portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Your correct thet would be a leap of faith to state the universe always has been as fact or even a sound theory. I would in no way promote teaching that fact or theory in a science class, because there is no experimantal or observational data to prove or disprove it. I would think the same should be done with creationism. With no experimental or observational data to even suggest it might be valid I wouldn't want it taught as science either. 1) Then we agree that the universe has not "always" existed? 2) Creationism is not bound by scientific exploration. It is bound by faith. I think you miss my point. I have faith that the "universe" we live in was created. No scientist can provide a reasonable theory to suggest another avenue. Science, IMO is the attempt to explain that which has been created. Science is not a means to an end. Science is simply a way for humans to explain and understand. Just as science has never been able to "prove" creationism(doubtful that many have tried to), science has never been able to disprove it. So lets agree to the following shall we? Creationism is a "theory" yet to be explained. The beginning of our universe are surrounded by "theories" yet to be explained. Both have a place in the intellectual mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 "Source? What about the US population? If 85% thought we were from the spaghetti god, would you want it taught in schools? The reason ID isn't taught is because it isn't based on facts, it is based on the absence of facts. The ID crowd uses ID to "fill in the blanks" if areas science does not understand yet, without giving any facts to back it up. I have stated many times, I would have no problem teaching ID in schools if they showed actual facts, and theory to back up their argument. They don't because there is no facts, only things such as "it has to be that way because it works". That is not science, but faith and belongs in a religious school or a theology class, not a public school." Source? Christianity, ISlam, Buddism, Hindu. Shikhism, Paganism. Every major religion points towards Inteligent design. That easily accounts for 85% of worlds population. Regardless of whether there are concrete facts or not pointing towards intelligent design, just by the shear numbers of people that beleive in it qualify it to be taught as well, not necessarily as fact but as a theory, just as evolution should be taught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 You are 100% wrong Portis. Here is the difference between theory and faith. Theory is based on mathematical equations, observations, and facts. Faith is based on the absence of fact, that is why it is called faith. Creationism has NOT A SINGLE FACT to back up its idea (it isn't a theory). Evolution has thousands of examples, and well documented changes and mutations in the genes of animals to back up its claim. It is 100% science, and it explains how we evolved from simple creatures to complex creatures. It explains how we went from a water species to a land species. It explains why all mammals on this planet have the same arm bones. It explains alot. All ID explains is nothing. It is based on the absence of facts and observations, so it is not the same. It shouldn't even be said in the same breath, because one is theology and one is science. You are missing my point. I agree that evolution is backed by factual evidence. What is NOT backed by factual evidence is a scientific explaination of the beginning of the universe. You make a big point of differentiation theory from faith. Then I must ask you. Have any theories based upon said formulas and observation ever been proven false? If a theory has been proven false, then I would suggest to you that whomever proposed the theory did so on an act of faith. However, the "Theory of Creationism" has NOT been proven false, has it? That must stand for something, right? Again I say, science is an attempt to explain and understand that which has been created. Agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 The only way that I would get trapped by your logic is if I would only accept a scientific explaination of the beginning of our universe. That does not mean I reject your logic, just that you logic implies the concept of infinity. Infinity is one of those beautiful terms used by mathematicians and scientists to explain that which can not be explained. Infinity = faith. Agree? "Then if you go on to say god always was, why is it such a leap to believe the universe always was." Portis, If Infinity=Faith then so does Theory, because Infinity is a theory. If the universe is finite, then what's outside the universe? more space? My problem with the Big Bang, although I believe it happened, where did all the mass (planets, stars, gasses.....) come from? All the "stuff" didn't come out of thin air or an explosion. And I am a spiritual person, that believes in evolution, and think it must be part of "God's" plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 ? Thats not clear. What is not clear to you is the foundation of the concept of creationism. Even if we agree that the big bang happened with scientific certainty, don't you have to explain what existed before the big bang? Fact is science can not even begin to fathom a theory to answer that question. Yet in absence of and rational scientific explaination, you reject the notion that everything in out universe was "created"? Are you saying that "creationism" is impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Portis, If Infinity=Faith then so does Theory, because Infinity is a theory.If the universe is finite, then what's outside the universe? more space? My problem with the Big Bang, although I believe it happened, where did all the mass (planets, stars, gasses.....) come from? All the "stuff" didn't come out of thin air or an explosion. And I am a spiritual person, that believes in evolution, and think it must be part of "God's" plan. I agree completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 1) Then we agree that the universe has not "always" existed?2) Creationism is not bound by scientific exploration. It is bound by faith. I think you miss my point. I have faith that the "universe" we live in was created. No scientist can provide a reasonable theory to suggest another avenue. Science, IMO is the attempt to explain that which has been created. Science is not a means to an end. Science is simply a way for humans to explain and understand. Just as science has never been able to "prove" creationism(doubtful that many have tried to), science has never been able to disprove it. So lets agree to the following shall we? Creationism is a "theory" yet to be explained. The beginning of our universe are surrounded by "theories" yet to be explained. Both have a place in the intellectual mind. The validity of a theory is based upon data that either support or do not support it. ID has zero observational or mathmatical data to support it. To be taught as a science it should require alot of either mathmatical or observational support. As chrom said the sphagetti god has as much back-up as ID. As to you points above. 1. I can say based on science I don't know if it has always been or was created. I will moniter observations and studies and keep an open mind to either. 2. I do agree ID is bound by faith not science. I can't call ID a scientific theory, sorry. If you want to call it that then your definition of a theory is so wide as to encompass about any belief anyone has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I can't call ID a scientific theory, sorry. If you want to call it that then your definition of a theory is so wide as to encompass about any belief anyone has. If you truly believe in science then you must understand that theories can be made about anything, and everything that is observable. A theory that says that the universe was created IS a theory. Your concern might be what answers might come the understanding that something can not come from nothing, in scientific terms of course...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 What is not clear to you is the foundation of the concept of creationism.Even if we agree that the big bang happened with scientific certainty, don't you have to explain what existed before the big bang? Fact is science can not even begin to fathom a theory to answer that question. Yet in absence of and rational scientific explaination, you reject the notion that everything in out universe was "created"? Are you saying that "creationism" is impossible? I would like to understand what happened before the big bang. I realize in my lifetime that probably won't happen. I would say anything is possible, because we don't know. I think the biggest difference between proponents of scientific theory and those of ID is that if there were ever scientific proof of a god i would believe it. If there were scientific proof of the origins of the universe and they did not include a god, I don't think the ID crowd would believe the data. You have picked a position to take that needs zero proof. Also do you want to start teaching in school all things that are not impossible?? Thats hardly a standard to go by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 The validity of a theory is based upon data that either support or do not support it. ID has zero observational or mathmatical data to support it. To be taught as a science it should require alot of either mathmatical or observational support. The overwhelming reason it should be taught in schools, regardless if it is in science class or creation class, is the number of people who beleive in it. Since when does this nation succomb to the beliefs of the minority. As chrom said the sphagetti god has as much back-up as ID. Regardless of what god it is, Spaghetti, Allah, Jesus, or Lord Krishna, it is still the belief of the majority I can't call ID a scientific theory, sorry. If you want to call it that then your definition of a theory is so wide as to encompass about any belief anyone has. Theory=a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation {websters} under this definition Creationism is as much of a Theory as Evolutionism. Is it impossible for people to conceed that neither creationism nor evolution( which encompasses more than just the big bang theory, many more in fact) are provable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Well, just because you are uninformed about how science came up with the big bang theory, does not mean it is invalid, it just means you are uninformed. If you want, I can give you many many links on projects that work on the big bang study. I have actually worked on and have designed some of the instruments which we are currently building to study the backround radiation left over from the big band. The 30m milimeter telescope to be built in Antartica is one of the instruments which will studying the big bang, and I have been working on the secondary optical system, as well as the alignment systems. I did say that the big bang theory is invalid? No, in fact I would hold out the possibility that the big bang did occur. But that does not explain away creationism, does it? Again, No it does not. Hypothesis - Something can not come from nothing. Two possible theories 1) Something was created. 2) Something exploded. Both theories have a place at the table of intellectual discussion. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I mean there are plenty of people that have a theory or a belief that the Redskins can still make the playoffs, while we can't prove that it is not impossible. It goes beyond all reasonable thought, especially the way they have played the past few weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I did not say that the big bang theory is invalid, did I?No, in fact I would hold out the possibility that the big bang did occur. But that does not explain away creationism, does it? Again, No it does not. Hypothesis - Something can not come from nothing. Two possible theories 1) Something was created. 2) Something exploded. Both theories have a place at the table of intellectual discussion. No? To really understand where science is at right now on the theories of the orgins of the universe you should read up on string theory and brane theory. While not an answer it has many interesting areas to explore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I did not say that the big bang theory is invalid, did I?No, in fact I would hold out the possibility that the big bang did occur. But that does not explain away creationism, does it? Again, No it does not. Hypothesis - Something can not come from nothing. Two possible theories 1) Something was created. 2) Something exploded. Both theories have a place at the table of intellectual discussion. No? Both your possible theories contradict your hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I would like to understand what happened before the big bang. I realize in my lifetime that probably won't happen. I would say anything is possible, because we don't know. I think the biggest difference between proponents of scientific theory and those of ID is that if there were ever scientific proof of a god i would believe it. If there were scientific proof of the origins of the universe and they did not include a god, I don't think the ID crowd would believe the data. You have picked a position to take that needs zero proof. Also do you want to start teaching in school all things that are not impossible?? Thats hardly a standard to go by. All I would say is we can agree that SOMETHING happened to get to the point where you and I were typing on our computers right now. What that something is will be very hard to explain with scientific certainty. So much so that it take one of those leaps of faith to try and understand it. All I am saying is while we are hopping around, can I hop with religion while you hop with science? And while we are hopping, can we agree that the answer we all seek will take both science and religion to figure it all out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Both your possible theories contradict your hypothesis. Thank you, I knew we could come to an understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 To really understand where science is at right now on the theories of the orgins of the universe you should read up on string theory and brane theory. While not an answer it has many interesting areas to explore. After I am done reading Carl Sagan "Demon Haunted World" I would be interested in reading. Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 All I would say is we can agree that SOMETHING happened to get to the point where you and I were typing on our computers right now.What that something is will be very hard to explain with scientific certainty. So much so that it take one of those leaps of faith to try and understand it. All I am saying is while we are hopping around, can I hop with religion while you hop with science? And while we are hopping, can we agree that the answer we all seek will take both science and religion to figure it all out? I have no problem with you hopping with religion and teaching your kids all about it, imparting your beliefs to them. I do have a problem teaching ID in science class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I do have a problem teaching ID in science class. So you are a teacher? Who is requiring you to teach my kids about Intelligent Design? I do not see where school has any place in teaching religion. Is that where your angst is on this topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 After I am done reading Carl Sagan "Demon Haunted World" I would be interested in reading. Any suggestions? Here is an article n string theory. http://physics.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=physics&zu=http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html Here is an article on brane theory. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0924/p25s01-stss.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 So you are a teacher? Who is requiring you to teach my kids about Intelligent Design? I do not see where school has any place in teaching religion. Is that where your angst is on this topic? I am not a teacher but yes that is my big problem on this topic. Some groups are petitoning to get ID taught in schools as a science. In PA its already in practice. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 well I have a problem with theories being taught in science classes than. I mean I am willing to send my child to be taught both but not one. Especially one that the majority of the freaking world thinks is flawed. I agree with adaptation, but to evolve from ooze is ridicoulous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 well I have a problem with theories being taught in science classes than. I mean I am willing to send my child to be taught both but not one. Especially one that the majority of the freaking world thinks is flawed. I agree with adaptation, but to evolve from ooze is ridicoulous Why is it ridiculous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 facts show that the human eye can accept and transfer more information than the fastest computer on earth.that didnt come from a blob just sitting around waiting on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 facts show that the human eye can accept and transfer more information than the fastest computer on earth.that didnt come from a blob just sitting around waiting on time. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.