ID is not science, but it has been offered by various religious people as a substitute for science or as a “different” science. Since the effort to get it into classes is a theme among many people, it needs to be debunked so as to not confuse students.
I already noted why it is not science. Its three chief proponents are a lawyer with no scientific background who opposes evolutionary theory on “philosophical” grounds without addressing any science, an amateur theologian who has used bad mathematics to make irresponsible claims regarding the “chance” of evolution, and one person who actually worked in science, but who stepped back from science for personal religious reasons to make erroneous claims that have already been debunked. No science is involved in Intelligent Design.
According to my Intelligent Discovery theory, the continent was actually found by Martians. I believe history textbooks should include a disclaimer saying that historians have not debunked my theory.
So you can’t describe any errors. More details will probably be added to the theory over time, which would make it more complete. (Nobody said it’s perfect.) But science being what it is, you can’t just assume a theory is partly wrong because you personally don’t like it.
OK
But…IMO if you identify yourself as a layman and then layout what you think the evidence for or against a given idea I am not (nor do I think any rational person would) consider you to be dishonest.
I am glad you at least understood what I was getting at and I am ok with it being your flavor even at 10% but do we need to be teaching this in grade school at even 50%?
I do understand the women and men working on these kinds of things cant just say well I have no proof so I might as well wait till I do. They have to start somewhere but it is my opinion they are alot closer to the start than the end.
The OT is my fault as much as anyones. And no need to apologize I do understand that I am being judged in light of those who have come before. Who was it that said the past is the best predictor of the future? Its fair.
LHC is very interesting. I am still waiting for them to make that black hole that will swallow the earth…kidding…I think.
Why did they dig up poor old Cristóbal in 2003 and test his DNA at great expense?
BTW he only made it as far as Hati.
At least according to “common knowledge”
[/QUOTE]
“We don’t know everything about everything, so therefore there must be significant holes in the big bang theory. What they are, I have no idea. But I know they must be there!”
A bit simplistic but fair.
I have already linked several cases of scientific fraud, one of which went on for over 100 years. In fact it may still be ongoing.
I am not saying that science is just made up and you believe what you want to believe. FWIW I have no problem with teaching evolution in the classroom there is much evidence for it.
I think there is overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe.
I need to study the ratio of elements evidence further.
I have mostly been reading up on the CMB lately and have discovered something rather strange…at least to me.
In 1948, working from the standard model Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman put the CMB (they called it temp of the universe) at 5 K.
In 1950 they recalculated and came up with 28 K.
1953 George Gannow says 7 K.
According to wiki this is the last well accepted prediction before observations were actually made
Then in 1955 Émile Le Roux using a radio telescope made the first concrete observations at about 3 K. Pretty close to the accepted 2.7 we use today.
Whats strange?
In 1926 Sir Arthur Eddington predicted a CMB (he called it temp of space) of 3.1.
Later he refined it to 2.8 K. He was not using the standard model.
He theorized that the temperature of space came from starlight.
As far as I can tell from the internet sites I have looked at this gives no pause in the consideration of BBT instead Sir Arthur Eddington is credited with a lucky guess.
Sorry so long but this is why I question when some say that the prediction of the CMB by the standard model is one of the three best evidences that we have for a BBT consistent universe.
Evolution wounded my faith, grievously.
Not to bore you with my life story but I was rasied in the church but rejected it because to believe it would seriously hamper my lifestyle.
When I realized the things I was doing made me misreable I went back to church in my early 20’s settled down and promptly got bored and that was a good thing because it drove me to study my bible but also cosmology.
Then I started studying evolution and tried to reject it but couldnt so I had two views I know what kind of life makes me happy and productive and I know that the creation story is literal or wrong. So I have come to grips with the fact that the creation story in Genesis is not literal.
This opens the door for BBT but I see alot of problems with it. But the point I am trying to make is yes I have bias but I see it in myself and fight it.
I think everyone has bias and the ones that proclaim loudly that they dont are the ones most blinded by it.
In short I find it very simplistic and I have already answered to some of it above.
The fact that Eddington got way closer than anyone else on the CMB is pretty troubling in itsself.
Among the many things I do not understand is the case of asteroid 24 Themis it has ice on the surface. Which is a pretty big deal. We dont absolutely need comets for our oceans any more.
But it took the young astronomers Rivken and Emery 6 years to confirm the ice was there along with carbon and I forget what else. I thought the bands in the
absorption spectrum was pretty straight forward stuff.
Why did it take them so long?
I am reconsidering the idea of a disclaimer on the grounds of several arguments in fact I am almost in agreement with the majority.
One of the best arguments was. Why just BBT and not other disciplines. I never did answer to it but part of the reason is that the atheistic community often uses this as part of thier reasoning that there is no creator.
But to ask you the same question.
Why just ID?
Or will you include the various greek myths, Von Daniken’s aliens et alia.
I had kind of a general thought while researching some of the fraud cases. I was well aquainted with creationist lies before but now I see the mainstream is only marginaly better.
Whichever side you come down on you should be thankfull for the other. I am convinced that the days when these kinds of lies can spread and go on and on for years is swiftly coming to an end.
Give up, guys. This is a witnessing thread, and every view of it is a success in their eyes.
The logical refutations are irrelevant. They just perpetuate the discussion. It’s disgustingly disingenuous, but hey - that’s witnessing strategy for you.
No logic will end this discussion (deliberately) and continuation of it is continued witnessing credits in their eyes. Your mere participation is just food.
That is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start. First, there really isn’t an “atheistic community”. There are a handful of very small atheist advocacy groups, but most atheists have never heard of them and pay no attention to them even if they have. There is not an atheist community any more than there is a community of people who don’t collect stamps.
Second, the BBT is not used by atheists “as part of their reasoning that there is no creator”. For the most part atheists don’t use reason to conclude there is no creator, they reach that conclusion from the lack of evidence of a creator. But beyond that, as posters have pointed out again and again, the concept of a creator is orthogonal to the Big Bang Theory. If there were definitive proof of the BBT tomorrow, theists would not become atheists. If an alternate cosmological origin theory came about and the BBT was shown to be wrong, atheists wouldn’t start to believe in God.
Ah, but that doesn’t address what I said. The fact that religious activists now have to struggle to get asterisks added evolutionary and cosmology education to give their immature faiths a smidgen of legitimacy is what I take as a good sign while, a hundred or so years ago, such scientific knowledge was held by a minority.
I’ll admit, “smarter” isn’t the best word to use - humans are maybe just a little “smarter” on average than they were, with better childhood nutrition and fewer environmental toxins (i.e. lead piping and paint) being the most significant factors (i.e. we’re not getting more intelligent, but we are getting better at eliminating things that were making some of us dumb) - but we have better resources now to explain the universe, allowing us to discard ancient myths. Clinging to the myth after it no longer serves its purpose is, I daresay, dumb. As dumb as making up excuses and epicycles to cling to a geocentric universe when better explanations are at hand.
If I found a well-financed group going to various school boards and encouraging them to “teach the debate” in regards to von Däniken’s idiocy, I would very much encourage text publishers to include a one- or two-page disclaimer showing that his nonsense had nothing to do with science.
We already have the Discovery Institute actually publishing trash texts and encouraging school boards to use them, (are you familiar with Dover, PA?). They get their propaganda into a lot of venues, (e.g., the Huckabee and Perry presidential campaigns and numerous Evangelical churches). Do you have even one example of a school district in the U.S. employing the Iliad or the Odyssey (or even Frazer’s The Golden Bough), as science texts?
I am willing to expend energy to fight genuine attempts to subvert scientific education. Since the Supreme Court has finally shot down Creationism in science classes, Intelligent Design was the next effort by Creationists to slip it past the Court’s rulings and, therefore, that is the nonsense that I am willing to see textbook publishers address in science texts.
Horizon problem - Inflation began a fraction of a second after the bang part of the big bang and groups of energy began separating at speeds faster than light.
However the CMB is very smooth with very small diferences in temp. So how did all those groups of energy “know” to have the same temperature?
Flatness problem - This is less of a problem than a stastistical anomaly. Somehow I think you will dismiss it with a wave of your hand. Before the CMB a good part of the debate centered around if the universe had a positive curve or a negative curve. With one we get a closed “rubber band” universe and in the other we get an open forever expanding universe.
To my knowledge nobody ever thought of a flat universe because there is no reason for it to be so. It is like flipping a coin and wondering if you will get heads or tails but then you look and it landed on its edge.
Monopole problem - Primordial nucleosynthesis created the isotopes of helium and deuterium without which star formation as we know it would have been impossible. The same theory that predicts primordial nucleosynthesis also predicts a whole bunch of large mass magnetic monopoles. Where are they at?
These are the three most disscussed problems with BBT. I assure you the list is not exhaustive.
That is why I asked to to clarify albeit in a smartass kinda way.And while I disagree with the whole “immature faiths a smidgen…” I do agree knowledge in the hands of the masses is always a good thing.
Perhaps I am not the only smartass in the room. In any case I dont need BBT to be true or false in order to justify my faith.
Once we got past the geocentric solar system I never understood why a geocentric universe was so important or why some are still clinging to it.
Perhaps the universe is heavencentric <wink>
In other words, Jon55, there are questions remaining to be answered and places where the existing theory is incomplete. That’s been acknowledged many times in this thread, and it’s not an error- let alone a reason to bother with unscientific stories.
I have read of either the Dover case or other similar cases were it was suggested that the students be pointed to the book “Of Pandas and People” and although I have never read the book I would never support students being pointed towards any specific book to use as an alternative to what is being discussed in class.
Obviously, in light of the Haekel drawings, we need to be looking closer at what they are taught in class and pointing them to additional study material that is contrary to the curriculum would just make that process more difficult and easier to manipulate.
No I do not know of Homer’s Odyssey or similar being taught as literal.
Somehow I see some dad saying look son at how hard they are trying to hide the truth from you.
Of course you cannot control everything but I think you are just adding confusion and lending legitimacy.
You can always believe in something that hasn’t yet been touched on by science if you want to. But do you really think such a thing is likely to be true? When we look at the truly unknown, there are an infinite number of possible things to believe in.
I too agree that “stupid” isn’t the right word. It’s just a matter of ignorance. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s something to be remedied through education. But if you’ve actually been shown the arguments? If you’ve been shown outright that you’re wrong? And you STILL cling to your myth? Then you’re just insane.