I support what you're trying to say here, but those statements about einstein are false. Einstein was most definitely not a christian. He was ethnically jewish, but was more of a pantheist / agnostic. His beliefs may have impacted his work as you said, as he did indeed introduce a cosmological constant to account for a non-expanding universe (it turns out such a constant is in fact needed, but not the same one), and also argued strongly against quantum mechanics, perhaps because he believed in a deterministic universe. These beliefs were not necessarily religious ones though; after all, both of these things appeared obvious to everyone for most of history. The expanding universe was actually first proposed by a catholic priest, which gives an indication as to the effect of religion on said beliefs.Did you know that Albert Einstein kept, in every formula he derived, a constant to keep the universe from expanding. Despite the fact that all of the evidence he derived indicated that the universe expanded, he insisted that it isn't true, for religious reasons. It was only towards the end of his life that it was conclusively proved that the universe is expanding, and his equations fixed. Religion didn't contribute to Einstein's discoveries, but it did hold him back from finding new facts, because he decided to believe the bible as a fact.
(Full disclosure, though I'd prefer if it didn't sidetrack the discussion: I'm all for religion impacting someone's morals, but taking a 1000 year old book as fact is pushing it my opinion)
Of course, everyone knows that Galileo was imprisoned because the bible says the sun rotates around the earth. Similarly, Bill Nye was booed off stage when he talked about evolution and mentioned it went against the bible.
Evolution is more or less proven. Everyone educated and rational acknowledges the facts that indicate its proof. I'm not worried about the guy being a christian as much as I am him putting a 1000 year old text over cold hard facts. That's whats disturbing.
Being a christian does not stop someone from being a good scientist. Stubbornly holding on to a specific interpretation of scripture despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary does.If believing the Bible, as that man does, excludes him from being objective, and reasonable, then how have so many Christians contributed to various branches of science throughout history?
"What was the Universe made of before the matter we see around us formed? The LHC will recreate, on a microscale, conditions that existed during the first billionth of a second of the Big Bang."it's not like someone's repeated a big bang in the laboratory
You correct in saying that theories about the past are not the same as theories about the results of laboratory experiments but that does not mean that we cannot have powerful evidence for theories about the past.people need to realize that there is no "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" of creation. it's all historical conjecture - it's not like someone's repeated a big bang in the laboratory. theories about the past are not the same as repeatable, physical, science.
You don't need to know who either of them is. Neither is winning the election.http://www.isidewith.com/results/159887709
My results as a left-wing Dutchman. Note that what is considered right-wing in the Netherlands is closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans. Anyways, I'm not even sure who Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are, but I expected a preference for Democrat, so well, there it is.
Because our current plan is working OH SO MUCH BETTER. I'll trust the guy who's been there done, done that, balanced a bunch of budgets, AND has actually RUN a business over the guy who has never held an actual (for lack of better words at the moment, I know politicians make a living...) salary paying job in the private sector in his life.
For once, I agree with you
The problem with your line of reasoning in the analogy is that you weren't there, so how do you know? How do you know that the man, who you never witnessed commit the murder, WAS THE MAN? Perhaps the man who emailed those threats to the victim had a friend who hated the victim as much as he did. Perhaps that the man and his friend went to do the deed. Let's say the man didn't have the guts to do it, and felt remorse. Let's say the friend rips the knife out of the hands of the man, who is frozen in indecision, and kills the victim himself. The friend places the knife in the man's hands and flees the scene as the man is now frozen in shock and awe at what just happened. You now enter the room and see the man with the weapon.You correct in saying that theories about the past are not the same as theories about the results of laboratory experiments but that does not mean that we cannot have powerful evidence for theories about the past.
Suppose you walked into a room and there was one man in there, he was holding a knife and standing over the body of another man who had been stabbed to death. The shape of the stab wounds match the knife and particulates from the wounds are of the same material as the knife. Email and telephone conversions between the two people are analyzed and it is found that they had disagreements and the first man had threatened the second man repeatedly.
You didn't witness a murder but there is still overwhelming evidence that the first man killed the second man. In the same way, even though we weren't able to witness the full happening of biological evolution we are still able to find overwhelming evidence for it. Please educate yourself http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Do you think that we currently have solid reasons to believe that the civil war happened? No one currently alive witnessed it.The problem with your line of reasoning in the analogy is that you weren't there, so how do you know? How do you know that the man, who you never witnessed commit the murder, WAS THE MAN? Perhaps the man who emailed those threats to the victim had a friend who hated the victim as much as he did. Perhaps that the man and his friend went to do the deed. Let's say the man didn't have the guts to do it, and felt remorse. Let's say the friend rips the knife out of the hands of the man, who is frozen in indecision, and kills the victim himself. The friend places the knife in the man's hands and flees the scene as the man is now frozen in shock and awe at what just happened. You now enter the room and see the man with the weapon.
You will never know the full details if no one was there to witness it. You can piece things through a framework of mind that you have and interpret the evidence through your worldview. Considering this analogy as if it was in the realm of worldviews, your hypothesis is no more valid than mine because in the realm of worldviews the murderer is never caught and there aren't detectives to solve the case. All we are left is the evidence to interpret and no ability to know if we are right or wrong.
Also, your link is broken.