13 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSo shouldn't a non-scientific theory with a valid explanation for a (as yet) untestable phenomenon be merited some classroom time?
It's not "illogical" or "unscientific" but it is "non-scientific", as it is a hypothesis that cannot be judged by the scientific method. Therefore, it's not something that belongs in a Science class.
13 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, since ANY explanation would be equally reasonable under those circumstances, you'd have to present ANYTHING ANYONE said. If I say a Giant Rat created the universe, you've have to teach it. If someone said the Universe is one of many golf balls in a super sized Tiger Woods God's golf bag you'd have to teach it. Your explanation is not "valid"; it is merely your belief and your belief is no more "valid" then anyone else's.
So shouldn't a non-scientific theory with a valid explanation for a (as yet) untestable phenomenon be merited some classroom time?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think you have need to take note that he has pointed out that it can be proven that the universe has a beginning. Thus the universe needs a cause, namely God. I think your question of "Where did God come from?" should only arise once you have proven that God as a beginning. Once you have taken the leap of faith in believing that God created the heavens and the earth as the Bible stated in Genesis 1, it would not be a problem to believe that God is eternal as the Bible states.
Bringing the Christian God into this doesn't help anything. You say, "Where did matter come from? God." and I say "Where did God come from?"
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerHow has it been "proven" that the universe has a beginning or needs a "cause"?
I think you have need to take note that he has pointed out that it can be proven that the universe has a beginning. Thus the universe needs a cause, namely God. I think your question of "Where did God come from?" should only arise once you have proven that God as a beginning. Once you have taken the leap of faith in believing that God created the heavens ...[text shortened]... ated in Genesis 1, it would not be a problem to believe that God is eternal as the Bible states.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI hope you realise that there are many problems with the big bang theory.
No, since ANY explanation would be equally reasonable under those circumstances, you'd have to present ANYTHING ANYONE said. If I say a Giant Rat created the universe, you've have to teach it. If someone said the Universe is one of many golf balls in a super sized Tiger Woods God's golf bag you'd have to teach it. Your explanation is not "valid"; it is merely your belief and your belief is no more "valid" then anyone else's.
A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:
1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
From: Meta Research Bulletin, v. 6, #4, December 15, 1997. The full list and details appeared in "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Meta Research Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002.
Why then should the big bang theory be taught in the science class? Is it only because "Creation" is regarded as non-scientific, simply because it has an element of the supernatural?
13 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerA lot of this is junk that others have debunked many times. It is expected, however, that any theory on the scale of the Big Bang will generate many questions. Science is working on answering all of them through verifiable means using the scientific method. The Big Bang theory explains physical reality better than any other cosmological model. That is the fact, although you won't admit it and want superstition taught in science classes.
I hope you realise that there are many problems with the big bang theory.
A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:
1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space hea ...[text shortened]... "Creation" is regarded as non-scientific, simply because it has an element of the supernatural?
When you come up with a scientifically reliable way of measuring the "supernatural" let me know, and then you can teach astrology, tarot cards and Creationism in science classes. Until then, tough luck.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderA lot of this is junk that others have debunked many times.
A lot of this is junk that others have debunked many times. It is expected, however, that any theory on the scale of the Big Bang will generate many questions. Science is working on answering all of them through verifiable means using the scientific method. The Big Bang theory explains physical reality better than any other cosmological model. That is th ...[text shortened]... you can teach astrology, tarot cards and Creationism in science classes. Until then, tough luck.
Cool. Could you give me the details?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen you come up with a scientifically reliable way of measuring the "supernatural" let me know, and then you can teach astrology, tarot cards and Creationism in science classes. Until then, tough luck.
A lot of this is junk that others have debunked many times. It is expected, however, that any theory on the scale of the Big Bang will generate many questions. Science is working on answering all of them through verifiable means using the scientific method. The Big Bang theory explains physical reality better than any other cosmological model. That is th ...[text shortened]... you can teach astrology, tarot cards and Creationism in science classes. Until then, tough luck.
I am afraid that the scientific method has too many limitations...
LIMITATIONS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five senses.
2. The scientific method is limited to the present.
3. The scientific method is limited to telling us “how” a process works, not “why.”
4. The scientific method is limited in that it is amoral (non-moral).
5. The scientific method is limited in that it cannot deal with the unique.
The English word “science” derives from the Latin scientia, which means “knowledge.” Scientists are supposed to be on a lifelong search for knowledge and truth, regardless of where that search eventually leads. Science is based on an observation of the facts, and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. To suggest that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis of naturalism, and that empirical observation is the “court of ultimate appeal,” is to err. Such an attitude ignores other numerous, significant avenues of human endeavor, as well as additional means of coming to knowledge and truth. It also misuses and abuses the scientific method which, as great as it is, never was intended to be a panacea.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1996
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2becker1. Wrong. Can you observe gamma rays with your five senses?
[b]When you come up with a scientifically reliable way of measuring the "supernatural" let me know, and then you can teach astrology, tarot cards and Creationism in science classes. Until then, tough luck.
I am afraid that the scientific method has too many limitations...
LIMITATIONS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. The scientific method is limit ...[text shortened]... t as it is, never was intended to be a panacea.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1996[/b]
2. Wrong. Look into the sky and you can look back into the past as that is where the light from the stars is coming from.
3. So what?
4. So what?
5. If unique you mean something that never happened before and can never happen again, that is correct. It can be observed but not tested by the scientific method. So what?
I assume that you don't think science should be taught at all as it has soooooooooo many flaws according to you. So I guess it's just Bible study and singing hymms for the schoolkids, right, dj??
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Wrong. Can you observe gamma rays with your five senses?
1. Wrong. Can you observe gamma rays with your five senses?
2. Wrong. Look into the sky and you can look back into the past as that is where the light from the stars is coming from.
3. So what?
4. So what?
5. If unique you mean something that never happened before and can never happen again, that is correct. It can be observed but not test ...[text shortened]... ding to you. So I guess it's just Bible study and singing hymms for the schoolkids, right, dj??
Indirectly, yes.
2. Wrong. Look into the sky and you can look back into the past as that is where the light from the stars is coming from.
But you are still experiencing the present, are you not? That means you can only explain the present.
3. So what?
Have you never asked why something is the way it is???
4. So what?
Have you ever wondered where morality comes from???
5. If unique you mean something that never happened before and can never happen again, that is correct. It can be observed but not tested by the scientific method. So what?
Do you think the big bang will ever occur again? Did anyone observe the big bang occuring?
I assume that you don't think science should be taught at all as it has soooooooooo many flaws according to you. So I guess it's just Bible study and singing hymms for the schoolkids, right, dj??
"Neutral" science should be taught to the kids.
13 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckeras I have said b4 dj , you arent worth answering.
[b]1. Wrong. Can you observe gamma rays with your five senses?
Indirectly, yes.
2. Wrong. Look into the sky and you can look back into the past as that is where the light from the stars is coming from.
But you are still experiencing the present, are you not? That means you can only explain the present.
3. So what?
Have yo ...[text shortened]... g hymms for the schoolkids, right, dj??[/b]
"Neutral" science should be taught to the kids.[/b]
falling for that idiotic crap like you do ,just shows your total misundering of science, mathematical models of the universe and any of the terms used , I had to leave before but intended to answer Halitose's as soon as I could get back , then you came in and ruined a fairly interesting convo with your junk, non of which is valid.