nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 186:
Line 186: + + + + + +
→Christians and Science: Relevance of YEC; ideology, not discovery; Sagan and the library; your opinion
: Yes, there are fine examples of non-Christian science. That should be added. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:27, 22 January 2008 (EST)
: Yes, there are fine examples of non-Christian science. That should be added. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:27, 22 January 2008 (EST)
: The fact that Copernicus etc. were YEC ''is'' relevant when you are trying to make a claim that Christianity is bad for science. It proves you wrong.
: Later scientists did not ''discover'' the Earth to be older than thought; they invented a new way of explaining the evidence of the layers without invoking a biblical explanation. It was a new ideological view of the evidence, not a discovery.
: As far as the Library and Sagan are concerned, try reading [http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm this]. If you want another view, Wikipedia's article on the library also says that the perpetrators cannot be known for sure.
: "And lastly", your ''opinion'' is at odds with the quoted authorities, so I'll take them over you. And if you are correct about man's curiosity being all that's required, why didn't the Australian aborigines, the American Indians, etc. etc. develop science? Perhaps there's more to it than just curiosity? The reason, in some cases, is because people thought that the creation itself was sacred and should be worshipped, not studied. This was because of their ''religious'' view. And by the way, Chinese astronomy was given a boost by Jesuits passing on their astronomical data, including Copernicus' ideas.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 22 January 2008 (EST)