Why is the Big Bang theory taught in Public Schools?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19
LOL at the ignorance in the OP. You should probably actually learn about the Big Bang Theory and the various refines to it based on empirical data rather than just assuming it is a blind belief that a big explosion made everything :roll:

It's sad how you completely mangled what I wrote into a strawman that's as easy to burn up with "you should probably learn what the big bang theory actually is.."

I've studied the Big Bang theory. I believe in a Big Bang myself. What i'm talking about is time, space and matter.

No, you asked why it is taught in schools. There are reasons why, such as empirical evidence. There is no real evidence for the gods of those religions you mentioned. I answered your question well enough.

No, you didn't. You said there was emperical evidence, but didn't say what it was.

This isn't science class, Torquemada. You want to know why something is taught in the science classroom, jman19 provided a reason. He is not under any obligation to explain the details of the theory to you, particularly since you posted an incredibly inflammatory thread despite clearly having no knowledge whatsoever of the topic. You call the Big Bang theory "100% religious" despite clearly detailed scientific evidence to support it. The fact that you might be too dumb, too biased or too lazy to go look for that evidence doesn't burden any of us with the responsibility of explaining it to you...simply pointing out that you might want to remove your head from your ass and try to learn something seems like a perfectly fair comment to me. Especially since you started this discussion in such an aggressively ridiculous way.

Rainsford,

So, you are claiming then that emperical evidence for the Big Bang does exist?

I'm saying it doesn't, I thought i made it perfectly clear. What you percieve to be inflammitory is your own bias clashing with my own statements, which you in your anger now won't be able to back up.

I don't need the big bang theory explained to me, so you can take your attempts to undermine my intelligence and shove em somewhere.

I am presenting a valid question about why there is such vicious hypocracy about the belief in origins. We teach our kids about one theory (at least they're honest enough to call it a theory, until they assume it is a fact 1000x in the teaching of biology).

If you don't have the integrity to debate on how the Big Bang theory, which would also need Time, Space and Matter to exist to come to the fruition that the text books teach, then don't come crying to me about it.

Theory is not the same as belief. There is an enormous difference between thinking that a creator made the universe because some book and some guy in a funny costume tells you so, or thinking that the big bang theory answers a lot of questions about the origin of the universe because you've examined the empirical evidence and think it supports the theory.

Until you stop making this ridiculous comparison, I don't think there is any possibility of reasonable debate on this or any other scientific issue. You're doing what all non-scientific people do when trying to argue a scientific point, try to paint science as religion...drag unbiased observation and analysis down to your level of unsupported (and unsupportable) belief. If you feel I'm insulting your intelligence, it's because you are saying some pretty unintelligent things. I refuse to be drawn into a religious debate on this issue, and it's pretty clear to me that you're not willing to participate in a scientific one.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...Observational_evidence

There's a lot of data to support Big Bang theory.

Let me make it clear, I believe a big bang happened. But throughout our text books it tells our kids that the whole universe somehow appeared, space time and all.

Of course you do, it's right there in Genesis 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

But your ex nihilo position of the Big Bang is not supported. All the matter-energy in the universe has always existed, it's the time and space that came into existence at the moment of the big bang.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19
LOL at the ignorance in the OP. You should probably actually learn about the Big Bang Theory and the various refines to it based on empirical data rather than just assuming it is a blind belief that a big explosion made everything :roll:

It's sad how you completely mangled what I wrote into a strawman that's as easy to burn up with "you should probably learn what the big bang theory actually is.."

I've studied the Big Bang theory. I believe in a Big Bang myself. What i'm talking about is time, space and matter.

No, you asked why it is taught in schools. There are reasons why, such as empirical evidence. There is no real evidence for the gods of those religions you mentioned. I answered your question well enough.

No, you didn't. You said there was emperical evidence, but didn't say what it was.

This isn't science class, Torquemada. You want to know why something is taught in the science classroom, jman19 provided a reason. He is not under any obligation to explain the details of the theory to you, particularly since you posted an incredibly inflammatory thread despite clearly having no knowledge whatsoever of the topic. You call the Big Bang theory "100% religious" despite clearly detailed scientific evidence to support it. The fact that you might be too dumb, too biased or too lazy to go look for that evidence doesn't burden any of us with the responsibility of explaining it to you...simply pointing out that you might want to remove your head from your ass and try to learn something seems like a perfectly fair comment to me. Especially since you started this discussion in such an aggressively ridiculous way.

Rainsford,

So, you are claiming then that emperical evidence for the Big Bang does exist?

I'm saying it doesn't, I thought i made it perfectly clear. What you percieve to be inflammitory is your own bias clashing with my own statements, which you in your anger now won't be able to back up.

I don't need the big bang theory explained to me, so you can take your attempts to undermine my intelligence and shove em somewhere.

I am presenting a valid question about why there is such vicious hypocracy about the belief in origins. We teach our kids about one theory (at least they're honest enough to call it a theory, until they assume it is a fact 1000x in the teaching of biology).

If you don't have the integrity to debate on how the Big Bang theory, which would also need Time, Space and Matter to exist to come to the fruition that the text books teach, then don't come crying to me about it.

Theory is not the same as belief. There is an enormous difference between thinking that a creator made the universe because some book and some guy in a funny costume tells you so, or thinking that the big bang theory answers a lot of questions about the origin of the universe because you've examined the empirical evidence and think it supports the theory.

Until you stop making this ridiculous comparison, I don't think there is any possibility of reasonable debate on this or any other scientific issue. You're doing what all non-scientific people do when trying to argue a scientific point, try to paint science as religion...drag unbiased observation and analysis down to your level of unsupported (and unsupportable) belief. If you feel I'm insulting your intelligence, it's because you are saying some pretty unintelligent things. I refuse to be drawn into a religious debate on this issue, and it's pretty clear to me that you're not willing to participate in a scientific one.

I know theory is different from belief but unless there is sufficient evidence of something you can't call it a fact. I do believe in something like a big bang, but my big bang is a little different from what an atheist wants me to believe.

I'm going to bed, i'll do a thread sometime on something closer to theology and philosophy, i'm sure you all simply can't wait!

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...Observational_evidence

There's a lot of data to support Big Bang theory.

Let me make it clear, I believe a big bang happened. But throughout our text books it tells our kids that the whole universe somehow appeared, space time and all.

Of course you do, it's right there in Genesis 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

But your ex nihilo position of the Big Bang is not supported. All the matter-energy in the universe has always existed, it's the time and space that came into existence at the moment of the big bang.

See, that's not scientific... what empirical evidence could there possibly be that time and space came into existence at the moment of the big bang?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...Observational_evidence

There's a lot of data to support Big Bang theory.

Let me make it clear, I believe a big bang happened. But throughout our text books it tells our kids that the whole universe somehow appeared, space time and all.

The Big Bang describes how the universe expanded from a single point and created space-time in the process. It does not address how the singularity came into being or go beyond the point of the singularity existing. That's an entirely different theory. Look to M-theory to try to explain something like that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I know theory is different from belief but unless there is sufficient evidence of something you can't call it a fact. I do believe in something like a big bang, but my big bang is a little different from what an atheist wants me to believe.

I'm going to bed, i'll do a thread sometime on something closer to theology and philosophy, i'm sure you all simply can't wait!

Straw man. Your OP attacked science, not atheism. I don't care what those e-mails you get say, science and atheism are not even remotely the same thing. From the objective standpoint of science, atheism is all but a religion (if it organized, then it would be).

I am interested to hear what your big bang is...

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...Observational_evidence

There's a lot of data to support Big Bang theory.

Let me make it clear, I believe a big bang happened. But throughout our text books it tells our kids that the whole universe somehow appeared, space time and all.

The Big Bang describes how the universe expanded from a single point and created space-time in the process. It does not address how the singularity came into being or go beyond the point of the singularity existing. That's an entirely different theory. Look to M-theory to try to explain something like that.

You still have to believe that space and time came into existence, science cannot demonstrate or observe how it occurred.

Now i'm going to bed

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...Observational_evidence

There's a lot of data to support Big Bang theory.

Let me make it clear, I believe a big bang happened. But throughout our text books it tells our kids that the whole universe somehow appeared, space time and all.

The Big Bang describes how the universe expanded from a single point and created space-time in the process. It does not address how the singularity came into being or go beyond the point of the singularity existing. That's an entirely different theory. Look to M-theory to try to explain something like that.

You still have to believe that space and time came into existence, science cannot demonstrate or observe how it occurred.

Now i'm going to bed

That's no different than wondering how God came into existence. Clearly, if there must have been a creator then someone must have created God. Of course, that brings about an endless loop. So if you can believe that God has always existed then why can't you believe that matter, or the components of matter, always existed? Fundamentally they are identical beliefs, just different flavors.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Theory is not the same as belief. There is an enormous difference between thinking that a creator made the universe because some book and some guy in a funny costume tells you so, or thinking that the big bang theory answers a lot of questions about the origin of the universe because you've examined the empirical evidence and think it supports the theory.

Until you stop making this ridiculous comparison, I don't think there is any possibility of reasonable debate on this or any other scientific issue. You're doing what all non-scientific people do when trying to argue a scientific point, try to paint science as religion...drag unbiased observation and analysis down to your level of unsupported (and unsupportable) belief. If you feel I'm insulting your intelligence, it's because you are saying some pretty unintelligent things. I refuse to be drawn into a religious debate on this issue, and it's pretty clear to me that you're not willing to participate in a scientific one.

I know theory is different from belief but unless there is sufficient evidence of something you can't call it a fact. I do believe in something like a big bang, but my big bang is a little different from what an atheist wants me to believe.

I'm going to bed, i'll do a thread sometime on something closer to theology and philosophy, i'm sure you all simply can't wait!

This isn't what atheists want you to believe, this is what scientists believe happened based upon empirical evidence that match accepted theory. This seems to differ a great deal from the kind of evidence provided by a book of ethic stories used to support a theory of existence based upon a philosophical need. How many of the great scientists and engineers of today and throughout history were religious? Most of them were able to separate their theological ideas from their scientific ones.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...Observational_evidence

There's a lot of data to support Big Bang theory.

Let me make it clear, I believe a big bang happened. But throughout our text books it tells our kids that the whole universe somehow appeared, space time and all.

Of course you do, it's right there in Genesis 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

But your ex nihilo position of the Big Bang is not supported. All the matter-energy in the universe has always existed, it's the time and space that came into existence at the moment of the big bang.

See, that's not scientific... what empirical evidence could there possibly be that time and space came into existence at the moment of the big bang?

That all worldlines converge back to a single point in spacetime. It's completely scientific.
Any 2 non-parallel lines will eventually intersect. In the universe, the fact that all matter is moving away from each other can prove that once it was all together at a single point.

 

[Martin]

I have a tshirt with the slogan on the front and the graph on the back. It's meant to be an inside joke for people like myself and a mockery of people like you, OP.

http://xkcd.com/54/

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...Observational_evidence

There's a lot of data to support Big Bang theory.

Let me make it clear, I believe a big bang happened. But throughout our text books it tells our kids that the whole universe somehow appeared, space time and all.

The Big Bang describes how the universe expanded from a single point and created space-time in the process. It does not address how the singularity came into being or go beyond the point of the singularity existing. That's an entirely different theory. Look to M-theory to try to explain something like that.

You still have to believe that space and time came into existence, science cannot demonstrate or observe how it occurred.

Now i'm going to bed

That's no different than wondering how God came into existence. Clearly, if there must have been a creator then someone must have created God. Of course, that brings about an endless loop. So if you can believe that God has always existed then why can't you believe that matter, or the components of matter, always existed? Fundamentally they are identical beliefs, just different flavors.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19
LOL at the ignorance in the OP. You should probably actually learn about the Big Bang Theory and the various refines to it based on empirical data rather than just assuming it is a blind belief that a big explosion made everything :roll:

It's sad how you completely mangled what I wrote into a strawman that's as easy to burn up with "you should probably learn what the big bang theory actually is.."

I've studied the Big Bang theory. I believe in a Big Bang myself. What i'm talking about is time, space and matter.

No, you asked why it is taught in schools. There are reasons why, such as empirical evidence. There is no real evidence for the gods of those religions you mentioned. I answered your question well enough.

No, you didn't. You said there was emperical evidence, but didn't say what it was.

This isn't science class, Torquemada. You want to know why something is taught in the science classroom, jman19 provided a reason. He is not under any obligation to explain the details of the theory to you, particularly since you posted an incredibly inflammatory thread despite clearly having no knowledge whatsoever of the topic. You call the Big Bang theory "100% religious" despite clearly detailed scientific evidence to support it. The fact that you might be too dumb, too biased or too lazy to go look for that evidence doesn't burden any of us with the responsibility of explaining it to you...simply pointing out that you might want to remove your head from your ass and try to learn something seems like a perfectly fair comment to me. Especially since you started this discussion in such an aggressively ridiculous way.

Rainsford,

So, you are claiming then that emperical evidence for the Big Bang does exist?

I'm saying it doesn't, I thought i made it perfectly clear. What you percieve to be inflammitory is your own bias clashing with my own statements, which you in your anger now won't be able to back up.

I don't need the big bang theory explained to me, so you can take your attempts to undermine my intelligence and shove em somewhere.

I am presenting a valid question about why there is such vicious hypocracy about the belief in origins. We teach our kids about one theory (at least they're honest enough to call it a theory, until they assume it is a fact 1000x in the teaching of biology).

If you don't have the integrity to debate on how the Big Bang theory, which would also need Time, Space and Matter to exist to come to the fruition that the text books teach, then don't come crying to me about it.

Theory is not the same as belief. There is an enormous difference between thinking that a creator made the universe because some book and some guy in a funny costume tells you so, or thinking that the big bang theory answers a lot of questions about the origin of the universe because you've examined the empirical evidence and think it supports the theory.

Until you stop making this ridiculous comparison, I don't think there is any possibility of reasonable debate on this or any other scientific issue. You're doing what all non-scientific people do when trying to argue a scientific point, try to paint science as religion...drag unbiased observation and analysis down to your level of unsupported (and unsupportable) belief. If you feel I'm insulting your intelligence, it's because you are saying some pretty unintelligent things. I refuse to be drawn into a religious debate on this issue, and it's pretty clear to me that you're not willing to participate in a scientific one.

I know theory is different from belief but unless there is sufficient evidence of something you can't call it a fact. I do believe in something like a big bang, but my big bang is a little different from what an atheist wants me to believe.

I'm going to bed, i'll do a thread sometime on something closer to theology and philosophy, i'm sure you all simply can't wait!

So what? Theory doesn't have to be indistinguishable from fact, that's not how scientists use the term.

I would also like to point out that I'm amused by your assumption that I'm an atheist...I'm just able to separate my spiritual views from my scientific ones.

 

[TheVrolok]

It seems like this argument (and the teaching of evolution) comes up relatively frequently. It all boils down to certain people, like to OP, not being able to distinguish theory and faith. Yes, NEITHER are proven, but that does not mean that they have equal levels of credence. Theories (some, not all) can have mountains of empirical data and observational evidence (like the Big Bang) and still not be proven. Faith (as in religion) very often has no empirical data nor observational evidence (scientific that is - not "he said she said") to support it whatsoever. Just because neither are proven, does not imply that they are of equal credibility (scientifically).

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

At least 80% of the Big Bang theory has been proven. And that is 80% more than any religion.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Why do we all insist on feeding the trolls?

We all know that anyone espousing any form of religion in lieu of science has a capped IQ of about 65. Therefore they are incapable of any rational discussion. We should learn to either ignore then, euthanize them, or put them all in a safe little room somewhere so they can't hurt themselves or others.

I know, I'm a guilty of it as anyone...just wishing.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Why can't it be both? If religion is to have any hope of existing in the face of science, then it better start trying to reconcile the two instead of purposely setting them at odds, because everytime you people tell the rest of us the earth is flat, science eventually proves you wrong.

Science does not have to prove it exists or reconcile itself with some ancient fairytale. That burden is on religion. Therefore, shouldn't you at least try to interpret your sacred text in light of what we know to be true? Namely, if there is a God, "He" is not a magical old Jew with a Santa Claus beard, but the ultimate scientist who created the laws of nature and perhaps caused the Big Bang. In fact, according to the Bible, wouldn't God have to live outside of our atmosphere...which means he is by definition "extraterrestrial", right?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Why do we all insist on feeding the trolls?

We all know that anyone espousing any form of religion in lieu of science has a capped IQ of about 65. Therefore they are incapable of any rational discussion. We should learn to either ignore then, euthanize them, or put them all in a safe little room somewhere so they can't hurt themselves or others.

I know, I'm a guilty of it as anyone...just wishing.

I suppose it's similar to why the police and others insist on delving into the background of violent criminals. They're obviously guilty, just fry 'em. But people are trying to get some insight into disturbed minds. Maybe if some gene combination is discovered, society will have some warning.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
As something that Science cannot possibly prove through demonstratable, observable experiments, why are the religious principals of the Big Bang theory, which virtually(or every) single biology book in High Schools and College use as their foundation for the science of cosmic evolution, still taught in Public schools?

It's crystal clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that one must believe the Big Bang happened. They cannot know. It is in no way science, it is as 100% religiously based (in terms of beliefs) to believe in the big bang theory as is to believe in Jesus or Allah or Santa Clause for the kids. I'm specifically talking about Time, Space and Matter appearing.

1) Without time, there is no when.
2) Without space, there is no where.
3) Without matter, there is no what.

Somehow, the Big Bang is one of the only 100% religious ideas taught in public schools that gives the theory on how the universe came to exist, yet there is no evidience of something appearing from nothing.

My question is, why is Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Mysticism viewed as religious and cannot be used to explain cosmic evolution, or origins of life, yet the most prominent theory of which there is absoluetely no evidence that doesn't also support Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Mysticism(i think).

I think it's great we can tell the universe is expanding, but why does this prove the Big Bang and somehow disprove a creator?

Why is the Big Bang theory taught in Public Schools and then used in evolution as if the big bang were real science?

You invoke religions, but do you have an actual idea of how the theologies of each? I know Islam the best, and within the Islamic perspective the Big Bang theory is perfectly plausible. There is no contradiction - the only contradiction that exists is if one wants to literally believe that God creating the universe means that he snapped fingers and magically popped out of the earth...

Quran 51:47 - And it is we who have built the universe with power; and, verily, it is we who are steadily expanding it

 

[ericlp]

There's a two-page spread in a world atlas which shows our galaxy within many galaxies, and within our galaxy the solar system. And here you get a sense of the magnitude of this space that we're now finding out about. What those pages opened to me was the vision of a universe of unimaginable magnitude and inconceivable violence. Billions upon billions of roaring thermonuclear furnaces scattering from each other. Each thermonuclear furnace a star, and our sun among them. Many of them actually blowing themselves to pieces, littering the outermost reaches of space with dust and gas out of which new stars with circling planets are being born right now. And then from still more remote distances beyond all these there come murmurs, microwaves that are echoes of the greatest cataclysmic explosion of all, namely the big bang of creation, which, according to some reckonings, may have occurred some eighteen billion years ago.

 

[Vic]

More like 13 billion years ago, although I personally dislike the measurement of time in years before the earth even existed..

The 'violence' of the universe is a part of its nature. Matter and energy, like space and time, are 2 sides of the same coin.

 

[zinfamous]

the religious principals of the Big Bang theory

comments like that prove the OP's idiocy.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19
LOL at the ignorance in the OP. You should probably actually learn about the Big Bang Theory and the various refines to it based on empirical data rather than just assuming it is a blind belief that a big explosion made everything :roll:

It's sad how you completely mangled what I wrote into a strawman that's as easy to burn up with "you should probably learn what the big bang theory actually is.."

I've studied the Big Bang theory. I believe in a Big Bang myself. What i'm talking about is time, space and matter.

No, you asked why it is taught in schools. There are reasons why, such as empirical evidence. There is no real evidence for the gods of those religions you mentioned. I answered your question well enough.

No, you didn't. You said there was emperical evidence, but didn't say what it was.

Background radiation.

How is that evidence for space, time and matter coming into existence(without a creator)?

your type likes to argue "well, where did the dust come from?"

since your type also likes a priori explanations for your reality, then I ask you "where did your creator come from?" surely it didn't fart itself into existence?

 

[teatime0315]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...Observational_evidence

There's a lot of data to support Big Bang theory.

Let me make it clear, I believe a big bang happened. But throughout our text books it tells our kids that the whole universe somehow appeared, space time and all.

The Big Bang describes how the universe expanded from a single point and created space-time in the process. It does not address how the singularity came into being or go beyond the point of the singularity existing. That's an entirely different theory. Look to M-theory to try to explain something like that.

You still have to believe that space and time came into existence, science cannot demonstrate or observe how it occurred.

Now i'm going to bed

That's no different than wondering how God came into existence. Clearly, if there must have been a creator then someone must have created God. Of course, that brings about an endless loop. So if you can believe that God has always existed then why can't you believe that matter, or the components of matter, always existed? Fundamentally they are identical beliefs, just different flavors.

Well said.

 

[SSSnail]

Do you believe in the theory of gravity? Can you please go test that out and report back to us? Preferably off a height of more than 25 feet.