Supras Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Well, i was pretty undecided over this whole creationism thing, but I think this one picture is a slam dunk. Case closed on the evolution theory. Only the most esteemed scientists would go to the bother of creating mock graves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Oh I'm a great fan of science and the many incredible things that have been accomplished by mankind due to our discoveries, don't get me wrong there. Science on it's own doesn't achieve all that much though, it takes money, industry and politics to get it out and to have a major impact on humanity. It's kinda like the south park where they find the cure for aids is to inject yourself with $200,000. Great, but doesn't really help many people. I just like to think that, particularly in the case of the big bang and the various discoveries that have been made which help back up the case, how those discoveries would have been interpreted if there had a different reference point to come from. Things could be totally different. Saying Science doesn't achieve much on its own and relies on these other things is ridiculous. Wealth and industry and the stable society that creates the conditions for those are generated by science.science is evidenced based advances in knowledge through testing using the scientific method. Science is not the big bang theory. The rest is pin dancing. We are talking about what the state should teach based on what we understand to be demonstrably evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 The current widely accepted model of the big bang, expansion etc, is still just as crazy an idea when you think about it that something came out of nothing. That everything in existence started as an infinitely small point. It's pretty crazy when you think about it. We've just run with those ideas and they've become the accepted norm. Teaching other ideas of creation could be useful in a 'question things' way. It's a bit arrogant to assume that what we currently think is definitely what happened though. The idea that something came out of nothing isn't a bad one at all. In fact it's the only possible way for there to have been a beginning in the first place. If you ask a creationist where the universe came from they'll cop out and try to tell you where humans came from or how our planet was created but the fact is it is impossible for the universe / multiverse to have been created. Creationism is only possible if you start halfway along the timeline and thus it refuses to even attempt to answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Might have to take issue with that - if God created it, it's creationism - pedantic but logical. The followers of The Pope - surely the all now believe, as he does, in evolution, etc? I see where you're coming from but afaik all those who would call themselves creationists posit divine intervention rather than a universe which runs according to certain laws. Catholics have no problem with evolution, in 37 years of teaching it was never Catholic pupils who queried the idea of evolution when I discussed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 You on about falsifiability? Popper? Partly yep, but also Baconian induction and The black swan theory from Philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Case closed on the evolution theory. Only the most esteemed scientists would go to the bother of creating mock graves. Though very esteemed scientists used their graves to mock the concensus view by posting an alternative which proved to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 My god, you were a teacher? Are the school aware of your views on re-integrating rapists into their past careers as if nothing happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I would like to think that if there was anything approaching a coherent, concentrated movement to have creationism anywhere near Scottish schools that they get the comprehensive figurative fucking up they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Are all creationists religious? Some people believe human evolution was guided by alien intelligence, effectively Intelligent Design creationism without a god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Tom McB a teacher? That is worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 For anyone interested, the modern popular version of the early universe is not that it came from nothing. But it always existed and is infinite but there was a fluxuation in in that caused part of it to suddenly expand, this expanding part is our universe, other parts expanding are the other universes of the multiverse. This is a really stripped down version of it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Saying Science doesn't achieve much on its own and relies on these other things is ridiculous. Wealth and industry and the stable society that creates the conditions for those are generated by science.science is evidenced based advances in knowledge through testing using the scientific method. Science is not the big bang theory. The rest is pin dancing. We are talking about what the state should teach based on what we understand to be demonstrably evident. tbf I have been a bit off topic, but yeah the main part of the discussion as far as I was concerned was about the big bang (well creation), my initial point is that it could be totally wrong, so should we teach it? Obviously the answer is yes, but it should be stressed that it is a long way from being conclusive, should it be wrong, then basing future research on these hypotheses could be totally diverting us from the actual answers. If you look at the post I was responding too it was going into advances such as aircraft, computers, medicine etc which is entirely dependent on the other stuff I was talking about. I get the point you're making though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 For anyone interested, the modern popular version of the early universe is not that it came from nothing. But it always existed and is infinite but there was a fluxuation in in that caused part of it to suddenly expand, this expanding part is our universe, other parts expanding are the other universes of the multiverse. This is a really stripped down version of it though. I've generally been of the opinion that there must have always been something there, rather than a moment of creation. Although it's a pretty hard concept to imagine what with time, well at least on the surface, being so intuitive. Whether that something was our universe, or some kind of multiverse I've never really been sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHorse Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 For anyone interested, the modern popular version of the early universe is not that it came from nothing. But it always existed and is infinite but there was a fluxuation in in that caused part of it to suddenly expand, this expanding part is our universe, other parts expanding are the other universes of the multiverse. This is a really stripped down version of it though. Where is that theory popular? From what I'm aware of there is massive divide on the creation, or 'beginnings' of the universe. Also everyone keeps saying the big bang theory is the best current explanation; again (from the little I know) I was sure that inflation, and in certain circles even string theory, were a bit more viable. What always bugs me is that often the argument of 'Nothing turning into something' comes up, and I've heard and read from some of the top physicists that there are different types of nothing - almost like a cop out. If there is nothing then there should truly be nothing. And if indeed, there were a certain type of nothing that existed which meant it had the capability to turn into all that we know - how could it exist in any form if time itself had not even begun? My knowledge is all just from mainstream articles and horizon documentaries and the like though; never studied anything of this nature in any real way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 If there is one thing I am evangelical about its about getting people to listen to the infinite monkey cage podcasts. Really funny, accessible introduction to physics and other less important things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Classic Tom McB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Nothing faith based should be taught as fact at state expense and organised religion should have zero input on state policy or on the operation of any state institution. People are free to indulge in their pet delusions privately but civil society should be guided by reason and rationality. Reason will prevail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I've heard and read from some of the top physicists that there are different types of nothing - almost like a cop out. Our current science breaks down at the very beginning of the big bang. Temperatures are too hot and everything is too dense. We cannot combine gravity with the other forces, so when people say nothing, as I understand it it was our universe just not in a form we can understand at the moment. But compared to where we were 40 years ago, we have made incredible progress. One of the problems with this is it is all either very mathematical or experiments happening at the subatomic level, so to communicate it people use metaphors and they come out with clumsy language like "different types of nothing" or "inflation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Erm scientific ideas cannot be proven, they can only be disproved. Oops. Where did you read that? On the back of a biscuit wrapper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.