Religion in goverment schools

[dissent]

What about if a Christian believes in evolution: Because a religious belief is used between multiple faiths does not mean it is not a religious belief. Both Muslims and Christians believe in Creation and it is a religious belief. The only difference is almost all atheists refuse to admit that evolution is also a religious belief.

I'm a Christian. And I don't "believe" in evolution. I do, however, accept evolution. It is, hands down, the best current explanation for the data that we have from multiple fields of study.

I'll be happy to accept any new theory that does a better job.

1) Evolution is true therefore it must be taught.

In order for something to be true it must be proven true through experimentation.

Evolution is science, therefore it should be taught in science class. (FIFY)

Scientists do not prove things true; they prove them false. As a friend of mine says, "proof" only exists in mathematics and alcohol, or something to that effect.

A good theory of science will serve to explain the known data on a topic, and will also be able to make predictions. If the predictions of the theory are found to be true with further experimentation the theory is strengthened. If the predictions are false, then either the experiment had a problem, or the theory itself has a problem (perhaps both).

FTR, I have no problem at all with teaching about religion in the public schools. I don't see how students are to make sense of history, art, literature and many other topics unless they have some grounding in religious studies. You might as well be teaching a course in atmospheric science without telling the students about air.

But religion isn't part of science. So leave the evolution in the biology classrooms and go to other parts of the curriculum for implications, etc of religion.

Lets limit this discussion to the big bang.

Show me where someone was able to create matter out of a complete vacuum. They haven't so the big bang is obviously a big (fill in the blank)

Odd. This doesn't appear to be the Big Bang theory at all (even at Wikipedia).

As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago[3]),

or this one,

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

Clearly, cosmologists have a different idea of "nothing" than you do. If you want to criticize their view of nothing, then you'll need to find out a bit more about it.

At any rate, the Big Bang theory, like any theory, is not the last word on the subject. When it fails to have explanatory or predictive power, scientists will have to come up with something else.

2) Science is just the study of daydreams.
... {noise} ...

um, yeah. ok.

[Spidey]

“Everything must have a beginning and end in the physical word.”

Everything except energy.

That is to say…universes may come and go, but something is always there.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed…it is eternal.

So, unless the laws of physics change, the energy must have been there from the start…or before…as it were.

And, Einstein proved that matter “is” energy…so that is where the matter in the universe came from. (it was always there, just in a different form) Laugh if you want, but we already know about black holes, who’s to say the universe didn’t start as a really really dense one.

Who can say that this universe didn’t explode into another larger one…the ideas that infinity without a god, is impossible, may be laughable to some, but not to me.

(I know there are some that will poo poo that idea, but there is nothing about out current understanding of the universe that precludes it…nothing at all)

.................................

“Science is just the study of daydreams.”

I can buy that…

Row, row, row your boat,
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.

A dream in the mind of god.

[Burlyman]

The initial state (singularity) of the system (the universe) in Big Bang Cosmology violates Coulomb's law. Big Bounce theory doesn't account for the perceived effect of 'dark energy.'

NO DEAL

[thwart]

First I want to thank everyone for trying to keep within the 2 questions. I know it is difficult sometimes but I see you are trying. One thing I want to clear up is I am not calling evolution loony as a religious belief, however I am saying it is loony to call it a valid scientific theory.

Now, there are very good relevant points brought up. Let me try to address these.

With the big bang theory, we use scientific observation, such as cosmic background radiation, to make inferences about the earliest conditions of our universe after the big bang, after physical laws were in operation, at least as we know them.

In order for this to be science there must be an experiment able to reproduce this. Also isn't radiation produced by stars anyway. I would think having thousands of radiation producers would result a "background" radiation similar to how multiple lights create ambient lighting. There are already exploded stars and if they produce radiation this could be another source for the "background" radiation. Of course I am guessing but so are the evolutionists. There must be an experiment that proves ONLY the big bang would produce this. Kind of hard to make an experiment for that.

So without being able to reproduce the big bang it is not science to say "background radiation can only come from the big bang" since it can't get to the green oval in the scientific method chart.

There are honest science areas where predicting the past is valid. Say the source of a fire. The big difference between this and the big bang is people can create fires now and watch the result. They can test what they find in the results of another fire against the controlled fire in the experiment to ESTIMATE where it started. This is still guesswork but as close as possible. It is a valid science. With the big bang there is no current experiment to compare the present results to. It is very important to understand the difference.

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across.

They sure do hint that is where everything "began". You have to read between the lines that they don't know where the millimeter of matter came from. Conveniently left out. Also look at the bias by calling it a “broadly accepted theory” How is that? Do they run polls now to decide what is science. It sure helps to make something more “popular” when government attacks any other idea. Once again government pushing their religion.

Can someone show give me an experiment that was done to show that matter can be compressed even a tiny fraction of what they are saying. For example has anyone been able to compress a dump truck into the size of a millimeter? If that sounds crazy how about evolutionist saying the whole universe was compressed into a millimeter?

So without being able to reproduce the matter compression it is not science since it can't get to the green oval in the scientific method chart.

[Spidey]

No. we can’t produce the energy needed to compress a dump truck down to a millimeter, but we do know that matter is mostly empty space.

But, we do know how to uncompress matter….

[Stroodles]

With the big bang theory, we use scientific observation, such as cosmic background radiation, to make inferences about the earliest conditions of our universe after the big bang, after physical laws were in operation, at least as we know them.

In order for this to be science there must be an experiment able to reproduce this. Also isn't radiation produced by stars anyway. I would think having thousands of radiation producers would result a "background" radiation similar to how multiple lights create ambient lighting. There are already exploded stars and if they produce radiation this could be another source for the "background" radiation. Of course I am guessing but so are the evolutionists. There must be an experiment that proves ONLY the big bang would produce this. Kind of hard to make an experiment for that.

So without being able to reproduce the big bang it is not science to say "background radiation can only come from the big bang" since it can't get to the green oval in the scientific method chart.

That's why it's a theory, you twit.

I'm sorry, but you're ignoring what everyone else is saying. It is our best estimate at the present time, that's why it is a model, or theory. It's taught as a theory. Similarly, we can't reproduce dinosaur fossils, so how do you know dinosaurs existed? Maybe they were really cavemen with sophisicated digging tools that PLANTED them there. It's the best evidence at the present.

[Flatlander]

If that sounds crazy how about evolutionist saying the whole universe was compressed into a millimeter?

You seem to be confusing cosmology (the study of the universe, of which the big bang is part) and biology (the study of life and living organisms, of which evolution is part). Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang, and vice versa.

You also claim that there are no experiments related to the big bang - ever hear of a particle accelerator? Particle accelerators are used (among other things) to simulate conditions similar to those of the early universe shortly after the big bang occurred.

[Jeff250]

In order for this to be science there must be an experiment able to reproduce this.

No. A good scientific theory just needs to make predictions that are testable.

One prediction that the big bang theory makes is that it predicts cosmic background radiation exists--uniform radiation with a near-perfect black body spectrum. This is easily testable by measuring for the background radiation, and we have confirmed the big bang theory's prediction.

Also isn't radiation produced by stars anyway.

Yes, but stars don't produce uniform radiation in the sky--they produce speckled radiation in the sky. Just look at the sky during night time.

The sum of this radiation generally wouldn't sum to a near-perfect blackbody spectrum either. Yet cosmic background radiation is a near-perfect black body spectrum.

Of course I am guessing but so are the evolutionists.

Weak.

There must be an experiment that proves

You're dishonestly perpetuating the myth that science can prove anything. You already know that it can't, so why would you say otherwise?

[Sniper]

It appears that we're all slapping each other in the face for absolutely no reason. It also appears that we haven't formed a common ground for what the term \"evolution\" means within this discussion?

Are we all aware that there are many different theories and beliefs within the \"evolution\" realm?

From an uneducated creationists point of view, \"evolution\" means that life came out of nowhere. It also means that dogs suddenly gave birth to giraffes.

This simply is NOT evolution. That's abiogenesis (well, the life coming from nowhere part, not the giraffes from dogs part ).

Something that I think we can all agree on is that science still hasn't figured out how all matter (no matter how many universes you want to concoct) or life appeared (which is a different discussion). Example: the matter from the big bang came from a two universes colliding or passing through each other. OK. Well, how did those universes get there? Or, the matter in the universe came from higher intelligent beings. OK. Well, how did those intelligent beings get there? So on and so forth.

The discussion shouldn't be about abiogenesis (the cause of matter and life), since modern science hasn't found anything provable yet.

What can be debated is evolution. Evolution is the theory that begins after matter and life appeared (however you want to believe that happened).

This video clarifies it. One of my favs:

[thwart]

Can we avoid the personal attacks please.

A lot of people seem to get hung up on science proving truth. It is correct to say that science does not prove that a hypothesis is true beyond a shadow of a doubt that it always happens and would not happen any other way forever and ever. However science requires the results of an experiment to be true. Remember the scientific method. If an idea doesn't fit in the scientific method it is not science. Look at the definition of the experiment stage:

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Your experiment tests whether your hypothesis is true or false. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.
You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident.

Notice the "Your experiment tests whether your hypothesis is true or false". Some may need to re-read this several times before it sinks in. Take your time and think about it.

Now one very important thing. One valid false result of an experiment will erase an unlimited number of valid true results. Think about this for a moment. Once the hypothesis is proven false it is all over. It is an untrue hypothesis and that is it. No matter what kind of new experiment you think of that results in true that other false result will negate it. Science can prove something false but it has to be falsifiable through experimentation to be a valid hypothesis.

Lets see how the hypothesis "the big bang occurred" holds up in the experiment stage:

- The big bang cannot be reproduced so no experiment can be done.

Lets see how the hypothesis "God created the heavens and the earth" holds up in the experiment stage:

- Hey God!!!! Can you create another universe please????!!! Are you listening????

- As you can see, not scientific since it cannot be reproduced. (ie: no experiment can be done)

It is important to note that both the big bang and creation are the same type of invalid hypothesis. They both cannot be reproduced. It is not correct to say one is science and the other isn't. For everything out in space the creation answer would be "because God created it" and that would go for background radiation also.

Compare these to a hypothesis of "fire has occurred at this site"

We know what fires do from prior experimentation so we can compare the results at this site to test if a fire actually occurred. This is valid science.

Lets see how the hypothesis "everything was compressed into the size of a millimeter" (part of the big bang hypothesis) holds up in the experiment stage:

- We cannot compress matter even in a fraction of an amount that this hypothesis says.

No. we can't produce the energy needed to compress a dump truck down to a millimeter, but we do know that matter is mostly empty space.

Just because matter is made up of mostly empty space (this may be debatable also) doesn't mean it can be compressed. Fluid is used in brake systems simply because it cannot be compressed. As you can see there is no experiment that proves that matter can be compressed anywhere near what the big bang says so it is not scientific. Remember science requires experimentation according to the scientific method.

One prediction that the big bang theory makes is that it predicts cosmic background radiation exists--uniform radiation with a near-perfect black body spectrum. This is easily testable by measuring for the background radiation, and we have confirmed the big bang theory's prediction.

The creation theory predicts cosmic background radiation. The great big appear theory predicts cosmic background radiation. etc... See how easy that is to say. It is not science. Anyone can say background radiation comes from anything. What science requires is proof through experimentation.

It is the same thing as:
-pluto came from the big bang
-why is that?
-it's there isn't it?

I think this is also called circular reasoning.

What IS testable is if the radiation exists. Where is came FROM is unknown since we cannot reproduce a big bang or creation.

We can summarize this as follows

Science can tell what happened in the past IF it can be compared to something that can be done in the present.

This it seems to be the hardest for some to grasp so I'll give some more examples:

Background radiation exists
-If it can be tested this is scientific

Background radiation was caused by big bang/God's creation.
-this is not scientific since neither creation or the big bang can be reproduced.

Gasoline burns
-It can be tested - this is scientific

Gasoline can be made by water traveling 1 million times the speed of light
-It cannot be tested - this is not scientific

I hope everyone is understanding this now. It's not very hard just basic science.

The following is my observation of evolutionist in general and is NOT directed at anyone here:

The big bang hypothesis does not fit in the scientific method so then evolutionist attack the scientific method. The scientific method can be conveniently used to reject creation but not evolution. That is the reason for my disgust with modern day science. This also shows how evolution is ruining science from the once noble profession it was.

[Spidey]

If matter can’t be compressed…then explain the atom bomb.

[Ferno]

Smarty pants

good to see someone caught on.

Now do you know why I said that? it was to demonstrate that theories have nothing whatsoever to do with the bible.

[dissent]

There are honest science areas where predicting the past is valid. Say the source of a fire. The big difference between this and the big bang is people can create fires now and watch the result. They can test what they find in the results of another fire against the controlled fire in the experiment to ESTIMATE where it started. This is still guesswork but as close as possible. It is a valid science. With the big bang there is no current experiment to compare the present results to. It is very important to understand the difference.

Your example here doesn't do you any great favors. Let's walk your "fire" back from the beginning of the universe to a more familiar scale; namely, the sun. We have theories about the sun; how it works, how it was formed, and what will be its ultimate fate. We can't test these theories by going into the lab, taking about 2 x 10^30 kg of gases (mostly hydrogen), compressing them gravitationally and lighting them off, and then examining the result with our instruments. It's just not a doable experiment. This doesn't mean we are left without any tools.

We can use our instruments to examine the sun that we already have. We also have the laws and principles of nature that scientists have developed over our history; conservation of energy, principles of thermodynamics, gravity, etc. We found out about these principles by using reason and doing experiments on the surface of the earth. We haven't sent any space probes to the next galaxy to see if the laws of physics operate differently there. They might, but we don't have any compelling reason to think that they do. One way to find out would be to observe things that were inconsistent with the theories that we've developed based on these laws and principles. (Hey, that's why quantum theory was (and still is) such a revolution, because in its formative years it was causing scientists to do exactly that - question their foundational principles).

So we can do lots of science about the Sun, our local star. We have to make some assumptions from time to time, but as long as the results are consistent with our assumption and the theories we develop from them, these theories continue to have scientific utility. Even now, though, there are still many unanswered questions about the Sun.

We have the same basket of tools to use as we begin, in our minds, to wind the clock back towards the Big Bang. Nobody has the amount of mass required or the roughly 14 billion years of patience necessary to do a 1:1 scale experiment on recreating the universe (indeed, if we did it again we might likely come out with quite a different result). But we can use the same principles of science and reason (and imagination) to keep probing further and further back, then examining where we are, and seeing what we should expect to see now if our models and hypotheses were true. If the results conform to what we see now, then we can have some confidence that we are on a productive line of analysis. (Perhaps there are other lines of analysis that lead to the same result!) And if our models and theories produce results that don't match up with the world as we can measure it, then we just have to stop, go back, and examine everything to see where we can make the experiment better. Sometimes this requires better experiments; sometimes it requires better theories.

it is not science since it can't get to the green oval in the scientific method chart.

Looks to me like the green oval is in view. Sometimes scientists need a dose of humility; in my experience, nature has a knack for providing it. But the scientific method is in use, and being used well.



Sniper, nice vid.
It should give Ray Comfort little , er, comfort.

[Spidey]

[Krom]

Last time I checked, there isn't a single soul on this earth that can perform a test or observation that proves the big bang theory is false, and it isn't from lack of trying. That doesn't mean its true, but it does mean that further investigation is necessary.

And Spidey, the atom bomb is nothing. A runaway nuclear reaction from neutrons splitting heavy atoms doesn't require any compression. The hydrogen bomb on the other hand...

Failure to even be able to conceive or devise a test or observation for a theory does not automatically prove the theory is false, it only means the theory is: Untested.

[Spidey]

Actually, I was thinking of the H-Bomb, but I have a bad habit of not distinguishing between the two.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Krom]

Don't mention it.

Although if I were going to pick an example of compression or increasing the density of something I would just go with something that just about anyone can do... Ever used an air compressor before?

Also, while it is generally true that water and other liquids can not be compressed...if you put sufficient pressure on a liquid it will eventually compress in a manner of speaking, when it undergoes nuclear fusion. It just isn't done because the energy requirements are impractical. But hey, strange things can happen when you put ALL the energy in the entire universe on the job..

[Jeff250]

Notice the "Your experiment tests whether your hypothesis is true or false". Some may need to re-read this several times before it sinks in. Take your time and think about it.

I think that you can expect a children's Website to take a few intellectual shortcuts to communicate the gist of an idea to kids.

You should have stopped when you said this: "It is correct to say that science does not prove that a hypothesis is true beyond a shadow of a doubt..."

Note that the only thing that anyone ever objected to was your repeated use of words like "proof" and "prove" in the context of the scientific method.

- The big bang cannot be reproduced so no experiment can be done.

- As you can see, not scientific since it cannot be reproduced. (ie: no experiment can be done)

False. A good scientific theory just needs to make predictions that are testable. You then test the predictions that it makes. So we don't need to reproduce the big bang as long as the big bang theory makes other predictions that we can test.

The creation theory predicts cosmic background radiation. The great big appear theory predicts cosmic background radiation. etc... See how easy that is to say.

Lame. You know that I didn't just "say that". I've made a number of posts in this thread already detailing how the big bang theory predicts cosmic background radiation, and you're being intellectually irresponsible by just ignoring them. Note that Spidey has just introduced another prediction of the big bang theory: doppler/red shift of distant galaxies. It's time to put on your big boy pants and be intellectually accountable for what you've been told in this thread.

[Delirium]

I've been looking for someone who can definitively answer me a certain question because i really need to believe there is no God.

Who here can affirm an absolute negative? Provide 3 examples please and show your work.

Thank you in advance.

[Will Robinson]

thwart your whole premise is wrong as it relates to your original point. You declared the criteria for what should be taught and why and then proceed to show why creation is on the same level as evolution based on your 'what-is-science' criteria therefore evolution and creation deserve the same degree of attention, or lack of, as they appear in the educational curriculum.

The problem with that is obvious, you don't get to decide the criteria for what makes it under the umbrella of what-is-science. What-is-science in the eyes of those that do decide on the school curriculum use more than a strictly scientific formula to define it.
Your whole argument is a strawman.

The criteria for what is acceptable material for school science curriculum depends on more than you have included in your arguments. So regardless of the particulars of the Big Bang portion of evolution you can show to be unprovable there are many, many, particulars of evolution that are both substantial as well as provable and there are far fewer, if any, substantial particulars of creation that are provable.
It is not one or two isolated points, as you want to limit the debate to, that must meet the criteria to make it fall under the science umbrella it is the preponderance of the evolution theory data that puts it above that of the creation data. And it is the respect for the opinion and track record of the proponents of evolution theory that adds so much weight to that sides argument.
The proponents of religion don't have the provable history to help them sell the unproven part of their theory the way the evolution theory supporters do.

The consensus of Scientists as to 'what-is-science' is the respected authority of what is and what isn't because 'Scientists' have given people much to believe in that they can witness everyday like why airplanes can fly and why chlorine and ammonia mixed will kill you etc. The average person hasn't ever personally built a wing for a plane or inhaled poisonous gas clouds but they have seen the results of 'what-is-science' demonstrated in dramatic ways and used it in their lives everyday. They haven't had creationism or divine intervention play out in front of them like that...no modern day Moses etc. And everytime someone tries to play out that kind of pro-religion drama it's usually a crazy man flying planes into buildings or shooting a doctor at an abortion clinic so the more forceful the pro-religious argument is made the more defensive the average person becomes toward it.

Creation needs a serious public relations makeover before it will make the textbook in the same way the Neanderthal did.

[Ferno]

Creation needs a serious public relations makeover before it will make the textbook in the same way the Neanderthal did.

no.

no amount of public relations will replace the scientific method

Schools exist to teach, not to sell.

Otherwise it would be called television.

[Lothar]

Science, fundamentally, is a very simple process:

Observe. Theorize. Repeat.

You have some observations or data, so you create a theory about that data. Then you gather more observations and more data, and see if they fit your theory or if you have to modify the theory. You just keep doing that over and over again, and you've got science. The classic 5 or 6 step \"scientific method\" is really just 2 cycles of this with reminders to think and analyze. True science doesn't stop at 2 cycles, though; once one experiment is finished, others will be created. Each individual theory is tested and refined over time, in greater and greater detail, limited only by our ability to make new observations.

Now, in order for science to be \"good\", we need observations and theories to be good in the following ways:

Observations should:

- be measured and recorded in as much detail as possible, so that errors are minimized. Ideally, measurements will be taken in \"controlled\" circumstances, but when this is not possible, the circumstances should be carefully noted.
- if at all possible, be observed by multiple independent people, in order to minimize the effect of various types of personal bias or deficiency. (Something being \"repeatable\" is a special case of this, where others can generate the same data by following the same steps. That's not always possible when analyzing a singular/historical event.)
- be recorded as soon as possible, so you don't have to rely on anyone's memory or recollections
- be reported honestly (including any \"bad data\" and explanations of why it's bad), so that others trying to use your data have the best picture of it they can get

Theories should:

- be fairly specific, to the point where predictions can be made about new/future data
- be consistent with all currently existing data
- be modified or discarded if new data does not match the predictions
- be generally accepted if they are consistently confirmed/reinforced by new data (but always with the understanding that even more new data could change that.)

Before I even attempt to discuss the Big Bang, evolution, or any other specific theory, I'd like feedback on this. After all, if we don't agree about what science IS, disagreement on whether something qualifies as science is kind of pointless.

[Jeff250]

I was hoping that Lothar would bite.

I'll tentatively agree with what you've laid out about good scientific theories. Of course, there's also this nagging question of not just what makes a scientific theory \"good\" but also of what makes a scientific theory \"true.\"

[Lothar]

there's also this nagging question of not just what makes a scientific theory "good" but also of what makes a scientific theory "true."

A scientific theory is "true" if it corresponds to the relevant part of reality.

It's not possible to prove a scientific theory "true" or to create a process that creates only "true" theories. Since our understanding of reality is inherently limited, the best we can do is to demonstrate that a scientific theory corresponds to our observations of reality -- but, of course, those observations can be flawed or incomplete. (A theory may turn out to be true, but we can't prove that it is.)

[Spidey]

Science is simply the study of the world around us. As far as what is good or bad science…well that debate will never end.

Good science = asking the right questions, then gathering the best information possible.
Bad science = you name it, selling an idea as “truth” comes to mind.

………………………………..

I also have to add, because I’m as anal as hell about loose ends…

The atom bomb does in fact use compression to bring the fuel to critical mass…then fission takes over.

From this site… http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq2.html

“The key idea in implosion assembly is to compress a subcritical spherical, or sometimes cylindrical, fissionable mass by using specially designed high explosives. Implosion works by initiating the detonation of the explosives on their outer surface, so that the detonation wave moves inward. Careful design allows the creation of a smooth, symmetrical implosion shock wave. This shock wave is transmitted to the fissionable core and compresses it, raising the density to the point of supercriticality. “

I knew that last night, but I didn’t have time to make a fuss…but the H-Bomb is still a better example, because the actual explosion is caused by compression, not just the trigger.

[Krom]

Spidey, read your own article, specifically section 2.1.4.1.2 on Gun Assembly. (Little Boy was even a gun type device.) Compression type devices are more efficient, but it isn't a requirement to get an explosion.

[Spidey]

See this is why I didn’t get into it last night…

It’s not a “requirement“ but is a technique to do the job.

[thwart]

Failure to even be able to conceive or devise a test or observation for a theory does not automatically prove the theory is false, it only means the theory is: Untested.

I didn't say it was proven false. I said it is not scientific because no experiment can be done. In other words unfalsifiable. See the many examples of the difference between science and unscientific I provided above.

Science can tell what happened in the past IF it can be compared to something that can be done in the present.

This seems to be ignored by others also.

The problem with that is obvious, you don't get to decide the criteria for what makes it under the umbrella of what-is-science. What-is-science in the eyes of those that do decide on the school curriculum use more than a strictly scientific formula to define it.

This is exactly what I was talking about plain and simple. It is like saying "How dare you question the religious leaders of the new science" Since they are stealing property from me to pay for their religion I have a RIGHT to question them. And this statement fits perfectly with this....

The big bang hypothesis does not fit in the scientific method so then evolutionist attack the scientific method. The scientific method can be conveniently used to reject creation but not evolution. That is the reason for my disgust with modern day science. This also shows how evolution is ruining science from the once noble profession it was.

Well I think we have reached the "insisting a circle is a square" phase. I could respond to almost all the things brought up now by quoting myself. It was somewhat fun (sans insult) and I hope I made my point to others that may be reading. Please don't anyone take our disagreement personally. I have respect for the people on this board and many have helped me solve various issues. To the ones that disagree with me we will just have to leave it as "we can agree to disagree"

To the others just remember to use the scientific method chart as a litmus test to see if a hypothesis is really science. Science can tell what happened in the past IF it can be compared to something that can be done in the present. I'm glad I found that chart as it has helped me clarify the matter even more.

Remember my original post was teaching religion in government schools and I think I have demonstrated that as best as possible. As Drakona said that the big bang started to support a religious belief. It still does, just pushing another religion. I think it even helps show that evolution is a religious belief by the tenacity of the believers in insisting that it must be taught in government schools as science. Also look at the unnatural hostility that comes from some people talking about it. I cannot remember having been personally insulted on this board before now. Think about this for a moment. What would it hurt if evolution was removed from government schools? Would the sun still come up tomorrow? Would real science go on? You bet it would.

I won't be posting anymore to this thread as I need to get back to my work at writing software. I enjoy software development immensely since it involves pure logic. Quite a contrast to politics, news and unfortunately modern "science."

In closing I would like to say that religion can be loosely defined as telling us "Who we are, why we are here, where we came from and what happens after death". If there is a reasonable doubt that something may be religious it should be removed from government schools. It was good enough to remove creation so it is good enough to remove evolution. It is time to stop using school children as pawns.

[Lothar]

just remember to use the scientific method chart as a litmus test to see if a hypothesis is really science. Science can tell what happened in the past IF it can be compared to something that can be done in the present.

I'd really like for you to respond to my post about the scientific method before I address these comments. Please don't leave this thread; take the time to respond to my statements so I can address yours from common ground.

As Drakona said that the big bang started to support a religious belief.

That's not what she said.

What she said was that people were worried about supporting the SCIENCE behind the big bang because they worried it would be seen as supporting a religious belief, but that the SCIENCE was so good they finally had to relent. The Big Bang started as science, but people worried about its religious connotations.

She also noted the irony that Christians years ago considered the Big Bang to be a big WIN for Christianity, and now think it's a secret atheist plot.

[Krom]

Failure to even be able to conceive or devise a test or observation for a theory does not automatically prove the theory is false, it only means the theory is: Untested.

I didn't say it was proven false. I said it is not scientific because no experiment can be done. In other words unfalsifiable. See the many examples of the difference between science and unscientific I provided above.

Observational Science

If you reject the big bang theory because it doesn't fit in the scientific method chart, then you must also reject: social science, meteorology, geography, paleontology, economics and the entire concept of math just to name a few...

Your scientific method argument is irrelevant and wrong.

[dissent]

Nice Krom.

Well I think we have reached the "insisting a circle is a square" phase.

Well, apparently you have. You keep insisting that your "green oval" (with the further constraint that the only kind of experiment that's valid is on a 1:1 material scale) is the only way to do science. This is simply wrong! It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

This pdf file ( from the second search result on the page that Krom linked above), is something that may help to make things clearer for you.

Assuming, of course, that you are even interested in having your erroneous views clarified.

Remember my original post was teaching religion in government schools and I think I have demonstrated that as best as possible. ...

... What would it hurt if evolution was removed from government schools?

Yeah, it would. Evolution is a foundational principle of modern biology. It integrates findings from multiple disciplines into a logical study of life processes on earth and their change over time. Sometimes people like to dump loads of philosophical baggage along with the evolution - that's not part of the science. Perfectly good for discussing in philosophy class though.

The very fact that you could make the following statement in the OP,

Animal evolution. An amoeba, no wait, a bacteria, whatever, it doesn't really matter, got feisty and had kids that were something else and so on and so on until man. This one is easier to mislead people into believing since offspring don't look exactly like their parents and small changes within a kind have occurred. However no one has ever witnessed a change from one kind to another. For example a dog changing into a giraffe or pine tree. It is important to realize that dogs and farm animals have been selectively bred for centuries and they are still dogs, cows, pigs, etc. Animal evolution takes faith to believe but some people refuse to acknowledge it. As the Bible says “No one is more blind than those that refuse to see.” Science: small changes within a kind have been observed. Faith: They can change to another kind. This is known as a “leap of faith” Remember that science does not require faith.

shows me that you don't really understand very much about evolution at all. Start here at the Index to Creationist Claims. Read. Study. Question. Learn a bit.

I won't be posting anymore to this thread as I need to get back to my work at writing software.

mmkay. you started this thread, after all. But if you make any more posts like this, I'll still take time out of my busy day to try to correct any of your mistaken notions.

That's just the kind of guy I am.

[Floyd]

What can be debated is evolution. Evolution is the theory that begins after matter and life appeared (however you want to believe that happened).

This video clarifies it. One of my favs:

great video Sniper!

to the topic:
why is it that scientists go out of their way explaining and proving everything they can by experiment (which you are welcome to repeat, instead of calling sciencebooks lies), and creationists only reply "it's not true, it's THIS way. the scripture says it!" (or they simply don't understand it)
what do you think is more honest? telling the kids how the world works, observed and confirmed by science, give them books to read and repeat what these say if they please and make up their own mind.
or telling them "fact" from a history book (at best), especially like this: "who has always been there? - God!" (proof?!). i'd rather call this poisoning the childrens minds. this guy would make a great car salesman though.
science books can be proven or disproven by anyone. a history book, and as such "the scripture", can't. this is why you have to believe, which religion is all about, if i'm not mistaken. in science, you don't have to believe, because you can see it. you can feel it, if it saved your life once again. everything that can't be proven is given as THEORY, not "fact" from a mysterious scripture (that can be modified with no way to prove it, too).

just look at that: (watch this to the end). while she says that, SHE would burn just after Harry Potter, because she uses magic to amplify her voice and speak from several directions at once. even you would burn for using the magic internet, ipod, computer, car (self pulling carriage), gps, cell phone, credit card, modern medicine , airplanes (join the flat earth society and never go totally around earth to save you ...), even your toilet paper! in short: everything today that science brought you, early scientists died for and you take for granted! free speech vs. the stake.

i'll stop here. i'll rather use my energy to practice science, than to try to convince someone to accept proven fact who doesn't actually want to be convinced. fortunately, someone spent this energy already. this video explains it pretty good along with the video above:
just my two cents. no hard feelings (i don't laugh at creationists, i just don't understand why they resist to open their eyes and mind. example: the history of Galileo Galilei and the church).

video snippets are from this series: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 305829426D

[Floyd]

What can be debated is evolution. Evolution is the theory that begins after matter and life appeared (however you want to believe that happened).

This video clarifies it. One of my favs:

along with my last post, i found a much more comprehensive work from someone else: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 53A6F002CC