Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:16:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
497 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> >
> > > By his standard - the Big Bang theory wouldn't holdup either - AND it is far
> > > more "current" of a theory than creationism. (sigh)
> >
> > The difference, without generating yet another sub-debate, is that the Big
> > Bang can be retroactively derived from observable and replicable events.
> > The Creation reported in Genesis is by definition (as you've noted) a
> > supernatural event that can't be reproduced (by us). It follows, therefore,
> > that since the Big Bang can be understood in terms of physics, even if we
> > don't yet have all the answers, it can be discussed in terms of empirical
> > evidence and scientific explanation. Genesis-Creation cannot be discussed
> > in these terms.
>
> Speaking as a Physicist myself... (are you??)
> Physics cannot prove the Big Bang - any honest Physicist will admit, as do I,
> that it is only a _theory_, indeed, one which cannot be proven.
> Evidence suggests that something occurred, but evidence only takes us back to
> an instant _after_ the something/the event occurred.
All right, all right. What I was getting at is that The Big Bang doesn't
imply any supernatural intervention, and as such it is by definition
theoretically accessible under physical theories (even if they haven't been
formulated yet). At no time will Creationism ever be theoretically
explicable other than by resorting to ultimately circular reasoning.
I grant you that it doesn't seem likely that we'll ever reach the 0-second
mark in terms of explanation, but we'll get close. Hawking has recently
done work to this effect, as have other cosmologists. Is such scientific
delving even possible for religious Creationism? Whether you're a physicist
yourself or not, the answer is no, and that's been my whole point all along.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) HA HA That's why it's a theory - once it's gets more evidence they'll refine the theory yet again. Unfortunately, they'll never be able to prove the theory which is what science drives for. That is, without a supernatural force entering into (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Speaking as a Physicist myself... (are you??) Physics cannot prove the Big Bang - any honest Physicist will admit, as do I, that it is only a _theory_, indeed, one which cannot be proven. Evidence suggests that something occurred, but evidence (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
