Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted
  Pyrotex said:
In any circle of serious researchers with an abiding passion to understand our universe, to suggest an hypothesis based upon "first cause" will probably elicit gales of laughter. ... It's funny, but it doesn't forward the conversation.

Funny, that's exactly what I said to myself in high school when introduced to the big bang.

Posted
  C1ay said:
Unrepeatable and unobservable, and unscientific does not necessarily mean religous, just unscientific. Anyone's faith that such a hypothesis is true would be religous.

 

If you look at it like that brane theory is my religion, it nicely explains before the so called big bang quite well. No ID check is required.:alien_dance: I reject reality and substitute anything that is weird and improvable!:smart:

Posted
  InfiniteNow said:
That's all well and good, but does nothing... zilch... nada... to support the concept of first cause.

I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I have been inquisitive from the start. That is all. Believe what you will.

Posted
  Southtown said:
Funny, that's exactly what I said to myself in high school when introduced to the big bang.
Yeah, but in highschool, you were a relatively uneducated child. The logic circuits in your brain weren't finished yet, and you had not been exposed to "real" logic and rational analysis.

 

Cosmology is an adult conversation.

 

PS: on an unrelated note, I have started visiting ID sites in the last few weeks. Got curious from all the ID ads that appear ===> on right edge of Hypography. I found myself a little afraid of what they might say. But upon reading them, I was stunned at the juvenile state of their arguments and reasoning. It was "pre-highschool" logic, the kind that 12-year olds use to prove "my dad is better than your dad". Sophomoric in the extreme. And yet the author offers them as "hard proof", "undeniable fact".

 

It's a real shame.

Posted
  Pyrotex said:
PS: on an unrelated note, I have started visiting ID sites in the last few weeks. Got curious from all the ID ads that appear ===> on right edge of Hypography. I found myself a little afraid of what they might say. But upon reading them, I was stunned at the juvenile state of their arguments and reasoning. It was "pre-highschool" logic, the kind that 12-year olds use to prove "my dad is better than your dad". Sophomoric in the extreme. And yet the author offers them as "hard proof", "undeniable fact".

Like this:

 

 

 

 

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 24) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M

 

 

 

Apparently, science leads you to killing people. :alien_dance:

Posted
  InfiniteNow said:
...Apparently, science leads you to killing people. :wink:
InfiNow! What a find! I'd give you rep but the system won't let me. You know how that goes. Yes, apparently "Uncle Ben" is a few sandwiches short of a full picnic.

 

"Science Kills"?? Gosh, I'm a scientist. :agree: I'd better get started killing people right away and catch up!!! I could start with "Uncle Ben"! :D

Posted
  Pyrotex said:
InfiNow! What a find! I'd give you rep but the system won't let me. You know how that goes. Yes, apparently "Uncle Ben" is a few sandwiches short of a full picnic.

 

"Science Kills"?? Gosh, I'm a scientist. :agree: I'd better get started killing people right away and catch up!!! I could start with "Uncle Ben"! :wink:

 

You are a card Pyro, religion has always tried to demonize anyone who refuses to see the "light" Anyone who thinks freely without religion to show them what to think are always suspect in the religious view and liable to do anything from molest children to rape and murder. It's a classic us and them argument. Unfortunately if you look at the real records of such crimes the religious commit them far more frequently than non religious people even when you correct for numbers of each group (I love statistics)

Posted
  Moontanman said:
Unfortunately if you look at the real records of such crimes the religious commit them far more frequently than non religious people even when you correct for numbers of each group (I love statistics)

 

Do you have a link for that? I don't doubt it, but it would be nice to see the actual numbers.

Posted
  freeztar said:
Do you have a link for that? I don't doubt it, but it would be nice to see the actual numbers.

 

I am glad you called me on this, I was being more than a little cynical when I said I loved Statistics, especially the statistics on this particular subject. Most, by a huge margin, of the studies on this are done by the religious right. Their statistics always show what they want to show. Mostly because they start out with the basic premise that crimes are not committed by the religious right! A few independent studies have been done. Even they are often flawed by the premise that if you commit a crime you cannot be religious no matter what you claimed before you committed the crime. These are the best I could do on short notice, I have seen reports that say crimes like child moletation are more likey amoung the religious but since they were on TV news shows many years ago I cannot find any reference to them.

 

The Splintered Mind: Religion and Crime

 

Prison Incarceration and Religious Preference

 

Higher rates of STDs, crime, teen pregnancy, and abortion among religious democracies - SOHH.com Global Forum

 

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side' - Times Online

Posted
  Pyrotex said:
Yes, apparently "Uncle Ben" is a few sandwiches short of a full picnic.

 

"Science Kills"?? Gosh, I'm a scientist. :eek_big: I'd better get started killing people right away and catch up!!! I could start with "Uncle Ben"! :D

 

 

Glad you enjoyed it. Here's another nugget of propaganda from the moron camp:

 

 

YouTube - The New Atheist Movement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWn_dNtjVU4

 

 

 

Yes... I called them morons. If you have a problem with that, the problem is yours, not mine.

Posted
  southtown said:
Any hypotheses attempting to venture before the big bang, into how or why space, matter, and energy came to be, will be unrepeatable and unobservable, and therefore unscientific, treading in the realm of religion.

 

I think we've probably been over this before - and this thread has really mostly turned into mouth-agape horror at what a drooling fool Ben Stein turned out to be - but still, I feel strangely compelled to point out that there is no BEFORE the big bang - it's a nonsense question. Before the big bang, there was no such thing as time.

 

What's north of red?

 

tfs

[questions without context]

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...