14 Sep 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYea, I bet if any teacher gets treated the way the ID people are
A fine article.
Would teachers in the Tennesse public schools be allowed to hold ID up to rigorous examination without fear of being stoned by a knuckle dragging mob of rednecks?
being treated here they may back down from having discussions
on the merits out of fear. Educated knuckle dragging rednecks
are the worst.
Kelly
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI 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.
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'm assuming this cr@p is to make a point rather than an argument, because it would be quite easy to prove you wrong. Btw, I didn't mention christianity once in this entire thread.
Yes, lets let every nutter with a half baked theory have access to teach our children.
So you are calling my theory half-baked? Well, same to you, sir. Give some credible evidence to the contrary and I will happily consider it.
We will welcome bin Laden and his followers to teach our children, we will welcome devotees of Hitler, come Satanists here is the classroom.
You seem to be throwing your toys out the cot or the baby out with the bathwater, take your pick. I'm not advocating that religion should be taught in science class; read the rest of the thread.
Access to the classroom should be a privilage kept for those with academic credibility.
Isn't academic credibility gained in the classroom? Your argument smacks of circular reasoning here.
Metaphysical beliefs should be studied and analysed, not taught as facts.
You would be surprised how much is taught in the classroom that is not necissarily considered fact. Shakespear for a starter.
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
Exactly. When it comes to origins however, science cannot answer all the questions and there are certain basics left over to faith, where science is definitely not left holding the bag.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerQuestion, dj, do you believe that the universe is over a billion years old? When cosmologists refer to the beginning of the universe, they place that beginning over ten billion years ago. Is that consistent with your beliefs? If not, how can you then claim that it has been proved the universe has been proven to have a beginning?
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
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFor me personally the age of the universe is of no real importance. It has no effect on my faith. I believe that God exists. The 'speculated age' of the universe will not change this belief. I don't however see that the 'begining of the universe' as such is based on the same type of speculation.
Question, dj, do you believe that the universe is over a billion years old? When cosmologists refer to the beginning of the universe, they place that beginning over ten billion years ago. Is that consistent with your beliefs? If not, how can you then claim that it has been proved the universe has been proven to have a beginning?
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe Inflationary Theory , does have theoretical hurdles to overcome, these hurdles are :
My high school science curriculum seemed totally random to me. The Big Bang theory was never discussed.
1)deviation from flatness would have to had been immeasurably small in the initial stages of the big bang to account for the present flatness of space curvature.
2)The horizon size of the Big Bang model doesn't match the observed isotropy of of the cosmic microwave background
3} magnetic monopole density should be 10^11 times the critical density of the universe, and we haven't found one.
At what point should high school students be introduced to a theory that requires graduate school mathematics to understand the problems with the theory and even higher mathematics ( Nobel Laurate stuff) to reconcile it to observation (which btw hasn't been done yet}? Do we teach them unsettled Theoretical Physics without explaining the Supersymmetric String Theory involving Quantum Gravity might well be a more exact model, and what about Ekpyrotics and its descendant the newest Cyclic Theory?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompI am afraid no matter how good your Maths is, there are just things that cannot be sufficiently explained by Science.
The Inflationary Theory , does have theoretical hurdles to overcome, these hurdles are :
1)deviation from flatness would have to had been immeasurably small in the initial stages of the big bang to account for the present flatness of space curvature.
2)The horizon size of the Big Bang model doesn't match the observed isotropy of of ...[text shortened]... e exact model, and what about Ekpyrotics and its descendant the newest Cyclic Theory?
Just as an example, the big bang theory itself is based on unprovable presuppositions, e.g. that all the matter was squished into a dot.
The big bang theory cannot explain the origin of matter and energy.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompI think you'll struggle to find school teachers who understand these subjects well enough to teach them. Perhaps students with sufficient aptitude & interest can be given further tuition at suitable facilities.
At what point should high school students be introduced to a theory that requires graduate school mathematics to understand the problems with the theory and even higher mathematics ( Nobel Laurate stuff) to reconcile it to observation (which btw hasn't been done yet}?
At the same time, even a simplistic reductionist (mythological) version of the Big Bang would have been better than nothing.
I have to admit I don't know how science is taught in schools with adequate information technology. I remember copying diagrams onto paper from an overhead projector...
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat the matter was originally all in a single point of energy isn't a presupposition...that's what the theory says. The data seems to point toward everything expanding from one single point. It is a theory of the origin of the universe, not matter and energy, and so of course it cannot explain those origins. Most importantly, if the universe was at one point a single point of energy, then there is no scientific manner in which to learn about anything before that point, as no evidence would remain.
I am afraid no matter how good your Maths is, there are just things that cannot be sufficiently explained by Science.
Just as an example, the big bang theory itself is based on unprovable presuppositions, e.g. that all the matter was squished into a dot.
The big bang theory cannot explain the origin of matter and energy.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by echeceroI think your understanding of the big bang needs a little polishing. Scienctists look at currently observable phenomenon such as red shift, background radiation and an abundance of helium and then deduct that the universe must be expanding. From this model of an expanding universe together with the wishful thinking of uniformitarianism, science then extrapolates this backwards in time. If the universe is expanding, then that means it must have smaller, when you extrapolate far enough, the universe must have been miniscule. Due to gravity, you need an explosion to disperse all this densely packed matter. You will notice here that there have been several speculative steps in logic without hard scientific data to back it up. That is all the big bang is, a model to explain astrophysical data. When you hear people saying that the universe is on loop mode where it continually shrinks and expands you need to know that this is speculation and in my opinion not science but creative writing.
That the matter was originally all in a single point of energy isn't a presupposition...that's what the theory says. The data seems to point toward everything expanding from one single point. It is a theory of the origin of the universe, not matter and energy, and so of course it cannot explain those origins. Most importantly, if the universe was at one p ...[text shortened]... ientific manner in which to learn about anything before that point, as no evidence would remain.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWell said.
I think your understanding of the big bang needs a little polishing. Scienctists look at currently observable phenomenon such as red shift, background radiation and an abundance of helium and then deduct that the universe must be expanding. From this model of an expanding universe together with the wishful thinking of uniformitarianism, science then extrapo ...[text shortened]... ds you need to know that this is speculation and in my opinion not science but creative writing.