part of peoples' brains is entirely cut off from the rational part. There are great scientists who probably like Celine Dion, too.
What I think is that crowTrobot is pretty much spot on. About the only thing he's written here so far that I don't think he's right about is whether a scientist can be religious. I'm not at all a fan or believer in religion, but I'm plenty tolerant of it and those who believe in it. To each his/her own. I do see that there's a pretty strong effort to wipe out religion, and that makes me uncomfortable. I believe religion is a mixed bag. Many of the greats in science, all along, were very religious fellows. And many of them had their research funded by the church. On the other hand, the church burned many good scientists at the stake for heresy.
Um, this proves nothing but the argument from "crow" said that only non-religious men have scientific relevance. I guess you didn't read back far enough.
That's cool that you agree with "Crow's take". I thanked you for being open minded enough to prove that science has had some very important figures that were very religious. There are some that knew this and would choose to not say a thing. <--- That's what I'm thanking you for.
I share your sentiments. What I find funny is how stars and matter are so unevenly distributed throughout the universe that that alone pretty much defies the random chance big bang. But I'm sure there is a "logical" and "rational" scientific explanation for it like everything else, because we humans just know everything about our universe. I don't know how someone can gaze up into the heavens and think there is no God.
And that everything must come to a balance and order. "Free-radical's" must find a host. It can't stay a "radical"
