Why is the Big Bang theory taught in Public Schools?

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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.

But the big bang isn't a creator force?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 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

Science does not have any outspoken, hard-and-fast rule that reject god(s). However, science does so by its very nature. Randomness, non-determination, chaos, and the like do not allow for gods. Naturalistiic explanations behind every theory never acount for gods. In fact, about the only area that science allows the idea of a god to be entertained is 'Where did the singularity that brought about our universe originate?' Even then, we have scientists now who are treading in that area, looking for naturalistic answers that don't require magic and mysticism. So, in essence, science does reject god(s).

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: 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

/thread

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 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.

But the big bang isn't a creator force?

If it's the origin of all things, I don't know what else it can be.

I'm being dishonest, though. I think what was originally meant was that "Logic disproves a God", not "Logic disproves a creator."

I think we can all at least agree that there is a creator of some sort. There had to have been a first cause.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 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

Science does not have any outspoken, hard-and-fast rule that reject god(s). However, science does so by its very nature. Randomness, non-determination, chaos, and the like do not allow for gods. Naturalistiic explanations behind every theory never acount for gods. In fact, about the only area that science allows the idea of a god to be entertained is 'Where did the singularity that brought about our universe originate?' Even then, we have scientists now who are treading in that area, looking for naturalistic answers that don't require magic and mysticism. So, in essence, science does reject god(s).

I'd say Science Ignores the possibility. Mainly because it can't really address whether there is a god(s) or not. It pretty much has to at this time as adding god(s) into the equation would derail Scientific Though and Investigation into really complicated ideas. The old, "God(s) did it!" would be an End Of Line to many investigations.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 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.

But the big bang isn't a creator force?

If it's the origin of all things, I don't know what else it can be.

I'm being dishonest, though. I think what was originally meant was that "Logic disproves a God", not "Logic disproves a creator."

I think we can all at least agree that there is a creator of some sort. There had to have been a first cause.

But that's the thing, if you assume there had to be a first cause, the question of who made the creator (and who made the creator's creator, etc.) inevitably comes up. One could make the argument that the creator has always existed, but following that line of thinking, why couldn't one instead conclude that space and time have always existed (if not in their current form, then perhaps another)? As others have pointed out, fundamentally the beliefs aren't really that different.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 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.

But the big bang isn't a creator force?

If it's the origin of all things, I don't know what else it can be.

I'm being dishonest, though. I think what was originally meant was that "Logic disproves a God", not "Logic disproves a creator."

I think we can all at least agree that there is a creator of some sort. There had to have been a first cause.

But that's the thing, if you assume there had to be a first cause, the question of who made the creator (and who made the creator's creator, etc.) inevitably comes up. One could make the argument that the creator has always existed, but following that line of thinking, why couldn't one instead conclude that space and time have always existed (if not in their current form, then perhaps another)? As others have pointed out, fundamentally the beliefs aren't really that different.

I think I understand.

I don't see how we can assume anything other than a first cause. If no first cause, no second causes, and no third causes either.

I guess the question that follows is if the creator was intelligent or not; if we're here by its bidding or by luck.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 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.

But the big bang isn't a creator force?

If it's the origin of all things, I don't know what else it can be.

I'm being dishonest, though. I think what was originally meant was that "Logic disproves a God", not "Logic disproves a creator."

I think we can all at least agree that there is a creator of some sort. There had to have been a first cause.

But it isn't the origin of all things. To be honest I don't agree that there is a creator of some sort.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 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

Science does not have any outspoken, hard-and-fast rule that reject god(s). However, science does so by its very nature. Randomness, non-determination, chaos, and the like do not allow for gods. Naturalistiic explanations behind every theory never acount for gods. In fact, about the only area that science allows the idea of a god to be entertained is 'Where did the singularity that brought about our universe originate?' Even then, we have scientists now who are treading in that area, looking for naturalistic answers that don't require magic and mysticism. So, in essence, science does reject god(s).

I'd say Science Ignores the possibility. Mainly because it can't really address whether there is a god(s) or not. It pretty much has to at this time as adding god(s) into the equation would derail Scientific Though and Investigation into really complicated ideas. The old, "God(s) did it!" would be an End Of Line to many investigations.

Bingo. I'm glad that someone gets it.

Science does not "reject god(s)", not explicitly, not implicitly, not "in essence". It simply ignores that area of speculation. Science is only concerned with how. The questions of why are left up to the philosophers and theologians. Pure science makes no statement about the existence of god(s); it remains completely silent on that subject.

This harebrained idea that science and religion are incompatible has a nasty way of creating zealots on both sides of the fence.

ZV

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 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.

But the big bang isn't a creator force?

If it's the origin of all things, I don't know what else it can be.

I'm being dishonest, though. I think what was originally meant was that "Logic disproves a God", not "Logic disproves a creator."

I think we can all at least agree that there is a creator of some sort. There had to have been a first cause.

But it isn't the origin of all things. To be honest I don't agree that there is a creator of some sort.

I didn't say it was a God, or anything that created on purpose. I'm simply saying that, by whatever means and for whatever reason, the universe was created by something. I would think most scientists would agree with that. I would think it was that premise which drove them to formulate the Big Bang theory.

 

[Brainonska511]

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.

Cliffs: You're an idiot.

Long version:
1) We don't have to go anywhere to study the universe around us. The use of telescopes (X-ray, infrared, gamma-ray, visible light, etc...) allows us to study the universe in different ways.
2) The COBE satellite provided the evidence that almost perfectly matched the mathematical hypotheses for black body radation and cosmic microwave radiation.
3) If we have to go places to understand the start of the Universe, then we'll never know enough according to your standard - once we can travel the Milky Way, the people like you will say we can never know enough until we can travel to other galaxies or super clusters, etc.
4) You have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING (to put it nicely) of SCIENTIFIC THEORY. IT IS NOT a "best guess." It is an educated explanation of a phenomena (a hypothesis) that is then backed up by evidence either through experimentation and/or observation. When there is enough evidence supporting one hypothesis, it can be called a theory. Theory's aren't necessarily perfect and using the scientific method, other hypotheses can come along and displace a theory altogether or alter it to fit something unobserved before.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

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.

Cliffs: You're an idiot.

Long version:
1) We don't have to go anywhere to study the universe around us. The use of telescopes (X-ray, infrared, gamma-ray, visible light, etc...) allows us to study the universe in different ways.
2) The COBE satellite provided the evidence that almost perfectly matched the mathematical hypotheses for black body radation and cosmic microwave radiation.
3) If we have to go places to understand the start of the Universe, then we'll never know enough according to your standard - once we can travel the Milky Way, the people like you will say we can never know enough until we can travel to other galaxies or super clusters, etc.
4) You have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING (to put it nicely) of SCIENTIFIC THEORY. IT IS NOT a "best guess." It is an educated explanation of a phenomena (a hypothesis) that is then backed up by evidence either through experimentation and/or observation. When there is enough evidence supporting one hypothesis, it can be called a theory. Theory's aren't necessarily perfect and using the scientific method, other hypotheses can come along and displace a theory altogether or alter it to fit something unobserved before.

Highlighted for importance. Scientific theory allows you to make predictions and if the predictions match empirical evidence, it validates the theory.

One of Einsteins relativity theories postulates that as object approaches the speed of light, time slows down. This was verified by experiment where two matching atomic clocks were made and one was flown around in a plane for a while. In the end the clocks showed a different time.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
4) You have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING (to put it nicely) of SCIENTIFIC THEORY. IT IS NOT a "best guess." It is an educated explanation of a phenomena (a hypothesis) that is then backed up by evidence either through experimentation and/or observation. When there is enough evidence supporting one hypothesis, it can be called a theory. Theory's aren't necessarily perfect and using the scientific method, other hypotheses can come along and displace a theory altogether or alter it to fit something unobserved before.

Highlighted for importance. Scientific theory allows you to make predictions and if the predictions match empirical evidence, it validates the theory.

One of Einsteins relativity theories postulates that as object approaches the speed of light, time slows down. This was verified by experiment where two matching atomic clocks were made and one was flown around in a plane for a while. In the end the clocks showed a different time.

That is also the theory that Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for since it couldn't be tested at the time; instead, he got it for the photoelectric effect.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I didn't say it was a God, or anything that created on purpose. I'm simply saying that, by whatever means and for whatever reason, the universe was created by something. I would think most scientists would agree with that. I would think it was that premise which drove them to formulate the Big Bang theory.

No, I still don't agree. In fact, the law of conservation of mass says otherwise.

The big bang didn't create anything. What was already there simply expanded. The big bang made the universe the way it is today, but nothing was created. The purpose of the big bang theory is not to explain the origin of mass, but why our universe is how it is right now.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I didn't say it was a God, or anything that created on purpose. I'm simply saying that, by whatever means and for whatever reason, the universe was created by something. I would think most scientists would agree with that. I would think it was that premise which drove them to formulate the Big Bang theory.

No, I still don't agree. In fact, the law of conservation of mass says otherwise.

The big bang didn't create anything. What was already there simply expanded. The big bang made the universe the way it is today, but nothing was created. The purpose of the big bang theory is not to explain the origin of mass, but why our universe is how it is right now.

I suppose we're confusing the terms create and assemble. But we'll descend into symantics. If I take clay, mold it into a pot, and fire it, I can say that I am the pot's creator. But that's kind of hazy. I think if there's a universe now, and there wasn't a universe before, we can conclude that it was created, even if by pre-existing components.

At any rate, there are times when the law of conservation of mass doesn't apply.

If we are to follow your reasoning to its conclusion, there is no such thing as actual creation. Only assembly.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
At any rate, there are times when the law of conservation of mass doesn't apply.

Conservation of mass ALWAYS applies in this universe. You're just missing the other half of the picture - it's conservation of mass AND energy. Energy can be converted into mass and v.v.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I didn't say it was a God, or anything that created on purpose. I'm simply saying that, by whatever means and for whatever reason, the universe was created by something. I would think most scientists would agree with that. I would think it was that premise which drove them to formulate the Big Bang theory.

No, I still don't agree. In fact, the law of conservation of mass says otherwise.

The big bang didn't create anything. What was already there simply expanded. The big bang made the universe the way it is today, but nothing was created. The purpose of the big bang theory is not to explain the origin of mass, but why our universe is how it is right now.

I suppose we're confusing the terms create and assemble. But we'll descend into symantics. If I take clay, mold it into a pot, and fire it, I can say that I am the pot's creator. But that's kind of hazy. I think if there's a universe now, and there wasn't a universe before, we can conclude that it was created, even if by pre-existing components.

At any rate, there are times when the law of conservation of mass doesn't apply.

When does the law of conservation of mass not apply? There's a reason why it's a 'law'.

Anyways, the clay pot analogy doesn't work. We are obviously talking about what created everything to begin with, a first cause. Unless you are conceding the point that mass has always been here that is.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I didn't say it was a God, or anything that created on purpose. I'm simply saying that, by whatever means and for whatever reason, the universe was created by something. I would think most scientists would agree with that. I would think it was that premise which drove them to formulate the Big Bang theory.

No, I still don't agree. In fact, the law of conservation of mass says otherwise.

The big bang didn't create anything. What was already there simply expanded. The big bang made the universe the way it is today, but nothing was created. The purpose of the big bang theory is not to explain the origin of mass, but why our universe is how it is right now.

I suppose we're confusing the terms create and assemble. But we'll descend into symantics. If I take clay, mold it into a pot, and fire it, I can say that I am the pot's creator. But that's kind of hazy. I think if there's a universe now, and there wasn't a universe before, we can conclude that it was created, even if by pre-existing components.

At any rate, there are times when the law of conservation of mass doesn't apply.

When does the law of conservation of mass not apply? There's a reason why it's a 'law'.

Anyways, the clay pot analogy doesn't work. We are obviously talking about what created everything to begin with, a first cause. Unless you are conceding the point that mass has always been here that is.

Wikipedia mentioned something about it not applying for special relativity. But I admit I'm out of my field.

Well, the premise that mass has always been here has several interesting conclusions, one of which is that there is no such thing as literal creation. Only assembly, or disassembly. That provokes some strange results. Are our thoughts our creations?

I'm going to have to think about this. I was going to say that thinking that mass has been around infinitely long is ridiculous, but then it occurred to me it's no more dogmatic than asserting that a creator has been around just as long.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 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

Science does not have any outspoken, hard-and-fast rule that reject god(s). However, science does so by its very nature. Randomness, non-determination, chaos, and the like do not allow for gods. Naturalistiic explanations behind every theory never acount for gods. In fact, about the only area that science allows the idea of a god to be entertained is 'Where did the singularity that brought about our universe originate?' Even then, we have scientists now who are treading in that area, looking for naturalistic answers that don't require magic and mysticism. So, in essence, science does reject god(s).

I'd say Science Ignores the possibility. Mainly because it can't really address whether there is a god(s) or not. It pretty much has to at this time as adding god(s) into the equation would derail Scientific Though and Investigation into really complicated ideas. The old, "God(s) did it!" would be an End Of Line to many investigations.

Bingo. I'm glad that someone gets it.

Science does not "reject god(s)", not explicitly, not implicitly, not "in essence". It simply ignores that area of speculation. Science is only concerned with how. The questions of why are left up to the philosophers and theologians. Pure science makes no statement about the existence of god(s); it remains completely silent on that subject.

This harebrained idea that science and religion are incompatible has a nasty way of creating zealots on both sides of the fence.

ZV

This "harebrained idea" is poo-poo'd by those that want to ride the fence and play both sides to the middle.

Let me explain it very simply. Real science is ALWAYS about naturalistic explanations. There are no exceptions. No valid scientific theory ever invokes a god or relies on the metaphysical. That's because if a god is invoked or the metaphysical is brought in as an explanation it ceases being science. With a god, science ceases to exist and everything goes into the realm of the metaphysical. By their nature religion and science cannot share a common stage and stating that religion and science are compatible is ignoring the facts of the matter. Science doesn't ignore gods. It implicitly rules them out.

Nor does science ignore the "why" questions. Do scientists not ask themselves why the speed of light is limited to c? Did Darwin not wonder why there were so many similarities among the Galapagos flora and fauna yet see differences as well? Did Hubble not wonder why light from galaxies was red-shifted? They answers they provided addressed those questions of "why." Why is a highly important question for science. It's what motivates scientists and causes them to expand their thinking and ideas to come up with valid explanations and not fall back on the easy escape of "God did it."

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Science doesn't ignore gods. It implicitly rules them out.

I have to disagree and go with the ignore. When a scientist hypothesizes an explanation he doesn't say "Well it definitely wasn't a supernatural force." He just never lets such enter the equation, i.e. he ignores it.

Semantics maybe, but there are plenty of scientists who practice a faith and who do believe in god, and therefore they do not discount the existence of god, they just ignore it for the purposes of explanation, theorizing, or experiment variables.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 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..........................

I'll join you. BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :laugh:

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.

Wow! It sounds like you've come up with the long sought "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything." And all this time, I thought the answer was 42.

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.

Thanks. If there's no such thing as time or space, but that raises a couple of interesting questions:

1. If there's no such thing as time, why do you waste so much of ours with mindless bullshit?

2. If space doesn't exist, how do you explain that vast vacuum between your ears?

Originally posted by: halik

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

Don't make the poor little troll work so hard. I posted the scientific definition of the word, theory previously in this thread:

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. 
   
   It won't help him because it doesn't fit his theory of the meaning of the word, theory. :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Science doesn't ignore gods. It implicitly rules them out.

I have to disagree and go with the ignore. When a scientist hypothesizes an explanation he doesn't say "Well it definitely wasn't a supernatural force." He just never lets such enter the equation, i.e. he ignores it.

Semantics maybe, but there are plenty of scientists who practice a faith and who do believe in god, and therefore they do not discount the existence of god, they just ignore it for the purposes of explanation, theorizing, or experiment variables.

A scientist ignores such hypothesis because it's understood that the metaphysical should never tread into the scientific realm as a viable explanation. He doesn't actually ignore god, he knows that science does not allow for it in the first place, i.e. - it implicitly rules them out.

Besides, not all "scientists" rule out a supernatural force. Look at Creation Science. Why do you think people claim they are not practicing real science in the first place and that it's really nothing more than a fig leaf for religion?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Wikipedia mentioned something about it not applying for special relativity. But I admit I'm out of my field.

Well, the premise that mass has always been here has several interesting conclusions, one of which is that there is no such thing as literal creation. Only assembly, or disassembly. That provokes some strange results. Are our thoughts our creations?

I'm going to have to think about this. I was going to say that thinking that mass has been around infinitely long is ridiculous, but then it occurred to me it's no more dogmatic than asserting that a creator has been around just as long.

If I'm not mistaken relativity just changes it to the conservation of mass and energy, but I'm no expert either.

Our thoughts would be assemblies, not creations. As I said before I think that the eternal concept of mass more probable than any god as mass is much less complex then any god and therefore much more likely. So I think it is actually not dogmatic at all, it is simply the most likely prospect from the available evidence.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)

...refines our understanding of the universe and its development. It is a treasure trove of information, including at least three major findings:

* New evidence that a sea of cosmic neutrinos permeates the universe
* Clear evidence the first stars took more than a half-billion years to create a cosmic fog
* Tight new constraints on the burst of expansion in the universe's first trillionth of a second

3D Photo explanation

The actual 5-year full-sky WMAP

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 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:

But they rule us.