Well, isn’t that what he said?
If you’re not sure what to believe, do you think searching is the right way to go? It sounds like you’re looking for a representation of the world that matches how you feel it to be. It’s important to be open-minded, but only as far as the facts allow. Why not look at the evidence and base your world view on that? To pick a faith based on its compatibility with your pre-existing beliefs, and to therefore allow it to shape your other beliefs, would be a huge mistake.
I was trying to avoid putting words in your mouth. The position I described is also a really bad one to take, so I preferred to hear it from you rather than assume the worst.
Sounds like he’s doing that. Else he’d still be a Christian.
If you’re determined to continue believing that Bruno was an astronomer while professional historians of science have written clearly that he wasn’t, there’s nothing I can do to force you to accept reality. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
The source was a translation of Bruno’s The Ash Wednesday Supper by Edward A. Gosselin and Lawrence Lerner; the authors have strong credentials in the history of science. They wrote a biographical sketch for the introduction. The entire sketch looks at Bruno’s life, works, and beliefs, and establishes that he never did anything that could reasonably be classified as science. If you read it, then you’ll know a lot about Bruno that you don’t currently know. If you’re determined not to learn anything, then as I said, I can’t help you.
[Shrug] Fair enough. I like to think that spontaneous generation is the specific issue Redi and Pasteur were taking up, and that they tested it in the most practical way available.
They were tested a very specific hypothesis about life arising from non-life, and falsified it. They were not testing any hypotheses about life arising in a chemical soup over a period of tens of millions of years.
BTW, my old friend Liberal said he became a Christian using almost exactly the same language that you do, and he was equally reticent about sharing the experience. I believe there are similar Dopers, but I can’t recall any at the moment.
Look up the Magna Carta, it is heavily influenced by the Bible.
Also,
Charter of Liberties
‘1.) I, Henry, by the grace of God having been crowned the King of England, shall not take or sell any property from a Church upon the death of a bishop or abbot, until a successor has been named to that Church property. I shall end all the oppressive practices which have been an evil presence in England.’
There is no supporting evidence for morality coming from evolution. Hitler and stalin are good examples.
How about this:
‘Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton’s best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”[97]’
-Isaac Newton
How about the failures of Miller and Urey to produce any chiral amino acids? We are still waiting for this, let alone nucleic acids coming from scratch.
If you dont think the Bible is anything special (from your next post), I invite you to look for any fulfilled prophecies in any other text.
Any religion that has so many different brands can only cause confusion.
The Creator Who’s Name is Yahweh is not the author of such confusion.
When the Real Hebrew Messiah walked here He said we are FOOLS if we don’t believe ALL that he prophets have spoken. Luke 24:25.
Now when we read the Scriptures and we understand what Yahshua Ben Nun said in Yahshua 10:12-14 then we believe the Scriptures over to lying preacher boy and the deceived world teacher we see that Galileo was a FOOL.
Don’t be deceived only believe ALL that the prophets have spoken.
Okie
Of course!
I am skeptical about “facts”… I’d rather talk in terms of “evidence”.
I don’t see it being a “huge mistake”… some people are Christian and some are atheist and it doesn’t seem to make such a big deal which they are… though as far as Pascal’s Wager goes it would be a huge mistake not to be a Christian.
BTW like I said I don’t find Pascal’s Wager to be compelling.
“They were tested a very specific hypothesis…”
Better brush up on your grammar.
“[They] falsified it…”
How dare you!
I recognize no mendacious motive on the part of Redi or Pasteur in those experiments. Let’s have an explanation of what was falsified, Buster–with details!
Chemical soup? Millions of years?
I have heard of those terms, of course, and I know damn well neither of those two biologists ever did; the terms sound like something cooked up by a press agent, a PR maven, or someone else just as committed to fraud.
Aw gee, I made a typo.
However you don’t appear to know much about science. Falsification means that they set up an experiment to test the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, the restricted definition, which let them show it did not happen. Which they did, and thus they falsified the hypothesis. But thanks for demonstrating your total ignorance of the scientific method.
Do you object to the chemical soup or the tens of millions of years? (It might be hundreds of millions.) Or are you objecting to a non-magical explanation of the origin of life?
I was just looking at Genesis 1 and 2 again… one thing that stood out was that it said the Earth was created before the Sun - even before light…
Cite where they say he wasn’t an astronomer.
A quote please, where they say he wasn’t an astronomer, and then cite where they get their information.
That kind of makes Jesus a hypocrite doesn’t it?
Nah. You just went out and cherry-picked some figures and you are relying on the fact that silly stuff like “The Burning Times” has overwhelmed serious scholarship on the topic on the internet.
That is like your silly implication that Bruno was punished for trying to advance science. Bruno was a religious freethinker with a nasty disposition regarding anyone who disagreed with him. He was successively thrown out from, (or fled), multiple cities and countries, both Protestant and Catholic, across Europe until he was finally tried on the grounds that he was an ordained priest who denied the sacramental reality of the Eucharist.
His execution was certainly wrong from the perspective of the 21st century and was very likely carried out as a violation of the protocols of the Inquisition at the time. However, “science” had nothing to do with his execution; the conflict was entirely religious in nature. No accusation lodged against him, by either Catholic or Protestant accusers, ever brought up his cosmology or his dabbling in the proto-science that was extant at the time.