Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Before the ninety's, scientists believed

johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 1:57:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
NECESSITY OF DESIGN:
An Open Letter Supporting Creation from
NASA Rocket Scientist Wernher Von Braun

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without
invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed
to the law and order of the Universe without concluding
that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the
world around us,we can behold the obvious manifestations
of an ordered, structured plan or design.We can see the will
of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled
by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the
purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly
seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower.
The better we understand the intricacies of the Universe
and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel
at the inherent design upon which it is based.

While the admission of a design for the Universe ultimately
raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside
the realm of science), the scientific method does not allow
us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the Universe,
life, and man are based on design. To be forced to
believe only one conclusion"that everything in the Universe
happened by chance"would violate the very objectivity
of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue
that the Universe evolved via a random process, but what
random process could produce the brain of a man or the
human eye?

Some people suggest that science has been unable to
prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many
of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand,
and they do not deny that the Universe, as modern
science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than
the creation that medieval man could perceive. But they still
maintain that since science has provided us with so many
answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to
understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of
nature without invoking divine intent.They challenge science
to prove the existence of God. But must we really
light a candle to see the Sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they
cannot visualize a Designer.Well, can a physicist visualize
an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable,
and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we
use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through
the night skies and take the most accurate measurements.
What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the
inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the
reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive
of Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not
understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it
because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical
model of it borrowed from rather limited experience
in other fields, yet they would not know how to begin building a model of God.
I have discussed the aspect of a Grand Designer at some
length because it might be that the primary resistance to
acknowledging the "case for design" as a viable scientific
alternative to the current "case for "chance" lies in the inconceivability,
in some scientists" minds, of a Designer. The
inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will
lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to
rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data
and is useful for prediction.

We at NASA often are asked what the real reason was
for the amazing string of successes we have had with our
Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer
we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything.
It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse
the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the
Universe, life, and man in the science classroom. It would
be an error to overlook the possibility that the Universe was
planned rather than happening by chance.
With kindest regards.

Sincerely yours,
(signed) Wernher von Braun, Ph.D.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

ARTICLE REPRINT
Distributed by
Apologetics Press, Inc.
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117-2752
(334) 272-8558
Originally Published In
Special Creation vs. Evolution, Edward F. Blick
(Oklahoma City, OK: Southwest Radio Church),
1988, pp. 29-31.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 2:06:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sincerely yours,
(signed) Wernher von Braun, Ph.D.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Are you sure you meant scientists not scientist.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 3:24:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 2:57:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
Wow got that wrong didn't he?

Wasn't his area of study.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

Von Braun's gravestone: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

An unbiased source, for sure. Lol.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:16:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

Von Braun's gravestone: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

An unbiased source, for sure. Lol.

If I were Von Braun, I might be looking for mystic salvation too.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:21:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:16:58 AM, TBR wrote:
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

Von Braun's gravestone: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

An unbiased source, for sure. Lol.

If I were Von Braun, I might be looking for mystic salvation too.

Considering the death and destruction his work allowed, I would be inclined to agree.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 11:47:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

LOL We do not have to "dredge up" any "scientists" from half a year ago. You are correct, however, in saying that when discussing religion or the existence of God, a scientist has no more credibility than the next person.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:45:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 11:47:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

LOL We do not have to "dredge up" any "scientists" from half a year ago. You are correct, however, in saying that when discussing religion or the existence of God, a scientist has no more credibility than the next person.

Half a century, not half a year. He died in 1977.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:48:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:16:58 AM, TBR wrote:
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

Von Braun's gravestone: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

An unbiased source, for sure. Lol.

If I were Von Braun, I might be looking for mystic salvation too.

Exactly right.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

On the motives behind this conversion, Michael J. Neufeld is of the opinion that he turned to religion "to pacify his own conscience",[64] whereas Soton scholar Kendrick Oliver comments that von Braun was presumably moved "by a desire to find a new direction for his life after the moral chaos of his service for the Third Reich."[65] Having "concluded one bad bargain with the devil, perhaps now he felt a need to have God securely at his side."[66]
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:57:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:45:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/16/2015 11:47:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

LOL We do not have to "dredge up" any "scientists" from half a year ago. You are correct, however, in saying that when discussing religion or the existence of God, a scientist has no more credibility than the next person.

Half a century, not half a year. He died in 1977.

I know when he died. I'm saying that "scientists" do not have a dog in the fight, whether from half-a-century ago or half-a-day ago. It is futile for anyone to try to cite them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 2:09:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:57:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:45:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/16/2015 11:47:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

LOL We do not have to "dredge up" any "scientists" from half a year ago. You are correct, however, in saying that when discussing religion or the existence of God, a scientist has no more credibility than the next person.

Half a century, not half a year. He died in 1977.

I know when he died. I'm saying that "scientists" do not have a dog in the fight, whether from half-a-century ago or half-a-day ago. It is futile for anyone to try to cite them.

John Lubba doesn't seem to agree with you. Like many theists he will try and discredit science when science conflicts with his worldview but he is quick to pounce when a scientist lends support in any way (even when totally outside their field of expertise). It's an attempt to piggyback on the obvious integrity and reputation of science. I'm glad you agree that the personal spiritual beliefs of people should in no way be linked to their occupations. Maybe you should have a word in John's shell-like ear?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 4:35:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:57:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:45:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/16/2015 11:47:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

LOL We do not have to "dredge up" any "scientists" from half a year ago. You are correct, however, in saying that when discussing religion or the existence of God, a scientist has no more credibility than the next person.

Half a century, not half a year. He died in 1977.

I know when he died. I'm saying that "scientists" do not have a dog in the fight, whether from half-a-century ago or half-a-day ago. It is futile for anyone to try to cite them.

And yet many Atheists want to point to scientists to support their belief in no God. Einstein repeatedly had to speak out against Atheists who claimed he was one of them. And religionists as well, it should be noted.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 4:39:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 2:09:03 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:57:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:45:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/16/2015 11:47:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

LOL We do not have to "dredge up" any "scientists" from half a year ago. You are correct, however, in saying that when discussing religion or the existence of God, a scientist has no more credibility than the next person.

Half a century, not half a year. He died in 1977.

I know when he died. I'm saying that "scientists" do not have a dog in the fight, whether from half-a-century ago or half-a-day ago. It is futile for anyone to try to cite them.

John Lubba doesn't seem to agree with you. Like many theists he will try and discredit science when science conflicts with his worldview but he is quick to pounce when a scientist lends support in any way (even when totally outside their field of expertise).

Then that's a mistake on his part.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 4:39:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 4:35:05 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:57:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:45:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/16/2015 11:47:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

LOL We do not have to "dredge up" any "scientists" from half a year ago. You are correct, however, in saying that when discussing religion or the existence of God, a scientist has no more credibility than the next person.

Half a century, not half a year. He died in 1977.

I know when he died. I'm saying that "scientists" do not have a dog in the fight, whether from half-a-century ago or half-a-day ago. It is futile for anyone to try to cite them.

And yet many Atheists want to point to scientists to support their belief in no God.

That's disallowed as well.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 4:52:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 4:39:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/17/2015 4:35:05 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:57:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:45:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/16/2015 11:47:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/15/2015 8:00:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
A rocket scientist has little to no credibility when discussing biology and cosmogony. Whilst von Braun had some physics training, his career was that of a mechanical engineeer. Moreover he converted to Evangelical Christianity just after his first marriage. What else would an Evangelical Christian say?

Gee, you guys must be getting really desperate when you have to dredge up something this spurious from half a century ago.

LOL We do not have to "dredge up" any "scientists" from half a year ago. You are correct, however, in saying that when discussing religion or the existence of God, a scientist has no more credibility than the next person.

Half a century, not half a year. He died in 1977.

I know when he died. I'm saying that "scientists" do not have a dog in the fight, whether from half-a-century ago or half-a-day ago. It is futile for anyone to try to cite them.

And yet many Atheists want to point to scientists to support their belief in no God.

That's disallowed as well.

Well, there is theory, and then there is practice.
In this case, the two seem unrelated.
It reminds me of the "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.", commercials.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 12:17:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I feel other replies have already covered the flaws with the argue put forward... However to the title of the thread itself:

People used to believe all sorts of things before the nineties, much of it stupid. Heck before the nineties I believed if you weren't White, you weren't a person.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...