Why is the Big Bang theory taught in Public Schools?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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".

Uhh.... like what? The examples you've given thus far (evolution, big bang) have clearly been held up here as real science based upon observation.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
...
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?

I haven't read the posted christian propaganda sites but am guessing that one of their tactics is to pretend to be a poor, innocent victim - a not so bright victim in an attempt to get the sympathies of the not so bright.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Actually, as I recall, at the point of the BB, all there was was energy. Energy formed matter at the rate of E=Mc². Current collider experiments are attempting to prove the theory of how matter obtained mass.

Time is little more than a reference point for the most part, used like x,y, and z coordinates. For example, if I just tell you to meet me in the 3rd floor lobby of the building on the N.E. corner of Main and 4th st., and you arrive at 9AM, wait an hour and leave, but I show up at noon; we will both insist we were there but the other wasn't. Time was the missing coordinate that prevented us from meeting.

We use days, hours, minutes, etc. as convenient intervals for making the tic marks on our time scale. When all that became our universe was a singularity, all reference points were zero, including time, and there were no secondary reference points with which to construct a scale for any of them. You could then arguably say that time and space did not exist at that point.

edit:

Just imagine if we were to adopt the equivalent of the Kelvin temp scale for time. The answer to the question of when were you born, might be: 14, 324,657,159.213

 

[Caveman]

Reading through the posts, I could not help to think of two quotes that describe atheism well:

1) An atheist is one who is obsessed with God.

2) You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.

So much emotion exhibited by the "scientists" here...

The physical universe is just a subset of something larger. Feel free to stay in the smaller world. Nobody is going to force anyone to accept something they don't want to. Not even God.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Caveman
Reading through the posts, I could not help to think of two quotes that describe atheism well:

1) An atheist is one who is obsessed with God.

2) You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.

So much emotion exhibited by the "scientists" here...

The physical universe is just a subset of something larger. Feel free to stay in the smaller world.

And how do you know this or is it just fun to think about?

Nobody is going to force anyone to accept something they don't want to. ...

Good, I'm glad you get it. Most fundies choose to ignore that the fact that the outrage is when they try to force their religious beliefs on others through intimidation, legislation, etc.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Caveman
Reading through the posts, I could not help to think of two quotes that describe atheism well:

1) An atheist is one who is obsessed with God.

2) You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.

So much emotion exhibited by the "scientists" here...

The physical universe is just a subset of something larger. Feel free to stay in the smaller world. Nobody is going to force anyone to accept something they don't want to. Not even God.

1) ah yes, that's why the OP brought it up
2) goes all sorts of ways

Not sure anyone is claiming to be a Scientist here, but find it interesting that you seem to think that Scientists don't have Emotions.

Prove it. There is such a thing as Delusion, the word came iinto being for a reason.

 

[sapiens74]

And in a hundred years they will look back much like we do thinking... if they only knew


This question will never be truly answered, only opinionated speculation with both sides claiming their respective god, whether man-made science or man-made religion


either way it is much larger than us and it makes for a good laugh to believe that we, as humans, have acquired enough knowledge to truly understand the magnitude of our known universe and how it came into being....

 

[tfcmasta97]

So according to OP if im too fucking stupid to explain or understand something [note that i didnt just go with stupid but fucking stupid] then it's grounds to compare that something to magic.

It should be taught in school that god turned on my lightbulb, or at least allowed the means for that lightbulb to exist

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Caveman
Reading through the posts, I could not help to think of two quotes that describe atheism well:

1) An atheist is one who is obsessed with God.

2) You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.

So much emotion exhibited by the "scientists" here...

The physical universe is just a subset of something larger. Feel free to stay in the smaller world.

And how do you know this or is it just fun to think about?

Nobody is going to force anyone to accept something they don't want to. ...

Good, I'm glad you get it. Most fundies choose to ignore that the fact that the outrage is when they try to force their religious beliefs on others through intimidation, legislation, etc.

Um, actually it's exactly the other way around. It's Godless Democrats who insist that a parent has no right to take their tax money and spend it for their kids in a private school instead of a public school that indoctrinates them with theories of science, blatant lies about evolution in the text books. Personally as a fundie myself (so many people have called me one i guess I am, perception is reality anyway in most cases), I would be thrilled to simply have the CHOICE on where to send my kids to school.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

Actually I don't think true science rejects God at all.

The only scientists I would ever salute are those that seek answers to the unknown without using lies to support their theory.

Evolution is a great example of lies used to propagate a belief, even when the liar is convicted by his own university, a publisher will still use his discredited work in a modern day text book. I can't remember the name but I could find it if i had to. I despise people that would take a known lie and use it to support their theory.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

Actually I don't think true science rejects God at all.

The only scientists I would ever salute are those that seek answers to the unknown without using lies to support their theory.

Evolution is a great example of lies used to propagate a belief, even when the liar is convicted by his own university, a publisher will still use his discredited work in a modern day text book. I can't remember the name but I could find it if i had to. I despise people that would take a known lie and use it to support their theory.

Please take the time to find it. It should give me more laughs.....

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

Actually I don't think true science rejects God at all.

The only scientists I would ever salute are those that seek answers to the unknown without using lies to support their theory.

Evolution is a great example of lies used to propagate a belief, even when the liar is convicted by his own university, a publisher will still use his discredited work in a modern day text book. I can't remember the name but I could find it if i had to. I despise people that would take a known lie and use it to support their theory.

Please take the time to find it. It should give me more laughs.....

Someone mentioned Kent Hovind earlier, he has a video on his website called Lies in the Textbooks. He's a "fundie" evangelist and he'll be the first to tell you what his angle is from the get go. Check out www.drdino.com. He has done a lot of debates about professors on evolution, i've watched a few on youtube and he absolutely destroys every intellectual professor he debates that's i've seen.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

Actually I don't think true science rejects God at all.

The only scientists I would ever salute are those that seek answers to the unknown without using lies to support their theory.

Evolution is a great example of lies used to propagate a belief, even when the liar is convicted by his own university, a publisher will still use his discredited work in a modern day text book. I can't remember the name but I could find it if i had to. I despise people that would take a known lie and use it to support their theory.

Please take the time to find it. It should give me more laughs.....

Someone mentioned Kent Hovind earlier, he has a video on his website called Lies in the Textbooks. He's a "fundie" evangelist and he'll be the first to tell you what his angle is from the get go. Check out www.drdino.com. He has done a lot of debates about professors on evolution, i've watched a few on youtube and he absolutely destroys every intellectual professor he debates that's i've seen.

This Kent Hovind?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
And in a hundred years they will look back much like we do thinking... if they only knew


This question will never be truly answered, only opinionated speculation with both sides claiming their respective god, whether man-made science or man-made religion


either way it is much larger than us and it makes for a good laugh to believe that we, as humans, have acquired enough knowledge to truly understand the magnitude of our known universe and how it came into being....

Like has already been said numerous times, Science doesn't claim to know everything and is willing to change the Theories as new evidence and knowledge becomes available. It doesn't matter if todays Science is 100% correct about everything. What matters is that it is the most accurate explanation to this point in time of our knowledge. The Scientific Method ensures that our understanding will continue to expand and become ever closer to the definitive answers.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

Actually I don't think true science rejects God at all.

The only scientists I would ever salute are those that seek answers to the unknown without using lies to support their theory.

Evolution is a great example of lies used to propagate a belief, even when the liar is convicted by his own university, a publisher will still use his discredited work in a modern day text book. I can't remember the name but I could find it if i had to. I despise people that would take a known lie and use it to support their theory.

Please take the time to find it. It should give me more laughs.....

Someone mentioned Kent Hovind earlier, he has a video on his website called Lies in the Textbooks. He's a "fundie" evangelist and he'll be the first to tell you what his angle is from the get go. Check out www.drdino.com. He has done a lot of debates about professors on evolution, i've watched a few on youtube and he absolutely destroys every intellectual professor he debates that's i've seen.

This Kent Hovind?

Yeah, he's not perfect either.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

Actually I don't think true science rejects God at all.

The only scientists I would ever salute are those that seek answers to the unknown without using lies to support their theory.

Evolution is a great example of lies used to propagate a belief, even when the liar is convicted by his own university, a publisher will still use his discredited work in a modern day text book. I can't remember the name but I could find it if i had to. I despise people that would take a known lie and use it to support their theory.

Please take the time to find it. It should give me more laughs.....

Someone mentioned Kent Hovind earlier, he has a video on his website called Lies in the Textbooks. He's a "fundie" evangelist and he'll be the first to tell you what his angle is from the get go. Check out www.drdino.com. He has done a lot of debates about professors on evolution, i've watched a few on youtube and he absolutely destroys every intellectual professor he debates that's i've seen.

This Kent Hovind?

Yeah, he's not perfect either.

Kinda let the air out of your tires, didn't I?

 

[sandorski]

"Not Perfect", rofl.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

Actually I don't think true science rejects God at all.

The only scientists I would ever salute are those that seek answers to the unknown without using lies to support their theory.

Evolution is a great example of lies used to propagate a belief, even when the liar is convicted by his own university, a publisher will still use his discredited work in a modern day text book. I can't remember the name but I could find it if i had to. I despise people that would take a known lie and use it to support their theory.

Please take the time to find it. It should give me more laughs.....

Someone mentioned Kent Hovind earlier, he has a video on his website called Lies in the Textbooks. He's a "fundie" evangelist and he'll be the first to tell you what his angle is from the get go. Check out www.drdino.com. He has done a lot of debates about professors on evolution, i've watched a few on youtube and he absolutely destroys every intellectual professor he debates that's i've seen.

This Kent Hovind?

Yeah, he's not perfect either.

Kinda let the air out of your tires, didn't I?

Not really. If you want to keep showing how much you love to clothe yourself with logical fallacies you go right ahead, from what i've seen I don't expect much more from you.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

Actually I don't think true science rejects God at all.

The only scientists I would ever salute are those that seek answers to the unknown without using lies to support their theory.

Evolution is a great example of lies used to propagate a belief, even when the liar is convicted by his own university, a publisher will still use his discredited work in a modern day text book. I can't remember the name but I could find it if i had to. I despise people that would take a known lie and use it to support their theory.

Please take the time to find it. It should give me more laughs.....

Someone mentioned Kent Hovind earlier, he has a video on his website called Lies in the Textbooks. He's a "fundie" evangelist and he'll be the first to tell you what his angle is from the get go. Check out www.drdino.com. He has done a lot of debates about professors on evolution, i've watched a few on youtube and he absolutely destroys every intellectual professor he debates that's i've seen.

This Kent Hovind?

Yeah, he's not perfect either.

Kinda let the air out of your tires, didn't I?

Not really. If you want to keep showing how much you love to clothe yourself with logical fallacies you go right ahead, from what i've seen I don't expect much more from you.

Please show what I've said in this thread to have you make that statement.

 

[Duwelon]

Your post insinuated that somehow it discredits everything he's done. Nobody is perfect but if you had at least some intellectual honesty and some balls you'd investigate the guy's claims first before pretending one link is all there is to say about it.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Caveman
Reading through the posts, I could not help to think of two quotes that describe atheism well:

1) An atheist is one who is obsessed with God.

2) You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.

So much emotion exhibited by the "scientists" here...

The physical universe is just a subset of something larger. Feel free to stay in the smaller world.

And how do you know this or is it just fun to think about?

Nobody is going to force anyone to accept something they don't want to. ...

Good, I'm glad you get it. Most fundies choose to ignore that the fact that the outrage is when they try to force their religious beliefs on others through intimidation, legislation, etc.

Um, actually it's exactly the other way around. It's Godless Democrats who insist that a parent has no right to take their tax money and spend it for their kids in a private school instead of a public school that indoctrinates them with theories of science, blatant lies about evolution in the text books. Personally as a fundie myself (so many people have called me one i guess I am, perception is reality anyway in most cases), I would be thrilled to simply have the CHOICE on where to send my kids to school.

You do realize that one of the goals of public education is to socialize kids, right? By withdrawing your kids, you are isolating them.

I would like to have the choice of where to spend my defense dollars. There's some pretty good militias out there.

I would like to have the choice to not fund oil company subsidies.

I would like the choice to revoke tax-exempt status for religious entities and major league baseball.

I could go on and on.

---

Define 'fundie' (short for fundamentalist/evangelical christian (or any religion?)) as used here. I define it as anyone who attempts to force their religious beliefs on others through intimidation, innuendo or legislation. Is this what you are?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

I disagree that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang. Surely they can't do it in too specific of a manner, but it's possible to have a general theory that could be borne out by observation. As we continue to better understand our universe, matter, and space-time we'll eventually be able to answer those questions. We are already trying.

As far as proving Duwelon's point, I did no such thing. I adressed the single belief that something can be eternal; that it has always existed. It's fundamentally no different to believe that matter or its components, or God, has existed forever. What's different is how one applies reason, observation, and rational thinking to determine which one is more likely. There is no real evidence for a god. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

btw, the real difference between religion and science is that all religions depend on some mysterious intelligent being pulling the strings of the cosmos to one degree or another. True science rejects such a notion. Science is about understanding the order that comes about from the complete lack of control.

Actually I don't think true science rejects God at all.

The only scientists I would ever salute are those that seek answers to the unknown without using lies to support their theory.

Evolution is a great example of lies used to propagate a belief, even when the liar is convicted by his own university, a publisher will still use his discredited work in a modern day text book. I can't remember the name but I could find it if i had to. I despise people that would take a known lie and use it to support their theory.

Some scientists don't necessarily reject a god. However, science itself rejects god(s) because there is no empirical proof one exists and, imo, that's the biggest issue religion has with science. Science has no need for supernatural beings that control our lives. Without such a being religion is nothing.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Your post insinuated that somehow it discredits everything he's done. Nobody is perfect but if you had at least some intellectual honesty and some balls you'd investigate the guy's claims first before pretending one link is all there is to say about it.

My post only showed what the person you seem to be basing your theories on isn't the brightness chap around..

oh, no - is his "theories" a "religion" as well?

\could you be a little more transparent...

 

[jackschmittusa]

Duwelon

How you or anybody can believe anything Hovind says is beyond me. The man is a crackpot, a liar, grossly ignorant in the topics he has claimed to know the answers to, a crook, you name it.

Using him as a reference for your beliefs make you as big a laughingstock as he is.