Reply With Quote
what do you think inductive reasoning is, like i said?
look I said it is highly trusted, but you can't label it as fact.
if we want to play a game of semantics, this is a whole different debate regarding the words: religion, belief, trust, etc.
TEXTBOOK Straw man argument! Congrats"Ladies and gentlemen, this jet engine is based on the book of Luke, and I put it together all by myself, ignoring all of the silly faith based "facts" of science."
That's really what you are going with when you call science a "religion"? Seriously?
GMAFB.
what do you think inductive reasoning is, like i said?
look I said it is highly trusted, but you can't label it as fact.
if we want to play a game of semantics, this is a whole different debate regarding the words: religion, belief, trust, etc.
Last edited by InRareForm; 01-16-2009 at 01:48 PM.
More false dichotomies.
How about "I can't explain it, so it might be God." and "I don't know, there are several theories but we are still researching it and might one day figure it out." There is no contradiction between those two statements. Belief is not this either/or thing you've got in your head.
If you interpret Christian more broadly than Moral Majority literalists, one could do worse than being a scientist who follows Christian moral principles.
The expansion of the universe does little to move 'big bang' from anything more than the theory that it is. If something that is not a proven fact is introduced into science education as "theory" then I have no problem with it...including the theory that God created the universe.
seems like you are the one trying to play a semantics game.
it might also be a flying spaghetti monster. It might be an alien that is simply higher in the evoluionary order than humans but not quite omnipotent.
There is no place for those type of theories in a science class.
no problem with scientist with good Christian values.If you interpret Christian more broadly than Moral Majority literalists, one could do worse than being a scientist who follows Christian moral principles.
Ive got a problem with people trying to push God into a science class.
Why not?
there is an observational basis for the Big Bang theory.
there is nothing but a religious basis for the theory that God created the universe.
see above
Link to who observed Big Bang?
I agree, but there are these types out there:
https://www.abeka.com/AbekaOnline/Bo...ookieSupport=1
I think this might be the same publisher of the books I had.....if not, it's pretty darn close
and if some had their way, public schools would be pushing this too because "God should be a relevant theory"
we observe the universe expanding. that's common knowledge I hope.
therefore several components of the big bang seem plausible.
either way, the big bang is an explanation of how the universe came to be. There is nothing saying "spontaneous" and I dont recall any science teachers claiming that it is all just one freak accident...
much like evolution.
who is "we"....I'm kidding, that was a jab at your ridiculous line of questioning to AL earlier.
Which components of the big bang theory are made plausible by universal expansion?
No one else has introduced 'spontaneous' into this conversation. I'm simply pointing out that the origin of the universe is completely unknown. Any theory attempting to explain it is inherently void of the physical evidence science requires in order to accept it.
We love us some we
this is one of those roads that even if I quoted word for word out of an Astronomy II text book that would lead to nowhere and do little to change anyone's minds.Which components of the big bang theory are made plausible by universal expansion?
It's not God vs the Big Bang. It's really God vs sponateous accidental combustion which is not taught in schools to my knowledge.No one else has introduced 'spontaneous' into this conversation. I'm simply pointing out that the origin of the universe is completely unknown. Any theory attempting to explain it is inherently void of the physical evidence science requires in order to accept it.
Maybe God caused the Big Bang. Maybe God caused evolution.
The Big Bang and evolution are two theories based on observation. The reason evolution gets crapped on so often is because fundamentalists rely on the book of Genesis as their source of scientific fact.
In other words..."I don't know"
We're talking about origin of the universe. Call it whatever you want. Science will never be able to prove it happened naturally, I can promise you that. So, we come up with our scientific theories and observe the universe, but before we observe we've already eliminated (without basis) the possibility that there is a God who created all of it. So, since we've eliminated that as a possibility before we begin observing, any observation we record has no possibility of supporting a Creation theory.
It's like the theory of the origin of the universe is the BCS, and creation is Utah. It could be the best thing around, but it's eliminated without even being given a chance.
in other words you should do your own homework.
if you don't know that the universe is in a constant state of expansion, then going forward is a waste of time
You keep confusing Big Bang with spontaneous generation.We're talking about origin of the universe. Call it whatever you want. Science will never be able to prove it happened naturally, I can promise you that. So, we come up with our scientific theories and observe the universe, but before we observe we've already eliminated (without basis) the possibility that there is a God who created all of it. So, since we've eliminated that as a possibility before we begin observing, any observation we record has no possibility of supporting a Creation theory.
I don't like the BCS either, but Florida or OU would crush Utah.It's like the theory of the origin of the universe is the BCS, and creation is Utah. It could be the best thing around, but it's eliminated without even being given a chance.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this jet engine is based on the book of Luke, and I put it together all by myself, ignoring all of the silly faith based "facts" of science."
That's really what you are going with when you call science a "religion"? Seriously?
GMAFB.
You have said that there are no "facts" in science. It is indeed an exaggeration mostly for the purposes of humor, but if you can't define what you would call a "fact", then you will have to forgive me for not fully understanding or being able to accurately depict your real position.
Science actually provides us with a level of assurance above facts, in that it has workable theories that explain observed facts.
What WOULD you call factual?
I'm not disputing the expansion. You're the one who said because of the expansion "several components of the big bang seem plausible."
I asked you which components you were referring to. You stated this as though it were fact...if you're that certain about it, no homework should be necessary. Just tell me which components of the big bang theory are plausible because of universal expansion.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm talking about theories attempting to explain the origin of the universe. You can call them whatever you want.
Of course, that's your opinion and should not be considered fact. But, we'll never know because Utah was excluded before the season began.
We have observed as far back as about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.
Before that the universe was too hot and too opaque to really observe with present day instrumentation.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%203701.html
We might not have observed the car crash, but from the presence of two crumpled vehicles locked together, we can deduce the existance of such a crash with a very high degree of certainty.
How is that measured, exactly? (I ask because I don't know, not to be a contrarian). I imagine speed of light sort of calculations?
Mainly because you have physical evidence (mangled metal, engine parts, etc...). The physical evidence we have today really doesn't provide any conclusive evidence to the origin of the universe.
A Beka- I should have known. Never seen one but have heard all about their "history" and "science" books. So many home schooled kids are being taught by these books.
There you go. That's a much better argument. I approve.
But you could believe this and also believe science might solve all our problems. Doubt is the beginning of wisdom.
depending on who you ask, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom
I was pointing out that that there are important philosophical differences between faiths. You disagree?
Not everyone who acknowledges the supernatural is immune to reason and empiricism. Indeed the faculties by which the two are apprehended, though they are not the same, do not necessarily conflict, and in fact may harmonize. Rationalism and empiricism, like it or not, find their roots in Christian philosophical heritage. The theory that reason and revelation conflict discloses a profound ignorance of the history of rationalism and religion.
I quoted Aquinas, not Malebranche. Aquinas saw reason and empiricism as part of providence. He included science in his philosophy as a path to truth. Though he defended faith, he did not scorn science, and was a more exacting rationalist than anyone in this thread. I'm with Spurster: the contradiction of science and faith is false.
The first clause swims back to my point; the second describes a point I never tried to make. Faith and reason are different faculties. The two do not conflate, but this does not mean they conflict: they aim at different objects, and are operationally dissimilar.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-17-2009 at 04:12 AM.
I was not arguing for this. Who was?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions