Agreed.So it would have been OK if I thought 'God said Bang and it happened'?
To me thats a valid argument, albeit I don't believe thats the case.
Quote:
I was under the assumption that the Big Bang was when all matter was in one nice little ball and went supernova and spread becoming the universe, slowly forming other smaller balls of gas called stars and dirt into planets. I hope thats not to simple for your liking.
From my previous link here's a common misconception on the Big Bang you just mentioned:
Quote:
a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang
In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:
The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.
Also because these debates always seem to happen with athiest/ agnostics I naturally assume that they are being posed as anti god theories. pardon me for sterotyping.Should I have said hypothesis? As I said they are usually used as evidence against God so maybe I am just being defensive.
Hypothesis is probably how you deemed the word 'theory' as in how its often said in creationist circles when they talk of evolution is just a theory.
As for evidence against God, sure thats definitely the case a lot of the time, I'm guilty of that, but I'm more concerned with denying evidence that is overwhelming because of a particular faith/belief.
Quote:
More often than not evolution is used to back the non-theist view point. Pretty sure that was the point in this debate.Not sure, losing track but it went back to how the pyramids are proof that there are aliens or something like that.
Evolution is what you want it to be, like Photon said you can believe in God and evolution, its only some more strident religious folks that refuse to go with the evidence. I mean the Vatican laughs at people who think evolution is false, and if you've read my posts you know my low opinion of the vatican
Its simple to me, the only time people distrust a 'theory' with such vigor as they do with evolution is because some religions and parts of those religions fear its implications. While most moderate religious folk have no problems with it. As has been stated before if there is this 'distrust' of science theory why are we not hearing them raising hell about germ theory, theory of gravity, atomic theory, plate-tectonic theory, etc..
Its just that in evolution that segment who does not believe in it is attempting to convince people there is some controversy while there is none amongst the scientific community, this is the similar strategy used by big tobacco to convince people there was a controversy about if nicotine causes cancer.
So it would have been OK if I thought 'God said Bang and it happened'? I was under the assumption that the Big Bang was when all matter was in one nice little ball and went supernova and spread becoming the universe, slowly forming other smaller balls of gas called stars and dirt into planets. I hope thats not to simple for your liking. Also because these debates always seem to happen with athiest/ agnostics I naturally assume that they are being posed as anti god theories.
Why would you assume that they are being posed as anti-god theories?? Science takes no position on God, it simply tries to explain how things have happened and what made them happen that way. Science tries to answer questions that haven't been answered, or find better answers for ones that have.
They don't sit down and think "ok, how can we disprove the genesis account." despite what the anti-science rhetoric of some parts of some religions would have you believe.
So anyway, to answer your question "So it would have been OK if I thought 'God said Bang and it happened'?", that's actually not that far off.
The Big Bang Theory describes the history of the universe, from now until when the universe was very very young (billionths of a second). This is very well supported with observational evidence (The Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, tons more).
What the Big Bang Theory does NOT describe is what the universe was like before that, or how the universe got to the state that it was in (very small, very dense, very hot). There's no current theory for this.. lots of ideas, but mostly speculation.
So yes you could say "God said Bang" and at least not be demonstrably wrong. For now anyway, science of course always advances and in 50 years they could discover how the universe came about.. so saying "God said Bang" seems about the same to me as saying lightning is made by God.. at some point everyone thought so because of a lack of understanding, but as we learned more we discovered we didn't need a God up there hurling lightning down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
Should I have said hypothesis?
You could have, but neither Big Bang nor evolution are hypothesis's (is that how you pluralize that?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
As I said they are usually used as evidence against God so maybe I am just being defensive.
I really don't see how they could be used as evidence against God, do you have an example?
They're examples for evolution, which would I guess be evidence against a specific interpretation of some religions, evidence against God creating each species uniquely as they are now, but that's not evidence against God, just evidence against specific interpretations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
More often than not evolution is used to back the non-theist view point. Pretty sure that was the point in this debate.
That's another piece of rhetoric from the creationist camp... Evolution is not used to back a non-theist point of view. I mean think about it, would saying gravity holds us to the earth instead of God's fingers or chemical reactions happen because of molecules rather than God's power be used to back a non-theist point of view? It's the same thing. Some creationists want to tie evolution to atheism to combat it, maybe because they're uncomfortable with the thought that apes and men have a common ancestor. But evolution itself, like chemistry and physics, makes no claims about God one way or the other.
As I said a majority of Christians accept evolution no problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
Not sure, losing track but it went back to how the pyramids are proof that there are aliens or something like that.
I think that was made in jest, even the guy in the thread that thinks aliens are talking to our governments doesn't say that.
Most here are saying not that there's evidence of aliens, only that it makes more sense if there are. Life arose on earth, therefore it's possible, and given the vastness of the universe it's possible for it to happen again. Kind of like me saying you have a DVD player.. there's a chance you don't, but knowing what I know about our society, the fact you have a computer, etc, I can make a pretty good guess.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
So what your saying is none of the discussion on Big Bang and Evolution was meant to infer there is no God. Quoting noted athiests such as Carl Sagan and George Carlin was just coincidental. I apologize for being on the defensive then. I had to laugh about our discussion when I read this on CNN today. http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/2...ism/index.html
So what your saying is none of the discussion on Big Bang and Evolution was meant to infer there is no God. Quoting noted athiests such as Carl Sagan and George Carlin was just coincidental. I apologize for being on the defensive then. I had to laugh about our discussion when I read this on CNN today. http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/2...ism/index.html
Those ideas, evolution, big bang are just our best understanding of the observable facts, how people choose to understand them for their own particular ideology is up to them.
Obviously Carl and George are atheists, but that doesn't demean or discount their views, especially in the case of Sagan; to a religious audience. If nothing Carl was a popularizer of science and made the awe of the cosmos quite spiritual, without the need for God if you will.
As for 'militant' atheists its a common tactic to dismiss atheists, agnostics.. Not sure there are many people worried about jihad from an atheists, or any of us non believers blowing up ourselves, buildings or the like.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
So what your saying is none of the discussion on Big Bang and Evolution was meant to infer there is no God. Quoting noted athiests such as Carl Sagan and George Carlin was just coincidental. I apologize for being on the defensive then. I had to laugh about our discussion when I read this on CNN today. http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/2...ism/index.html
Quote:
Dawkins: Evolution is almost universally accepted among those who understand it, almost universally rejected by those who don't
So what your saying is none of the discussion on Big Bang and Evolution was meant to infer there is no God. Quoting noted athiests such as Carl Sagan and George Carlin was just coincidental. I apologize for being on the defensive then. I had to laugh about our discussion when I read this on CNN today. http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/2...ism/index.html
I'm saying that BBT and evolution aren't intended to infer there is no god. However because they are natural explanations for natural phenomenon one could view that as pushing God aside, but science has been doing that since it came about.. no one thinks their computers are powered mystically by divine power.
I don't see anywhere in that article that says Big Bang theory and Evolution were established to prove there was no God, or even that those theories demonstrate that there is no God. Dawkins doesn't even say it, he only goes so far as to say science and religion undermine each other, which I would agree with to a point, though I don't think they necessarily have to (it would require a pretty big change in religion though).
If one's view of God is that God created man as he is today, then yes evolution would be contradictory to that, but that's not science's fault... People have reinterpreted holy scripture in many religions based on new scientific understanding, new moral understanding, etc. Letting go of special creation and a 6000 year old earth is no different than letting go of slavery or letting go of a geocentric solar system.
It looks like the first and third ones are stationary or slowly moving lights like you would see from a planet or satellite but with the camera moving erratically to make it look as if the light is an extraterrestrial aircraft. The second one is nothing spectacular, it could be anything... an aircraft, satellite, weather balloon.
I don't know what to think about aliens. I think I am pretty convinced that alien life does exist. It is almost statistically impossible for there to not be life anywhere else in the universe. With that said, it is almost statistically impossible for any of these civilizations to be able to find us and come visit for what seems like no reason at all. I also don't buy the idea that any world government would hide any information about alien life if they had proof of it. I think most of what happens at places like area 51 is just highly top secret military aircraft research. When there is such a shroud of mystery surrounding something of that nature, people's minds start to wander. I can easily say that area 51 houses the cloned dinosaurs or the archangel Gabriel and I might be able to convince some because frankly nobody knows what goes on there.
Finally to see something and not know what it is and then to assume it is something weird just because it is the only explanation is illogical. You are basically stating event "A" happened which can not be explained, therefore it must be "X" that caused it. There is no logic behind that.
I am not saying that the OP didn't see what he saw, and I am not saying that it can't be an alien spacecraft, but it can very well be pretty much anything else. Even physical phenominon that might not have a scientific explanation just yet.
One allegedly well-documented report stems from an interview in which astronaut Buzz Aldrin describes seeing a UFO during the Apollo 11 mission. In an interview on the Science Channel (left, top), Aldrin stated that he, Neil Armstrong, and Mike Collins saw unidentified objects that appeared to follow their Apollo spacecraft.
To get the story straight, I called Buzz Aldrin, who was happy to explain what happened. He said that his remarks were taken out of context to reverse his meaning. It is true that the Apollo 11 crew spotted an unidentified object moving with the spacecraft as they approached the Moon. After they verified that this mystery object was not Apollo 11’s large rocket upper stage, which was about 6,000 miles away by then, they concluded that they were seeing one of the small panels that had linked the spacecraft to the upper stage (any part of the spacecraft’s rocket upper stage will continue to move alongside the spacecraft, as both are floating in free-fall). These panels were too small to track from Earth and were relatively close to the Apollo spacecraft. Aldrin told me that they chose not to discuss this on the open communications channel since they were concerned that their comments might be misinterpreted. His entire explanation about identifying the panels was cut from the broadcast interview, giving the impression that the Apollo 11 crew had seen a UFO. Aldrin told me that he was angry about the deceptive editing and asked the Science Channel to correct the intentional twisting of his remarks, but they refused. Later, Aldrin explained what happened on CNN’s Larry King Live (left, bottom) but was nearly cut off by the host before he could finish.
With the popularity of YouTube, this same question is addressed to me repeatedly, as in: “Check out this video on YouTube with Buzz Aldrin saying he saw a UFO on Apollo 11. Who is fibbing? NASA or the great American hero, Buzz Aldrin?” My answer was that the fibbing was being done by the producers of the video, who omitted the second half of the interview.
Last edited by troutman; 11-24-2009 at 10:50 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
"Debunked"on CP.
Ironic, since people think I post links from non legit sources.
Also, its hilarious troutman, that people that you asked about neepers sighting called it a helicopter..cool cop out answer from someone who has no clue what they are talking about.
"Debunked"on CP.
Ironic, since people think I post links from non legit sources.
Also, its hilarious troutman, that people that you asked about neepers sighting called it a helicopter..cool cop out answer from someone who has no clue what they are talking about.
Helicopter was a joke - I didn't get to ask JPL about that.
Thinking does not seem to be your strength. Aldrin's words were twisted - read my edited post above, and the other thread.
Boy oh boy, you sound just like Tower. I can't wait to see where this goes.
I'm gonna guess nowhere, cause nobody here is even close to as looney as you.
Just so I feel like I'm actually contributing to the thread...I think it's likely that there is something beyond our planet, but I have no idea how advanced they would be. The universe is just too vast for there not to be other life somewhere.
__________________
Let's get drunk and do philosophy.
If you took a burger off the grill and slapped it on your face, I'm pretty sure it would burn you. - kermitology
