I think you're missing what I'm trying to get at. Currently the creation science argument is that "God did it" is somehow a valid scientific viewpoint, and they think their religious view is the only valid alternative. They sometimes have to do this before judges who are deciding whether certain education proposals have merit. If they had to simultaneously argue for the rejection of certain creationisms (polytheistic ones), there's no way their claim could be viewed as anything other than religious, and not just religious in general, but a specific religion. The state can't favor one religion over another, and so their position would be as legally untenable as it is scientifically untenable. The effort would die out as soon as they realized that getting creationism into the classroom also means that scientific Satanism and paganism get to go along for the ride.
Creationism Banned In U.K. Schools
- Thread starter Relayer1
- Start date
iguana_tonante would rather argue from "authority" and engage in ad hominem than actually address specific arguments. Without endorsing any alternative models, I would still argue that Big Bang has fatal flaws in it.
No no god no did I mean about British Values. No no no...I was referring to making any ideas but official State ideas a possible civil/criminal offense...
I loved my 1 hour religious catholic school education every day, five days a week, i COULD have been sitting in maths or english actually learning something and having to do actual learning, rather that sitting bored to tears for 4 years wondering if i would be quick enough to get any chips at the dinner school that day. lol
Cultural values are rated by how much they conform to British values, which are the gold standard, and the values by which all other values are judged. If this confuses you, it tells us a lot about your upbringing, poor thing. Don't you watch British TV? They're pretty confident that they're correct about this.
Thank you for your kind words...I will certainly continue to grow and learn in this and other subjects...
That's right, I'd rather point and laugh at cranks, because engaging with them gives them more consideration than they deserve, and that's exactly what they want. I tried, but there's really no point. So I've learned my lesson.
If anyone is really interested in learning, there are appropriate university programs to enroll, and wonderful educational websites where you can learn stuff basically for free. In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
But that's a lie, because you have been promoting "plasma cosmology" and the "electric universe" quite fervently on this very forum. But maybe now you have distanced yourself from such quackery, in which case I am happy for you.
Back to the OT for a minute if I may. Carbon dating is not a theory but a proven and reliable scientififc method to determine the exact age of a historic item. The findings of this method are not compatible with a couple of claims of creationism.
The Big Bang theory, in comparison is a theory and the Geocentric model was a theory, too, widely accepted as fact before the introduction of the Heliocentric model.
"The geocentric system was still held for many years afterwards, as at the time the Copernican system did not offer better predictions than the geocentric system, and it posed problems for both natural philosophy and scripture."
Is this a farfetched comparison? I think I'll vote for the theory that will eventually be able to explain the cause for effects like "dark matter" and "dark energy".
Bob
The Big Bang theory, in comparison is a theory and the Geocentric model was a theory, too, widely accepted as fact before the introduction of the Heliocentric model.
"The geocentric system was still held for many years afterwards, as at the time the Copernican system did not offer better predictions than the geocentric system, and it posed problems for both natural philosophy and scripture."
Is this a farfetched comparison? I think I'll vote for the theory that will eventually be able to explain the cause for effects like "dark matter" and "dark energy".
Bob
Stop right here. I can already see you don't know what you are talking about. A scientific theory is "a substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation" (quoting wiki because I'm a lazy bum).
The Big Bang is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Gravitation is a theory, too. That won't give you any comfort, tho, when you jump out of the window and invariably and infallibly plunge to your death.
Good grief, I am so tired of explaining this.
As a side note I hate that when you google Big Bang Theory like half the search results are bloody useless because they're about some over-hyped TV show.
Just call it the inflative expansion of space-time metric.
That's fine, I'm a devoted fan of Socrates ("I only know I know nothing") and always eager to learn more.
(bold emphasis mine) In a matter of speaking we ourselves "experimented" with evolution when during the Industrial Revolution pollution white moths disappeared in the UK and the darker ones prevailed because these had better camouflage and weren't that easily detected by birds.
But unless I'm mistaken "experimentation" is still the big lack in current astrophysics because we don't have the tools we need, yet, and therefore mostly rely on observations and a lot of speculation.
Bob
That much is certain...
Scientists say that, but they don't actually use the word "theory" that way, because they never bothered to make up another word that takes the place of "theory" when a theory bites the dust. So we still have luminiferous aether theory, the steady state theory, and caloric theory. In theory, we shouldn't still call them theories, but in fact we do.
Some people also get confused about a scientific law, as if a law can't be violated, but Bode's law of planetary distances is a good counterexample.
Anyone trying to argue mythology is correct and science is wrong should tell you right away where they are coming from. They aren't worth arguing with.
Babylonian myths begat Judaism which begat Christianity and later Islam joined the crowd with their version of it all. If people want to believe ancient tales let them, it's their brain storage loss.
Babylonian myths begat Judaism which begat Christianity and later Islam joined the crowd with their version of it all. If people want to believe ancient tales let them, it's their brain storage loss.
Doing an "experiment" is not just building stuff in your basement. A carefully planned observation of a natural phenomenon still counts as an "experiment". Otherwise, we would need to stay away from anything beyond human scale, be it astronomical or nanometrical. That's a very limited (and limiting) approach.
You know, you are kinda right, and I did note it myself when I quoted the passage. Of course, it's just an irrelevant semantic issue, as a theory can be either proven wrong, or not. Superseded theories are still theories. They are just wrong.
Playing semantics can be fun, and certainly works well for literature (as Macbeth can attest), but they make poor scientific arguments.
Last edited: