The Big Bang: Why is it still being taught?

[Goodfella]

I've heard them all before so I knew what to expect, but boy this one really caught me off guard:

Spoiler :

 

[Zack]

I've heard them all before so I knew what to expect, but boy this one really caught me off guard:

Spoiler :

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."

 

[Kyriakos]

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.

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).

 

[Tahuti]

It's just one of the best examples of what I said above. Sometimes you can't help but feel one follows right from the other.

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.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I would like to answer the question in the title with a question:
Is it ?

As far as I can remember the big bang theory hasn't been mentioned once in any of my classes in school and I doubt it is taught in universities iunless you're in a graduate programs for physicists.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And here are some problems with the big bang model:

1. No Creator; either the universe created itself or there is an unknown naturalistic cause for the initial expansion.

Lastly, why are atheists so determined to eliminate a Creator from their universe?

No dear Creationists. Atheists just don't share your desperation to look for one in their Universe. It's spectacularly easy to eliminate a Creator when there's no evidence of there ever having been one

Well done Classical. You have again parrotted a silly creation.com article without having to spend any effort in having to think for yourself.

By the way, Dark Matter has a huge impact on the Theory of Gravity. So I guess planes can't fly?

Of course the possible demise of the "big bang" (what a stupid name, btw) theory

It's unclear whether Fred Hoyle who coined the term did so to ridicule because he was in favour of a static state model, but I think he denied it.

 

[Quackers]

The Big Bang: Why is it still being taught?

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I would like to answer the question in the title with a question:
Is it ?

It was mentioned when I did science at school, only as one of the two theories about the universe. The other being the Steady State theory.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh crap, Steady State. Not Static State.

 

[warpus]

I've heard them all before so I knew what to expect, but boy this one really caught me off guard:

Spoiler :

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!

-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...

In science you can only really study things that have some substance to them. Either it was predicted by a theory or came out of some equations and you want to run some tests to see if it actually exists.. Or it actually exists and you've touched and analyzed it. God falls under neither of those - it's just an idea some people have. There really isn't anything there to study other than the sociological and historical stuff that's already being studied.

 

[Kyriakos]

^TBF, that theory argues for a "common ancestor", not that current other species are an older state of humans.

 

[warpus]

Yep, I know, that's why I said "dough" and not "cake dough"

 

[mitsho]

I'd put the emphasis on the "taught" as well in this question. Is the big bang theory really as important to teach to kids* as say basic understanding of biology (name those trees) or first introduction into 'society' (what is democracy? how does money work?)? It doesn't strike me as some basic fact that has to be taught in school (which makes it different from evolution or sexual education).

*unsure on which level of education we are speaking here. I doubt that the gentlemen and gentlewomen in the linked picture article above have gone towards a career where knowledge of the big bang theory is important...

Trying to disprove a theory of this size and complexity with the general population/on a internet forum seems to be futile beyond degree so I'm not sure what we're supposed to discuss here though? That's why I think the educational aspect is much more interesting and it is something 'normal people' can have general opinions on after all...

 

[Stapel]

It is a good thing that CH is still around, to create topics like these .

 

[JollyRoger]

His OPs are created - obviously they do not evolve nor are they intelligently designed.

 

[Zack]

His OPs are created - obviously they do not evolve nor are they intelligently designed.

If this thread came from a person then why are there still people?

 

[Kyriakos]

In science you can only really study things that have some substance to them. Either it was predicted by a theory or came out of some equations and you want to run some tests to see if it actually exists.. Or it actually exists and you've touched and analyzed it. God falls under neither of those - it's just an idea some people have. There really isn't anything there to study other than the sociological and historical stuff that's already being studied.

I don't agree, cause (in general) :

-There has to be a link between human science (even in a future stage) and human thought overall, ie all kinds of thought will be studied in a logical manner, cause logic and science rised from human thought in this miserable planet.

-"God" is an idea (or set of ideas, or similar, with variations in each person), so that too, like any other human idea, is in the realm of our human logical systems, and thus in the future it can be studied.

Do note that i mean a scientific study, not belief-based. I am thinking of neuroscientific in particular, but not in the current forms of that science. Ie it would be heavily congitive too, not just examinations of the material manifestation of altered mental states and so on.

As usual, most of our (capacity for) ideas will either be false or variations of ideas which at different states would tend to be true or close to true.

 

[warpus]

I don't agree, cause (in general) :

-There has to be a link between human science (even in a future stage) and human thought overall, ie all kinds of thought will be studied in a logical manner, cause logic and science rised from human thought in this miserable planet.

-"God" is an idea (or set of ideas, or similar, with variations in each person), so that too, like any other human idea, is in the realm of our human logical systems, and thus in the future it can be studied.

Do note that i mean a scientific study, not belief-based. I am thinking of neuroscientific in particular, but not in the current forms of that science. Ie it would be heavily congitive too, not just examinations of the material manifestation of altered mental states and so on.

As usual, most of our (capacity for) ideas will either be false or variations of ideas which at different states would tend to be true or close to true.

The impact of God on humanity has been studied scientifically - in the field of psychology for example.

If you want to study God in the field of physics or chemistry or biology or whatever though, you're going to move it from the "It's just an idea people have" pot to "It's a real thing that we think exists" pot. You do that by coming up with a falsifiable scientific theory and then testing it to see whether its predictions come true.

 

[Kyriakos]

The impact of God on humanity has been studied scientifically - in the field of psychology for example.

If you want to study God in the field of physics or chemistry or biology or whatever though, you're going to move it from the "It's just an idea people have" pot to "It's a real thing that we think exists" pot. You do that by coming up with a falsifiable scientific theory and then testing it to see whether its predictions come true.

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).

Btw Psychology has not, of course, "studied god". For pretty much the same reason it has not studied any other idea to any large degree. There are some models in (old) psychology theory, but by now they are not viewed as actually something more than a closed and false model (Freud's model/theory of sexuality is a very good example of that, cause it is crap).

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.

 

[Zack]

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).

Yes, you can study it philosophically, but that is not a physical science like physics or chemistry.