Why is the Big Bang theory taught in Public Schools?

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
I know the current theory's of evolution and the origins of the universe, as well as the history (and therefore the context) in which these theory's were created. I believe it takes more faith to believe in these ideas then to believe in a Creator.

Here's the difference:

Science admits that Evolution and the Big Bang are theories that are subject to revision as new data are discovered. That explicitly excludes them from being a "faith". There's no blind belief, only the assertion that they are the best theories we have available right now and the understanding that they may change as our understanding grows. It is a purely physical explanation and make absolutely no metaphysical claims.

Belief in a specific creator as a physical explanation admits no new data. It closes one's mind to anything contrary and resists any revisions (see Galileo, Martin Luther, the formation of the Anglican church, the suppression of Gnosticism, the Crusades, etc). Note that this is entirely separate from belief in a creator for metaphysical explanation.

Scientific theory on the operation of our physical world has far more empirical evidence than a collection of mythologically-expressed truth from thousands of years ago.

ZV

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
I know the current theory's of evolution and the origins of the universe, as well as the history (and therefore the context) in which these theory's were created. I believe it takes more faith to believe most of these ideas then to believe in a Creator.

Why would it take faith to believe in those ideas? Why believe in them anyway? Judge for yourself by looking at the mountains of evidence that support the ideas. Try and find evidence that refutes it (note: lack of evidence or gaps in evidence is not refuting evidence). If you can come up with a better hypothesis and prove it with the evidence currently available and through observation using the scientific method, I'm sure the science community would be right behind you since you would then have a better theory than Evolution.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
I would look into Christian science on google.

There is no "Christian science". There is no "Islamic science." There is no "Atheist science." There is only science. That's the point, you twisted little dipwad.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9

Originally posted by: jonks

And here's some parody to put in perspective arguing that the big bang and evolution are "just theories":

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41?33

KANSAS CITY, KS?As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity?which is taught to our children as a law?is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall?just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

Obviously I'm in the company of those who are much more intelligent than myself, so I'll try to refute you're post as best I can, my shortcomings not withstanding.

You pick an obscure evangelical article from someone in Kansas of all places, and you use it as an example, your template for all Christians. There's no perspective here, there's you're image of how you see Christians, and you're basis for an argument on this.

No, I picked an article from The Onion, but the fact that you couldn't figure that out, especially since I stated that it was a parody, definitely does speak to the fact that you are in the company of those who are much more intelligent than you. Or you didn't bother to read it at all and just blindly responded which doesn't speak well of you either. So which is it, dumb or lazy?

 

[sapiens74]

It should be taught in class as a Theory of Science.

This would make a great precursor to have children discuss such theory and evidence that has been discovered so far. Many of the wonderful principles of science are used in this model


the mistake is teaching the theory as fact.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
It should be taught in class as a Theory of Science.

This would make a great precursor to have children discuss such theory and evidence that has been discovered so far. Many of the wonderful principles of science are used in this model


the mistake is teaching the theory as fact.

In science, theory = = fact.

Gravity is a theory. Why don't you go test that out by jumping off a bridge? After all, theory isn't fact.....:roll: Additionally, things that are called scientific laws (thermodynamic laws, Newton's Laws of Motion), they are just theory. Nothing in science is ever really provable to 100% accuracy, so realistically, facts are called theory. If we go by your ridiculous notion, there is no facts in science as EVERYTHING is theory.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Sigh. Logic doesn't disprove a creator. If anything, logic implies a creator.

Why does logic imply a creator?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: sapiens74
It should be taught in class as a Theory of Science.

This would make a great precursor to have children discuss such theory and evidence that has been discovered so far. Many of the wonderful principles of science are used in this model


the mistake is teaching the theory as fact.

In science, theory = = fact.

Gravity is a theory. Why don't you go test that out by jumping off a bridge? After all, theory isn't fact.....:roll: Additionally, things that are called scientific laws (thermodynamic laws, Newton's Laws of Motion), they are just theory. Nothing in science is ever really provable to 100% accuracy, so realistically, facts are called theory. If we go by your ridiculous notion, there is no facts in science as EVERYTHING is theory.

This gets explained in every single evolution/ID thread about 10 times and people just don't get it. It's like there's a mental block against making sense.

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Sigh. Logic doesn't disprove a creator. If anything, logic implies a creator.

Why does logic imply a creator?

And who created the creator, and who created the creator of the creator, etc, ad nauseum?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

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

The Big Bang theory and evolution ARE real science. Your problem is your lack of understanding of the scientific definition of the word, theory:

the·o·ry (the'?-re, thîr'e)

n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

1. 
   
   Creationism has nothing to do with reality. You can believe whatever you want about whatever part of reality you can't or don't want to understand, and you can even corrupt your kids' minds with that rot, but ooga booga mystery oil religious dogma has no place in science courses in public education.
   
   The Judeo-Christian bible was written over time. It was written in ignorance of newer scientific information, and it's been re-written to suit various political whims and directions as those running their respective religions. It may be entertaining as literature, and it may provide some insight into history, but it fails dismally as an ultimate definition of any scientific truth. Depending on the literal words of the bible or any other religious teachings for all of your scientific answers only results in continued ignorance.
   
   It takes only one contradiction to disprove a theory. Got one for the Big Bang or evolution?
   .
   .
   < crickets >
   .
   .
   Didn't think so.

 

[sandorski]

Just wait until Creationists discover all the possible "Doubts" concerning Mathematics!

Example:

Q:Johnny has 2 Apples and places them in a basket. Susie has 2 Apples and places them into the same basket. How many Apples are in the basket?
A: 2+2=4
====
Creationist objection: What constitutes an Apple? If 1 Apple has 1,736,249,241,284,741 Atoms and another has 1,736,249,241,284,742 Atoms, how can they both be just 1 Apple each? Obviously 1 of them has more than the other. Heck, they both could be more than 1 Apple or even less than 1 Apple! This doesn't make any sense at all and shows the religious belief that pervades Mathematics.

 

[DealMonkey]

There's nothing quite as entertaining as ignorant religious fucks like TheDoc9 and Duwelon trying to make a case for what we should or shouldn't be teaching in public schools.

:laugh:

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
It should be taught in class as a Theory of Science.

This would make a great precursor to have children discuss such theory and evidence that has been discovered so far. Many of the wonderful principles of science are used in this model

the mistake is teaching the theory as fact.

What nobody has yet done, despite all of the hostility that has arisen on this thread from even questioning the sacred dogma of the Big Bang, is actually show what is scientific about the notion that time and space came into existence.

You cannot possibly know, from what we can observe about the universe, how or if matter existed before time and space, or anything else about the dimensions. All we know for a fact is that they do exist, as we can comprehend existence. To say that the big bang created space, time, or anything, is pure religion. Not in the sense of a rabbi and some commandments, but in the sense that it's purely based on beliefs.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
Hi op, I don't know what you're intention was with this post but as you can see that bringing up an argument based on classical religion is a mistake in the AT forums. These forums are mostly made up of liberal athiest/agnostic posters.

You'll never convince them of anything on a forum if that was your intent. It takes years to undo the bias against religion and the will to learn, just as it took years to learn the bias in public school. But if you want to inform yourself on a lot of these theorys and ways to shot them down, I would look into Christian science on google. You can also rent videos from netflix from speakers who are well versed on all of these arguments, Kent Hovind comes to mind, but he's VERY evangelical.

I don't have illusions of who is on these forums, or most tech forums actually. The number of keyboard atheists and agnostics that lurk on tech websites is huge compared to people of a specific faith.

 

[manowar821]

You're ignorant.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

What nobody has yet done, despite all of the hostility that has arisen on this thread from even questioning the sacred dogma of the Big Bang, is actually show what is scientific about the notion that time and space came into existence.

You cannot possibly know, from what we can observe about the universe, how or if matter existed before time and space, or anything else about the dimensions. All we know for a fact is that they do exist, as we can comprehend existence. To say that the big bang created space, time, or anything, is pure religion. Not in the sense of a rabbi and some commandments, but in the sense that it's purely based on beliefs.

No.

Again, the big bang does not describe how matter came into existence but how the universe came to be in the form that we see it today. This is the same basic, fundamental misunderstanding that you displayed in a similar thread about evolution. The big bang didn't create anything, everything was already there, and the theory makes no claims as to where it came from. Why do you make these threads when it seems that you don't understand the terms you are attempting to discuss?

As for the origins of existence you have two options. Either matter was always here, or some god was always here. There really aren't any other choices I can think of. So, as a reasonable person you have to ask yourself not which is certain, but which is probable. Per Occam's Razor, all other things being equal the simplest solution is the most likely one.

With this in mind, on one hand you have a deeply disorganized clump of... matter. This is not terribly complex. On the other hand you have a god endowed with a superior intellect, matter creating powers, emotions, etc. This god is hugely... HUGELY more complex then a ball of whatever, and therefore is hugely hugely less probable. So while you cannot make a concrete statement either way, it does not mean that the two ideas are equals, and it does not make believing one as religious as believing in the other.

So seriously, I'm not trying to be condescending here, but educate yourself on the basics of these topics before posting about them. You will save yourself a lot of abuse, and you might learn something in the process.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
What nobody has yet done, despite all of the hostility that has arisen on this thread from even questioning the sacred dogma of the Big Bang, is actually show what is scientific about the notion that time and space came into existence.

You cannot possibly know, from what we can observe about the universe, how or if matter existed before time and space, or anything else about the dimensions. All we know for a fact is that they do exist, as we can comprehend existence. To say that the big bang created space, time, or anything, is pure religion. Not in the sense of a rabbi and some commandments, but in the sense that it's purely based on beliefs.

You're basically trolling now given that this question has already been answered in this thread (twice by me even) and you're ignoring that with a lot of inflammatory comments.

Look, your argument is that because the foundations of science is based on a priori, therefore all of science is a religion. Sorry, that's not how it works.

What we can observe about the Big Bang is that all worldlines converge back to a single point. Therefore, it is perfectly logical and scientific to assume that all of space time began at that single point (note: not 'created,' 'began'). That science cannot answer 'before' does not invalidate that conclusion, nor have you even been able to demonstrate that it does (you just pretend it does and then fling 'dogma' poo).

The answer to your question is, "What is north of the North Pole?" Answer: a right angle.

 

[TechAZ]

I personally believe in the big bang as well. This theory is proven....to something like 1/100k of a second from when it actually began. It's been a while since I've read up on it (one of the Stephen Hawkings books years ago), but I see where you are coming...from sort of.

Anti-religious people pose the question "who made God". It is not unreasonable to question how something came about from complete nothing.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Duwelon
What nobody has yet done, despite all of the hostility that has arisen on this thread from even questioning the sacred dogma of the Big Bang, is actually show what is scientific about the notion that time and space came into existence.

You cannot possibly know, from what we can observe about the universe, how or if matter existed before time and space, or anything else about the dimensions. All we know for a fact is that they do exist, as we can comprehend existence. To say that the big bang created space, time, or anything, is pure religion. Not in the sense of a rabbi and some commandments, but in the sense that it's purely based on beliefs.

You're basically trolling now given that this question has already been answered in this thread (twice by me even) and you're ignoring that with a lot of inflammatory comments.

Look, your argument is that because the foundations of science is based on a priori, therefore all of science is a religion. Sorry, that's not how it works.

What we can observe about the Big Bang is that all worldlines converge back to a single point. Therefore, it is perfectly logical and scientific to assume that all of space time began at that single point (note: not 'created,' 'began'). That science cannot answer 'before' does not invalidate that conclusion, nor have you even been able to demonstrate that it does (you just pretend it does and then fling 'dogma' poo).

The answer to your question is, "What is north of the North Pole?" Answer: a right angle.

I know what you're saying. I love anything to do with space. If the schools want to teach about observations we can make based on real science, i'm all for it. However, so much of it is based on pure speculation has no room in a scientific classroom with any other title than "pure speculation".

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: TechAZ
I personally believe in the big bang as well. This theory is proven....to something like 1/100k of a second from when it actually began. It's been a while since I've read up on it (one of the Stephen Hawkings books years ago), but I see where you are coming...from sort of.

Anti-religious people pose the question "who made God". It is not unreasonable to question how something came about from complete nothing.

That's a small view of God though. I believe that God is outside of time/space/matter. He would have to be. The very idea of having a creator is just a creation in and of itself by God.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
That's a small view of God though. I believe that God is outside of time/space/matter. He would have to be. The very idea of having a creator is just a creation in and of itself by God.

Just curious. Do you believe in intellegent aliens in other planets? Did God create those aliens too?

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TechAZ
I personally believe in the big bang as well. This theory is proven....to something like 1/100k of a second from when it actually began. It's been a while since I've read up on it (one of the Stephen Hawkings books years ago), but I see where you are coming...from sort of.

Anti-religious people pose the question "who made God". It is not unreasonable to question how something came about from complete nothing.

That's a small view of God though. I believe that God is outside of time/space/matter. He would have to be. The very idea of having a creator is just a creation in and of itself by God.

Fair enough, I'm not religious so my view is a little different than yours. The point of the last sentence was regarding the big bang theory. Maybe there has been more theory added since I used to do reading on this years and years ago, but I just cannot get a grip on how something can come from absolute nothing.

EDIT: I'm not discounting the big bang theory, I believe it but just haven't been able to get answers on some parts of it.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: Duwelon
That's a small view of God though. I believe that God is outside of time/space/matter. He would have to be. The very idea of having a creator is just a creation in and of itself by God.

Just curious. Do you believe in intellegent aliens in other planets? Did God create those aliens too?

Yes, the come probe random tailor park trash weekend nights, but only when they've been drinking too much. The truth is out there.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Duwelon


What nobody has yet done, despite all of the hostility that has arisen on this thread from even questioning the sacred dogma of the Big Bang, is actually show what is scientific about the notion that time and space came into existence.

That all depends on whose point of view you are using when you say time.
There are many many theories and papers on how humans perceive time. Is it events, is it something inside our heads, is it a biological clock ?

As the man himself said. Time is relative.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: sapiens74
It should be taught in class as a Theory of Science.

This would make a great precursor to have children discuss such theory and evidence that has been discovered so far. Many of the wonderful principles of science are used in this model

the mistake is teaching the theory as fact.

What nobody has yet done, despite all of the hostility that has arisen on this thread from even questioning the sacred dogma of the Big Bang, is actually show what is scientific about the notion that time and space came into existence.

You cannot possibly know, from what we can observe about the universe, how or if matter existed before time and space, or anything else about the dimensions. All we know for a fact is that they do exist, as we can comprehend existence. To say that the big bang created space, time, or anything, is pure religion. Not in the sense of a rabbi and some commandments, but in the sense that it's purely based on beliefs.

Do you have an alternate theory that explains all of this?

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TechAZ
I personally believe in the big bang as well. This theory is proven....to something like 1/100k of a second from when it actually began. It's been a while since I've read up on it (one of the Stephen Hawkings books years ago), but I see where you are coming...from sort of.

Anti-religious people pose the question "who made God". It is not unreasonable to question how something came about from complete nothing.

That's a small view of God though. I believe that God is outside of time/space/matter. He would have to be. The very idea of having a creator is just a creation in and of itself by God.

Where is the proof of this God?