Revolutionary Scientific Finding

[habsheaven]

I think you need to look up what Habs actually said. He said it is a conclusion, not a theory. He said nothing of scientific theory.

Amazing how the guy who reads all the posts can see what he who reads half cannot. Why is that, I wonder...

As time goes by, science remains benign, scientists find out more, and God becomes bigger and bigger.

Nevermind, misinterpreted it.

[Wickabee]

No worries. Happens to the best of us.

[JustAlex]

Habs, I think I know exactly what you were saying because I alluded to it...

Creationism is NOT a scientific theory....hell, I don't even think I could classify it as a regular theory either.

It's more than likely a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is an explanation to a phenomenon BEFORE you actually do the experiment.

A theory (a regular one) needs to have facts and ideas in order to be such.

Creationism is a Hypothesis at best.....it tells us that god created the world, but it presents no facts and absolutely NO DATA to properly go into the next phase (which would be to experiment).

For this very reason, Creationism fails as a "theory", it FAILS to be scientific, it fails at basically everything it tries to do.

Creationism is nothing more than a wild guess without ever hoping to be actualized.....this is why it's ridiculed by real scientists....and this is why it is BANNED in public schools, because it's incompatible.


Let's also remember that there are TONS of creation myths out there, the Greeks had their myth, the ancient Egyptians had their myth, the Chinese had their myth.....and ALL of them are very similar to the Judeo-Christian myth.

They try to explain the universe, the world, and humans in an unscientific manner, they incorporate simplistic and primitive observations in order to attribute that to god(s).

In short, they are inadequate, they have failed the standard, and science actually HAS a much better method to properly explain the universe, the world, and humans.

The only reason why the Judeo-Christian creation myth still exists today is because people will not let it go regardless of all the evidence that contradicts it.

[Wickabee]

Unless you're speaking colloquially. Then it's completely different. Again, if you're going to make this big a stink about this, then "scientific theory" absolutely must be used each and every time one is talking about a scientific theory.

In colloquial speech, a theory is an idea, as in "to theorize".

If any level of diisuccion is to be had, these created points of semantics must be dealt with. It is my theory that we would all do well to put "scientific" in front of theory when referring to scientific theory. Just "theory" holds the colloquial meaning. I don't see how an argument against this very simple system is anything but deliberately trying to confuse people who speak colloquially.

In this case, he didn't specify "scientific" which would suggest he meant the colloquial meaning. Again, anything else is deliberately confusing.

You want me to respect science. I already do. I want you to respect proper communication skills.

[habsheaven]

Habs, I think I know exactly what you were saying because I alluded to it...

Creationism is NOT a scientific theory....hell, I don't even think I could classify it as a regular theory either.

It's more than likely a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is an explanation to a phenomenon BEFORE you actually do the experiment.

A theory (a regular one) needs to have facts and ideas in order to be such.

Creationism is a Hypothesis at best.....it tells us that god created the world, but it presents no facts and absolutely NO DATA to properly go into the next phase (which would be to experiment).

For this very reason, Creationism fails as a "theory", it FAILS to be scientific, it fails at basically everything it tries to do.

Creationism is nothing more than a wild guess without ever hoping to be actualized.....this is why it's ridiculed by real scientists....and this is why it is BANNED in public schools, because it's incompatible.


Let's also remember that there are TONS of creation myths out there, the Greeks had their myth, the ancient Egyptians had their myth, the Chinese had their myth.....and ALL of them are very similar to the Judeo-Christian myth.

They try to explain the universe, the world, and humans in an unscientific manner, they incorporate simplistic and primitive observations in order to attribute that to god(s).

In short, they are inadequate, they have failed the standard, and science actually HAS a much better method to properly explain the universe, the world, and humans.

The only reason why the Judeo-Christian creation myth still exists today is because people will not let it go regardless of all the evidence that contradicts it.

Exactly.

[JustAlex]

Let's explore what Science has been able to find out through experiment and evidence VS. the Judeo-Christian Creation story.

The Judeo-Christian Creation story is as follows:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The Earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."

^This is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Earth (and we KNOW this) came billions of years after the big bang, it formed from the accretion of the solar nebula.....but let's keep reading.

"And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

^No, no, no!

What we call day and night is simply due to the rotation of the earth of 24 hour cycles, how can we even have day and night without a Sun, again this is impossible.


The Creation story continues there on to account for the next 5 days in which the whole universe is created and everything on earth.

Everything about the story is incorrect with the evidence that we see.

This story has been debunked.....so why do we humans keep believing it?

If you want to believe in god you can....but if you continue to believe in a story which has been thoroughly debunked by evidence, you gotta question why that is so.

[Wickabee]

I have to say, I do find it a little odd that this story was posted the day of the announcement, but the Rainbow Universe stories weren't brought up a few months ago when that began looking like a potential challenge to the Big Bang. So, while the religious are (I think rightly) called out for refusing to look at new things, findings and evidence, why is no one talking about Rainbow Universe?

Let's explore what Science has been able to find out through experiment and evidence VS. the Judeo-Christian Creation story.

The Judeo-Christian Creation story is as follows:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The Earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."

^This is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Earth (and we KNOW this) came billions of years after the big bang, it formed from the accretion of the solar nebula.....but let's keep reading.

I'm just going to point out that there are purely scientific theories which, if proven, could debunk the Big Bang. We don't so much "know" it as work entirely on that theory. This is why you need a "scientific theory" to be a colloquial "fact". I get it. You need something to work from, the best we have is the big bang and even more evidence is being found today (like, almost literally), but that doesn't mean we know. It means it's where the evidence has taken us thus far. Evidence has lied in crime cases, why not science overall? That isn't to say the evidence isn't what we think it is, just that it's not telling us what we think it is.

This is why the clarification over "theory" and "scientific theory" is so important to this discussion. Without it, you're literally having two completely different conversations.

"And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

^No, no, no!

What we call day and night is simply due to the rotation of the earth of 24 hour cycles, how can we even have day and night without a Sun, again this is impossible.

When it's light out, it's day. When it's dark out, it's night. Not sure how you can argue against that.

The Creation story continues there on to account for the next 5 days in which the whole universe is created and everything on earth.

Although, there is speculation as to exactly what "5 days" is.

Everything about the story is incorrect with the evidence that we see.

This much is true.

This story has been debunked.....so why do we humans keep believing it?

The same reason people believe anything just because it's in a particular book. What is that reason? No idea. I wish I knew why people did that. I could get them to stop it and smarten up.

If you want to believe in god you can....but if you continue to believe in a story which has been thoroughly debunked by evidence, you gotta question why that is so.

The thing is, if I tell an atheist I believe in God, they immediately assume I believe this story. I find that closed minded, childish and offensive, personally. Why do atheists assume "I believe in God" means "I am a Christian"?

[gsj68]

I have to say, I do find it a little odd that this story was posted the day of the announcement, but the Rainbow Universe stories weren't brought up a few months ago when that began looking like a potential challenge to the Big Bang. So, while the religious are (I think rightly) called out for refusing to look at new things, findings and evidence, why is no one talking about Rainbow Universe?

science/scientist are as dogmatic as any religion/theist

they learned that the outer edges of the universe was gaining speed and not slowing down and instead of investigating it they invented dark energy to explain it away,they have made their claim and their ego's wont let them forget about it

logic would say that if the outer edges of the universe was gaining speed that something was pulling on it but that flies in the face of big bang

has science proven that a bumble bee can fly? yet

[JustAlex]

science/scientist are as dogmatic as any religion/theist

Do you understand what the word "Dogma" means.....because if you did you would never say that.

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

Science is CONSTANTLY being questioned, constantly changing whenever new evidence is brought forth.....this is why we no longer believe in a geocentric universe, or that the earth is flat.

This is why Einstein took on Newton's laws of gravity and drastically changed it when he proposed special and general relativity.

To say that Science and Scientists are dogmatic is profoundly incorrect.

[Wickabee]

Do you understand what the word "Dogma" means.....because if you did you would never say that.

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

Science is CONSTANTLY being questioned, constantly changing whenever new evidence is brought forth.....this is why we no longer believe in a geocentric universe, or that the earth is flat.

This is why Einstein took on Newton's laws of gravity and drastically changed it when he proposed special and general relativity.

To say that Science and Scientists are dogmatic is profoundly incorrect.

This is worthless until you respond to the rest of the post or, you know, anything. Thoughts on Rainbow Universe?