Voyager 1 spacecraft nears interstellar space

[Danl]

Originally Posted by kiddiedoc

On the contrary, science has failed to prove anything that eliminates our Creator or our Savior. I would hope that you might open yourself to a new way of thinking that just might explain it all, including the timeless question of the meaning for our existence.

Science does not attempt to prove or disprove creators or saviors. Those are the purview of religion.

Why do I need a new way of thinking? Why don't you?

[Danl]

Originally Posted by kiddiedoc

On the contrary, science has failed to prove anything that eliminates our Creator or our Savior. I would hope that you might open yourself to a new way of thinking that just might explain it all, including the timeless question of the meaning for our existence.

BTW, still waiting for that example where the church was right and science was wrong.

[kiddiedoc]

Originally Posted by Danl

Science does not attempt to prove or disprove creators or saviors. Those are the purview of religion.

Why do I need a new way of thinking? Why don't you?

I think you know what my answer to those questions would be.

I have asked those questions of myself and have thought deeply, as my education challenged some of the beliefs I held as a child. After many years, I have reaffirmed my faith and know now why I was never satisfied with the brittle "facts" we have been discussing. The acceptance of Christianity reaches far beyond any telescope or microscope.

"So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."
2 Corinthians 4:18

[NEOCON]

Originally Posted by therealUT

Ironic post is ironic.

not really but maybe to you.

there have been people wrong on both sides of the aisle throughout history both on the religious side and on the scientific side.

Many theories that were stated as facts just a decade ago are now realized to be in correct.

I chose an example of someone who went against the masses.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by NEOCON

not really but maybe to you.

there have been people wrong on both sides of the aisle throughout history both on the religious side and on the scientific side.

Many theories that were stated as facts just a decade ago are now realized to be in correct.

I chose an example of someone who went against the masses.

You chose an example of someone who put his faith in scientific calculations, theory, and conjecture without having "solid proof". Yet, you are now rejecting scientific calculations, theory, and conjecture simply because there is no "solid proof". You are doing the exact opposite of what Columbus did.

[Danl]

Originally Posted by kiddiedoc

I think you know what my answer to those questions would be.

I suppose I could guess, but I don't know

I have asked those questions of myself and have thought deeply, as my education challenged some of the beliefs I held as a child. After many years, I have reaffirmed my faith and know now why I was never satisfied with the brittle "facts" we have been discussing. The acceptance of Christianity reaches far beyond any telescope or microscope.

In other words, you don't have a scientific rebuttal, but only a religious one. I believe that is absolutely fine. Just say its your faith you believe and not science and be done with it. Just don't pretend that there is some body of scientific evidence that supports your religious beliefs. Nor does there need to be.

"So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."
2 Corinthians 4:18

My problem is folks attempting to teach their religious beliefs as equal to, or as a substitute for, science in a science classroom. Science is science and religion is religion. The two have completely different objectives. We shouldn't teach kids science in Sunday School and we shouldn't teach kids religion in a science class.

[Danl]

Originally Posted by NEOCON

not really but maybe to you.

there have been people wrong on both sides of the aisle throughout history both on the religious side and on the scientific side.

You keep saying things like this as if its been pretty much even Steven. It has not. I still can't think of an example and you have not (can not?) produce an example where the scientific community was at odds with major church doctrine and eventually church doctrine was proven to be more correct.


Many theories that were stated as facts just a decade ago are now realized to be in correct.

No they weren't. Please list these many theories.

I chose an example of someone who went against the masses.

.

[hmanvolfan]

Originally Posted by PandamoniumReigns

Thats quite a funny post coming from someone stating that evolution is known fact.

Back on topic - What is powering the transmissions? The spacecraft is far out of range for solar panels to be of any use, right? How is it getting power?

What exactly is solar power? Are you saying our "sun" is the only source of "solar" power?

[hmanvolfan]

All you seekers rent the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey....


YouTube Link

[loggervol]

What I believe and have faith in,make me go to the tower of babel for a reference to all of mans wisdom.i think it says that mans wisdom to god is folly or foolishness.

[PandamoniumReigns]

Originally Posted by hmanvolfan

What exactly is solar power? Are you saying our "sun" is the only source of "solar" power?

No, but our sun is still the closest star to provide any solar power.

[Thrasher865]

Originally Posted by hmanvolfan

What exactly is solar power? Are you saying our "sun" is the only source of "solar" power?

At its current point.... yes.

[Thrasher865]

Originally Posted by kiddiedoc

On the contrary, science has failed to prove anything that eliminates our Creator or our Savior. I would hope that you might open yourself to a new way of thinking that just might explain it all, including the timeless question of the meaning for our existence.

Yes, and science still hasn't disproven the flying spaghetti monster or aliens as our creators, so I give each of them equally slim possibilities of being accurate. The point is there are mounds more evidence to support natural selection than intelligent design.

In fact, to my knowledge, there is zero evidence to support intelligent design. The only arguments for intelligent design are that you cannot prove anything else. But, you can come a hell of a lot closer than proving ID.

[Scooter426]

Originally Posted by PandamoniumReigns

Back on topic - What is powering the transmissions? The spacecraft is far out of range for solar panels to be of any use, right? How is it getting power?

The Voyagers' instruments are powered by radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which convert the heat emitted by plutonium's radioactive decay into electricity. The instruments should have enough juice left to keep taking measurements until at least 2020, researchers have said

.

[PandamoniumReigns]

Originally Posted by Scooter426

.

Interesting. thanks for researching