"Creation science ... should be incorporated into every Biology book" in Texas

[sandorski]

Boy, you're so naive and so intellectually dishonest that it's not worth talking to you anymore. Hoyle clearly stated the conclusion itself couldn't be described in "scientifc terms" -- that's the only reason why he rejected a "beginning"....it has nothing to do with "evidence".

Science is no sacred cow. I'm challenging the conventional wisdom of science being this pristine pursuit of knowledge, completely open to challenge and change, free of bias and completely objective. History shows that scientists aren't always unbiased and objective, to your dismay. Sorry to break this to you. Some people recognize that science is made up of the same fundamental element religion is -- human beings...and humans are humans, for the most part resistant to change, hold strong convictions, and are quite frankly wrong a lot of the time.

But you can continue to ignore all the ignorance and prejudice that consumed cosmology throughout the 20s and 30s, and even Hoyle to some extent, but facts remain facts.

You're into science...you should appreciate this more than anyone. I thought you were into "challenging" beliefs? Not this, though, huh?

No one is saying that Science is sacred. However, it repeatedly shows that it works, that it corrects errors, that the biased and cons are exposed for what they are. It is simply the best method for gaining Knowledge we have ever devised.

 

[Retro Rob]

No one is saying that Science is sacred. However, it repeatedly shows that it works, that it corrects errors, that the biased and cons are exposed for what they are. It is simply the best method for gaining Knowledge we have ever devised.

Agreed. Cerpin Taxt obviously wants to act as if those "biases" never existed though, which is a naive and foolish position, hence, treating it as "sacred".

I am just as critical of religious beliefs and irrationality as they next guy, yet I do make it a point to be aware of the biases and prejudices that lurked, and still lurk, inside scientific community. After all, HUMANS are the ones making up both religion and science.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Boy, you're so naive and so intellectually dishonest that it's not worth talking to you anymore.

Nice personal attack. Did you forget where you are?

Hoyle clearly stated the conclusion itself couldn't be described in "scientifc terms"

Yes, precisely. It could not, because there was no scientific evidence of a beginning to be described.

-- that's the only reason why he rejected a "beginning"....it has nothing to do with "evidence".

It has everything to do with evidence. You can't describe the outer edges of the universe in scientific terms for the very same reason. We don't have the evidence.

{snip blathering}

But you can continue to ignore all the ignorance and prejudice that consumed cosmology throughout the 20s and 30s, and even Hoyle to some extent, but facts remain facts.

The facts you have presented do not justify your conclusions, as I've shown.

You're into science...you should appreciate this more than anyone. I thought you were into "challenging" beliefs? Not this, though, huh?

I go where the evidence leads, and in this case the evidence suggests that Hoyle et al were not rejecting the idea of a beginning of the universe on any other grounds than for the lack of evidence, which is precisely how good science should operate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Agreed. Cerpin Taxt obviously wants to act as if those "biases" never existed though, which is a naive and foolish position, hence, treating it as "sacred".

The only biases I've seen are the ones that make for good science. Being biased against conclusions that are not justified by the evidence is a good thing -- for rational people, at least.

Do you think that the conclusion that the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang is justified by the evidence? If so, explain.

 

[Retro Rob]

Nice personal attack. Did you forget where you are?


Yes, precisely. It could not, because there was no scientific evidence of a beginning to be described.

It has everything to do with evidence. You can't describe the outer edges of the universe in scientific terms for the very same reason. We don't have the evidence.

{snip blathering}

The facts you have presented do not justify your conclusions, as I've shown.

I go where the evidence leads, and in this case the evidence suggests that Hoyle et al were not rejecting the idea of a beginning of the universe on anything other grounds than for the lack of evidence, which is precisely how good science should operate.

The only biases I've seen are the ones that make for good science. Being biased against conclusions that are not justified by the evidence is a good thing -- for rational people, at least.

Do you think that the conclusion that the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang is justified by the evidence? If so, explain.

Its obvious we have differences of opinion, and that isn't going to change. No point in arguing about it anymore.

Thanks, though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Its obvious we have differences of opinion, and that isn't going to change. No point in arguing about it anymore.

You speak only for yourself, and in your earlier posts you were alleging facts, not speaking in terms of opinion. This isn't a "difference of opinion" that we have. This is about what is justified by the evidence, objectively. You have a standing invitation to present evidence which would justify your allegations, and your inability to do so will inform every reader just exactly how reliable your claims aren't.

Thanks, though.

Yeah, thanks for nothing.

 

[Retro Rob]

You speak only for yourself, and in your earlier posts you were alleging facts, not speaking in terms of opinion. This isn't a "difference of opinion" that we have. This is about what is justified by the evidence, objectively. You have a standing invitation to present evidence which would justify your allegations, and your inability to do so will inform every reader just exactly how reliable your claims aren't.

Well, OK:

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory,[10] who rejected the implication that the universe had a beginning.[11][12]

The primary objection to the Big Bang, as I read here (you're more than welcome to prove me wrong) was that it IMPORTED RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS..!!

They, as far as I read here, didn't say "LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE"...they simply didn't want to open a door for "god started it".

That isn't science...that pure, unadulterated prejuidice and willful ignorance.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, OK:



The primary objection to the Big Bang, as I read here (you're more than welcome to prove me wrong) was that it IMPORTED RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS..!!

Which is another way of saying "is not supported by evidence." Since the conclusion was not justified by evidence, any conclusion to the effect that the universe began at the Big Bang can only have been arrived at by importing religious concepts without evidential bases. What's the problem? This isn't a bias against religion. This is a bias against unjustified conclusions.

They, as far as I read here, didn't say "LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE"...they simply didn't want to open a door for "god started it".

No, they simply didn't want to jump to unjustified conclusions.

I'll ask you again, since you seem loathe to answer the real question here:

Do you think that the conclusion that the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang is justified by the evidence? If so, explain.

That isn't science...that pure, unadulterated prejuidice...

It is a shining example of good science. It isn't prejudice to discount the scientific validity of the suggestion that Yaweh made all the traffic lights turn green on my way to work today -- because there isn't evidence to justify that idea, and to insist that one should conclude that Yaweh actually influenced the lights in such a way is to import religious concepts into an answer to a scientific question.

...and willful ignorance.

"Willful ignorance" of what, Rob? Inform us. What do you know that those scientists did not?

 

[Retro Rob]

Which is another way of saying "is not supported by evidence."

Refusing to support a scientfic theory (which the Big Bang was, right?) because of religious implications (they didn't say, "lack of evidence") is no different than refusing to support it because a black man hypothesized it...due to the fact that it would have implications for the Black Community.

So they were actually BIGOTS, in a sense...

Snip

I'd say we need to end this discussion. You're simply playing on words and putting meaning in places in which you have no evidence of it belonging there.

Enjoy your day, Cerpin Taxt...and I mean that.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Refusing to support a scientfic theory (which the Big Bang was, right?) because of religious implications (they didn't say, "lack of evidence") is no different than refusing to support it because a black man hypothesized it...due to the fact that it would have implications for the Black Community.

But that isn't what happened. They refused to support the interpretation of the evidence which alleged that the universe had a beginning. They refused because that interpretation was not a justifiable conclusion. Read your own citation:

While having no argument with the Lemaître theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms".

(emphasis added)

So they were actually BIGOTS, in a sense...

Only to those that want to see prejudice where it doesn't exist.

I'd say we need to end this discussion. You're simply playing on words and putting meaning in places in which you have no evidence of it belonging there.

I have supported every single claim I have made. You, on the other hand, are trying very hard to excuse yourself from this discussion, and continue to refuse to answer the most meaningful question, so I'll ask it again for the third time:

Do you think that the conclusion that the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang is justified by the evidence? If so, explain.

EDIT: I figured I'd also re-ask the other question you've dodged: Of what were these scientists allegedly "willfully ignorant," according to you. You have so accused them, so please inform us with what you know that those scientists did not.

Enjoy your day, Cerpin Taxt...and I mean that.

I don't believe you.

 

[alzan]

Refusing to support a scientfic theory (which the Big Bang was, right?) because of religious implications (they didn't say, "lack of evidence") is no different than refusing to support it because a black man hypothesized it...due to the fact that it would have implications for the Black Community.

So they were actually BIGOTS, in a sense...



I'd say we need to end this discussion. You're simply playing on words and putting meaning in places in which you have no evidence of it belonging there.

Enjoy your day, Cerpin Taxt...and I mean that.

Rob, I'm pretty sure that's not what CT is doing at all. In fact you are doing what you say he is doing by putting (religious) meaning into things when you have no evidence of it.

You do know that Wikipedia pages, not the links, can be edited by people who sometimes have agendas to push. The links themselves provide the real answers, the pages can and do contain opinion masqueraded as fact. They (the articles) should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, I'm pretty sure that's not what CT is doing at all. In fact you are doing what you say he is doing by putting (religious) meaning into things when you have no evidence of it.

You do know that Wikipedia pages, not the links, can be edited by people who sometimes have agendas to push. The links themselves provide the real answers, the pages can and do contain opinion masqueraded as fact. They (the articles) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Point well taken.

Oh yeah, and I am aware of the wiki information...its just that everyone uses it, as Taxt used it in the Bible thread (I can provide a link to his post) to make a point so I am just doing the same.

 

[alzan]

Point well taken.

Oh yeah, and I am aware of the wiki information...its just that everyone uses it, as Taxt used it in the Bible thread (I can provide a link to his post) to make a point so I am just doing the same.

I know, I've used it as well. I just want people who use it as reference to be on their guard.

Well, OK:

The primary objection to the Big Bang, as I read here (you're more than welcome to prove me wrong) was that it IMPORTED RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS..!!

They, as far as I read here, didn't say "LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE"...they simply didn't want to open a door for "god started it".

That isn't science...that pure, unadulterated prejuidice and willful ignorance.

It is science because the scientific method cannot be employed towards that which is not contained within nature; or that which is untestable and unverifiable.

 

[ThinClient]

Its obvious we have differences of opinion, and that isn't going to change. No point in arguing about it anymore.

Thanks, though.

See, this is why you shouldn't bother participating in this forum. You are close-minded. You aren't willing to change your conclusion when someone brings you valuable new evidence that relates to the conclusions you've already drawn.

If you come in here with the predisposition to bigotry, you disqualify the concpet of a discussion and belittle the effort of this forum down to simply preaching at others.

A discussion requires that both sides are open minded. If you aren't even willing to be open minded, then you do not belong in anything described as a discussion.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is science because the scientific method cannot be employed towards that which is not contained within nature; or that which is untestable and unverifiable.

Of course, but this is why language is very important. If you say "the Big Bang isn't scientifc", then I can accept that. But if you say "I object due to religious concepts being imported", then you've focused your attention on religion and NOT science.

Laguage is important.

Just imagine Richard Dawkins answering why he supports evolution, and says "not supporting it introduces religious concepts". I'd exepect him to say "becasue of the amount of evidence".

What does religious concepts have to do with science and its method of accepting theory, is what I am asking.

I don't understand, maybe you can clear this up for me.

 

[ThinClient]

Of course, but this is why language is very important. If you say "the Big Bang isn't scientifc", then I can accept that. But if you say "I object due to religious concepts being imported", then you've focused your attention on religion and NOT science.

Laguage is important.

Just imagine Richard Dawkins answering why he supports evolution, and says "not supporting it introduces religious concepts". I'd exepect him to say "becasue of the amount of evidence".

What does religious concepts have to do with science and its method of accepting theory, is what I am asking.

I don't understand, maybe you can clear this up for me.

Religious concepts are always unfounded. They're evidence-less nonsense and have no business within a rational mind.

 

[alzan]

Of course, but this is why language is very important. If you say "the Big Bang isn't scientifc", then I can accept that. But if you say "I object due to religious concepts being imported", then you've focused your attention on religion and NOT science.

Laguage is important.

Just imagine Richard Dawkins answering why he supports evolution, and says "not supporting it introduces religious concepts". I'd exepect him to say "becasue of the amount of evidence".

What does religious concepts have to do with science and its method of accepting theory, is what I am asking.

I don't understand, maybe you can clear this up for me.

Religious concepts, specifically a supernatural creator, have no place in science mainly because of what I and others have stated: something that's supernatural can't be studied using the scientific method.

If creationism/intelligent design (and the proponents thereof) want to be considered a scientific theory then they need to submit their hypothesis for peer review and testing by all other scientists.

I doubt I can clear it up since I suffer from a lack of scientific experience and knowledge.

 

[Retro Rob]

Religious concepts, specifically a supernatural creator, have no place in science mainly because of what I and others have stated: something that's supernatural can't be studied using the scientific method.

If creationism/intelligent design (and the proponents thereof) want to be considered a scientific theory then they need to submit their hypothesis for peer review and testing by all other scientists.

I doubt I can clear it up since I suffer from a lack of scientific experience and knowledge.

Wait, the Big Bang wasn't proposed based on "religious concepts" so how can they reject something on a basis that it wasn't proposed on?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

A discussion requires that both sides are open minded. If you aren't even willing to be open minded, then you do not belong in anything described as a discussion.

Religious concepts are always unfounded. They're evidence-less nonsense and have no business within a rational mind.

Pot, kettle. If you aren't willing to respect his viewpoints, why should he respect yours?

 

[ThinClient]

Pot, kettle. If you aren't willing to respect his viewpoints, why should he respect yours?

Respecting points of view is not the same as being willing to change one's opinion.

This is a strawman argument.

I am open-minded to the concept of religion and I have challenged Rob M. countless times to present evidence to support the positive claim that a prime mover exists or that christ was divine.

Until someone finally provides evidence to support the positive claim, then the claim is null and void, or without support, or bullshit, whatever way you think is best to describe it.

He repeatedly refuses to accept the challenge. You should see him in evolution-related conversations. The guy absolutely rejects anything that does not support his theistic point of view, no matter how much concrete evidence exists to negate his theism.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Respecting points of view is not the same as being willing to change one's opinion.

You can't claim to be open-minded to other viewpoints if you say things like religion has "no business within a rational mind." There are plenty of rational people who believe in religious or spiritual concepts. I personally don't, but I also try to avoid denigrating those viewpoints, especially if I'm trying to make a claim regarding the open-mindedness of someone who does hold those views. The fact is, as people who believe in the scientific method, we can't disprove God any more than religious people can prove him, so at best it's something to ignore. Acting as though its a completely irrational belief is just insulting.

Not to take the thread too far off topic, I'll echo the viewpoint espoused earlier that creationist ideas or "intelligent design" are not scientific theories and so have no place in a scientific classroom.

 

[ThinClient]

You can't claim to be open-minded to other viewpoints if you say things like religion has "no business within a rational mind."

Sure I can, after thousands and thousands of years of no evidence whatsoever to support the ever-changing claims from religion to religion.

However, when someone presents evidence, being open minded means accepting that submitted evidence onto the table to be scrutinized instead of instantly rejecting it. I accept the evidence onto the table to be scrutinized, then I give them every reason I can think of as to why the evidence is bullshit. If it's not bullshit, if it's real evidence, then I'm forced to fold it into the rest of the evidence I've seen on the matter and re-evaluate my conclusion.

Try harder.

There are plenty of rational people who believe in religious or spiritual concepts.

They may be rational people in other parts of life, but a belief in the supernatural is irrational because there is no evidence to support the positive claim that the supernatural exists. They may be rational in their job or with their kids or with other bits of life, but they throw it right out the window when they accept a conclusion for which there is zero evidence, no matter what that conclusion is.

I personally don't, but I also try to avoid denigrating those viewpoints, especially if I'm trying to make a claim regarding the open-mindedness of someone who does hold those views. The fact is, as people who believe in the scientific method, we can't disprove God any more than religious people can prove him, so at best it's something to ignore. Acting as though its a completely irrational belief is just insulting.

Not to take the thread too far off topic, I'll echo the viewpoint espoused earlier that creationist ideas or "intelligent design" are not scientific theories and so have no place in a scientific classroom.

So why are you on my ass about this?

Like it has been said countless times, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those making the positive claim. Until they present evidence, their screaming that their god exists is nothing but horse shit, plain and simple.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Like it has been said countless times, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those making the positive claim. Until they present evidence, their screaming that their god exists is nothing but horse shit, plain and simple.

That's the easy way out .....
ask them to prove themselves that's acceptable.

Asking you to support your argument that since they cannot support their argument with proof somehow makes you correct....that's is the lazy man`s way out!!

 

[Retro Rob]

That's the easy way out .....
ask them to prove themselves that's acceptable.

Asking you to support your argument that since they cannot support their argument with proof somehow makes you correct....that's is the lazy man`s way out!!

You kinda took the words from my mouth. Me not proving myself right doesn't make YOU right, no more than you not proving me wrong, makes me right, an argument from ignorance.

 

[Screech]

They may be rational people in other parts of life, but a belief in the supernatural is irrational because there is no evidence to support the positive claim that the supernatural exists. They may be rational in their job or with their kids or with other bits of life, but they throw it right out the window when they accept a conclusion for which there is zero evidence, no matter what that conclusion is.

To go even further off topic in this thread:

What if those people say "believing in this makes me happy, and furthermore gives me a social circle of individuals with whom I can relate which further increases my quality of life, so I will continue going to church, etc. In addition, it helps to keep my family together at certain events for x number of reasons." Is this irrational? Should they instead tell their friends/family/etc that everyone who still believes is simply being irrational and shun them as a result? Seems like their belief is pretty rational, particularly if they are making pascals wager at face value.

See, I think of myself as agnostic essentially, but I can respect those for whom religion seems to not have a negative influence on their lives.

edit:

You kinda took the words from my mouth. Me not proving myself right doesn't make YOU right, no more than you not proving me wrong, makes me right, an argument from ignorance.

Rob/ Jediyoda: One does not have to (in fact, one fundamentally cannot) prove a negative. TC has no obligation to prove that x does not exist, where x can be god, unicorns, etc. It is on the person making the positive claim to provide such proof if they are so inclined. Obviously there is no proof hence it is faith, which might be proof enough for you but is not proof in a mathematical sense. edit2 and will likely never be proof enough for TC, heh.