yialanliu

[ORIGINAL TEXT IN FRENCH]

“…A côté de ces justes critiques, de faux procès sont intentés à la cosmologie. L’un d’entre eux a injustement gâché la renommée scientifique du plus grand cosmologiste de ce siècle: Georges Lemaître, inventeur du concept de big bang avec le russe Alexandre Friedmann. On lui a reproché de vouloir confirmer par la science le récit de la Genèse. Il n’en était rien: abbé, certes, mais brillant scientifique, Lemaître tenait à une distinction radicale entre science et religion, pensant que l’on ne pourra jamais réduire l’Être suprême au rang d’une hypothèse scientifique - comme le disait à Napoléon le mathématicien français Pierre Simon de Laplace. Cependant Lemaître joua de malchance : le 22 novembre 1951, le pape Pie XII déclarait devant l’Académie Pontificale : “Il semble en vérité que la science d’aujourd’hui, remontant d’un trait des millions de siècles, ait réussi à se faire le témoin de ce Fiat Lux initial. Vers cette époque, le cosmos est sorti de la main du Créateur”.

 

Farouche adversaire d’un tel “concordisme”, Lemaître demanda audience au pape et remit respectueusement les choses en place. Le 7 septembre 1953, devant l’assemblée générale de l’Union Astronomique Internationale, Pie XII tint effectivement un discours radicalement opposé : la cosmologie scientifique ne parlait ni de Fiat lux , ni de création.”...

---endquote---

I think this is wut it meant a mistranslation?

... concurrently to these right criticisms, of false lawsuit are brought with cosmology. One of them wrongfully wasted the scientific fame of the largest cosmologist of this century: George Lemaître, inventor of the concept of big-bang with Russian Alexandre Friedmann. One reproached him for wanting to confirm by science the account of the Genesis. It of it was nothing: abbot, certainly, but shining scientific, Lemaître held with a radical distinction between science and religion, thinking that one will be able to never reduce To be supreme for it with the row of a scientific assumption - as said it to Napoleon the French mathematician Pierre Simon of Laplace. However Lemaître played of bad luck: November 22, 1951, the pope Pie XII declared in front of the Pontifical Academy: "It seems in truth that the science of today, tonic of a feature of the million centuries, succeeded in being made the witness of this FIAT initial Lux. About this time, cosmos left the hand of Créateur".Farouche adversary of such" a concordism ", Lemaître required audience of the pope and respectfully positioned back the things. September 7, 1953, before the general assembly of the International Astronomical Union, Pie XII held indeed a radically opposite speech: scientific cosmology spoke neither about FIAT lux, nor of création."

I'm still reeling from the characterization of Christian Fundamentalism as idolatry' date=' and the Bible as a graven image ...

 

A bit obvious once it's pointed out.

 

Wrong.

[indent']

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

 

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[/indent]

The scientific definition of theory is the first, not the sixth.

 

Modern science is based on observation, and therefore does not accept 'postulates' as the term is generally used, "omething assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument. "[ibid.]

 

American Heritage Book of English Usage:

 

The words axiom and postulate are synonymous in

mathematics

. They are statements that are accepted as true in order to study the consequences that follow from them.

You misinterpereted I said SCIENCE IS BASED ON POSULATES

and yes you ur self said SOMETHING ACCEPTED...then prove to me we are first of all not like the movie Matrix...

http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

That was the only one I can goto n I already could tell u its biased...

Definition of species...In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring...

Then I will tell you this, if you take a sperm of one "species" of dog and a egg from one "species" of another dog, you will produce viable offspring, as my parents are both breeders it is possible. I do not consider it speciation because they can in essence be breeding and have viable offspring...Will they be good looking or smart and such I doubt it but artificial selection is fake in essence cuz a dachshound should never be that long should it? It would enver survive in nature...oh well...

I am too lazy to research everyone of them or would I know everyone of them...so thats it from me lol

would you like to explain wut each one means? cuz u seem to like posting this on a lot of forums...

http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?p=45248#post45248

http://www.christianforums.com/t79954&highlight=speciation

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=877&page=5

http://darwintalk.com/message-board-forum/about222.html

Some were made by u...another was made by a vajradhara...just posting things without explanation is worthless...

evolution is real

Really? I always thought it was theory in science and science itself is based on postulates like we have to agree that we aren't like a matrix and so forth right?

public ignorance can force people to deny reality

What does he mean by denying reality? First, evolution is not without flaws. If evolution was 100 percent perfect, there would be a lot less skeptics wouldn there? If you can tell me evolution is perfect then you yourself is ignorant and the part where its not perfect, people sometimes question.

Imagine worshiping a God so weak and incompetent that the Kansas School Board must defend this God from science and new learning. It is pitiful.

Who said they were defending God? They were defending Intelligent Design and they have a right to believe it. And you say it is pitiful? Lets throw it back...IMAGINE BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION WHICH PEOPLE HAVE TO DEFEND BY MAKING OTHERS FEEL PITIFUL...Are you that low?

That means that Christianity's survival depends on its being big enough to embrace a post-Darwinian world. If we cannot then Christianity will surely die. I do not believe that is the fate toward which Christianity is headed unless it becomes that petty, small-minded enterprise that must hide in ignorance and fear lest it be destroyed.

Are you telling me that the christian belief hangs onto our theory of intelligent design and if it is proven false there would be no more christianity? I beg to differ, christianity isn't just intelligent design it has many more facets than one theory. Just like if I prove there is no evolution, it doesn't mean there won't be any more science. Just like if you can prove there is no Intelligent Designer doesn't mean theres no God...

Yes, they are rejected because there are jsut way too many flaws in that experiment.

As of now, I haven't read aobut any major discoveries and am still waiting

I liked the DDT debate

dam nasty! but u know he can't get it up cuz he needs a pump

"Evolution" is a logical concept which is utterly, utterly true. It's not even just "science true" like gravity or the existance of sunlight."

Utter bo SHIT! OK this ticked me of...yes, it may be logical to you but to me, its only partially logical. How life first began seems to me only partially logical and macroevolution to me also gives me som skepticism.

Nothing in science is a fact except "nothing in science is a fact".

For the most part I don't think creationists deny evolution. Evolution is a fact, it happens in front of our very eyes all the time. The only debatable part is the fact of whether evolution is how life started or not. I personally believe that a God may exist and may have created the uni(multi?)verse and allowed for evolution to happen. I think it is terribly close-minded to 'know' that there is no God no matter what (not saying that anyone here is like that). So, does this make me a creationist if I believe that a God may have allowed for the evolutionary process to happen?

First, EVOLUTION ISN'T A FACT! I thought it is understood that evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence behind it but it isn't a fact. NOTHING in science is a fact and that will always be true. evolution is a theory and can in an extent be testable but it can't be considered a fact.

Next, well, I personally believe in microevolution and partially agree with macroevolution, the Miller-Urey experiment has a bit too many flas for me to accept so far and if there was less flaws then yes I would agree with it but right now, I believe more of what Genesis says because I am a christian and because it seems to me a bit better than evolution.

Wait, when you say using the bible as evidence, that can make sense if your using the new testament. The new testament has had much of its points confirmed even by nonchristians such as Josephus, Pliny the Youger, and others. Well the old testament isn't backed up as much because of less sources, the new testament has thousands of documents of translation and normally in old documents one well written document is normall all that is needed to say the sourcce is true without any other documents saying the same thing. However, the new testament does have many documents quoting or having a written a part of the many books in the new testament.

Also, what is your point of generalizing all creationists? I am disappointed that you catergorize us as a block of people and you have no evidence that ALL CREATIONINSTS act like this since your defining what a cxreationists mean not by scientific evidence. I want to see your evidence apply to me...I am not brainwashed, I am not gullible, I am not any of the things you mention, if you want to catergorize me in that group than I kind of feel offended because that makes me not a creationist almost and the last time I checked, I was a creationist...

Generally speaking' date=' A Law is something that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. (Thermodynamics, gravity). A Theory is something that still has questions that needs to be answered.

 

The problem is that sometimes in science, like many other things, there people who don't like the results, mainly they or others disprove their theory, so to get the desires they want, they do their hardest to 'get the rules changed'.[/quote']

I disagree...nothing is proved beyond a shadow doubt! And I mean nothing well nothing in science!

LOL, a GRE is a test for when you graduate college...like an SAT for college seniors

But here's the biggy, are the 25k posts good quality posts or are they spam post like this one?

I personally disagree with artificial selection which is what we are doing right now...but seriously, breeding wasn't meant to be controlled cuz I don't think humans would want to be spaded or neutered...

Also, I always though PETA was people eating tasty animals which makes sense since we eating animals are a kind of predation...

Anyways, about the 2500 chicken, an average american would mean that you would consider pretty much every american since your talking about the average, and thus, if you take a look at the popution, 280 million people multiplied by 2500, I blieve is 700/75(life expectancy) which is 93 billion chickens...I doubt there are that many chickens in the world let alone the US...

You know, that the chinese have the highest level of lactose intolerance but we dominate the world population...maybe milk is overated? Anyone got any opinions on the worthiness of milk?

So, drink SOY MILK! Lol, it might help...

I would actually say Galileo because he risked his life to publish his beliefes, Da vinci jsut wrote it in his notebook...

Yes, make sure you do not say absolute, science is never absolute although it may have a lot of evidence, nothing is absolute...

I agree with many people here that birds most likely came from a branch of dinosaurs and fossils have found feathered dinosaurs and this was a crucial link to help solidify the argument

Well, geometrically, descriminats can be used by Cramer's Rule which is to find the intersection of 2 lines...where the equations of ad-bc can not =0 or else they are parallel and so forth....(Best I can come up with)

OK, this is what I used to figure it out...

AX+BY=E

CX+DY=F A,B,C,D,E,F are constants not variables

Solve for x

ADX+BDY=DE Multiply by D

(-) Bcx+bdy=BF Multiply 2nd equation by B

--------------------

ADX-BCX=DE-BF Subtract

(AD-BC)X=DE-BF Factor

X=DE-BF/(AD-BC)

Then when you see this, one thing should pop out and that is the denominator, it is the same as the stadard definition of a determinant of AB-BC...