Again...WHERE did those magical photons of light energy come from?... Theory? You do realize that less than 2 years ago the Standard Model was proven to be correct. Yes? Here:
Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seriously man, you're way out of your zone here. Particle decay is not "a theory"....
Seriously man...
... Theory? You do realize that less than 2 years ago the Standard Model was proven to be correct. Yes? Here:
Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seriously man, you're way out of your zone here. Particle decay is not "a theory"....
Seriously man...
Again...WHERE did those magical photons of light energy come from?
Seriously man...you do realize that in three posts you have posted numerous competing 'theories'...right? So...basic question...no dancing...do you believe that what you have posted is beyond question and 'theory' the proven origin of the cosmos? That 'in the beginning' (your articles words) there was nothing...no matter, no nothing...but SOMEHOW there were these light photons...and an extreme heat source of unknown origin, and that is what created the known universe. No big bang, no chaos (Id be willing to bet at least a few people here on this site alone would be devastated to know their belief in the Big Bang is all hocus pocus and bull****)? What about the "Incredible Bulk theory, Times Arrow, or Barbers 'Now' theory? I could go on of course as there are literally dozens of new theories developed in the last 100 years. Science will be glad to know that they can relax...stop creating new theory...because it is all now settled science.
right?
Again...WHERE did those magical photons of light energy come from?
Seriously man...you do realize that in three posts you have posted numerous competing 'theories'...right?
What about the "Incredible Bulk theory, Times Arrow, or Barbers 'Now' theory? I could go on of course as there are literally dozens of new theories developed in the last 100 years.
I think evolution is just wrong
Well it isn't.
Sorry.
Right....the 'Now' theory.You know, it's actually OK to say "I don't know what happened during the creation of the universe." instead of either making a bearded sky man responsible for it or trying to deduce it on a white board.
Im waiting for you to state definitively that without question, the science is settled and you know of the origins of the cosmos including the origins of the photons (which ALSO includes the origins of whatever MADE them).1. Particle decay is not a theory. It was proven true less than 2 years ago.
2. They are emitted when a charged particle is accelerated. They also can be released when a molecule, atom or nucleus goes from one energy state to another. Finally, photons are released when a particle and its antiparticle are annihilated.
What about them? Some have been discredited, some are being studied in an effort to prove them. You're shooting yourself in this foot by following this approach. The creator origin simply can't be proven by any means. So it's not even a competing theory. The fact that there are competing theories for how the universe came to be is not a sign that science itself is wrong, it is proof that the religious answer (i.e. the creator) was found to be insufficient. So what exactly are you arguing against?
Right....the 'Now' theory.
Whats funny to me is people that get their faith and belief system from Google and competing theories composed by others then ridiculing others for a belief system. And I mean that just as it is written. Its FUNNY to me to see condescending people that have never done a days research themselves, read theories and articles and research done by others and promote that as their own version of faith...but a superior faith because...while those theories are often proven wrong or at LEAST cant be proven right, they are based on 'science'.
Im waiting for you to state definitively that without question, the science is settled and you know of the origins of the cosmos including the origins of the photons (which ALSO includes the origins of whatever MADE them).
All you have done is Googled and posted articles, many of them competing and disagreeing with each other, that offer theories into what MAY have happened. My point is not that the religious faith based foundation that there is a God and that God somehow made all this happen is 'right'...only that you and people like you speak derisively of faith based individuals while you desperately Google articles to give you your own version of faith and knowledge, then offer up competing 'theories' as your 'proof' are no different. Unless someone actually has proof they do not know (religious or science based), they 'believe'. They theorize. And worse...some cling to someone ELSES theory and belief.
Some religious people do that. MANY are scientists, researchers, doctors, lawyers, astronauts, physicists, hell...even presidents...that just go on every day working to learn something new.At least they're trying to determine what happened and not simply saying "I'm done learning and searching for answers because I read the answer in an ancient book."
The religious have a nasty habit of sticking their fingers in their ears and just believing what makes them feel the most comfortable. I'm always looking for answers, and if god ever decides to give us some evidence of his existence, I'll be the first to change my view of the world.
Im waiting for you to state definitively that without question, the science is settled and you know of the origins of the cosmos including the origins of the photons (which ALSO includes the origins of whatever MADE them).
All you have done is Googled and posted articles, many of them competing and disagreeing with each other, that offer theories into what MAY have happened. My point is not that the religious faith based foundation that there is a God and that God somehow made all this happen is 'right'...only that you and people like you speak derisively of faith based individuals while you desperately Google articles to give you your own version of faith and knowledge, then offer up competing 'theories' as your 'proof' are no different. Unless someone actually has proof they do not know (religious or science based), they 'believe'. They theorize. And worse...some cling to someone ELSES theory and belief.
It would have been a much shorter post had you just said "you are right...I too have faith in theories"Sorry Mack, you're really way out of your league here and it becomes more and more obvious with every post as you desperately grasp at straws. Whether it's the Big Bang, the Incredible Husk or Time's Arrow, does not matter. What has been established is that these SCIENTIFIC THEORIES are backed by more evidence/arguments than the religious explanations which stall at the philosophical level. Now, whether people "cling" to one idea in a way that you think is religious does not matter because that's not what actually happens. What actually happens is various theories compete, arguments are presented, experiments are carried out - the ones to conclusively provide the most evidence & experiments to back up its claim wins. At no point are religious explanations even considered.
You ask any of the atheists here whether they'd have an existential crisis if the Big Bang was proven false and the Time's Arrow turned out to be true. They would not. It's not because they don't care, it's just that to them these logical, validated, experimented & alternate explanations (even if little understood by them) still provide far more closure than "An absent creator did it".
In short, when any of these theories are proven true (and again, this argument completely ignores the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific world), people will simply acknowledge it and there will be people like Grimm & Mr. Ham who will continue to abide by the same unchanging book because it provides an existential raison d'être. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, they shouldn't expect to disprove science with it.
First off, its science not philosophy. Any philosophical or religious beliefs interjected into such a debate would be irrelevant. As to the question about the prospect of a creative intelligence as in a higher power, that would be introducing a supernatural argument into a scientific debate which is inherently naturalistic. There is no evidence that either proves nor disproves the existence of God, thus science only looks at probabilities when it comes to the existence of God. From a scientific perspective any higher power existing is highly improbable.
For example, I could assert that a teapot orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit between Mars and Jupiter. The logical rebuttal to such an assertion would be to ask how do you know there is a teapot in orbit around the sun when have never seen one? To that I would respond that we have not seen the teapot because we do not yet have telescopes strong enough to see such a small object from here, and because it is so small and the search area so vast, it would be extremely hard to find it. I would then go into how you have no evidence at all to disprove the notion that a teapot orbits the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. Science cannot disprove that a teapot orbits the sun, but it can address the probability of that being the case. As one can imagine, the probability of a teapot being in orbit around the Sun is astronomically small. The same is true when science tries to address the question of a supernatural creator capable of creating the universe and all life.
I'm more concerned with the "ignorant fundamentalists" who come up with fundamental laws that are fundamentally false and only serve to illustrate that many people fail to understand that there is more.to evolution than natural selection.
Thats the thing...I'm ALL ABOUT the science and research and discovery. As a person that does have very personal reasons for believing in a God, I can tell you that I believe IF the 'creation' story is true, that it came about DUE TO some form of scientific operation and not magic. I dont believe in magic. I have faith (again for very personal reason) that there is a God and that all things are done through scientific method that we cant even BEGIN to comprehend. But I think the theory and research is great...Im just not so arrogant and stupid as to to ridicule others for their limited belief system and anyone that does that...ESPECIALLY someone that does that based on Googling a few articles...well...thats a hell of a mirror in my book. My position is not which theory is correct but made as to those who promote the theories.I have no idea what you're talking about with a "now" theory, but at least they're trying to determine what happened and not simply saying "I'm done learning and searching for answers because I read the answer in an ancient book."
The religious have a nasty habit of sticking their fingers in their ears and just believing what makes them feel the most comfortable. I'm always looking for answers, and if god ever decides to give us some evidence of his existence, I'll be the first to change my view of the world.
That's the beauty of science over religion. Science is NEVER settled. They are always looking for more evidence and more answers.
It would have been a much shorter post had you just said "you are right...I too have faith in theories"
Right, it was settled 100 years ago.... that's why half of the country doesn't believe in evolution.
Actually, most proponents of intelligent design want evolution to continue to be taught in schools, they just want equal time for competing beliefs to be explored as well. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would oppose this.
It's the anti-God, pro-evolution crowd that wants to silence everyone else, and drown out the 50% or so of Americans who have heard their arguments for evolution but upon examining the facts simply chose to believe something else.
I'm not afraid people will walk out atheist - because people can believe whatever they want.
In line with that thinking, I don't see any problem teaching both theories in school and allowing kids to believe what they want.
The atheists are the ones trying to silence one side of the debate. I'm simply saying let's give equal time to both sides.
Of course. There is LOTS of evidence. Hell...there are lots of people that are taking knowns and making assumptions and fitting them into theories. Some last...some get reworked...and...guess what...they are all still theories. And you...well...you google a bunch of theories, post a few snippets from them, and think you are somehow 'scientific'.You're getting desperate. Faith requires no proof. I have seen the evidence brought by science. I have seen no evidence brought by religion. For you to claim that a person "has faith" in scientific theories is to imply that science provides no proof. This is extremely ignorant of just what it takes to create a scientific theory and the incredible amounts of evidence supporting different scientific theories. Again, you're ignoring that it's a zero sum game and it's easy to see why. We know where matter comes from. We know how humans evolved. It's not really up for questioning anymore at least not from a Science vs. Religion perspective. As of now, the question is: Which scientific theory best explains it? Which experiments can be used to prove X scientific theory? What does this mean? It means that no matter what, religious explanations are not viable explanations.
Some religious people do that. MANY are scientists, researchers, doctors, lawyers, astronauts, physicists, hell...even presidents...that just go on every day working to learn something new.
Just as MANY people (not YOU obviously) do NO research but are just obnoxious little pricks clinging to the works of others and looking for ways to ridicule others.
Thats the thing...I'm ALL ABOUT the science and research and discovery. As a person that does have very personal reasons for believing in a God, I can tell you that I believe IF the 'creation' story is true, that it came about DUE TO some form of scientific operation and not magic. I dont believe in magic. I have faith (again for very personal reason) that there is a God and that all things are done through scientific method that we cant even BEGIN to comprehend. But I think the theory and research is great...Im just not so arrogant and stupid as to to ridicule others for their limited belief system and anyone that does that...ESPECIALLY someone that does that based on Googling a few articles...well...thats a hell of a mirror in my book. My position is not which theory is correct but made as to those who promote the theories.
Bill Nye's entertainment career ended in the 90's. That's what I said, that's how it is. He doesn't have a show anymore. He doesn't go on talk shows. People aren't lining up to interview him.
Maybe that's why he feels the need to come out with whacky controversial garbage like he did: the man is trying to stay relevant.
It's kind of sad actually.
He's like the guy that played Bud Bundy on that 90's show Married with Children. Every couple years you hear something about him trying to make a comeback, but it's just never going to happen.
I'm not on the "Creationist Museum" side. Im not really on any side. I accept there is an answer and we should always seek answers. I think it is foolish for people that are themselves faith based to ridicule others that are faith based. And before you say people that believe in scientific theory are not faith based...well..of COURSE they are. ANYONE that states a belief as a fact is doing the same thing. I suspect that 100 years from now they will look at the theories being promoted today as infantile. And whether you like to admit it or not, there are just as many people that mindlessly spew as 'fact' scientific theory based on things they have read as there are those that stand for the magic creation story.I think people should be able to believe whatever wacky thing they want to believe, but they need to keep it out of our schools and government. For that we need cold, hard, verifiable evidence.
Then I have no idea why you seem to find yourself on the creationist museum side. They believe nothing you do. They're young earth creationists that believe dinosaurs were domesticated by humans. Seeing as how you believe in evolution, you should be on Bill Nye's side. Bill Nye isn't making any positive claim about what sparked all of this, just that it did occur, and occurred much more than 6,000 years ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?