BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> PAEAN TO "SCIENCE"
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 05, 2012, 02:09 AM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



Code Buttons trotted out one of the premier arguments used by the Left, viz. intellectualism.
It is always this: WE Leftists are intellectual. WE Leftists pursue rationalism, science, wisdom, motherhood, and apple pi. Agree with US or be excluded from our very, very important group.

Peer pressure, pseudo-geek style.

"....well, according to science, which, you don't take seriously (deducing from your posts content-correct me if I'm wrong, please!):"

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics, does he not "take science seriously"?

Are you SERIOUS? Or are you JOKING?

Now on the subject of "science," I like to cite the world's premier scientist, then head of the Royal Society, Lord Kelvin. He declared with no lack of scientific credentialism and authority in 1897: "Heavier than air human flight is impossible."

How did that work out?

Well, two unenlightened BICYCLE MECHANICS, Orville and Wilbur Wright built... the first airplane eight years later. It's a good thing they didn't simply listen to the world's pre-eminent scientist that what they were attempting was "impossible."

Let me give you another example. Albert Einstein. You may have heard of him. Something about the Theory of Relativity. From Einstein's equations, a Catholic priest, no less, derived the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. This priest, Georges LeMaitre, called it the Primordial Atom. Today, we call it the Big Bang.

Meeting with Einstein, Father LeMaitre presented his calculations, his argument, his conclusion. Einstein dismissed it by saying, "Your calculations are correct but your physics is abominable."

Oh really?

You might have said that Einstein "didn't take science seriously."

It took Einstein and the rest of the scientific community YEARS to get over their steady state hypothesis, which denied God. The Big Bang of course corresponds perfectly with Genesis, and the Creation of the universe by God, and "science" just could not have that.

Today, "science" substitutes imaginary infinite universes, the "multiverse" if you will, as a substitute for God.

Who needs God when you can simply conjure up as many universes as you wish, from that "quantum fluctuation in a vacuum" or some such nonsense.

You see, decades earlier, the "scientific" argument went: "the universe is way too big, too complex, to have been created just for man. God would not be so wasteful, would He!"

Ah the hubris of intellectuals on knowing what God would or would not do.

When the science of large number coincidences portended God back into the picture, desperation gripped the Godless yet again. They are nothing if not, ummm, creative. You know, that creation thing, all over again.

So, the argument went from "There can be no God because the universe is SOOO big" to "God is not needed on account of an infinite number of universes are ALLLL different, but ours is JUSSSST right, so here we are."

This is scientific sophistication at a kindergarten level. All to dismiss God.


Now please, "A Matter of Gravity," by Professor John Lennox. See his lecture on YouTube.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th November 2017 - 04:11 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles