Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people:

[This_person]

YOU made the claim that Einstein was against the Big Bang due to Creationism.

And, I believe it.

But why? it wasnt for the reasons you purpoted

Can you demonstrate that?

No Eddington made this claim not Einstein.

No, Einstein said it when he called it an explaination of "creation", not of the "origins of the universe", etc.

Thats because one belief is based on the Fantastical, kinda makes sense when your a 1 and 0 guy.

:shrug:

And your any different? is anyone? Einstein had a theory, and he stood by his theory (but not because the other sounded like Creationism, that was Eddington).

Thats why there is a Peer Review, the whole reason behind it is to Vet a theory.

Not exactly an open minded scientist, though, was it?

So now the Big Bang was a religious theory? make up your mind

No, it's not. But the scientist who first claimed it was also a priest, and Einstein addressed him as such. Based upon his close-mindedness towards religion and the fact the Pope was promoting the Big Bang theory, it's quite realistic to conclude that had a lot to do with AE's dismissal of the idea, and the person who brought it out.

And you feel Creationism and Science are similiar, doesnt make it so.

Actually, I claim ID and science are similar, but only in their ability to follow the basic rules of scientific theory as it applies to the origins of life, of humanity.

So you have nothing to back your claim that Einstein was against the Big Bang theory due to creationism. there are plenty of Einstein quotes but none claim the Big Bang theory is wrong because it smacks of Creationism

Nothing that either of us would find unbiased, no. I'm using context clues ("the best explaination of creation I've ever heard") and common sense.

 

[Xaquin44]

he doesn't have proof, so he'll keep saying the same thing over and over in hopes that you'll forget.

 

[Gwydion]

I'm using ... common sense.

Liar.

 

[This_person]

Where did EINSTEIN say that? Because the article you posted only quotes Eddington.

In California, in 1933. His quote:

At Mt. Wilson he heard the Belgian scientist Abbi Georges Lemantre detail his theory that the universe had been created by the explosion of a "primeval atom" and was still expanding. "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said.​

 

[This_person]

Is it possible when Einstein said "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened", he was complimenting Lemaitre because he had come around at this point?

Is it possible? Yes. But, read what this genius said - "...explanation of creation..."

Not, "explanation of the origins of the universe", or "of an expanding vs static universe", or anything else that was a direct issue of the theory. "Creation". Implying creator. Perhaps he was just having a Freudian slip?

 

[tommyjones]

he doesn't have proof, so he'll keep saying the same thing over and over in hopes that you'll forget.

this is kind of like his multiple eve theroy, only supported by TP's assertions. in that one he kept quoting a passge that didn't support his argument either.

the fact that he cant find a quote from AE that justifys his reading of the matter is very telling.

as he said, he cant prove it through unbiased sources......

 

[fuzzywzhe]

When you practice the scientific discipline you have to abandon personal prejudices simply because science necessitates it.

And, AE didn't do that. He clung to his theory, regardless of the information provided, and ridiculed the person and idea of dissent from HIS opinion.

This is entirely untrue.

First of all: Einstein NEVER ridiculed LeMaitre, he simply stated that mathematics doesn't necessarily lead to a correct conclusion in science, and Einstein knew this to be entirely correct, because it's absolutely true.

Second of all: Einstein didn't "cling" to a theory. What "theory" do you think Einstein was "clinging" to? He drew no conclusions. LeMaitre had no evidence to support the idea he presented for the big bang. If there is no evidence, it's not really a theory, it's called a postulate at that stage.

Third: You're being entirely untruthful when you falsely claim Einstein didn't abandon personal prejudices, since Einstein did became a leading advocate of the idea of the "big bang" after Hubble's Law was demonstrated.

When the red shift was observed, the only conclusion that anybody was able to make was that the universe was expanding, and that's when Einstein became the champion of the big bang theory.

Reluctantly, eventually had to agree. How very open minded of him.

He didn't "reluctantly" agree, he agreed because he found out he was wrong. That's something you incapable of.

When a scientist finds out "oh gee whiz, everything I said about X is crap", they quit making those statements. Unlike you.

Go here, and try to make your false claims, see how far you get: Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or here: 'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang

or here: Predicting the Expanding Universe: Einstein, De Sitter, Friedman, Lemaitre, & Early Cosmology

It's literally all over the place. You're the one that has a totally closed mind. Even when I lead the horse to water, even when I explain the full history, even when I show actual examples of mathematics leading to false conclusions, you still continue to make your same claims, and then you have the audacity to claim scientists are closed minded. You're either so closed minded that you still believe you're telling the truth, or you're a liar, intentionally deceiving other people.

Do you see the irony here? I doubt you can, but I'm sure anybody else wasting their time listening to either one of us can. You're destined to go through your short life only learning what might be able to be beaten into you by a 2x4.

Really?

What other hypothesis could this be?

You already know my answer will be ID. However, an enterprising writer could certainly come up with others.

When Darwin, a man that planned to enter the seminary, started looking at natural history and when others followed in his path looking for fossil records to support the belief in the Great Flood, they abandoned their personal prejudices. Darwin did not start out as an atheist. I bet you didn't know that.

Nothing will change your mind, you only know part of the history, and that's all you care to know. I really don't have a problem with faith, and I don't care if you teach your kids that every single animal, and every single disease on the planet was put on the Ark. I don't care if you think the world is 5,000 years old, and I don't care if you teach your kids this.

I don't care if you teach communities this as long as the majority of the community want this and anybody is free to leave the community.

I think we can find a common ground to fight. Don't make me pay for your kids education, and I don't want to pay for your kids education. You can teach them whatever you like to them. It's not my responsibility to make your kids functioning human being in society. Teach them nothing, I don't care.

You know what finally broke my camel's back when it came to religion?

• God is good, right?
• God is omnipotent, right?
• Why did a good God choose to have his only begotten son to be tortured to death on a cross, when a good God and omnipotent God could have done the same thing, by snapping his

fingers?

My conclusion was that Christians either don't worship a good God, or they worship a false one. I came up with that at 12.

I wasn't always an atheist either, but when I asked that question over and over and over again to so-called experts, I never got a satisfactory answer. This lead me to read about other religions, and these religion Christians condemn are mostly almost identical to their own religion. Christians don't even practice their own religion in most cases. You'd never be recognized as a Christian by anybody from 1500 AD.

 

[This_person]

First of all: Einstein NEVER ridiculed LeMaitre, he simply stated that mathematics doesn't necessarily lead to a correct conclusion in science, and Einstein knew this to be entirely correct, because it's absolutely true.

From one of the Wiki pages:

At this time, Einstein, whilst approving of the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable"​

Calling his understanding of physics "abominable" seems a lot like ridicule for a prominant scientist who just happened to be more right than wrong, don't you think?

Second of all: Einstein didn't "cling" to a theory. What "theory" do you think Einstein was "clinging" to?

The static universe. {Psst, read some of the stuff you ask me to}

Third: You're being entirely untruthful when you falsely claim Einstein didn't abandon personal prejudices, since Einstein did became a leading advocate of the idea of the "big bang" after Hubble's Law was demonstrated.

Which is what I said. He eventually, reluctantly let go when he had to, and not a moment before. He didn't embrace each new idea and weigh it objectively and fairly. Because (more from your Wiki reference

As for Einstein, he found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view​

He didn't "reluctantly" agree, he agreed because he found out he was wrong.

Such vociferous initial attacks make the word "reluctant" very likely.

When Darwin, a man that planned to enter the seminary, started looking at natural history and when others followed in his path looking for fossil records to support the belief in the Great Flood, they abandoned their personal prejudices. Darwin did not start out as an atheist. I bet you didn't know that.

I didn't. Thank you for the lesson. I actually thought he stayed religious throughout his career, but I've since read numerous quotes belying that assumption

Nothing will change your mind, you only know part of the history, and that's all you care to know. I really don't have a problem with faith, and I don't care if you teach your kids that every single animal, and every single disease on the planet was put on the Ark. I don't care if you think the world is 5,000 years old, and I don't care if you teach your kids this.

Good for you, buddy.

I don't care if you teach communities this as long as the majority of the community want this and anybody is free to leave the community.

More good for you!!

I think we can find a common ground to fight. Don't make me pay for your kids education, and I don't want to pay for your kids education. You can teach them whatever you like to them. It's not my responsibility to make your kids functioning human being in society. Teach them nothing, I don't care.

An attitude like that will take you far in this world.

You know what finally broke my camel's back when it came to religion?

• God is good, right?
• God is omnipotent, right?
• Why did a good God choose to have his only begotten son be tortured to death on a cross, when a good God and omnipotent God could have done the same thing, by snapping his fingers?

My conclusion was that Christians either don't worship a good God, or they worship a false one. I came up with that at 12.

And, I encourage people to challenge their beliefs. This was wise of you at 12.

I wasn't always an atheist either, but when I asked that question over and over and over again to so-called experts, I never got a satisfactory answer. This lead me to read about other religions, and these religion Christians condemn are mostly almost identical to their own religion. Christians don't even practice their own religion in most cases. You'd never be recognized as a Christian by anybody from 1500 AD.

And I would say it would be wise for you not to believe until you can answer those questions.

 

[This_person]

this is kind of like his multiple eve theroy, only supported by TP's assertions. in that one he kept quoting a passge that didn't support his argument either.

the fact that he cant find a quote from AE that justifys his reading of the matter is very telling.

as he said, he cant prove it through unbiased sources......

But, you could never come up with a way it did not support it, other than your lack of understanding.

I asserted it as a possibility, noting that no one knows for sure. Certainly, other early writings speak of other people created (Lilith, anyone?). So, I'm just open minded on the concept.

Don't you worry you're kind of becoming a Keith Olberman to my Bill O'Reilly? You seem to follow and take pot shots at a lot of stuff I say, then laugh at having me on ignore .

 

[This_person]

The genius said "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened"

Nevermind that he was complimenting Lemaitre, you have asserted the creation that he is speaking of is Your creation event. In reality it was disambigous it could have very easily have been THE creation even (ie the Big Bang, you know what the conference was actually about)

I'm sure this is just a big misunderstanding. The people there at the time I'm sure understood what he really meant. I believe it's referred to as a left-handed compliment.

Anywho we're still waiting for you to show where Einstein said he was against the Big Bang theory due to its proximity to Creationism. (by 1933 he had turned the corner on the Big Bang theory, and supported Lemaitre)

Yes, he supported it then. I never argued he didn't come around. My argument was that he was very close minded to the possibility due to his biases. Science, as has been repeatedly and vociferously explained to me, shouldn't do that.

 

[This_person]

And your talking out both sides of your mouth, Forked tongue perhaps

Uh, no

You make this unsubstantiated Claim that Einstein was against the Big Bang theory because it smacks of creation, yet admit that your (misguided) proof occurred when Einstein agreed with Lemaitre.

I explained it was coming from people who spoke and wrote with AE at the time, and from AE's recorded opinions on the greater subject, and from AE's words regarding agreeing the concept worked, but that it must be wrong anyway because it disagreed with HIM. He was widely regarded as dismissive of both the concept and the people claiming it, until Hubble made that impossible. Like Barry with Wright, he HAD to change his tone, or be completely dismissed from his community.