You're better off just walking away..

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Yeah, you're right.

The essential point there though is THEY DO NOT HAVE TO.

And regarding Hawking...he's been proven wrong before, he's made mistakes before. There's no dogma in science, no argument from authority. We also learn from being wrong (we often learn more from being wrong than from being right).

Scientific method.

It's far more than some mucky muck saying "hey, I think..." and people saying 'Well it's Stephen Fucking Hawking soooo OF COURSE!"

Also on most 'overviews' of the scientific method, it will simply say 'experiment'. However one should research that as well, as there are proper ways to conduct one, and improper ways to conduct one. You have to construct a good experiment, or your results may be useless or tainted.

And even the best experiment has an error ratio. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat!

Finally, show me as much evidence for the divinity of Jesus (or the existence of ANY god) as there is for evolution, and you'll convince me. It's not about belief, it's about looking at the evidence and following the results. Could the theory of evolution be disproven? Sure, and that's part of any theory...you have to have scenarios by which it would be wrong. One such with evolution (and I'm paraphrasing from memory so look it up for accuracy) is simply if you can find a purely altruistic trait that one species evolved for the benefit of another (by which the originator species has NO benefit), that would disprove evolution. It wouldn't mean we'd throw it out completely, but that we'd have to change with the evidence.

Science is not a dogma. And that's a good thing.

I may not know exactly how a phone works (okay I do...or at least I have a good idea, but let's pretend most don't) but you don't have to take it upon belief. You can learn it, and see for yourself. It's not merely on the word of 'soandso'.

I've said it before, Venen had it as a quote for awhile. If I tell you I have a dog...you'll probably extend belief, because it doesn't matter. If I tell you I have a unicorn, you're damn well going to want to see it. If I show you something that really looks like a unicorn, you're not taking it on faith, you're seeing it. Even then, most of you (I fucking hope) would be skeptical. Maybe I just glued a horn on a pony. Even if you don't know EXACTLY how DNA testing works...you have a good general idea, and you'd be more convinced if I could hold up results from reputable labs which say 'It's no known species, but it is SIMILAR to a horse...it's something...new!'. You'd be even more convinced if you could collect the DNA yourself and send it to the lab of your choice.

It's not about extending belief. It's about examination of the evidence, even when we personally don't examine it. And it's about peer review (more than one verifies the claim) and repeatability (more than one lab sezs 'holy shitballs! It's a unicorn!').

And even THEN...would it be a unicorn as in mythology? Or merely a species that has been uncovered that resembles something out of myth?

It's not faith people. It's not belief.

_________________

I remember a day way back in my sophmore year of high school when my teacher in an earth science class spent a week explaining a broad swath of Hubble's work on how he had discovered Andromeda was a galaxy, discovered how to measure their movement and distances, etc.

Like I said, he poured a week or more into this. Then, only me and 2 other kids in a 30 kid class passed the test.

Hubble cried.

My point is, even with all the evidence presented. Having access to Hubble's immaculate record-keeping and the body of evidence we have checked and rechecked, 90% of the kids in my class still didn't understand what a fucking cepheid variable was.

People are stupid.

I had a very low GPA in high school, especially in science classes because I simply didn't care about high school.

The only thing I'd maybe disagree with Noojens on is that it is exactly the type of "nothing but faith" faith that is required to believe in something like God. Indeed, if you can find a reputable source or even multiple reputable sources that have extracted the evidence... I think it's still faith unless you pop out your conveniently-located Hubble telescope and do the necessary calculations, but the evidence is at least something that has reportedly been reproduced.

I think it's a bit different from analyzing a horse's DNA simply because the Big Bang requires more conceptual understanding as opposed to nothing but observing the motion and expansion of the universe. Many things taught, even in a High School class, are endlessly reproducible right there in the classroom. And most of the good science teachers at the end of their lectures will offer demonstrations and suggest that you should never take their word for it.

Far be it from me to say it shouldn't be taught because it's crucially important for our broader understanding of the universe, but Noojens is correct in that it requires a certain distinguishable amount of faith as opposed to the many other things we can confirm in basic science courses. And his point that High Schools just aren't going to be able to offer the equipment to confirm it is dead on, let alone confirming it on a conceptual level.

So yea, I agree the important thing is that you COULD confirm it if you wanted to. The point is that there is a bit of faith UNTIL you confirm it, especially when the teacher him/herself is unlikely to have even confirmed it themselves by directly observing the evidence.

There's also that whole alternative to the Big Bang theory, /cough =p

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

My thoughts entirely. And let's not forget the "we could all be in a scientist's lab as a brain in a jar" proposition(prior to the Matrix, dammit).

Which I'm sure if there's enough evidence to support it will be put in a text book sooner than later. However, you very well know that when laws are passed like this it is not to have alternative scientific theories to be taught, but rather to somehow include religious concepts in science classes.

Oh not sure if anyone updated, but the stupid textbook bullshit lost by 1 vote. Our kids are safe at mediocrity still! (Better than far, far below that...)

_________________

I can only hope our trending away from religion outpaces rampant zealot fucking.

You're also a physics major, heh. (How's that going, by the way? You must be almost done, yeah?)

I agree with everything you wrote, in principle. But I think in practice, this country's science education leaves a lot to be desired, especially at the high school level. For an aspiring scientist such as yourself with the mathematical and logical tools to reproduce, or at least read and understand, past scientific results, it may be true that there's no dogma in science.

But for your typical high school graduate, who may only receive (on average) a year or two of college education in a nontechnical field, is it really practical to say "you don't have to believe in the Big Bang - just knock out college algebra through graduate differential geometry, take physics through general relativity, familiarize yourself with the spherical harmonics, and you can map the anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation yourself!"

Sure, the possibility is there - but for most people, it's about as probable as a chat with a burning fucking bush.

The point is that it IS possible to be done, unlike Creationism.

http://xkcd.com/154/ !!

Withdrew for surgery and 1 year of rehab on the hand, and am now working 2 jobs. Can't even look at part time until next fall, but I'm not sure I'd stay with physics. There's a few other things I want to check out, but I think ultimately what really fascinates me is neuroscience. Whether or not I'd want to (or be able to) pursue that...dunno.

Fortunately my work situation may shape up into being flexible enough to take enough courses to make it worthwhile come fall...though at that point it may simply be more for my own edification than anything else if I continue to do as well financially with my current work.

_________________

With a physics background, biomedical engineering isn't that hard to grab a hold of. A lot of EEG work is going on, particularly the capability to make them 'hands off'.

New work on lateral transfer shows that Darwin was wrong (but not fundamentally ).

I'm curious to see if this story goes mainstream and, if so, how the religious community responds. On one hand, they can rub ignorance in the face of the scientific community. But on the other, they'd have to do so without acknowledging that this new research may [further] refute the "evolution would have had to happen way too fast, so it simply can't be" argument of which creationists are so fond.

_________________

I got tired of reading a bunch of this thread I mean come on now, I find it mostly sad that most of the posts I read are simply bashing each other for not believing in either science or religion in each others EXACT ways.

I can see exactly what Harabakc means in his statement, I was raised Catholic, but I am just as skeptical about the Big Bang Theory as I am about my own Catholic religion because in truth, I don't "Know" for a "fact" that either are true in my own personal experience

If we truly want to get technical about what we should and shouldn't learn based on all the "theory" rhetoric, we should have a bunch of teacher's standing up in front of class and saying 'WE THINK that when you throw something in the air it drops because of what we call gravity..." when really, we just made up a bunch of fucking words for random shit to explain random things we saw with our eyes that got passed to our brain, which we know doesnt even process everything that they see...

But we don't do that, because we as humans MUST have absolutes, and most people get VERY uncomfortable when you question something they KNOW is fact, but the point Harabakc made in my opinion, is really, we don't know jack Shit, and some of us are ok with that.

Posts like that really show how little people understand about how science works.

But hey, you are welcome to being ok not knowing jack shit.

Gravity and other phenomena that we ascribe "words" to are essentially encapsulations of everything we know about said phenomena. Science and words like that do not really declare "This is gravity and we know everything about it" so much as they declare "This is what we have observed over countless years with a significant amount of testing and confirmation on reproducibility through innumerable sources."

I'm not sure there's anything about it that's random, really. I mean, sure sometimes we make up words or terms(derived from Latin more often than not) to describe things, but it's *what* we observed and whether it can be repeated which is important... words like "gravity" or "hadron collider" are simply for good bookkeeping =D

I agree with you on the part that there's a hell of a lot that we don't know.

It being described a "theory" is for the sake of accuracy on the part of science. Often it's as close to "absolute proof" as science gets. It's not even close to the same as the "theory" of daily use. An hypothesis, of course, is something else altogether.

I believe someone already said that, but I think it bears some repeating =p

I'd give you this free ticket for a cruise around the world, but I don't want you falling off the edge of the planet or anything.

Really, I just feel sad for you who just spewed more hatred from my simple post about the fact that we really don't know anything. I think one thing that holds back science the most is how tightly we cling onto the rules that we have made and really believe are unbreakable, and already by some of the derogative commentary, I can see it won’t change. Is it so hard to believe that people can understand science as it is taught, religion as it is taught, understand and respect all the laws that we do know, because they make sense, but still philosophically question them, not on the principal that they don’t work, but on the principal that we ourselves as humans are flawed and cannot truly know how everything really works?

You say its sad that we (which is apparently anyone who doesn’t agree that science is the end all be all?) don't really "get" science, but I say its more so sad that you refuse to have the slightest feeling that we may be wrong, and I really think this is a major problem with humanity; our inability to allow uncertainty into our lives, that is why we have science and religion, to explain the things we don't understand.

Let me guess... Florida public schools.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

What you're engaging in is simple intellectual laziness.

It's easy to stand atop your ivory tower of religion and cast the shadow of doubt on everything that you may not like or understand. All the while placing yourself above retaliation because your own stance is so ill-defined and baseless that it defies any examination.

Well said.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Once again, your whole post shows how little you know about science. If you did, you would realize you are describing how science works. Science loves to be proven wrong (because when you do... it gets us closer to being right!), that's the coolest thing about it, you learn more from being wrong than from being right. And if you look at history you will see how many times we have been wrong and gladly proven to be wrong because of what I already said.

Really, if you understood how science works you wouldn't be ranting about what you are ranting. =P

Darn it, the impact bad education has on people is worse than I thought. Either way, sorry you felt sad, you would feel better if you did not live in a bubble.

Erm, I wrote the first paragraph wrong. What I meant to say is that your irks about science are actually things that don't happen in science. There's no clinging in science, to prove it you can just look at the past.

Sorry, but you don't really rate hatred, Akaze. That's just your narcissism talking there.

Hey now Bearne, I'm a product of Florida public schools ;>

Is there some particular reason you're trying to slap a giant religion stamp on him?

If you want my personal opinion, I think the big bang is pretty likely. Evolution is a decent representation of what happens, parts of it anyway. What better set of circumstances would someone creating things use to maintain their creations?

I don't see where science and religion clash here, they go perfectly well along side each other. My belief has no issues with someone putting all their faith in science, do what you want that's up to you.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

There's a lot of things in a lot of religious texts and scriptures that, if taken literally, do conflict with what science tells us is true. And, as others have said, science doesn't ask for faith. It's not religion. Science requires evidence.

I'm a religious person, mind you, but I've come to the conclusion that we as human beings have a limited understanding of the spiritual, and that by trying to view spiritual matters in a physical, tangible sense, we fail. Trying to apply spiritual truths as literal truths doesn't work for a reason.

_________________

That's other people's problems, not mine. Whatever floats their boat.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

If religious texts were dictated to people by some supreme being, you'd also have to account for the need to speak in terms those people can understand.

You're not making any sense, dude. What are you talking about that's not your problem?

_________________

If they want to take issue with it, then fuck em, I don't care, that's their beef.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Which shouldn't be much of a problem considering he's a SUPREME FUCKING BEING.

I agree Dark, until they start asking to teach their beliefs in science classes in the name of fairness.

I'm pretty sure we were created with a terraforming device by advanced aliens who are really our ancestors.

I stole your sig. Where is your "science" and "fancy book learn'ns" to save ya now?

_________________

That leaves 2 possibilities that spring to mind:

1) He spoke in a way that was misunderstood purposefully in order to teach an important lesson that we must be critical and skeptical, and to leave room for interpretation(i.e., it'd be a pretty boring world if we were simply given a book telling us exactly, in no uncertain terms, what to do).

2) He isn't supreme or all-powerful, and that being one example of something that was entirely misinterpreted(which would be possible anyway if he weren't supreme).

Or, he skipped explaining quantum theory and accepted the fact he'd be facepalming a few thousand years later. That it's misunderstood now doesn't mean it was misunderstood then.

No religious text goes into the 'how' except via a creation mythos, which nearly every major religion shares and which likely came from the same source.

That's kinda vague. "Nearly every major religion tries to explain how everything came to be." No shit?

()_______)>



None of them say, in the beginning there was a big mess of quarks. I kersploded them and they collected into big gaseous clouds, which condensed and formed primary stars. These stars fused and formed the heavier elements, and dispersed them to form planets, and amino acids, and animals, and large multi-tinted hairless (mostly) monkeys. They just say 'being x' made everything.



Nearly all of their stories share common roots



These roots all share similarity with a story from a much, much earlier source

lol Draagun, you stole my Gosty!

Have you noticed he has a hard to see pink hairy trail?

And orc semen dripping down his leg, that's hard to see too but there.

_________________

Unfortunately it's not so hard to see anymore.