| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Rozinante" |
| Date: |
07 Jun 2006 04:37:47 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Life per chance? No says Einstein And Hoyle |
Rozinante wrote:
A long-time biochemist at New York’s Columbia University, Erwin
Chargaff, once said that “natural science is not an instrument to
investigate the unfathomable; [nor is] its job to decide on the
existence or nonexistence of God.” Is that true?
Well, Albert Einstein, the best-known scientific theorist of this
century, was led to speak of “a spirit [that] is manifest in the laws of
the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” And more recently
Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, was reportedly converted
from disbelief to belief in the existence of a creative power when he
calculated that it was mathematically impossible for life to appear in
the universe by chance.
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Life per chance? No says Einstein And Hoyle |
07 Jun 2006 06:52:07 AM |
|
|
"Rozinante" <DonQ@lamacha.org> wrote in message
news:L7xhg.13261$523.7058@trnddc07...
Rozinante wrote:
A long-time biochemist at New York’s Columbia University, Erwin Chargaff,
once said that “natural science is not an instrument to investigate the
unfathomable; [nor is] its job to decide on the existence or nonexistence
of God.” Is that true?
Well, Albert Einstein, the best-known scientific theorist of this century,
was led to speak of “a spirit [that] is manifest in the laws of the
Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” And more recently Fred
Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, was reportedly converted from
disbelief to belief in the existence of a creative power when he
calculated that it was mathematically impossible for life to appear in the
universe by chance.
Gee. It goes to show you that even the greatest of our scientists can be
wrong about certain things. Look at Newton's miserable attempts to 'prove'
the existence of deity. And, if you would, please post exactly where your
'Einstein' quote can be found. I am not implying that he didn't say what
you've reported, I just would like to know where I can read it for myself.
About Hoyle and 'probability': If every single living human being on planet
earth were given a number and a 'lottery' held in which a single number were
chosen (corresponding to a *specific* individual -- to even a two-week old
infant), and the bearer of that number would win 20 billion dollars! One
would think it would be a 'miracle' if they won. Well guess what? *Somebody*
would win. And it wouldn't be the result of some 'miracle' now, would it?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Life per chance? No says Einstein And Hoyle |
07 Jun 2006 11:26:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 06:52:07 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
typed furiously:
"Rozinante" <DonQ@lamacha.org> wrote in message
news:L7xhg.13261$523.7058@trnddc07...
Rozinante wrote:
A long-time biochemist at New York’s Columbia University, Erwin Chargaff,
once said that “natural science is not an instrument to investigate the
unfathomable; [nor is] its job to decide on the existence or nonexistence
of God.” Is that true?
Well, Albert Einstein, the best-known scientific theorist of this century,
was led to speak of “a spirit [that] is manifest in the laws of the
Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” And more recently Fred
Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, was reportedly converted from
disbelief to belief in the existence of a creative power when he
calculated that it was mathematically impossible for life to appear in the
universe by chance.
Gee. It goes to show you that even the greatest of our scientists can be
wrong about certain things. Look at Newton's miserable attempts to 'prove'
the existence of deity. And, if you would, please post exactly where your
'Einstein' quote can be found. I am not implying that he didn't say what
you've reported, I just would like to know where I can read it for myself.
About Hoyle and 'probability': If every single living human being on planet
earth were given a number and a 'lottery' held in which a single number were
chosen (corresponding to a *specific* individual -- to even a two-week old
infant), and the bearer of that number would win 20 billion dollars! One
would think it would be a 'miracle' if they won. Well guess what? *Somebody*
would win. And it wouldn't be the result of some 'miracle' now, would it?
Greywolf
Wasn't Hoyle the one who refused to accept Hawking's Big Bang concept,
preferring to continue with his own theory of Steady State and its
mathematical absurdity?
--
David
At the bottom of the application where it says
"sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Life per chance? No says Einstein And Hoyle |
07 Jun 2006 07:21:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 06:52:07 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <128dff8mm4q9n54@corp.supernews.com>
"Rozinante" <DonQ@lamacha.org> wrote in message
news:L7xhg.13261$523.7058@trnddc07...
Rozinante wrote:
A long-time biochemist at New York? Columbia University, Erwin Chargaff,
once said that ?atural science is not an instrument to investigate the
unfathomable; [nor is] its job to decide on the existence or nonexistence
of God.?Is that true?
Well, Albert Einstein, the best-known scientific theorist of this century,
was led to speak of ? spirit [that] is manifest in the laws of the
Universe? spirit vastly superior to that of man.?And more recently Fred
Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, was reportedly converted from
disbelief to belief in the existence of a creative power when he
calculated that it was mathematically impossible for life to appear in the
universe by chance.
Gee. It goes to show you that even the greatest of our scientists can be
wrong about certain things. Look at Newton's miserable attempts to 'prove'
the existence of deity. And, if you would, please post exactly where your
'Einstein' quote can be found. I am not implying that he didn't say what
you've reported, I just would like to know where I can read it for myself.
About Hoyle and 'probability': If every single living human being on planet
earth were given a number and a 'lottery' held in which a single number were
chosen (corresponding to a *specific* individual -- to even a two-week old
infant), and the bearer of that number would win 20 billion dollars! One
would think it would be a 'miracle' if they won. Well guess what? *Somebody*
would win. And it wouldn't be the result of some 'miracle' now, would it?
Greywolf
It's jabriol.
Don't expect any sort of truth.
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Life per chance? No says Einstein And Hoyle |
07 Jun 2006 06:04:55 AM |
|
|
Donkey Jot=E9's donkey dropped the following steaming turd in
alt.atheism:
Donkey Jot=E9's donkey wrote:
A long-time biochemist at New York's Columbia University, Erwin
Chargaff, once said that "natural science is not an instrument to
investigate the unfathomable; [nor is] its job to decide on the
existence or nonexistence of God." Is that true?
Well, Albert Einstein, the best-known scientific theorist of this
century, was led to speak of "a spirit [that] is manifest in the laws of
the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man." And more recently
Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, was reportedly converted
from disbelief to belief in the existence of a creative power when he
calculated that it was mathematically impossible for life to appear in
the universe by chance.
*****, and don't come back without proper cites and reasoning
instead of lies and half-truths.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Life per chance? No says Einstein And Hoyle |
08 Jun 2006 10:11:45 AM |
|
|
Rozinante wrote:
Rozinante wrote:
A long-time biochemist at New York's Columbia University, Erwin
Chargaff, once said that "natural science is not an instrument to
investigate the unfathomable; [nor is] its job to decide on the
existence or nonexistence of God." Is that true?
Well, Albert Einstein, the best-known scientific theorist of this
century,
Which century are you living in?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
