Why is the Big Bang theory taught in Public Schools?

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: 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.

You're grossly ignorant of him, obviously.

Have you watched any of his debates? Supposedly he's done over a hundred but i've only seen a couple. He demolished the arguments of the college professors because *gasp*, they don't actually have any scientific evidence to back up their beliefs. You can call him all sorts of stuff, personally I think he's an idiot for letting himself get caught on tax evasion(which he rightly was, don't misunderstand), but he's dead on everything he debates about.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: 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.

You're grossly ignorant of him, obviously.

Have you watched any of his debates? Supposedly he's done over a hundred but i've only seen a couple. He demolished the arguments of the college professors because *gasp*, they don't actually have any scientific evidence to back up their beliefs. You can call him all sorts of stuff, personally I think he's an idiot for letting himself get caught on tax evasion(which he rightly was, don't misunderstand), but he's dead on everything he debates about.

I'd laugh, if this wasn't so pathetic.....

oh, what the hell, I'll laugh anyway.... HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH..........................

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: 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.

Here's how your modern day text book looks at the Big Bang in a nutshell: Some billions and billions of years ago, something exploded, somewhere, at sometime. This is evidenced by the fact that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever.

Here is how true science would teach the big bang: Observations show that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever. The observation shows that matter came from what appears to be one point.

Nowhere in the true scientific theory should there be any bullcrap about time, space, or matter magically appearing right then. We can assume it did, but it's being shoved down the throats of our kids as a belief disguised as real science.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Here's how your modern day text book looks at the Big Bang in a nutshell: Some billions and billions of years ago, something exploded, somewhere, at sometime. This is evidenced by the fact that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever.

Here is how true science would teach the big bang: Observations show that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever. The observation shows that matter came from what appears to be one point.

Nowhere in the true scientific theory should there be any bullcrap about time, space, or matter magically appearing right then. We can assume it did, but it's being shoved down the throats of our kids as a belief disguised as real science.

Your incessant need to push nonsense down people's throats isn't any better. The thing with science in primary school through HS is that you have to form a foundation of knowledge. The evidence of the big bang is far too complex for a HS freshman to understand, so things are put into more general terms and explained on a more general level to give an UNDERSTANDING of the idea. They are not being shown the specific evidence as the mathematics involved is way beyond what is ever taught in a HS.

In fact, if we did it your way where each bit of evidence behind the theory is presented, no general knowledge would be learned as one bit of evidence could take up a whole year of class time.

The main point to get out of science classes in primary education through hs is that science is an empirical process of observation and experiment where one can test hypotheses to form and refine ideas about the world around them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Here's how your modern day text book looks at the Big Bang in a nutshell: Some billions and billions of years ago, something exploded, somewhere, at sometime. This is evidenced by the fact that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever.

Here is how true science would teach the big bang: Observations show that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever. The observation shows that matter came from what appears to be one point.

Nowhere in the true scientific theory should there be any bullcrap about time, space, or matter magically appearing right then. We can assume it did, but it's being shoved down the throats of our kids as a belief disguised as real science.

You're knocking an entire scientific theory because you don't like they way it's presented in children's textbooks?

WTF.

And damnit, I've already addressed your last paragraph at least 3 times in this thread. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's not "real science."

Let's sum up your position: the Big Bang is not a credible scientific theory because scientists cannot explain through observation what happened before time began.

I've tried to be nice this thread, but do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Duwelon
...
Nowhere in the true scientific theory should there be any bullcrap about time, space, or matter magically appearing right then. We can assume it did, but it's being shoved down the throats of our kids as a belief disguised as real science.

Your incessant need to push nonsense down people's throats isn't any better. The thing with science in primary school through HS is that you have to form a foundation of knowledge. The evidence of the big bang is far too complex for a HS freshman to understand, so things are put into more general terms and explained on a more general level to give an UNDERSTANDING of the idea. They are not being shown the specific evidence as the mathematics involved is way beyond what is ever taught in a HS.
...

This is the crux of the battle for the fundies. They're looking to control the hearts and minds of the young and maybe still innocent.

You can't have them - not now - not ever. Get back, satan.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Here's how your modern day text book looks at the Big Bang in a nutshell: Some billions and billions of years ago, something exploded, somewhere, at sometime. This is evidenced by the fact that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever.

Here is how true science would teach the big bang: Observations show that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever. The observation shows that matter came from what appears to be one point.

Nowhere in the true scientific theory should there be any bullcrap about time, space, or matter magically appearing right then. We can assume it did, but it's being shoved down the throats of our kids as a belief disguised as real science.

Huh?

We already know something was there before the Big Bang. If it weren't then the Big Bang wouldn't have happened in the first place. In addition, since the Big Bang doesn't try to explain the origin of matter and is NOT intended to explain the origin of it, which has already been explained to you numerous times in this thread, what else do you expect? As has also been mentioned a number of times already up to this point as well, there are other theories that attempt to explain the origins of that matter. Care to discuss them?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You all need to realize that the Big Bang is a feature of several mathematical models of the universe, but not necessarily a feature of reality. The Big Bang is a consequence of our mathematics leading to a singularity in the past of all world lines.

Likewise, our mathematical models of aerodynamics also become singular and predict infinite acceleration in the Mach cone aka shock wave. The difference is that we understand that it is not reality which becomes singular, but the approximation in aerodynamics of a gas by a continuum becomes invalid.

 

[frostedflakes]

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.

I've listened to parts of his debates, and I have to admit, I was pretty unimpressed. Just seems like a bunch of "the Bible says so, therefore it must be true" arguments backed up by poor scientific "evidence."

And I don't know how anybody in this day and age can still believe in Young Earth, to me that seems almost as silly as claiming the Earth is flat. There's a myriad of evidence to support that the planet is much older than 6,000 years. This stance alone makes the guy look like a total moron.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Anyone deferring to "Dr." Kent Hovind, the felon, needs a wake up call from reality.

 

[DanDaManJC]

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.

So I saw this and I have to respond.

I was brought up in an evangelical / fundamental christian home and instead of being taught with a bias towards secularism I was taught with a bias towards God. I was homeschooled and was in a private school for a few years. My dad went to seminary -- learned church history, greek/hebrew etc -- point being that I know what I'm talking when I saw I know about creationism and "christian science." Furthermore I'm also now in a secular college (UW @ Seattle) and in the EE department, so I've had to take several science courses as pre-reqs, along with secular philosophy and such.

Now I'm not trying to toot my own horn here... but rather I'm just trying to show you that I am familiar with where you're coming from and it's all bs. Sure there are many exceptions to the rule, but all too often when I was growing up as a child I was presented with this idea that the Big Bang and evolution were theories created by secular atheists, who hated God, and wanted to do away with religion. Along with that supposed "christian science" I was brought up to believe that the devil tells intricate lies to mislead the masses, that the creation story is true solely because the bible says so... thus "science" and religion were melded. I realized in middle school and more so later in high school that this was definitely not the case, but it wasn't until I took some courses in college that it all made sense. I'm not talking about some kind of atheistic realization either -- but rather how I learned HOW the big bang idea first came to pass with astronomers observing red and blue shifts (doppler effect and such) and while the class didn't go into any detail about the big bang theory the point was I learned that science was by no means any kind of religion. Science is all about observation, experimentation and drawing your own conclusions from those observations. From those observations came the theory of the big bang, from observations came Einsteins theory of relativity and whatnot.

What really irks me about posts like this is the sheer level of plain ignorance exhibited in these posts. Unfortunately this comes off as a very condescending comment -- but believe me I've been on the other side of the fence... I just can't stress enough how misconstrued and twisted some of these fundies twist science and / or logic -- so much that it's not even science anymore! And then the average Joe just eats up all of the misinformation, without questioning anything. As an illustration take this for an example:

http://www.pagetutor.com/jokebreak/141.html --- titled "Science vs. Christianity" and is popular among christian teen blogs, is a regular email fwd, etc.

Now the underlying point of that story for a christian isn't the logic but simply that it's an encouragement -- that a young man stood up for his beliefs where he is in an obvious minority. But the problem is that the logic's fundamentally flawed... anyways some other guy actually took the time to pick apart that story's logic -- and it's even theologically unstable.
http://www.rationalresponders....is_a_lack_of_something

For someone looking for an inspirational story the details won't matter... but like I said earlier it just irks me to no other that this inspiration -- their faith -- is based on this faulty argument (whether that's this inspirational story or goofy christian science). So having said all this lemme back track and say I don't think it's impossible to have christian science -- but rather I'm taking issue with the pseudo christian science that misconstrues and deliberately twists science for its own good.

 

[sapiens74]

Originally posted by: 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.

If we are simply teaching best guesses by educated persons respected in their field, then why not include creation theory as another "best guess", among other theories

You cannot discount any theory when no theory has been proven fact....


The sheer arrogance to think we even know how the universe began when we just know had the first probe hit the edge of our solar system, or land on any other stellar body besides the moon and Mars (counting my favorite rovers). When we start mapping the Milky Way with probes and such and studying the whole not just our backyard, then maybe the scientists at that time can make an informed hypothesis.


Until then, debating about this is wasting our time and showing our ignorance.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: 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.

If we are simply teaching best guesses by educated persons respected in their field, then why not include creation theory as another "best guess", among other theories

You cannot discount any theory when no theory has been proven fact....


The sheer arrogance to think we even know how the universe began when we just know had the first probe hit the edge of our solar system, or land on any other stellar body besides the moon and Mars (counting my favorite rovers). When we start mapping the Milky Way with probes and such and studying the whole not just our backyard, then maybe the scientists at that time can make an informed hypothesis.


Until then, debating about this is wasting our time and showing our ignorance.

Who said anything about "guesses"? If that's all we were doing I would agree with you, but it's not.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Here's how your modern day text book looks at the Big Bang in a nutshell: Some billions and billions of years ago, something exploded, somewhere, at sometime. This is evidenced by the fact that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever.

Here is how true science would teach the big bang: Observations show that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever. The observation shows that matter came from what appears to be one point.

Nowhere in the true scientific theory should there be any bullcrap about time, space, or matter magically appearing right then. We can assume it did, but it's being shoved down the throats of our kids as a belief disguised as real science.

Look, I've tried to be reasonable too. It's not our fault that you fail to understand basic concepts. If you can't understand science in its most basic forms, we can't possibly explain to you the ideas you are asking questions about.

The questions you have asked have been explained to you over and over again, but you appear to discount the answers because you don't like them. That's all well and good, as nobody can make you believe anything you don't want to... but you should stop pretending that those answers haven't been given to you.

 

[jackschmittusa]

And the willfully ignorant shall remain so, and not know it to be true that they are ignorant.


Jack 3:12 (humorous sarcasm for those that think science is a religion)

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Good lord... 139 responses...

Has P&N forgotten the golden rule? DO NOT FEED THE TROLL*

Apparently not....















*do not feed the troll rule only applies when 'i' want to make a point about establishing 'my' intellectual dominance over an obviously inferior sub-human who keeps coming back for more.

 

[seemingly random]

I watch and sometimes participate in threads such as these with the same kind of perverse awe one would have witnessing a terrible car wreck. The fact that there are people like this who would change things if left unchecked to that described in this and other threads is frightening. Really leaves me in a state of disbelief. I need to see this as often as possible to reinforce that this isn't some fictitious twilight zone.

It appears that logic alone is not nearly enough to combat the fundies.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Here's how your modern day text book looks at the Big Bang in a nutshell: Some billions and billions of years ago, something exploded, somewhere, at sometime. This is evidenced by the fact that the universe is expanding, background radiation, whatever.

Once again, fail.

That's not how I was taught about the Big Bang in public school. Here's a couple of excellent excerpts from the University of Michigan (note my added emphasis):

What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

The Big Bang theory provides a viable solution to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself is constantly being revised. As more observations are made and more research conducted, the Big Bang theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial.

Now that sure as all hell isn't "stating it as a fact". Note that it does not say that all matter came into being at the time of the Big Bang. Note that it calls the Big Bang "a" viable theory, not "the" viable theory. Note that it admits that the theory is under continuous revision.

I'm sorry, but your view of how the Big Bang is presented in textbooks is just plain wrong.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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.

No, Science does not "reject god(s)". Science is merely mum on the subject as a god or gods cannot be proven or studied within the scientific method. This is not a "rejection", but rather an admission that Science's realm is the physical world and that metaphysical wranglings are left for the fields of philosophy and theology.

ZV

 

[Adn4n]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

WOW eskimospy get out of my head, this is exactly what I thought of the op.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Adn4n

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

WOW eskimospy get out of my head, this is exactly what I thought of the op.

x2

 

[Adn4n]

Here's some interesting stuff I remember from Physics.

The four forces of the universe, gravity, strong & weak NF, and electro-magnetism, already existed before the Big Bang. It was theorized years ago that these forces were not separate initially, but separated after fractions of a second. NASA's launch of a satellite essentially proved that gravity split off first as the temperature of the universe is constant, something it shouldn't be according to the laws of thermodynamics.

Also please remember that time was NOT created. Time is relative. The passing of time differs at sea-level and atop Mount Everest and is relative to gravity. The reason we cannot compute the exact time of the Big Bang ( I'm talking the exact billionth of a second) is because gravity was not separate from the start of the Big Bang.

Time is something that is defined by the laws of physics, and thus, it started shortly after the Big Bang based on that definition. That is what's taught by the theory of the Big Bang, nothing else

TO RESTATE MY POINT: Time started after the Big Bang because it is defined to be based on gravity.

 

[Atreus21]

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?

First, I'll place the premise that I don't disagree with Big Bang cosmology. I accept it as a possibility.

The fact that we're talking about the Big Bang as a creator-force is evidence enough that logic implies a creator.

 

[Atreus21]

DP

 

[halik]

Take some physics classes and then look up the definition of scientific theory.