The Big Bang: Why is it still being taught?

He's even got that stupid-ass grin on his face, like "huehue take that science." If he paid better attention in biology instead of rolling his eyes at the idiotic THEORY of evolution, he would know that humans are not ascended monkeys who have reached their final form.

Not that his point is valid even if humans did actually "come from monkeys."
When he thinks of evolution, he thinks of this:
Spoiler :

And because it ends with a human and most of the creatures in between don't exist anymore, he doesn't think the first creature should exist either or anything like it. It's hilarious.

Partly agree,

however:

-The existence or not of anything which can be termed a "god" is not really something to be studied currently, let alone through physics of all things...

-I firmly am of the view that human science has not even entered a golden age yet. In fact it looks to be more in some sort of chaotic era. There is utterly no reason to suspect that we have already reached a good point in science and now we are just filling in gaps. On the contrary i am of the opinion that a real breakthrough will shower the world of science with far more complexity (along with more impressive insight).

Although it has to be said that currently human society does not appear to be collectively moving to this direction (at least not consciously).
Well those gaps aren't getting filled in by God, golden age or not.

I'm not sure what you mean. The Big-bang theory obviously debunks letter-by-letter Christianity - and any other creation myth - though it doesn't debunk theism itself. Nor does it necessarily ever have to.
I get that, I was just expressing that after so much has gotten disproved, I don't see the point of even believing in at all. I get that doesn't follow quite logically, but I can understand where those people you mentioned are coming from.


I baked a cake, why is there still dough left in the world? What the hell, I don't understand this crap, time for seppuku.

Man, people can be daft. And proud of it too!
If Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, how come there are still Europeans? Hah! Take that reality!
(analogy from rationalwiki)
 
I don't even...

I can't even...

Why is this such a persistent theme? Why are there creationists in the world at all?

If young earth creationism is such a blindingly obvious idea, how is it that most people don't think it's true? Not even the Vatican thinks so.

Ah right. Evolution is an idea planted in our heads by Satan?

I like to think of Dark Matter as the collective scream of all the souls in hell.
:lol:

I do too. Now.

God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Just because we can't explain something right now, doesn't mean we won't in a few decades from now.
Well, this could be true.

Or another view is that the more we learn the more we find we don't know. So that God (if you feel the need for one) is an ever-increasing bucket of scientific ignorance.
 
If young earth creationism is such a blindingly obvious idea, how is it that most people don't think it's true? Not even the Vatican thinks so.

The people who believe in this nonsense are almost all evangelical Protestants, so disagreement with the Vatican makes them thing they're on the right track.
 
They recently found the skull of Adam and based on DNA evidence found on the skull, have concluded that it really was Adam and Steve.

That's just false. There has been absolutely zero scientific evidence for Adam.
And so, one wonders
The Garden of Eden theory: why is it still being taught?
 
That's just false. There has been absolutely zero scientific evidence for Adam.


I'm pretty sure there's always been a mountain of evidence for both Adam and Steve, but anthropologists haven't been able to agree on the nature of their relationship. Not unlike Ernie and Bert.
 
I get that, I was just expressing that after so much has gotten disproved, I don't see the point of even believing in at all. I get that doesn't follow quite logically, but I can understand where those people you mentioned are coming from.

The point is not to believe, just to keep the option open. I'm an agnostic myself and I lean towards atheism too. However, I consider atheism primarily a religious position and not more rational than choosing to be a Christian or a Muslim. If I just fully disregard the option of the existence of god, because associated beliefs have been finally debunked, I am knowingly committing a major logical error. It goes against the enquiring aspect of science.
 
If Dan Brown incorporates a "theory" into his books then you know there is a problem.
 
I think a part of my response in the previous thread is useful here:
String theory may be batpoop crazy, but in a good way you know? It's totally sensible IMO. Doesn't make it real.

They dont just toss out an entire theory and shrug their shoulders when at the moment its not 100% nailed down. We still have tons of questions on how gravity works, that doesnt mean we just toss the whole idea out the window.

Yeah, it might fall!
 
So is this festering rot of anti-science skullduggery pretty much exclusive to my portion of the western world? I mean does Europe have many simpletons who wonder how the sunrise works?
 
I'm surprised Europe doesn't have more of it. 10 years ago it made sense but their form of capitalism is pretty broken. You'd think older traditions would take more root. Certainly revolution on Western Europe looks pretty fantastical.
 
So is this festering rot of anti-science skullduggery pretty much exclusive to my portion of the western world? I mean does Europe have many simpletons who wonder how the sunrise works?

My local priest here in Norway is a creationist. But there is absolutely no debate at any level of government, local, state or national, about what we should teach our children regarding this subject. There is some debate about how much of the religion class should teach christianity vs the rest of current and past religious beliefs, but that's basically it.

There are a few tosspots here and there, but they are easily ignorable.
 
Another thing:

Scientific method does not prove the existence of dark matter yet *includes article in OP to prove YECism*.
This depends on what you mean by existance of dark matter. It is established that galactic stars spin about their core at a faster rate than can be accounted for by visible matter. Ergo there is another phenomena that accounts for their speed. Whether a substance is responsible for this is unknown, though the name Dark Matter does suggest a substance. But the phenomena is real even if the name describing it is deceiving.

In other words, dark matter exists, but it might not be a substance.

Partly agree,

however:

-The existence or not of anything which can be termed a "god" is not really something to be studied currently, let alone through physics of all things...
Science is the study of nature. Everything that exists, in the same sense that a tree exists, is in the domain of science. That includes things such as God and the soul if God and the soul exist. That means we have a sound method to reason about these things that has nothing to do with religion.

The point is not to believe, just to keep the option open. I'm an agnostic myself and I lean towards atheism too. However, I consider atheism primarily a religious position and not more rational than choosing to be a Christian or a Muslim. If I just fully disregard the option of the existence of god, because associated beliefs have been finally debunked, I am knowingly committing a major logical error. It goes against the enquiring aspect of science.
You don't need to fully disprove something to have reason to disbelieve it.

The scientific method requires that any part of any theory help explain reality. That's how you have proof of something: it explains an observation of nature. It is not rational to believe in things without evidence. God may be used to explain the gaps in science, but not in a way that every purported detail about God accounts for an observation of nature.

The choice of Christianity or Muslim is a question of whether Muhammad was a true prophet or Jesus the son of God. The choice of atheism and Christianity is a question of whether their is another, superior source of knowledge than the scientific method: the bible. In the former case you're debating the merit of two religious texts, in the latter you're debating the merit of religious text in the first place. Non-Christian theism suffers a similar problem: although the theist rejects the bible, there must be a reason that God exists, and that source is allegedly better the scientific approach of only believing in things with evidence in nature.
 
and that source is allegedly better the scientific approach of only believing in things with evidence in nature.
This begs the question of how we define evidence. What's been rendered understood to science is still but a fraction of human knowledge, so from the get go we learn to trust our abilities to understand things non-scientifically. It's not at all unreasonable.
 
I'm surprised Europe doesn't have more of it. 10 years ago it made sense but their form of capitalism is pretty broken. You'd think older traditions would take more root. Certainly revolution on Western Europe looks pretty fantastical.

The only creationists I meet on a semi-regular basis are either Jehovah's Witnesses or Anabaptists. I quite like both of these sets of people (at arms' length, as it were). There's no arguing with them, though. Well, there is. But it doesn't have any effect at all, as far as I can see.
 
You can study it (as i noted in my post) as an idea, cause that is what it surely is (regardless of any "god" existing or not, the idea of a god obviously exists, and all existent phenomena can be studied in theory).

You can study anything as an idea: unicorns, god, or godzilla. It doesn't really mean anything, you're just studying the impact on a (we think) fictional idea on the human psyche. That's something you can study using science for sure, but just not using any physical science, like physics or chemistry or whatever, but rather something like sociology or psychology. Any idea can exist in our minds - this is something that can be studied.

It is a bit like someone trying to examine the size of an iceberg and other properties, by hitting a bit on the surface with a hammer. In theory one can form some models, and even have them based in logic, but in reality he is still hitting a hammer on a bit of the surface of a massive and unseen totality.

Is it? How do you know? You're just making stuff up without it being backed on any sort of evidence.

And how else are you supposed to discover this supposed 90% of the iceberg that is hidden from view? You poke around until you figure out that you're only looking at 10% of the thing, duh (not a disrespectful duh - a "well that's obvious!" duh)

You poke around and if there's evidence that there's more stuff there, then you come up with a theory and see if it makes predictions that come true. If there's no evidence? Nope, you can't just start making stuff up. That's just not how science works.

Borachio said:
Why is this such a persistent theme? Why are there creationists in the world at all?

I think for a lot of these people there is a balance going on. On one end of the scale is everything they've ever been taught, the people who taught it to them (elders, parents, relatives, teachers, people they respect), the community at large who believes such things, the long history of their church, what they've based their entire life on, and so on. That's some heavy crap!

On the other end of the scale you have people who dare to suggest that some things they believe are wrong. Obviously they must mistaken. There just isn't enough on the scale to tip things the other way, even if you present facts and even though the scientific theory is accepted by modern scientists as the best (and only) explanation we have.

I think for the most part it's an ego and sense of community and belonging thing. They've put their entire lives into this belief - and now you want them to denounce everything they've been taught, paint their elders, teachers, religious leaders, parents, etc. as liars? Or people who don't know what they're talking about? Nah man, it's much easier to dismiss the truth and assume that the community is right. You can't just have the community crumble away like that!

That's how I explain it anyway. These people have their minds made up - God MUST exist and he MUST HAVE created the world. That's the only possible scenario. Everything else is details and people trying to get God out of everything.
 
Top Bottom