Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Newbie Questions
by fairtrader. 12/05/23 14:22
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
4 registered members (AndrewAMD, Quad, soulman3, Ayumi), 675 guests, and 2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Former NASA engineer touts Creationism #147375
08/11/07 19:54
08/11/07 19:54
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline OP
Expert
NITRO777  Offline OP
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Well other than Isaac Newton, this makes a total of TWO people which COULD BE actually smarter than jcl to have joined the illustrious ranks of the Creationist fanaticism

I especially like the statement here: "No watchmaker = No watch"

Article by Tom Cousins
Quote:

Tom Henderson is not much of a watchmaker. He shakes a small glass jar containing a tiny metallic gear, a brass bezel, a scarred watch crystal and dozens of other nearly microscopic, shiny objects.

But, no watch. He vigorously rattles the container again. Still, no watch. For Henderson, a retired NASA engineer and creationist speaker, that is the point.

No watchmaker — no watch.

He’s carried the somewhat-out-of favor message of special creation to nine foreign countries in the past several decades because he is convinced that how we believe the world came to be it is important.

His is a radical message that challenges both mainline and some evangelical church assumptions, as well as those of the scientific community as a whole: that the first few chapters of Genesis are just as literal and authoritative as the rest of the Bible.

“Years ago, I traveled to Mexico and spoke on the campus of a left-wing university,” he recalled. “During the Q&A on creationism, some there accused me of being a CIA spy.”

Henderson has never been a spy, of course. He has degrees in math, physics and science education and worked at the Johnson Space Center for 37 years.

Creationism is a step beyond the controversial intelligent design movement that has been involved in text book discussions in various parts of the United States.

“Today’s intelligent design movement has done a really good job of showing the complexity of creation — showing that naturalism cannot be the answer,” he said. “Of course, intelligent design only suggests a creator, but as a Bible-believing Christian, I have come to know and I can appreciate what the creator has done.”

Why should the average person in the pew care? Henderson argues that societal decay, theological erosion and moral bankruptcy will ensue if the evolutionary model is embraced.

“The basis for all Christian doctrines is found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis,” he said. “If it is not true, then what is our basis for morality?”

He also said that the evidences he has found for creationism could remove barriers to faith.

“For some people, evolution is a barrier to the good news of Jesus. They feel if evolution is true, Christianity can’t be —and they are right,” he said. “But if evolution is a myth, then they can take that step to faith.”

Although the creationist view has become unpopular in public schools, mass media and other forums, Henderson said that both the Christian school and home-school movement are generally supportive of it.

The Institute of Creation Research, Bob Jones University and other creationist sources produce text books and other materials designed for these groups. National media recently noted the opening of the 60,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.

Creation arguments range from disputes over the validity of radioactive dating, the claim that life is irreducibly complex, the observation that most mutations are unfavorable and the theory that only a finely tuned universe can manage to produce stars.

Now retired from NASA, Henderson coordinates the Web site www.creationsuperlibrary.com from his Friendswood home, where he answers questions from both believers, skeptics and the merely curious.



web page

Last edited by NITRO777; 08/11/07 19:59.
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: NITRO777] #147376
08/11/07 21:09
08/11/07 21:09
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
Quote:

“The basis for all Christian doctrines is found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis,” he said. “If it is not true, then what is our basis for morality




That's ignorant even for a Creationist. Now I'm no biblical scholor, but to my knowledge, the first 11 chapters have nothing to do with Jesus so how can it be the basis for CHRISTIAN doctrine?!
LOL I'm afraid it's down to one dead scientist for creationist, 1000's alive against.

(PS: This proves once again that the degree a person holds should bear no weight on the validity of their argements)

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: fastlane69] #147377
08/11/07 23:22
08/11/07 23:22
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
Nitro

Did you read the book " In six days : Why 50 scientists choose to beleive in creation" by John F. Ashton ?

Here you can find 50 more people who could be smarter than JCL
I must say also that some of their arguments are definitly convincing, at least I would not able to refute them

The point is that you could find 50,000 other scientists who do not beleive in creation

No, Nitro you must resign yourself , science is not on your side
religion is just a matter of faith

Last edited by AlbertoT; 08/12/07 09:47.
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: AlbertoT] #147378
08/11/07 23:58
08/11/07 23:58
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat Offline
Senior Expert
Blattsalat  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
i will still vote for jcl being smarter.
every idiot can land on the moon, but creating an engine that runs under WINDOWS... respect!

"..For some people, evolution is a barrier to the good news of Jesus. They feel if evolution is true, Christianity can;t be ;and they are right,; he said. ;But if evolution is a myth, then they can take that step to faith.;.."

so the key to faith is ignoring facts?! makes perfect sense to me.

cheers


Models, Textures and Levels at:
http://www.blattsalat.com/
portfolio:
http://showcase.blattsalat.com/
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: Blattsalat] #147379
08/12/07 07:24
08/12/07 07:24
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 7,441
ventilator Offline
Senior Expert
ventilator  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 7,441
newton is a silly example because it's very unlikely that he would be a creationist with today's knowledge.

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: ventilator] #147380
08/12/07 09:23
08/12/07 09:23
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 928
Spirit Offline

Moderator
Spirit  Offline

Moderator

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 928
Nothing better than a little creationism when youre out of your former job and Alzheimer is kicking in... Sorry but having been employed by NASA does not prevent someone from being a fool.

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: ventilator] #147381
08/12/07 10:02
08/12/07 10:02
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
Quote:

newton is a silly example because it's very unlikely that he would be a creationist with today's knowledge.




Right, at Newton's time God was a reasonable explanation for the majority of smart people, not only for Newton.
Take for example the gravitational field
The key question was : How can a force work at distance ?
Newton said : It is the God's will
Nowadays we can smile at such explanation but try to find a an alternative and reasonable answer
It is impossible
Einstein found the right explanation but it is definitly not intuitive
In conclusion
Science step by step is removing the need of God providing " natural " answers
It is a matter of fact

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: AlbertoT] #147382
08/12/07 18:18
08/12/07 18:18
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659
San Francisco
JetpackMonkey Offline
Serious User
JetpackMonkey  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659
San Francisco
And NASA also employed crazy astronaut Lisa Nowak
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250415,00.html

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: JetpackMonkey] #147383
08/12/07 19:36
08/12/07 19:36
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791
NRW, Deutschland
inFusion Offline
User
inFusion  Offline
User

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791
NRW, Deutschland
... I am getting so tired of this. Why are creationist always coming with the same arguments over and over again although they have been proven wrong several times already.
Are you somehow trying to mission other people?
Because if you do attempt that, then you already lost me because I am just getting sick over constantly hearing the same already disproven stuff... And I don't think I am the only one that thinks that way.


"Wer nicht mit der Zeit geht, muss mit der Zeit gehen" - Bernd Stromberg
----
www.kihaki.de/reincarnation
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: inFusion] #147384
08/13/07 00:44
08/13/07 00:44
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline OP
Expert
NITRO777  Offline OP
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

Why are creationist always coming with the same arguments over and over again although they have been proven wrong several times already


What same argument? I didnt make any argument. What has been proven wrong?

I didnt say anything about this "proving" creation or "proving" anything.

I honestly dont know what your talking about but it sounds as if your a little upset about something. If your too emotional about this argument my suggestion is that you simply avoid it, its as simple as that.

I am also sorry that you have heard about Tom Henderson many times already, this is the first I have heard of him and I was simply sharing the information to anyone who is interested.

Quote:

Are you somehow trying to mission other people?


Umm lets see, ...no. OK. Any other questions?

No, I take a different approach to evangelism, and I would not bother to try to teach or preach something to someone who is already informed. If however someone doesnt know some detail I might inform them so that they can make up their own minds given the facts, but that is the extent of any "mission" I would ever have.

Quote:

newton is a silly example because it's very unlikely that he would be a creationist with today's knowledge.


Well I dont classify anything I do as "silly" , but I have no idea what Newton would have been in the modern world, he might have been a car mechanic? I could only speculate, I have no idea what he may "likely be"?

Quote:

Now I'm no biblical scholor, but to my knowledge, the first 11 chapters have nothing to do with Jesus so how can it be the basis for CHRISTIAN doctrine?!


Sorry, but the fact that your "no Biblical scholar" is quite apparent. The first Messianic prophecy was right after the fall of man, and the sacrifices by Cain and Able were foreshadowing of the sacrifice so central to the Christian religion.

Quote:

the degree a person holds should bear no weight on the validity of their argements


Im aware of that

Quote:

how can it be the basis for CHRISTIAN doctrine?!



I dont know what his particular ideas are, my guess would be that he is talking about the central Christian concepts of the "Fall of Man" and the "Depravity of Man".


Quote:

Did you read the book " In six days : Why 50 scientists choose to beleive in creation" by John F. Ashton ?



Ill check this out, thanks.

Quote:

No, Nitro you must resign yourself , science is not on your side
religion is just a matter of faith



Painting with a rather wide brush there. Science? You mean all science? Every theory, every observation, every fact? So maybe you could see why I might consider that statement a little bit of an over-generalization. Or maybe you are talking about the "science community" or "scientists in general", in that case I certainly agree.

However I am not trying to prove that there are more scientists which believe in creation than scientists that do not. IM just stating a fact about a particular individual.

Quote:

And NASA also employed crazy astronaut Lisa Nowak


A little difference between an astronaut and a rocket scientist, not to mention the difference between attempted murder and a creationist world view. You need to compare apples with apples.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1