You stated: "Nobody would ever say nuclear reactions in the stars/universe as the work of the intelligent creator."
I pointed out that Einstein disagreed with your statement of fact and that Einstein himself was the exception to your rule.
You then stated that Einstein's opinion was irrelevant. I then pointed out that if Einstein's opinion on science is irrelevant, then you must be a better scientist than Einstein.
Now where did I go against you. By your own words you implied that Einstein was a poor scientist since he believed that nuclear reactions were evidence of an intelligent creator, something you stated flatly that nobody would believe.
Is your opinion on Science more valid than Einstein's? How many Nobel Prizes have you earned?
I pointed out that Einstein disagreed with your statement of fact and that Einstein himself was the exception to your rule.
First, Einstein was talking about "feelings" of wanting to know the truth. And that, according to him, comes from the spiritual quest. How does that invalidate anything I said? That is just his opinion. Nothing he said meant it was an intelligent creator who creates nuclear fusion. He might as well have studied Torah or Bible or any other divine ancient scripture for that. Why go to all the trouble.
You then stated that Einstein's opinion was irrelevant.
Indeed. Einstein's religious views are irrelevant. He was saying the spiritual quest to find the truth was important. I disagree. That disagreement doesn't negate the fact that my post was about science making the nuclear reaction. I was talking about the nuts and bolts of why that happened, and you injected with Einstein's personal view of the importance of seeking spiritual truth. Offtopic and of course, irrelevant.
I then pointed out that if Einstein's opinion on science is irrelevant, then you must be a better scientist than Einstein.
Einstein was talking about the importance of finding the truth(i.e. science), and, that DRIVE comes from religion. He gave his views as a religious person. Nothing in it had scientific merit. A lot of DRIVE comes from secular side as well.
Now where did I go against you. By your own words you implied that Einstein was a poor scientist
Must you lie? Don't put words in my mouth.
since he believed that nuclear reactions were evidence of an intelligent creator something you stated flatly that nobody would believe.
Of course there are people who believe it. I was merely being sarcastic. I was having an online conversation here in FR with a woman who believed earthquakes were due to intelligent force. That is my I posted it here, trying to get it going.
Is your opinion on Science more valid than Einstein's?
When Einstein talked about intelligent creator, he surely wasn't representing science. He was just a human, trying to let out his own feelings. Don't disguise his personal opinions as solid facts. Just his opinion, and irrelevant to this conversation.
How many Nobel Prizes have you earned?
One less than Einstein. ;) And why do you continue to focus on MY (lack of) scientific background? Although I must say I know a hell lot more than Einstein, because things have been discovered after his death and are in introductory biology, physics, and astronomy courses.