I have a question for those who hate creationism

[Woyzeck]

You are missing one crucial point here plymco. Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories. There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists. You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point. We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it. That requires no faith whatsoever. We do not know where the big bang material came from. That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of ‘I don’t know.’ You do not need to know the entire story to explore it’s outcome. Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith. Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available. They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.

As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole. There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science. It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.


I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known. I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are missing one crucial point here plymco. Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories. There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists. You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point. We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it. That requires no faith whatsoever. We do not know where the big bang material came from. That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of ‘I don’t know.’ You do not need to know the entire story to explore it’s outcome. Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith. Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available. They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.

As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole. There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science. It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.


I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known. I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.

But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well. I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference. So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.

What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?

 

[edthecynic]

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.

But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well. I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference. So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.

What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?

If I had "misrepresented" your post, you would have explained where! You didn't, therefore I didn't.

And you refuse to see the difference between in reliability between a proven law and a theory! The Big Bang does not violate the proven FLoT and Creation does, therefore a person can have much more confidence in the Big Bang than in Creation.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.

But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well. I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference. So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.

What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?

If I had "misrepresented" your post, you would have explained where! You didn't, therefore I didn't.

And you refuse to see the difference between in reliability between a proven law and a theory! The Big Bang does not violate the proven FLoT and Creation does, therefore a person can have much more confidence in the Big Bang than in Creation.

Sorry ed but I have found it pretty frustrating to try to explain anything to you so I avoid that as much as possible. No offense. Your last ad hominem comment pretty well illustrates the reason why.

 

[edthecynic]

But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well. I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference. So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.

What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?

If I had "misrepresented" your post, you would have explained where! You didn't, therefore I didn't.

And you refuse to see the difference between in reliability between a proven law and a theory! The Big Bang does not violate the proven FLoT and Creation does, therefore a person can have much more confidence in the Big Bang than in Creation.

Sorry ed but I have found it pretty frustrating to try to explain anything to you so I avoid that as much as possible. No offense. Your last ad hominem comment pretty well illustrates the reason why.

Baloney!

 

[Woyzeck]

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.

But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well. I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference. So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.

What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?

Close-minded, I suppose. Are the other possibilities equally valid scientific theories?

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a laughably stretched definition of the word 'faith'. Equating the type of 'faith' scientists put into theories as say, the type of faith a Christian has, would be insulting the faith of the religious.

But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well. I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference. So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.

What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?

Close-minded, I suppose. Are the other possibilities equally valid scientific theories?

What makes a scientific theory that is untestable and unfalsifiable valid? Generally it is because it is the most rational and plausible conclusion based on observation and measuremens, etc. But I think a true scientists never dismisses the most rational and plausible conclusion but neither does he embrace it as gospel and dismiss any other possible explanation. Because there are true scientists, we continue to advance the body of knowledge of science. To think one has the final conclusion means they stop looking for different conclusions and no longer allow any challenge or expansion of the concept.

I call such close mindedness the flat earth syndrome.

 

[Woyzeck]

But just as edthecynic read more into my post than what I said and thus misrepresented what I said, you seem to be prone to that particular phenomenon as well. I don't see anything related to religion in the post you reference. So you appear to not only be misrepresenting my point but are throwing an unnecessary red herring in there as well.

What would you call it when somebody embraces a scientific theory as an absolute and refuses to consider any other possibility?

Close-minded, I suppose. Are the other possibilities equally valid scientific theories?

What makes a scientific theory that is untestable and unfalsifiable valid? Generally it is because it is the most rational and plausible conclusion based on observation and measuremens, etc. But I think a true scientists never dismisses the most rational and plausible conclusion but neither does he embrace it as gospel and dismiss any other possible explanation. Because there are true scientists, we continue to advance the body of knowledge of science. To think one has the final conclusion means they stop looking for different conclusions and no longer allow any challenge or expansion of the concept.

I call such close mindedness the flat earth syndrome.

Is there a point relevant to the thread in this? Because any scientist worth is salt does not simply stop researching something simply because a scientific theory has been formed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Close-minded, I suppose. Are the other possibilities equally valid scientific theories?

What makes a scientific theory that is untestable and unfalsifiable valid? Generally it is because it is the most rational and plausible conclusion based on observation and measuremens, etc. But I think a true scientists never dismisses the most rational and plausible conclusion but neither does he embrace it as gospel and dismiss any other possible explanation. Because there are true scientists, we continue to advance the body of knowledge of science. To think one has the final conclusion means they stop looking for different conclusions and no longer allow any challenge or expansion of the concept.

I call such close mindedness the flat earth syndrome.

Is there a point relevant to the thread in this? Because any scientist worth is salt does not simply stop researching something simply because a scientific theory has been formed.

The question forming the thesis of the thread is "How did the universe come into being?" It was not 'what scientific theory is the most valid' or 'Limiting the discussion to the most common scientific theories only, how . . . "

I took the question to be open ended and inviting all possible concepts and theories, scientific and non scientific.

How did you take it?

 

[Woyzeck]

What makes a scientific theory that is untestable and unfalsifiable valid? Generally it is because it is the most rational and plausible conclusion based on observation and measuremens, etc. But I think a true scientists never dismisses the most rational and plausible conclusion but neither does he embrace it as gospel and dismiss any other possible explanation. Because there are true scientists, we continue to advance the body of knowledge of science. To think one has the final conclusion means they stop looking for different conclusions and no longer allow any challenge or expansion of the concept.

I call such close mindedness the flat earth syndrome.

Is there a point relevant to the thread in this? Because any scientist worth is salt does not simply stop researching something simply because a scientific theory has been formed.

The question forming the thesis of the thread is "How did the universe come into being?" It was not 'what scientific theory is the most valid' or 'Limiting the discussion to the most common scientific theories only, how . . . "

I took the question to be open ended and inviting all possible concepts and theories, scientific and non scientific.

How did you take it?

Ditto, but only with the scientific theories.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is there a point relevant to the thread in this? Because any scientist worth is salt does not simply stop researching something simply because a scientific theory has been formed.

The question forming the thesis of the thread is "How did the universe come into being?" It was not 'what scientific theory is the most valid' or 'Limiting the discussion to the most common scientific theories only, how . . . "

I took the question to be open ended and inviting all possible concepts and theories, scientific and non scientific.

How did you take it?

Ditto, but only with the scientific theories.

Well if we are going to limit the discussion to scientific theories only i'm out of here because I think that will be an exercise in futility. There are no scientific theories for the origin of the universe but only for why the universe currently behaves as it behaves.

That's cool though. I can find somethng else to do.

 

[konradv]

very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.

I have no problem with schools teaching ANYTHING so long as it is not taught as dogma or something people should or must believe. I have zero problem with a science teacher explaining that million/billions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design and theories within these beliefs can answer questions that science cannot yet do. Such honest teaching allows students to think, consider, and analyze what is reasonable and what is not. It teaches them to think about how much larger the questions are than what the science we now have can answer.

I have no problem and would strongly encourage that same teacher to explain that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are not science and won't be taught or considered as science. And then I think the science teacher must teach all concepts of science that we now have which would include evolution. The science teacher should also be teaching what we can learn from evolution and allow or even present questions that evolution cannot answer.

I think we have a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know, and we will never advance beyond the primitive science we have if we infer that the science we have is what there is and there is nothing more to learn about it.

It may be "honest teaching", but belongs in a Social Studies class not a Biology class. The part in BOLD seems particularly strange. You're asking a science teacher to teach something you admit isn't science!!!

 

[Woyzeck]

The question forming the thesis of the thread is "How did the universe come into being?" It was not 'what scientific theory is the most valid' or 'Limiting the discussion to the most common scientific theories only, how . . . "

I took the question to be open ended and inviting all possible concepts and theories, scientific and non scientific.

How did you take it?

Ditto, but only with the scientific theories.

Well if we are going to limit the discussion to scientific theories only i'm out of here because I think that will be an exercise in futility. There are no scientific theories for the origin of the universe but only for why the universe currently behaves as it behaves.

That's cool though. I can find somethng else to do.

And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?

 

[Foxfyre]

very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.

I have no problem with schools teaching ANYTHING so long as it is not taught as dogma or something people should or must believe. I have zero problem with a science teacher explaining that million/billions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design and theories within these beliefs can answer questions that science cannot yet do. Such honest teaching allows students to think, consider, and analyze what is reasonable and what is not. It teaches them to think about how much larger the questions are than what the science we now have can answer.

I have no problem and would strongly encourage that same teacher to explain that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are not science and won't be taught or considered as science. And then I think the science teacher must teach all concepts of science that we now have which would include evolution. The science teacher should also be teaching what we can learn from evolution and allow or even present questions that evolution cannot answer.

I think we have a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know, and we will never advance beyond the primitive science we have if we infer that the science we have is what there is and there is nothing more to learn about it.

It may be "honest teaching", but belongs in a Social Studies class not a Biology class. The part in BOLD seems particularly strange. You're asking a science teacher to teach something you admit isn't science!!!

No, I'm asking a science teacher to be honest with his students about what science can and cannot answer even in theory. My science teachers certainly did that when I was in school and it should be encouraged now as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ditto, but only with the scientific theories.

Well if we are going to limit the discussion to scientific theories only i'm out of here because I think that will be an exercise in futility. There are no scientific theories for the origin of the universe but only for why the universe currently behaves as it behaves.

That's cool though. I can find somethng else to do.

And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?

I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each. But that's just me.

 

[Woyzeck]

Well if we are going to limit the discussion to scientific theories only i'm out of here because I think that will be an exercise in futility. There are no scientific theories for the origin of the universe but only for why the universe currently behaves as it behaves.

That's cool though. I can find somethng else to do.

And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?

I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each. But that's just me.

So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.

 

[Foxfyre]

And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?

I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each. But that's just me.

So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.

Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe. It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.

I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread. He can correct me if I am wrong about that.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are missing one crucial point here plymco. Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories. There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists. You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point. We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it. That requires no faith whatsoever. We do not know where the big bang material came from. That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of ‘I don’t know.’ You do not need to know the entire story to explore it’s outcome. Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith. Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available. They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.

As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole. There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science. It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.


I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known. I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

Wrong fox, and you know it is wrong. No one anywhere ever stated that the big bang was the ONLY option. It is just the best one that we currently have. That requires ZERO faith. Period. You are trying to force the way you see things, with faith, on others that do not share that trait. Please stop, it is annoying.

I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each. But that's just me.

So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.

Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe. It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.

I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread. He can correct me if I am wrong about that.

Quite the contrary, the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe. That is the center of the theory. Before the big bang happened, as the theory goes, the universe and all the physical laws that it follows did not exist. Therefore it is the beginning. Anything before that is rather meaningless as time did not necessarily exist ‘before’ the big bang though there are some theories that are based in string theory that try and define what made up the material that the big bang started with. Those, however, are far beyond the scope of an internet board and my mathematical or scientific knowledge. I can’t begin to properly understand a fourth dimension let alone the many that string theory works with.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are missing one crucial point here plymco. Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories. There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists. You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point. We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it. That requires no faith whatsoever. We do not know where the big bang material came from. That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of ‘I don’t know.’ You do not need to know the entire story to explore it’s outcome. Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith. Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available. They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.

As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole. There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science. It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.


I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known. I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

Wrong fox, and you know it is wrong. No one anywhere ever stated that the big bang was the ONLY option. It is just the best one that we currently have. That requires ZERO faith. Period. You are trying to force the way you see things, with faith, on others that do not share that trait. Please stop, it is annoying.

So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.

Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe. It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.

I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread. He can correct me if I am wrong about that.

Quite the contrary, the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe. That is the center of the theory. Before the big bang happened, as the theory goes, the universe and all the physical laws that it follows did not exist. Therefore it is the beginning. Anything before that is rather meaningless as time did not necessarily exist ‘before’ the big bang though there are some theories that are based in string theory that try and define what made up the material that the big bang started with. Those, however, are far beyond the scope of an internet board and my mathematical or scientific knowledge. I can’t begin to properly understand a fourth dimension let alone the many that string theory works with.

No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong. I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced. Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed. Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.

In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang? Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with. It just miraculously appeared? From nothing? Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is????

 

[Dr Grump]

No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong. I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced. Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed. Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.

In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang? Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with. It just miraculously appeared? From nothing? Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is????

And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?