Unknowns, are better for science, than repetitions of what is assumed to be known (selah)

[AV1611VET]

Go ask a primary school kid for the answer.

Before or after his indoctrination?

Newton made the quote in the late 17th century so it is hardly modern science.

Yes it is modern science, who would rather die than ascribe anything to God or the Bible.

I know I have said before that science and Christianity parted ways after Newton's time, but in that comment you posted -- (which surprised me) -- I see the beginning of modern science; which, of course, will culminate during the Tribulation.

 

[sjastro]

Before or after his indoctrination?

The indoctrination nonsense argument.
Since you seem to be so enlightened and free of indoctrination you can provide me with the answer to the question why does paper burn?

Yes it is modern science, who would rather die than ascribe anything to God or the Bible.

I know I have said before that science and Christianity parted ways after Newton's time, but in that comment you posted -- (which surprised me) -- I see the beginning of modern science; which, of course, will culminate during the Tribulation.

Don't let the facts get in the way.
For example.

This is a list of Catholic clergy[1] throughout history who have made contributions to science. These churchmen-scientists include Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Pierre Gassendi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Marin Mersenne, Bernard Bolzano, Francesco Maria Grimaldi, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Robert Grosseteste, Christopher Clavius, Nicolas Steno, Athanasius Kircher, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, William of Ockham, and others listed below. The Catholic Church has also produced many lay scientists and mathematicians.

List of Catholic clergy scientists - Wikipedia

Most of the clergy-scientists in the list post date Newton, are you that much of a bigot to suggest they could not have been Christians for following the scientific method and the philosophy of naturalism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of the clergy-scientists in the list post date Newton,

So?

There'll be scientists tomorrow doing God's work.

What's your point?

QV please: Post 59

Would you like me to bump it for you?

 

[sjastro]

So?

There'll be scientists tomorrow doing God's work.

What's your point?

QV please: Post 59

Would you like me to bump it for you?

You are one hopelessly confused individual.
You attack Newton's quote as "I'm too good to ascribe anything to God, as it might taint science's reputation" yet he is in your list of Bible believing scientists!!
What is laughable is how you incessantly attack scientists while at the same time claiming they are doing God's work.

Evidently you are unaware scientists whether they be Christian, of other faiths, and atheists have been known to collaborate with spectacular results given one's religious background or the lack of it is irrelevant.
The 1979 Nobel Prize for physics for example was awarded to two atheists Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, and the Muslim Abdus Salem who on his acceptance speech acknowledged his religious faith as playing a significant role.

The creation of Physics is the shared heritage of all mankind. East and West, North and South have equally participated in it. In the Holy Book of Islam, Allah says

“Thou seest not, in the creation of the All-merciful any imperfection, Return thy gaze, seest thou any fissure. Then Return thy gaze, again and again. Thy gaze, Comes back to thee dazzled, aweary.”

This in effect is, the faith of all physicists; the deeper we seek, the more is our wonder excited, the more is the dazzlement for our gaze.

I am saying this, not only to remind those here tonight of this, but also for those in the Third World, who feel they have lost out in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, for lack of opportunity and resource.

Alfred Nobel stipulated that no distinction of race or colour will determine who received of his generosity. On this occasion, let me say this to those, whom God has given His Bounty. Let us strive to provide equal opportunities to all so that they can engage in the creation of Physics and science for the benefit of all mankind. This would exactly be in the spirit of Alfred Nobel and the ideals which permeated his life. Bless You!

And you haven't answered my question why does paper burn?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are one hopelessly confused individual.

Really?

Or maybe you are the one trying too hard to make me look bad, and it's not working.

Almost every time you post, I can QV it to something I've said here before.

I think that what you must find confusing is:

When someone venerates science, I can defame it.

And when someone defames science, I can venerate it.

Would you like to see my standards that explain my point of view clearly?

 

[Hans Blaster]

This leads me to Isaac Newton who was profoundly religious albeit holding some heretical views involving Arianism, when asked about what caused gravity gave the following response.

Turns out I was a crypto-Arian/non-trinitarian back in the day and didn't know it. The trinity was something I could only convince myself I understood when I concentrated real hard (kind of like crossing my eyes), but the moment I relax it just made more sense that Jesus was simply the son of God, and not an equal. Likewise, I had no idea that we were supposed to believe that Jesus had always existed, so I went with the obvious reading of the text that God created Jesus in the early days of the Roman empire.

 

[Gottservant]

The problem is Evolution has no current desire to be likeable.

Unknowns being better for science, is an approach that would make science likeable.

You need science, to make science likeable do you? Sadly, I doubt you understand the relationship?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not even sure who you're talking to, so I don't want you to be lonely...

The problem is Evolution has no current desire to be likeable.

It's a good thing evolution isn't in middle school then. "Evolution" is not an animate force. It doesn't have feelings or desires. It is a process, a theory, a field of study (depending on the usage), but none of them have "agency".

Unknowns being better for science, is an approach that would make science likeable.

I like science just fine. The fun part is working out what the unknowns are and then knowing them.

You need science, to make science likeable do you? Sadly, I doubt you understand the relationship?

Not a relationship, or to quote a common theme on CF -- a religion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problem is Evolution has no current desire to be likeable.

Evolution is just a descriptor of a fact of biological science. It does not want or desire to be likeable. It just is.

 

[sjastro]

Really?

Or maybe you are the one trying too hard to make me look bad, and it's not working.

Almost every time you post, I can QV it to something I've said here before.

I think that what you must find confusing is:

When someone venerates science, I can defame it.

And when someone defames science, I can venerate it.

Would you like to see my standards that explain my point of view clearly?

A typically incoherent post punctuated with if all else fails play the victim card or I’m a legend in my own mind routine.
Pointing out the discrepancies in your posts is not designed to make you look bad only contradictory.
And I’m still waiting on your answer as to why paper burns.

 

[sjastro]

Turns out I was a crypto-Arian/non-trinitarian back in the day and didn't know it. The trinity was something I could only convince myself I understood when I concentrated real hard (kind of like crossing my eyes), but the moment I relax it just made more sense that Jesus was simply the son of God, and not an equal. Likewise, I had no idea that we were supposed to believe that Jesus had always existed, so I went with the obvious reading of the text that God created Jesus in the early days of the Roman empire.

And all I can vouch for is being a lapsed Catholic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And all I can vouch for is being a lapsed Catholic.

I was for a while too. Before that I apparently didn't actually accept some key doctrine. After I was a non-believer.

I don't miss interacting with "that guy". Good luck.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I’m still waiting on your answer as to why paper burns.

Is this a legitimate scientific question?

And before you answer, keep two things in mind:

1. I got that off of The Happy Scientist website.
2. You quoted Newton as saying: "Newton was too good a scientist to give a cause to his phenomenological theory of gravity namely “God did it” or ID as it excludes the fundamental objective of science to explain the “how” and not the “why”.

So before I qv you to a science site that has an article titled WHY PAPER BURNS, I'll ask you again:

Is this a legitimate scientific question you're wanting me to answer?

 

[sjastro]

Is this a legitimate scientific question?

And before you answer, keep two things in mind:

1. I got that off of The Happy Scientist website.
2. You quoted Newton as saying: "Newton was too good a scientist to give a cause to his phenomenological theory of gravity namely “God did it” or ID as it excludes the fundamental objective of science to explain the “how” and not the “why”.

So before I qv you to a science site that has an article titled WHY PAPER BURNS, I'll ask you again:

Is this a legitimate scientific question you're wanting me to answer?

You can sure pick them.
The Happy Scientist has been taken out of commission and is serving four years in jail for the possession of child pornography.
Robert Krampf - Wikipedia

The Happy Scientist website was for kids to ask questions about science and the answers were at a elementary level.
Leaving aside the shuddering thought of kids asking questions when the Happy Scientist may have had different motives; why does paper burn might seem innocent enough for a kid to ask but if a science presenter asked the same question they would be shot down in flames.

Why does paper burn is a metaphysical question regarding constructs such as purpose, the appropriate science question is how paper burns.
Terminology is very important in science and while the average person in the street might see how and why questions as splitting hairs the differences are very apparent to scientists.
Science presenters have been criticized for sloppy terminology in attempting to simplify the science for public consumption.

The other issue you put your foot into was regarding indoctrination.
What makes the Happy Scientist website your reference when it can be as "indoctrinating" as any other science site or science taught in schools.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does paper burn is a metaphysical question regarding constructs such as purpose,

Here are some more "metaphysical questions" then, for your reading enjoyment:

Why Does Paper Burn Under A Magnifying Lens?

Why Does Magazine Paper Burn With A Green Flame?

And for your viewing pleasure:

 

[sjastro]

Here are some more "metaphysical questions" then, for your reading enjoyment:

Why Does Paper Burn Under A Magnifying Lens?

Why Does Magazine Paper Burn With A Green Flame?

And for your viewing pleasure:

You still don’t get it.
Your examples are not cases of discourse amongst scientists but the general population where “why” and “how” become interchangeable.

The three examples are also inadequate explanations two of which don’t even classify as science-lite.
Let’s look at "why does magazine paper burn with a green flame" where the explanation given involves some science content.

Heating metal ions (copper) adds energy to the system, in this case the ionized atom. This can cause the electrons to move from their normal energy level to a higher energy level. However, this movement is unstable, and the electron eventually falls back to it's normal level. The excess energy is emitted as light, the color of which is determined by the amount of energy.

While the answer is superficially correct it doesn’t tell you how the energy levels are spaced to give the required energy for the green colour when the electron returns to its ground state.
The answer to how requires a knowledge of quantum mechanics from which the energy levels are derived.

By addressing the question of “how” instead of “why” not only gives scientists the opportunity of a deeper understanding but also excludes metaphysics as well as ID, unicorns and other identities.