Posted on 10/06/2005 6:36:03 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
Agreed. One of the things I think would help to reconcile the two would be a clear definition of how long a 'day' was before the fourth 'day'. Was it 24 hours? Or was it 24 million years?
I enjoy reading and responding to these crevo threads.
Debate is one of the most imporant tools in gaining intelligence.
Too many get into 'wars' over this because they start off with the position that their 'beliefs' are 'fact' and their manner of faith is the only correct one, and that anyone who doesn't see things exactly the way they do, must be wrong.
Here's the only true fact. Most of what you believe, most of what you know, is absolutely WRONG.
Best thing to remember when debating or blindly arguing on a thread, is that both YOU and YOUR OPPONENT are likely DEAD WRONG.
I find it's a very interesting subject to discuss.
It appears you do have a use for religion then: it provides you with an interesting topic of discussion. :)
Could someone please post Fritz's CV so people can see he's a legit scientist?
RWP, who did you have in mind specifically for the next tier of quantum chemists (given they just included a French theoretician in this year's Chemistry Nobel)?
Full Disclosure: Eyring (transition state theory) was reportedly a devout Mormon, speaking of non-traditional religious beliefs coupled with science...
Cheers!
Moral Absolutes Ping.
What! A noted, intelligent, worthy scientist who - [gasp!] believes in God. And that God created things, like the universe. Hmmm. Read thread at own risk.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Henry F. Schaefer III was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1944. He attended public schools in Syracuse (New York), Menlo Park (California), and Grand Rapids (Michigan), graduating from East Grand Rapids High School in 1962. He received his B.S. degree in chemical physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1966) and Ph.D. degree in chemical physics from Stanford University (1969). For 18 years (1969-1987) he served as a professor of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley. During the 1979-1980 academic year he was also Wilfred T. Doherty Professor of Chemistry and inaugural Director of the Institute for Theoretical Chemistry at the University of Texas, Austin. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of theCenter for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. His other academic appointments include Professeur d'Echange at the University of Paris (1977), Gastprofessur at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochshule (ETH), Zurich (1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002), and David P. Cr aig Visiting Professor at the Australian National University (1999). He is the author of more than 975 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
Although I still prefer the swimsuit issue of Chemical Abstracts. :-)
Cheers!
Not the publication list, please. Too much bandwidth:-)
RWP, who did you have in mind specifically for the next tier of quantum chemists (given they just included a French theoretician in this year's Chemistry Nobel)?
I'd put Ahrichs on the list, Michael Dewar, Karl Freed, Parinello...just off the top of my head.
And there are other very active areas of theory too. Martin Karplus has got to be up there for his MD work.
Which God.?. The big bang is a Hindu mental figment.. In an almost endless array of convoluted cycles.. You know, the religion that proudly produced the caste system.. that one.. from an area where the Hindu and Muslim religions dominate..
Hindu and Muslim mind you.. My dog has more morality than the Hindu and Muslim religions have in their back hooves..
What's your opinion of Andy McCammon?
And you haven't nominated yourself, either ;-)
Cheers!
He's done some nice stuff. He's in the same area as Karplus, and he probably doesn't rank quite as high in most people's lists, being a good deal younger (wasn't he a Karplus student or postdoc?)
And you haven't nominated yourself, either ;-)
That's because I don't want to look like a complete twit.
If you really wanted to cause offense, you should have said something clever. Alas, you merely settled for trite and predictable.
As you say, 'The word 'faith' has been difficult to delineate as it is often misused.', thus my question.
I don't really understand what the rest of your reply was about.
Yes
You're absolutely correct, I should have re-worded my response to say that the primary use I have for it, is for the purpose of discussion.
post #49
irony
You say "which God"... and seem to argue that because we cannot know "which God"...and because there are some interpretations of "God" with which you disagree...that there is no God?
The Big Bang is compatible with a number of religions, not just Hinduism (one religion in which the current theories are a bit of a stretch, actually). Ditto with Islam.
The Big Bang, as a scientific theory, is not based on any religion. While some religious interpretations conflict with the Big Bang story of the universe, there are many other interpretations that do not.
This from Wikipedia (not a complete or reliable source, but food for thought here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
The following is a list of various religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory:
A number of Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have accepted the Big Bang as a description of the origin of the universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well established.
Some students of Kabbalah, deism and other non-anthropomorphic faiths concord with the Big Bang theory, for example connecting it with the theory of "divine retraction" (tzimtzum) as explained by the Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides.
Some modern Islamic scholars believe that the Qur'an parallels the Big Bang in its account of creation, described as follows: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We clove them asunder?" (Ch:21,Ver:30). The claim has also been made that the Qur'an describes an expanding universe: "The heaven, We have built it with power. And verily, We are expanding it." (Ch:51,Ver:47). Parallels with the Big Crunch and an oscillating universe have also been suggested: "On the day when We will roll up the heavens like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about." (Ch:21,Ver:104).
Certain theistic branches of Hinduism, such as in Vaishnavism, conceive of a theory of creation with similarities to the theory of the Big Bang. The Hindu mythos, narrated for example in the third book of the Bhagavata Purana (primarily, chapters 10 and 26), describes a primordial state which bursts forth as the Great Vishnu glances over it, transforming into the active state of the sum-total of matter ("prakriti"). Other forms of Hinduism assert a universe without beginning or end.
Buddhism has a concept of a universe that has no creation event. The Big Bang, however, is not seen to be in conflict with this since there are ways to conceive an eternal universe within the paradigm. A number of popular Zen philosophers were intrigued, in particular, by the concept of the oscillating universe.
No doubt you're wrong about a number of other thngs also..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.