Dickie,

Absolutely correct about Descartes stomach turning mechanical reaction stuff. I cited him for his science rather than Christianness. It is upsetting reading that but anyone who doesn’t know should have the opportunity to be aware of that side of Descartes.

Vanilla,

Have you considered the more likely explanation that my expression might have been poor rather than it being some limitation on your part? For future reference I believe I only bite when bitten (see interactions I’ve had with people like CJ Morgan) so if you think I am savaging you perhaps ask questions first rather than let it hurt your feelings.

On the basis of your previous post I would agree with your 3rd paragraph. You just interpreted facts differently and you are obvously entitled to form a different belief and when it gets to that level how fruitful can discussion get? If that is what you want I won’t be baited by your 4th paragraph.

Fractelle,

I consider science to be as per the definition in my previous post. Thus describing portions of reality by anyone from a Mesopotamian “scientists” to Euclid isn’t what I consider science. The same goes for ancient Greece where they had the components but the components just didn’t seem to come together. Is your post a long winded and patronizingly insulting way of saying you disagree?

I don’t claim that there was no technology, innovation or research prior to Christianity if that is what you think. My only claim is that Christianity gave birth to science. Many ancient civilizations were very close but didn’t get science off the ground.

I agree with the factual aspects of your discussion of Gallileo. I invite you to note particularly your label of him as “the father of science”. How does that rest with Mesopotamian "scientists"? Are you aware that Copernicus didn’t experience the same problem even after dedicating his book to Pope Paul III? So what impeding occurred between Gallileo back then and Darwin in about 1842? As you implied Gallileo’s work had long been accepted by the Church. Didn’t science flourish during that time?

Dickie,

I cited Descartes for his science and how Christianity drove his approach rather than his personal Christian virtue I should say. I think his dealings with animals were appalling. Just thought I should clarify.

I maintain that 'science flourished' in spite of religious interference - which still occurs today, just off the top of my head; stem cell research.

Again you use the words 'patronising' with regard to my posts - how giving a brief and verifiably accurate history of scientific development and discovery can be misconstrued as such, reveals more about the manner in which you think. Long winded? Nice try, but others disagree - perhaps you just found it difficult to follow?

You clearly love being a christian however, many people don't see the religion through your rosey little lenses. Get over it. There are far more enlightened religions than the Abrahamic varieties. Buddhism continues to provide wisdom without the preaching and claims of superiority that you indulge in.

BTW not all christians would agree with you either - they have room in their hearts for differing POV's and they acknowledge that many different religions and beliefs have much to offer that is valuable (where is Foxy when you need her?). But if your chip on your shoulder is so huge that you need to indulge in a petty game of "mine is bigger than yours" why don't you sling it out with Boaz, someone with whom you have much in common.

Christianity no more invented science, than deities restore limbs to amputees, than Jesus walked on water and his mum was a virgin.

"We are formed and molded by our thoughts" Buddha

You might want to consider that, next time you try to promote your religion as superior to anyone else's way of thinking.

Put simply, the first person you are lying to is yourself - never a good thing.

“… religious interference ...”

What was the interference with science between Gallileo and Darwin?

”Again you use the words 'patronising' with regard to my posts - how giving a brief and verifiably accurate history of scientific development and discovery can be misconstrued …”

My delusion was that giving that history followed by comments including “Mjpb – I am becoming increasingly saddened by your lack of knowledge, ability to reason ...” meant that the key thrust of it was to provide evidence so that you support a conclusion about my alleged deficiencies. That would be extremely patronizing. Am I imagining your conclusion? Is the post just a history?

You appear to say that science predated Christianity. The examples are inconsistent with the definition I gave of science. Your insults would seem to make sense only if you disagree with my definition. So are you saying you disagree with the definition and how do you define science?

”… many people don't see the religion through your rosey little lenses.”

In what way are the lenses rosy. The fact that I believe in Christianity or my assertion about science?

“Get over it. There are far more enlightened religions than the Abrahamic varieties. Buddhism continues to provide wisdom without the preaching and claims of superiority that you indulge in.”

Or do they claim to be the ones providing enlightenment? If alternatively the people within the religion don’t claim the superiority that you assert how do you know it is true?

”… christians would … acknowledge that many different religions and beliefs have much to offer that is valuable.”

You don’t need Foxy I’m happy to acknowledge that many religions and beliefs have much to offer that is valuable. Indeed I am rather partial to a Buddhist scripture I know: “As long as we concentrate on others faults we deprive ourselves of the light that shines in varying degrees from everyone.” Trouble is if you don’t concentrate on other people’s faults and thus aren’t careful to avoid any misunderstandings people sometimes jump to conclusions and it can socially backfire but the sentiment is good.

Fractelle,
Are you aware of the religious convictions of researchers of stem cell technology? I'd be interested to know.

The most advanced science in stem cell research that has verifiable results is consistent with Christian beliefs. However Embryonic stem cell research is condemned by Christians because it takes perfectly healthy embryos and desicrates them with total disregard to the healthy potential of the embryo itself.

Atheist believe Christians are ignorant and intellectually backward. This is ignorance! The first and most advanced computer of its time built in Australia for the Government and for early space travel and research was built by a six day creationist who attends the same church as myself. He was Manager of electronics at the school of science. He is a close friend of many American astronaughts who are also Christian. He upholds the Earth is fixed in its orbit as the Psalmist states and cannot be moved so pre-planning calculations can be done to advance secure space travel.

Question.
When were the coastlines of the White Cliffs of Dover formed? When did they rise 80 meters above sea level?

When did the Great Australian Bite rise up out of the ocean floor?

At the current rate of erosion caused by the sea it was not too long ago. If it happened millions of years ago then there would be evidence of chalk in or under the sea bed that demonstrates when it happened.