Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Umm.. this "creationist Dogma" to which you refer HAS changed over time. It used to be widely believed that the 7 Days in Genesis were literally 7 human, 24 hour days. Now, most creationists don't believe that.
It WAS a logical fallacy for me to say the thing about debate. What I should have said is that there wouldn't be as WIDESPREAD a debate.. That IS true.

I'm not debating whether or not Big Bang could or could not have happened or if it was or wasn't the ONLY process that could have formed things as we know them. I don't know that. Neither do you, nor does anyone else. We weren't there when it happens. All I am saying is that just because it is the widely accepted theory doesn't make it more true or right than any other, and that it certainly doesn't need to be taught that way in schools. Do I think IDT should be taught in schools? Perhaps. So long as it isn't taught as the only possible way. I still don't see the two as being at odds with each other. IDT just says that what happened was more planned than random.
The way I see it:"God made all of the matter in the universe something happened, and the universe ended up the way it is."
That doesn't argue with the big bang. The Big Bang could be that "something".

On a completely random note, every time I type "big bang", I almost always hit d at the end of bang.. Big Band....

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Actually, there are still plenty of young - earth creationists. I know several of them personally. The reason that there aren't as many as there used to be, however, is not because religious beliefs have been altered, it's because science has provided evidence against them.

Also, there isn't any 'widespread debate' about the validity of the Big Bang theory. Within the scientific community, and among those educated in cosmology, it is completey accepted. The only people who debate it are people who either know little about cosmology or are obsessed with their beliefs and just ignore any evidence that contradicts them.

Furthermore, it's pretty much impossible to completely prove anything outside of mathematics, however, the aim of science isn't to completely prove anything, but it is to create models that accurate describe the behavior of the universe. To use an analogy, germ theory isn't absolutely, completely proven beyond any doubt either, yet the vast majority of people don't still go around believing that illnesses are caused by demons, and doctors don't still use leeches. Medical progress based on germ theory has saved uncountable numbers of lives and greatly improved the standard of living.

There are inconsistencies within the Big Bang theory, but that's why there are cosmologists who work on them, and do experiments, and create new devices for taking more precise observations. Like any scientific theory, it is continually being refined and improved upon by new evidence.

If you believe the Big Bang is false, then come up with a better theory and publish it in a peer - reviewed scientific journal. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be questioning it on a logical basis in the first place.

'ID' theory isn't even a proper scientific theory, as it has no mechanism, it is unfalsifiable, it makes no predictions, and it has no supporting evidence. You might as well want science classes to teach that lightning bolts are thrown by Zeus, or that gravity is caused by Angels pushing us down every time we jump up.

Additionally, 'God' is an unnecessary term, and due to Occam's Razor, there is no logical reason to believe that God is involved in any natural processes.

I disagree.. I think that religious views HAVE changed, because science said "hey, that's not right, look at it this way"..

There isn't widespread debate about Big Bang, either. You're right. There ARE people who are trying to see if they can come up with something that makes up for the short comings of the Big Bang. I don't know that they will.
The debate I was referring to was IDT. There is PLENTY of debate over that.

As for the "If you can't come up with something better, don't question it" thing: If people took that statement, we would never have any scientific advancement. You only advance science when you first question a widely held theory.

I'm not debating whether or not the Big Bang occured. I don't know. All I know is that the things I know don't conflict with it. I'm just saying it shouldn't be taught the way it was taught where I went to school: "Scientists KNOW this happened, and this happened and this happened." I would add probably to those statements, just to be open-minded about the whole thing. There could have been some other process. I don't know enough about cosmology to say and don't care to make any kind of guess.

Truthfully, I've always looked at Occam's Razor to postulate that God does exist. What's simpler, a bunch of chaos somehow organizes itsself to build rather complex systems, or some creator deliberately organizes things?
I always thought the latter was simpler.
And, unlike most who use the Razor to explain away God, I didn't learn of the idea from Contact.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

No, science advanced because people DID come up with better theories.

Einstien's gravitational theories supplanted Newton's, since they were more accurate and fit the evidence better, made more accurate predictions. Newton's theories can still be used for basic calculations on large scales, but Einstien's are far more accurate.

However, Einstien couldn't just say Newton's laws of gravity were wrong because 'that's not the only way gravity could work', without coming up with any evidence, theories, or calculations of his own. He would have been laughed out of the scientific establishment.

As for your views on teaching the Big Bang theory in school, I suppose you also want teachers to say 'well, we don't know for sure that diseases are caused by germs, they might also be caused by demons', and 'we don't know for sure that the Earth revolves around the sun, it could all be a big illusion and the sun revolves around the earth' and 'we don't know for sure that lightning is created by electrical discharges from thunderclouds, it could also be caused by Zeus throwing lightning bolts from Mount Olympus'. See how silly that is? While all of those 'alternate theories' have not been COMPLETELY disproved, there is no evidence for them, and they make no testable predictions, have no testable mechanism, etc. whereas the mainstream theories do.

Also, you misunderstand Occam's razor. God is an undefined and undefinable term, for which there is no evidence. In fact, Willaim of Occam (the guy who came up with the idea) used it to prove that the existence of God could not be deduced logically, and thus must rely on faith.

I suggest you read the following links:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article11
http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article40
http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article57

Before he came up with his gravity theories, Einstein DID have to question whether or not Newton's theories would work. Right?

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. You completely twisted what I said about teaching the Big Bang as the only truth. We do know that the earth revolves around the sun, at least relative to the stuff around us. The geometry of the situation shows us that. We also are pretty sure that viruses and bacteria cause illness. Demons COULD cause illness, but those, and the other ideas you tried to attribute to me are a lot less debated and "questioned" (questioned is a little stronger than I really want to use) in their respective circles than the Big Bang. I'm not saying it never happened, because, unlike you, I do not claim to know all of the ways of the universe.


God is definable, and is, in fact defined. God is the omnipotent being that created the Universe, for whatever reason, using whatever means he felt like using, possibly through the big bang, possibly something else. See, I just defined God.

Since Occam's razor was formulated to prove that the existence of God could not be deduced logically, I would hope it does. Otherwise, Occam didn't formulate it very well. It's only natural that something conceived to show that God couldn't be proven would show just that. It's like me saying "I'm going to prove that my toilet is a life form, then defining a life form in terms that would include my toilet." Either way, I still believe that it shows that God does exist. Either way, it was something formed by a human, and, thus is not perfect. My interpretation that there is a god could be wrong, too, if the Razor is flawed.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

It's a logical principle, and is not flawed. If it is demonstrate how. If you can't, then don't just reject it because you don't like it.

Einstien formulated his theories by making observations and creating a theoretical model to explain them. That is how science works. Creationism and all its branches, on the other hand, take a predetermined conclusion and selectively pick and choose evidence that fits with it, ignoring or dismissing any evidence that contradicts them. That is NOT science, and is against the scientific method.

Also, like I said, we are reasonably sure that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but it isn't 100% PROVEN. There are many ways in which our perceptions and observations of the subject could be flawed. However, the point is that just because it is POSSIBLE that the geocentric solay system model is correct doesn't mean that we should seriously consider it, because there is NO EVIDENCE, just like there is NO EVIDENCE for 'intelligent design' (creationist pseudoscience always comes up short), and there is NO EVIDENCE for whatever alternate theory to the Big Bang you are proposing.

Science does not claim to know 'all the ways of the universe', it just is a tool for describing and understanding the universe. Just because it doesn't have an answer for EVERYTHING hardly means that you should just reject it and say it doesn't have any answers for ANYTHING.

To use another analogy, computers have been used to calculate the value of pi to many trillions of decimal places. However, pi is an irrational number, and continues forever, thus it is impossible to completely calculate. However, that doesn't mean that you should just say that the calculations that have been done are worthless and pick a random number, like 72, and say that that's pi! Do you see how ridiculous that is?

Creationist pesudoscience.. I like that.. Something you fear because you do not understand it is a pseudo science..

I've never rejected evidence, nor do I pick and choose evidence that support my ideas. (well, ok, so that's not entirely true, I don't look at something like mold growing in a refrigerator when I'm trying to work on radiation balance problems, but stil..)
You say that there is no evidence that supports any other alternate theory to the Big Bang. I'm glad you have such a grasp on EVERY piece of scientific information on the field. All I am saying is that an open mind is required in the subject. Having an open mind doesn't mean you reject your own thoughts, but you do have to accept that, just possibly, there are other forces at work. Like I said earlier, I'm not going to try to debate you on the Big Bang. I don't claim to know all the details.



I don't reject science, just because it isn't perfect. I'm an atmospheric scientist. If I rejected everything imperfect, I certainly wouldn't be in this field. The Pi analog is completely ridiculous, as I've never said anything close to that.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

What? Of course I understand that creationism is pseudoscience, or else I would not refer to it as such. I have never seen a single creationist claim that was convincing and could not be refuted.

Also, you're distorting my position. I never said there was no evidence that supports any theory other than the Big Bang, I just said that there are no other theories that currently explain the evidence better than the Big Bang. If there was one that came along, and it gained credence in the scientific community, I would seriously consider it as an alternative. But there isn't. Stop using strawman logical fallacies.

You have said something close to that, you're saying that because the Big Bang isn't completely proved and doesn't explain absolutely everything 100%, then we should not take it seriously and teach alternate theories instead. That's pretty much the same principle as the pi example.

It is the same thing with God. We are helpless when it comes to his power. Maybe the hurricanes and the tsunami earlier are signs of the Second Coming. Or maybe they are punishment to the wickedness of those cities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that those cities were quite wicked.

If God created the universe, wouldn't it be possible for him to control what he has made to fulfill his purposes?

It is the same thing with God. We are helpless when it comes to his power. Maybe the hurricanes and the tsunami earlier are signs of the Second Coming. Or maybe they are punishment to the wickedness of those cities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that those cities were quite wicked.


If God created the universe, wouldn't it be possible for him to control what he has made to fulfill his purposes?[/quote]

Hurricanes and tsunamis are created by weather patterns and earthquakes, respectively. Attributing them to some invisible man in the sky shows your reasoning is similar to cavemen who didn't understand lightning, thunder, and rain, and attributed them to gods instead.

There is no evidence that these natural disasters are anything but that, natural.

Actually, you did.


I never said it shouldn't be taken seriously.. I said it shouldn't be said that it is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THE SINGLE SHAPING FACTOR IN THE UNIVERSE. Those two things are hardly equal.
As for the pi example, if I had made the statement you claim I did, you would be dead on, however I didn't, so the pi analogy is as far off base as anything else either of us have said.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Again, you're misunderstanding me. I didn't say there wasn't any evidence AGAINST the Big Bang, I just said there wasn't any evidence FOR your alternate theory, mainly because you don't even HAVE a theory!


And as for my analogy, you DID say something exactly like that. Ahem:



In other words, you wanted it to be taught as speculative, even though the evidence overwhelmingly supports it, and you yourself admit you know little of the subject so you can't even challenge it at all, just because it disagrees with your beliefs.

If schools started teaching that way, they would have to do the same thing for germ theory, meteorology, gravity, the heliocentric solar system, etc. It would be pointless. If the kids in the class want to challenge what they are taught, they can get a college education and start a career in science.

I didn't misunderstand you. I'm not proposing a theory that competes with BigBang. I'm just acknowleding the possibility that one exists. You are saying that whatever alternate theory that I am allowing to exist has no evidence. That's exactly what I said.


Actually, had you entered this debate with an open mind, you would have read 3 or 4 times that I have never said that the Big Bang disagrees with my beliefs. I actually said it doesn't..
As for my statement, you're twisting my words. All I was saying is that they should be giving all the information about Big Bang (well, at least what would be understood, namely, that it isn't perfect, but does the best job of all of our models in describing how the universe appears to be working.. I was taught that it was PERFECT and that it's settled, so that there is no need to look into it any further.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I don't remember any science classes I was ever in referring to any theory as 'perfect', and, as I said, there's no reason to teach alternate theories or say that a theory could be wrong, unless there's EVIDENCE that it's wrong. A science textbook could cover problems with a theory, or things it currently cannot explain, but that doesn't mean it should then say that the theory is likely to be wrong, since most of the best accepted scientific theories are modified by new data to fix any problems they might have, as opposed to being completely supplanted by a different theory.

Big Bang theory is hardly speculative science, it has a vast preponderance of evidence behind it.

If we were talking about something more theoretical, like String Theory, for instance, you would be right.

Then you were luckier than I.. That's my whole point. The science classes I had before college presented everything as absolute.

Personally, I still feel that presenting other theories along with a widely accepted one is a good idea. A mind that accepts that other theories exists will seek out those theories and decide for themself.
If they feel that, say, VSL solves the problem of Inflation, then they decide that. Theories just shouldn't be presented as absolute fact. That's all I'm saying. A truely subjective decision can't be made with limited evidence (therein lies a problem, textbooks only contain so many pages)

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Alternate theories should only be taught when they have serious support and evidence and there is still sufficient contention among their supporters in the scientific community.

The Big Bang theory supplanted the Steady State theory many decades ago, and the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the former. Obviously, the Steady State theory should no longer be taught, just as the geocentric solar system theory and medical treatment by bleeding with leeches should no longer be taught.

Pseudoscience.

Since ID is actually just Creationism masquarading as a science, yes, it is a pseudoscience. IT also qualifies for the description regardless of this:

* by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
* by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
* by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
* by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
* by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
* by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
* by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
* by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (and the more egregious the violation, the more likely); or
* by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.
* by claims that the scientific authorities are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress a theory, often including accusations that these authorities have financial reasons, or other ulterior motives, for doing so.

Ow me laddies, I think we have a winner here

EDIT: The big bang is a theory. But the most promising theory that corresponds to how we view the universe. Therefore, it qualifies as being the only thing to be taught in schools. I am glad the teacher refused to speak about ID. What does bother me is that you learn this in.. college. Scary

If you would have bothered to read what I wrote, you would see that, AT NO POINT did I ever say the Big Bang shouldn't be taught. I'm even willing to say that it is the only one that should be taught. All I am saying is that it shouldn't be taught as an absolute. Perhaps say something like "It isn't perfect, but it's the closest model we have. There MIGHT be a better model to emerge, there might not, but right now, this thing is all we have, and it's really close."
As far as attacks on my beliefs, I will concede that a lot of evidence has been interpreted to point in the other direction. I still don't see a spontaneously generated universe (be it Big Bang, Big Band, Atomic Happy Dance, or whatever) being at odds with it. As I understand it, IDT is meant for Biology class, anyway. I could care less what is taught in Biology. I'll never have to take another biology class again.

btw, there was no "winner", this is a discussion, not a debate or contest.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

On the Internet, one 'wins'.

If you had read the post well, you would've concluded that I KNOW you didn't want to ban the theory of ze Atomic Happy Dance. I just put forth that it's the one that should be taught in school because:

Though it seems like a lump of hypothetical crap, it is the one theory that treats all beliefs equelly. At no point did scientists not say "hmm.. perhaps god triggered the big bang". Christians could take the theory that way, and there would be no need for a seperate 'Intelligent Design' theory, which violates all sorts of laws.

Yes, there is a need for a better and less vague theory (needs more quantum physics, methinks), but this is what we have. Embrace it.

The teacher did not refuse to talk about ID. Infact, she recently said in class, "People with strong religious beleifs get edgy about the big bang theory. You need to realize that "big bang" could be considered... a wild guess." I need to tell her that I'm not edgy because I don't beleive it, it's just that she did not acknoledge the possibility of the universe began in a different manner. The questions on the assignments led one to think that the big bang in fact did happen. I only brought up ID because it was the only other theory (or if you guys insist, "pseudoscince") that I knew.

Well ... I don't have much to say on the subject that can't be covered with a quote from Robin Williams (who's an Episcopal, as far as I know) ...

"Fundamentalists take it to be the word. Not translatable, not metaphorical, the word. 'In the beginning,' Genesis, 'let there be light!' Couldn't that just be a metaphor for the Big Bang?

'No. God just went *click*!' "

Although Didymus pointed out Genesis is more of a song and not prose, I've seen a lot of spooky paralells between scientific theory and what's written out there.

What Upsilon said, though, is something I'd advocate--that is, take things like ID and make a philosophical class out of it. Intelligent Design is pretty much religion-less anyhow, from what I've seen of it. And personally, I think philosophy should be reintroduced into school ...

Here's something else relevant to chew on, and it surprised the heck out of me when I read this. I plan to mention this in something I'm working on ...

Popes Pius XII and John Paul II both stated that evolution does not conflict with Christian belief. In fact, they've allowed evolution to be taught in Catholic schools and universities for decades.

"Since the Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on [certain] conditions [where the origin of the human soul is concerned]."
- Pope John Paul II

Cracks me up. Here, Charles Darwin became an agnostic from his voyages on the Beagle, believing that evolution and his former Methodist beliefs did not match up. And here you have the Popes going "What? There's no conflict here at all."

EDIT: With regards to the mentioning of Occam's Razor, I thought I'd throw a quote from someone I know who's described themself as 'half-Athiest' (What?) ...

"It should be noted that, at least as I was taught it, Occam's Razor is the sloppiest reasoning tactic I've ever seen. It, in its entirety, is like looking at three options, saying 'that one is the most likely,' and then presuming that because its probability of correctness is greatest of the given options that it must be the actual solution."

_________________

The Big Bang theory is scientific. It's based on scientific evidence found by astronomers (because the universe is expanding, as evidenced by the redshift of observed stars, it's logical to assume that it started out all compacted together and then exploded outwards). It's the theory accepted by all (as far as I know) physicists. It belongs in a school. Not a church.

The Intelligent Design theory is theological. It's based on a book (the Bible, which was supposedly written as the word of God, which states that God created heaven and earth and all creatures). It's the theory accepted by all (as far as I know) clergymen. It belongs in a church. Not a school.

Incidentally, of course it was a big bang! Picture all the matter in the universe condensed to the size of a pinhead building up heat pressure inside and then exploding outwards in all directions.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

You may think of Intelligent Design as theory, I view it as fact. And in terms of brainwashing/indoctrination (whatever you want to call it), works both ways. Even most Christian students are taught Evolution (theory) as fact (part of the curriculum - I failed a small assignment when I was in highschool because I believed in Intelligent Design and said so). Totall unfair. This brainwashes kids thoughts and they put faith in looking for false scientific evidence for things, instead of looking to Jesus. Its teaching kids the wrong thing. If Evolution is to be taught, Intelligent Design should also be taught as to provide a choice and Evolution should be present as theory. This way the students have a choice what to believe. They need options otherwise it really is no better than brainwashing.

I believe in the Christian God but I dislike thinking about the origins of the universe. There's a good book called "Thinking Like a Social Scientist" that I reccomend to everyone, especially people concerned with these topics. Here are a few concrete facts for consideration albeit late in the discussion . . .

Relgion is a theory; evolution is a theory; the Big Bang is a theory; Intelligent Design is a theory and they're all supported by infallible thinkers and supposedly irrefutable logic. Teachers have to follow rules, some better known as laws. The point of high school, for the most part, is a generalized overview of knowledge that will be detailed in college along with an introduction to study habits that will help you succeed.

_________________
OMG BEES DOT COM is all up in the hizzy, fools!

Until we find an eyewitness to the creation of the universe by God who can give a full account, intelligent design remains a theory. (The Bible doesn't count because it could quite easily be fictional). Similarly, until we find an eyewitness to the Big Bang it too remains a theory. That is, a theory with quite a bit of circumstantial evidence on its side. But neither have been irrefutably proved as fact.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

*laughs* As a friend of mine once put it, "I do believe in the Big Bang: God went 'BANG!' and there it was."

_________________

A friend of mine told me he once saw a cartoon that said "The scientists and priests were both right!" and it showed God holding a bomb marked "UNIVERSE" on the side.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

I just wanted to chime in on Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not a true scientific concept because it can't be held to the rigors of the scientific method, meaning that the hypothesis formed can't be tested to be found to be true or false, since we no provable method of speaking with a divine entity.

Now, that doesn't mean it's INCORRECT, but it should not be taught in a high school science course, as it has no basis in science. Whether or not it should be believed is left to everyone's own perrogative.

And since we're here!

I think it's very odd, even a bit sad, how religion and science are so opposed to one another in modern times. Many MANY scientific minds of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were members of the CLERGY, and engaged in their scientific studies because they wanted to learn more about God's world.

And now...not so much.

Well, as I mentioned, a study that was conducted found that only a third of the world's scientists are atheists. In many ways, I think the concept of religion and science being so opposed to one another is merely popular opinion from glitzy clashes like the Scopes Monkey Trial and this latest debacle which produced the absurdist Pastafarian movement with which to demean the religious.

_________________