Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:29:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
499 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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).
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 the equation - which is what more than a few scientists have
suggested lately -- God anyone? As dissappointing as it may be to the non-God
crowd, science actually is leading us to God.
> 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.
Precisely the problem with non-creationism folks is that they start out wrong.
The 2 divergent world views start at different points, and are doomed to never
seeing the world from the same vantage point. Fortunately, the honest
scientist recognizes that non-causal/supernatural forces _may_ indeed play a
part in reality as we currently know it and is not as quick to rule out things
that we don't understand.
Questions that we can't (currently) answer include -
Why was there a Bang?
What was before the Bang?
No current theory has any supporting evidence that answers these questions.
Ulitmately, even the humanist must admit his starting point - no God.
And that becomes his religion.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) I suppose you're testing me with this false statement, since as a physicist you surely know that the greatest strength of science is precisely its ability to grow as understanding grows, rather than stagnate on centuries of dogma; if it were (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
