1. Wrong. Can you observe gamma rays with your five senses?
Indirectly, yes.
And if you can give me an example of anything that you can have any knowledge of without using your five senses indirectly, I'll fall over dead on the spot. There is no other way for our minds to receive input...
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.
Dare I ask what non-present you believe you can experience?
3. So what?
Have you never asked why something is the way it is???
Amazingly, science answers a good number of "Why"'s...like, "Why is the sky blue?" and "Why do all of my children have down syndrome?" and "Why does a glass break when it falls to the floor?" All things we at one point never thought we'd have a solid answer to. As for some "Why"'s, like "Why are there living organisms?" in which you want a purpose, the question requires there be an intelligence behind it...because, unless someone or something chose to make something as it is, it has no purpose. If something made that choice, then only it knows the purpose, unless it decides to share that knowledge.
Have you ever wondered where morality comes from???
Are you familiar with the Social Contract? It is a preliminary sociological explanation of the world's morality.
Do you think the big bang will ever occur again? Did anyone observe the big bang occuring?
A number of scientists believe that the universe will eventually re-collapse into a single point, and then expand again, in a yo-yo fashion that is un-ending. This makes a lot of sense. As for whether anyone observed it...that would be impossible...all matter was in a single point...therefore, there were no things.
"Neutral" science should be taught to the kids.
And how is the big-bang theory not neutral? All scientific knowledge is developed using the same principals, the same review methods, the same standards. ...of course, if by neutral we mean the Christians don't object to it, we could always go back to pretending that the stars are just points of light above the Earth that circle around our flat piece of land...
Originally posted by HalitoseIf you are interested in a thread where I discuss the possibility of a "fine tuned" universe with a bunch of heathens, take a look at http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22381. It's a rare thread in this forum that was never effectively hijacked (except maybe by me).
Okay. Lets talk bottom line. I say: "In the beginning, God." You say: "In the beginning, we don't know."
None of these explanations are superior to the other, but the main point I was making, it that saying God created it is not illogical or unscientific, it just requires the extra ingredient of faith.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf it was the Giant Rat, or the Flying Spagetti Monster or Muffy, they would still be considered to be god. And teaching that there could be a god that created the universe doesn't mean we have to go overboard and try and explain the location of the universe or characteristics of god. This is the basis of ID.
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.
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks. I'll take a look.
If you are interested in a thread where I discuss the possibility of a "fine tuned" universe with a bunch of heathens, take a look at http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22381. It's a rare thread in this forum that was never effectively hijacked (except maybe by me).
Edit1: Its an interesting read, but it seemed to get bogged down with one analogy and of course Chink never coming back with some good numbers.
Originally posted by HalitoseYou miss the point. None of these beliefs are have anything to do with science and thus are inappropriate to a science class. What parents want to teach their kids regarding religion is their business; they are equally qualified as anybody to teach it. But we send kids to science classes to learn about science from people who know more about it than the average layman. That is the point.
If it was the Giant Rat, or the Flying Spagetti Monster or Muffy, they would still be considered to be god. And teaching that there could be a god that created the universe doesn't mean we have to go overboard and try and explain the location of the universe or characteristics of god. This is the basis of ID.
Originally posted by no1marauderSure. Don't make it science class. Lets call it: "The 15 Minute Introduction to Origins" class. I just think kids need to know that science does not necissarily hold all the answers to our origins.
You miss the point. None of these beliefs are have anything to do with science and thus are inappropriate to a science class. What parents want to teach their kids regarding religion is their business; they are equally qualified as anybody to teach it. But we send kids to science classes to learn about science from people who know more about it than the average layman. That is the point.
Originally posted by HalitoseI quite agree. I can explain that christianity is in fact a deceit puit out by the devil and that YOU(halitose) are personally responsible for all the evil in the world.
So shouldn't a non-scientific theory with a valid explanation for a (as yet) untestable phenomenon be merited some classroom time?
Yes, lets let every nutter with a half baked theory have access to teach our children. We will welcome bin Laden and his followers to teach our children, we will welcome devotees of Hitler, come Satanists here is the classroom. Access to the classroom should be a privilage kept for those with academic credibility. Metaphysical beliefs should be studied and analysed, not taught as facts. Tolerance of ideas should be taught, all thought must be available for scrutiny but remember, science talks in one idiom, belief and metaphysics in another; this separation empowers both ways of looking at the world but thay are not intercahngeable
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeWe will welcome bin Laden and his followers to teach our children, we will welcome devotees of Hitler...
I quite agree. I can explain that christianity is in fact a deceit puit out by the devil and that YOU(halitose) are personally responsible for all the evil in the world.
Yes, lets let every nutter with a half baked theory have access to teach our children. We will welcome bin Laden and his followers to teach our children, we will welcome devotees of H ...[text shortened]... her; this separation empowers both ways of looking at the world but thay are not intercahngeable
I bet you they''ll be teaching the kids Natural Selection!