our science doctrine founders

[sallystrothers]

Has anyone else delved much into the personal beliefs of many of the men and women who have paved the road for math and science?

I find it interesting that Darwin renounced all of his research on his death bed, Schrodinger dismissed science's ability to quantify our existance, Einstein devoutly pursued God, and Hawkins writes an entire novel revealing math to be infinitely poor at describing the universe. There are many more too, far too many to list.

It is also interesting to me that 47% of all PhD holding scientists believe in God (or god).

I myself have had the opportunity to study with and learn from some of the brightest minds in the world and their complex minds are laced with true realization of the bounds of math and science.

You can't help but look at our world and not deny our understanding to be that similar to an ant who suddenly wakes up in a child's ant farm.

The ant must first have the desire to understand its origin. Then it needs to look around and observe its surroundings. It may take the ant a very long time, even its entire life, to even realize there is a glass boundary to a world much larger then the ant farm.

Even if the ant sees through the glass, it then will begin to wonder about all the curious items (what one would find in a child's room) and how they effect its origin. There could be generations upon generations of ants theorizing about how the G.I Joe in the corner of the room miraculously gave birth to the ant farm and all of its ants. In the life span of an ant farm (my ant farms always seemed to die off rather quickly, or would suffer an unauthorized mass exodus into my sister's room) you can't deny the improbabilty they would learn that in Uncle Milton Co, a subsiduary of Mattel Inc., in Middleton, IA has been mass producing ant farms using the latest polymer glassing production line technology and marketing them through Toys R Us to the end consumer: John and Jane Doe's child; whom saw a commercial on Nickelodeon one Saturday morning and simply could not live without your exotic soon-to-be-home.

 

[artybloke]

I find it interesting that Darwin renounced all of his research on his death bed, Schrodinger dismissed science's ability to quantify our existance, Einstein devoutly pursued God, and Hawkins writes an entire novel revealing math to be infinitely poor at describing the universe.

1) Darwin did no such thing. That's the Lady Hope hoax.
2) I think the same is true of Scrodinger, but can't confirm it as I don't understand quantum mechanics.
3) Einstein may once have said "God doesn't play dice"; that doesn't mean he pursued God.
4) As far as I know, Stephen Hawking's never wrote a novel.

Where do folks dig this stuff up from?

 

[PaladinValer]

Out of the clouds, me thinks.

 

[KerrMetric]

Has anyone else delved much into the personal beliefs of many of the men and women who have paved the road for math and science?

I find it interesting that Darwin renounced all of his research on his death bed, Schrodinger dismissed science's ability to quantify our existance, Einstein devoutly pursued God, and Hawkins writes an entire novel revealing math to be infinitely poor at describing the universe. There are many more too, far too many to list.

It is also interesting to me that 47% of all PhD holding scientists believe in God (or god).

I myself have had the opportunity to study with and learn from some of the brightest minds in the world and their complex minds are laced with true realization of the bounds of math and science.

You can't help but look at our world and not deny our understanding to be that similar to an ant who suddenly wakes up in a child's ant farm.

The ant must first have the desire to understand its origin. Then it needs to look around and observe its surroundings. It may take the ant a very long time, even its entire life, to even realize there is a glass boundary to a world much larger then the ant farm.

Even if the ant sees through the glass, it then will begin to wonder about all the curious items (what one would find in a child's room) and how they effect its origin. There could be generations upon generations of ants theorizing about how the G.I Joe in the corner of the room miraculously gave birth to the ant farm and all of its ants. In the life span of an ant farm (my ant farms always seemed to die off rather quickly, or would suffer an unauthorized mass exodus into my sister's room) you can't deny the improbabilty they would learn that in Uncle Milton Co, a subsiduary of Mattel Inc., in Middleton, IA has been mass producing ant farms using the latest polymer glassing production line technology and marketing them through Toys R Us to the end consumer: John and Jane Doe's child; whom saw a commercial on Nickelodeon one Saturday morning and simply could not live without your exotic soon-to-be-home.

Who lied to you?

 

[sallystrothers]

I would suggest looking into things a little bit before posting on such matters. You won't have to go far...

Darwin -- my source is very trustworthy, but I'll admit it is never perfect. Is your source?
Schrodinger -- you don't need to understand Quantum physics to understand many of the things he talked about outside Quantum physics. Search google for his famous quotes.
Einstein -- the majority of his recorded quotes are heavily laced with theology, i.e. it is a more then safe assumption to say he spent some time thinking about God.
Hawkins -- you must have the wrong Stephen Hawkins. I thought it would be clear to you by mentioning the universe next to Hawkins' name that we're talking about the astrophysicist Stephen Hawkins. He has written many books. Take a trip down to Barnes and Noble and look for one entitled "A Bried History of Time".

And please research more next time before responding to posts with sarcastic remarks.

There was an interesting catroon on one of my professor's office door that said something to the effect:

"Graduate high school and you think you know a lot"
"Graduate college and you think you know everything"
"Graduate doctoral school and you realize you know absolutely nothing"

I have found in my own observations that the most intelligent minds (still alive today) in mathematics especially truely understand how poor it can be at describing anything outside its small application realm. I would especially hope anyone who has taken math beyond differential equations understands this.

 

[ebia]

I would suggest looking into things a little bit before posting on such matters. You won't have to go far...

Darwin -- my source is very trustworthy, but I'll admit it is never perfect. Is your source?

Who?

Schrodinger -- you don't need to understand Quantum physics to understand many of the things he talked about outside Quantum physics. Search google for his famous quotes.

Perhaps you could give a link to one that says what you claim it says.

Einstein -- the majority of his recorded quotes are heavily laced with theology, i.e. it is a more then safe assumption to say he spent some time thinking about God.

"Einstein may have spent some time thinking about God" is not remotely similiar to "Einstein devoutly persued God".

Hawkins -- you must have the wrong Stephen Hawkins. I thought it would be clear to you by mentioning the universe next to Hawkins' name that we're talking about the astrophysicist Stephen Hawkins. He has written many books. Take a trip down to Barnes and Noble and look for one entitled "A Bried History of Time".

Not all books are novels.

I have found in my own observations that the most intelligent minds (still alive today) in mathematics especially truely understand how poor it can be at describing anything outside its small application realm. I would especially hope anyone who has taken math beyond differential equations understands this.

It's also incredibly rich at describing things that we cannot describe in any other way. But what's your point?

 

[billwald]

Doesn't matter what Darwin said on his death bed, does it?

 

[sallystrothers]

Doesn't matter what Darwin said on his death bed, does it?

doesn't matter...? In the context of this thread I would say it has plenty of importance.

My thread has two fold points. The former is simply a discussion about the personal beliefs of predominant scientists and mathematicians. The latter point subjectively builds on the former in that it appears that many intelligent mathematicians and scientists realize the boundaries of the respective fields.

I didn't realize I opened up such a confusing topic.

Please show me where I correlate Darwin's acceptance of Christ (and subsequent renouncil of his work) to the invalidation of his work as someone inferred.

If you care to refute any of my observations please do so and provide some of your own observations. I could have very easily posted all of my references but left them out so people could research themselves and draw their own conclusions.

 

[ebia]

I could have very easily posted all of my references but left them out so people could research themselves and draw their own conclusions.

If you refuse to provide evidence when requested, the inference that will generally be draw will be that you cannot. And from that one is likely to infer that you cannot because that evidence does not exist. And from that the conclusion one is likely to draw is that your facts were wrong in the first place.

 

[shernren]

About Darwin recanting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

for AiG and TalkOrigins to agree on something is momentous!

 

[sallystrothers]

About Darwin recanting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

for AiG and TalkOrigins to agree on something is momentous!

Interesting, especially the last article. Does anyone else sense any bitterness in those articles over the claim of Darwin changing his views? It seems almost as if his theories' pertainence depends on his deathbed. I for one pray the bias in those articles is falsely placed and that he did accept Christ.

 

[ebia]

Interesting, especially the last article. Does anyone else sense any bitterness in those articles over the claim of Darwin changing his views?

No, but perhaps some annoyance at people who insist on spreading untrue rumours as though they were facts.

It seems almost as if his theories' pertainence depends on his deathbed. I for one pray the bias in those articles is falsely placed and that he did accept Christ.

What bias?

This is why people get annoyed.

You state something as fact.
People ask you to provide evidence - you refuse.
People provide evidence that you are wrong.
You still 'hope' you are right, despite the evidence, and even accuse the evidence of being biased WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING that either.

The only link there that is biased is the AiG one, and they are biased AGAINST evolution.

 

[sallystrothers]

So in 2 pages of responses we have one positive post by shernren and the rest equating to that of similar consistency of decomposing garbage one would find in a landfill.

The grace that abounds here is astonishing. It seems as though my giving the benefit of the doubt has returned unheeded, and I hope it is merely the consequence of the veil that the internet provides.

 

[ebia]

So in 2 pages of responses we have one positive post by shernren and the rest equating to that of similar consistency of decomposing garbage one would find in a landfill.

The grace that abounds here is astonishing. It seems as though my giving the benefit of the doubt has returned unheeded, and I hope it is merely the consequence of the veil that the internet provides.

You rather through away the 'benefit of the doubt' when the first think you said was something we all knew to be untrue.

And you have completely failed to deal with the other points raised:
Stephen Hawking has never written a novel ('A brief History of Time is not a novel)
Einstein did not devoutly persue God
and
You have not provided a quote by Schrodinger that says what you claim he says.

So you have been refuted on 3 out of 4 of your opening claims, and you have failed to provide any substantiation of the 4th, and yet you are still claiming to be right.

 

[sallystrothers]

Regardless on if I provide "evidence" or simply neglect the will to do so is not the discussion here. In fact, it only strengthens my point in the first place.

People are so bound up in proving and disproving (mainly just disproving) they miss the mark of life entirely. Instead of contracting their own thoughts on the topic people in this thread have instead questioned the integrity of mine.

The fact of the matter is science as philosophy is a crutch for the weak. Who better to demonstrate this then some of the founding scientists in our world. Maybe I was in err to choose Darwin as an example. He is an all too common household name and I felt his familarity may ease some of you into the discussion.

Maybe my error in choosing Darwin was in lack of thorough research, or maybe it is in your lack of research that you fail to realize that ALL of the evidence surrounding Darwin's life, death and faith after all prove to be inconclusive in the matters of his recantment.

Maybe my error in was opening up this discussion with a man who hardly finds his name and the word mathematics used in the same paragraph, and whose life works revolve around the simplicity of placing the round peg in the round hole.

The enthusiasm in this forum has all the enthusiasm of a pair of titmice

 

[ebia]

Regardless on if I provide "evidence" or simply neglect the will to do so is not the discussion here. In fact, it only strengthens my point in the first place.

This is a wind-up, right?

People are so bound up in proving and disproving (mainly just disproving) they miss the mark of life entirely. Instead of contracting their own thoughts on the topic people in this thread have instead questioned the integrity of mine.

You post something that is wrong. You cannot substantiate your claims. So we are supposed to say, "ok - you must be right"?

The fact of the matter is science as philosophy is a crutch for the weak. Who better to demonstrate this then some of the founding scientists in our world. Maybe I was in err to choose Darwin as an example. He is an all too common household name and I felt his familarity may ease some of you into the discussion.

Maybe my error in choosing Darwin was in lack of thorough research, or maybe it is in your lack of research that you fail to realize that ALL of the evidence surrounding Darwin's life, death and faith after all prove to be inconclusive in the matters of his recantment.

This has to be a joke. Even AiG admits it was a hoax.

Maybe my error in was opening up this discussion with a man who hardly finds his name and the word mathematics used in the same paragraph, and whose life works revolve around the simplicity of placing the round peg in the round hole.

The enthusiasm in this forum has all the enthusiasm of a pair of titmice

Maybe your error was in posting a load of inaccurate bovine waste and expecting people to take it seriously.

 

[random_guy]

Regardless on if I provide "evidence" or simply neglect the will to do so is not the discussion here. In fact, it only strengthens my point in the first place.

So the fact that you posted incorrect information, can not back up the rest of your argument strengthens your point? Sounds like our current government. No WMD means they were going to build them with strengthens the point that we needed to attack.

It doesn't matter how well I finish a race if I'm disqualified from the beginning. When you're wrong from the get go, the rest of the post really doesn't matter.

Sometimes the logic in this forum astounds me.

 

[notto]

So the fact that you posted incorrect information, can not back up the rest of your argument strengthens your point? Sounds like our current government. No WMD means they were going to build them with strengthens the point that we needed to attack.

It doesn't matter how well I finish a race if I'm disqualified from the beginning. When you're wrong from the get go, the rest of the post really doesn't matter.

Sometimes the logic in this forum astounds me.

Sad part is, he'll think that your post made his (or her) point.

 

[shernren]

So in 2 pages of responses we have one positive post by shernren and the rest equating to that of similar consistency of decomposing garbage one would find in a landfill.

The grace that abounds here is astonishing. It seems as though my giving the benefit of the doubt has returned unheeded, and I hope it is merely the consequence of the veil that the internet provides.

Haha, you're the first creationist I've met who calls TalkOrigins links a "positive post". XD

One thing you have to bear in mind is that the story you raised, of Darwin recanting on his deathbed, is what we call a PRATT, or Point Refuted A Thousand Times. You can tell from the name alone how frustrating and irritating that sort of thing is, especially to people who have been here for quite a long time. Often we have well-meaning creationists who stumble across CF, see a whole bunch of evolutionist Christians here, assume immediately that they are all compromising worldly half-atheistic Christians who haven't had the benefit of seeing AiG and ICR's stupendous science. (I'm talking, of course, about how I first reacted when I came here about 8 months ago. XD) They find the C&E forum or the OT Closed and immediately start blasting away about Darwin recanting and the irreducible complexity of the bombardier beetle and the literalness of the Sabbath and the 7 day - 168 hour week.

And this is the umpteenth time the senior has seen this nonsense.

It's much easier, and saves a lot more typing, for the senior to immediately blast off demanding your evidence supporting what you say, than for him to patiently look through the CCIndex for your claim and show you all the evidence they have against it. Of course this comes off as being aloof and uninterested - but what do you expect of a compromising worldly half-Christian? XD ...

Sigh.

Maybe my error in choosing Darwin was in lack of thorough research, or maybe it is in your lack of research that you fail to realize that ALL of the evidence surrounding Darwin's life, death and faith after all prove to be inconclusive in the matters of his recantment.

I hope that you will spend some time looking through CCIndex, making sure there isn't already a rebuttal there, before you blast off your revolutionary evolution-breaking idea. It will help both you and the rest of us to enjoy a fruitful, thought-provoking discussion, instead of a knee-jerk "TalkOrigins' already proved you wrong! Haha!" shoutfest.

 

[billwald]

Maybe even athiests are afraid of dying.