Origin of the Universe

Welcome to the home of the Conservative Revolution! This is the Conservatives For Freedom Forum for Discussion and Debate. Talk
about whatever is on your mind.

LannSi
Governor
Joined: 23 Jun 2005, 14:31

19 Nov 2007, 23:31 #1

Since HBG won't stop clinging madly to the dover trial and ToW. I've decided to start a thread about the very beginning of the whole universe.
As I have pointed out, athiestic beleifs about how the universe came to be are just as unfalsifiable, faith based, and thus unscientific as spiritual beliefs are.
So this thread is for examing all that, including how the "it was all just there" (religious athiestic belief) is taught to school children in our public schools today. That's right, and unscientific (but acceptable in its athiesm apparently) is spoken to kids in public schools almost everyday. Where is the outcry from the HBG's of the world? Aren't children supposed to be recieving instruction on the process that is science and not being force fed unfalsifiable speculations?
I propose that the only way to alleviate this is, when in an astronomy or an earth science class, children are told precisely that we don't know how it all came to be and here is a list of possibilities. This list would include the possibility of a creator. As much as atiests hate to admit it, scientifically speaking, A creator is a possibility, it is just one that we cannot test for at this point in time though, just like the other possibilites.
Children will recieve all the possible ideas (generalized for brevity), will recieve instruction on what makes each unfalsifiable and thus outside the realm of the scientific method, and will be free to make up their own minds like "progressives" claim they want for everyone while they try to force their notions onto the populace.
"Socialism is a fantastic idea in theory, but turns out to be a bit of a letdown when carried out. However, socialists argue that an idea that is fantastic in theory but a bit of a letdown when carried out is still a fantastic idea, and should therefore be carried out."-Uncyclopedia

Reply

Brother Kevin
Revolutionary Legend
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 05:39

20 Nov 2007, 00:42 #2

"If we received a single intelligent signal containing information from space then we would conclude that there is intelligent life out there. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer."
Walter Bradley, quoted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, p110
(The human genome, has 80,000 genes arranged in 3 billion DNA molecule pairs.)
"We distinguish between intelligent and natural causes every day--every time a detective investigates a possible homicide, every time an archaeologist picks out an arrowhead from a pile of rocks, every time radio astronomers at the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence listen for patterns in the noise coming from outer space. In these cases, modern science doesnt have a problem assuming some intelligent being is responsible for the evidence--a human, even an alien. But if you try to distinguish between intelligent and natural causes in basic biological systems, things get a little messier. If you find intelligence in biology, then who or what was the intelligent designer? Its a question science doesnt want to pose, let alone answer." Lauren Kern Houston Press December 14, 2000
(1-A) In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watchhappened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone; why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first?
.........
........
(1-A) I. Nor would it, I apprehend, weaken that conclusion, that we had never seen a watch madethat we had never known an artist capable of making onethat we were altogether incapable of executing such a piece of workmanship ourselves, or of understanding in what manner it was performed . . . .
(1-A) II. Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our conclusion, that the watch sometimes went wrong or that it seldom went exactly right. . . .
(1-A) III. Nor, thirdly, would it bring any uncertainty into the argument, if there were a few parts of the watch, concerning which we could not discover or had not yet discovered in what manner they conduced to the general affect; or even some parts, concerning which we could not ascertain whether they conduced to that effect in any manner whatever. . .
(1-A) IV. Nor, fourthly, would any man in his senses think the existence of the watch with its various machinery accounted for, by being told that it was one out of possible combinations of material forms; that whatever he had found in the place where he found the watch, must have contained some internal configuration or other; and that this configuration might be the structure now exhibited, namely, of the works of a watch, as well as a different structure.
(1-A) V. Nor, fifthly, would it yield his inquiry more satisfaction, to be answered that there exists in things a principle of order, which had disposed the parts of the watch into their present form and situation. He never knew a watch made by the principle of order; nor can he even form to himself an idea of what is meant by a principle of order distinct from the intelligence of the watchmaker.
(1-A) VI. Sixthly, he would be surprised to hear that the mechanism of the watch was no proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to think so:
(1-A) VII. And not less surprised to be informed that the watch in his hand was nothing more that the result of the laws of metallic nature. It is a perversion of language to assign any law as the efficient, operative cause of any thing. A law presupposes an agent, for it is only the mode according to which an agent proceeds: it implies a power, for it is the order according to which that power acts. Without this agent, without this power, which are both distinct from itself, the law does nothing, is nothing. . . .
(1-A) VIII. Neither, lastly, would our observer be driven out of his conclusion or from his confidence in its truth by being told that he knew nothing at all about the matter. He knows enough for his argument; he knows the utility of the end; he knows the subserviency and adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his ignorance of other points, his doubts concerning other points affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing little need not beget a distrust of that which he does know.
From Natural Theology (1802)
William Paley (1743-1805)
----------------------------
ImageImage
Conservatives For Freedom!
CourtZero - Come And See!
Mecca Weather Forecast : Monday through Thursday, lows in the mid 40's, high in the mid to upper 90's. Friday, low in mid 40's, highs around 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit with partial Sunni's and scattered Shiites.
Pro-lifers are the only group of people who do not get called what they call themselves. They are called "anti-choice". So be it. That makes abortion supporters "anti-life" or "pro-death". - BK

Image
Reply

Guest

20 Nov 2007, 01:17 #3

Quote:
So this thread is for examing all that, including how the "it was all just there" (religious athiestic belief) is taught to school children in our public schools today. That's right, and unscientific (but acceptable in its athiesm apparently) is spoken to kids in public schools almost everyday. Where is the outcry from the HBG's of the world? Aren't children supposed to be recieving instruction on the process that is science and not being force fed unfalsifiable speculations?
I went to a public school and this was never taught to me. Is this information in text books? Can you tell me which specific ones? I will check to see if the local schools here are presenting this belief with my taxes.
I will again suggest Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Even though it more about evolution than cosmology it is still a great resource that deals with issue of the science and God.
www.findingdarwinsgod.com/
Reply

LannSi
Governor
Joined: 23 Jun 2005, 14:31

20 Nov 2007, 05:41 #4

Oh? What did your teachers say about how the universe got here then?
To press this further, should a student ask, when being told of the big bang, "Where'd all the matter and stuff come form though?" What should the response be Dennis?"Socialism is a fantastic idea in theory, but turns out to be a bit of a letdown when carried out. However, socialists argue that an idea that is fantastic in theory but a bit of a letdown when carried out is still a fantastic idea, and should therefore be carried out."-Uncyclopedia

Reply

Guest

20 Nov 2007, 06:11 #5

Quote:
Oh? What did your teachers say about how the universe got here then?
To press this further, should a student ask, when being told of the big bang, "Where'd all the matter and stuff come form though?" What should the response be Dennis?
The answer I got was that it was an open in question in physics. The article on Wikipedia fits what I was taught:
Quote:
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debatedcertainly not earlier than the Planck epoch.
Basically, you can only go back so to just after the Big Bang.
Are you saying that teachers are regularly saying that it is known where the singularity came from? Is this also in the textbooks? Which ones?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Reply

LannSi
Governor
Joined: 23 Jun 2005, 14:31

20 Nov 2007, 06:45 #6

My teachers always presented it as if everything was just there.
As for text books. No idea.
You didn't answer the question. How should a teacher respond if asked where all the matter and stuff came from?
To expound, should any ideas about the pre-big bang universe be allowed into text books?"Socialism is a fantastic idea in theory, but turns out to be a bit of a letdown when carried out. However, socialists argue that an idea that is fantastic in theory but a bit of a letdown when carried out is still a fantastic idea, and should therefore be carried out."-Uncyclopedia

Reply

Guest

20 Nov 2007, 06:51 #7

Quote:
You didn't answer the question. How should a teacher respond if asked where all the matter and stuff came from?
If it is a science class, the teacher should say that it is an open question in physics. The teacher could also point the student to some of the current research in this area (but this research is probably way beyond a high school student.)
If it a philosophy class or theology class or similar course an exploration of metaphysical positions would be appropriate.
Quote:
My teachers always presented it as if everything was just there.
Are other teachers doing this? How wide spread do you believe this presentation is? What are you basing your belief on?
Reply

LannSi
Governor
Joined: 23 Jun 2005, 14:31

20 Nov 2007, 17:18 #8

Quote:
If it is a science class, the teacher should say that it is an open question in physics. The teacher could also point the student to some of the current research in this area (but this research is probably way beyond a high school student.)
If it a philosophy class or theology class or similar course an exploration of metaphysical positions would be appropriate.

Ah the same double standard rears it's head.
Why is it that "metaphysical" positions must be explored in a non-science class yet unscientific, uinfalsifiable quantum physical ideas can be explored in a science class?"Socialism is a fantastic idea in theory, but turns out to be a bit of a letdown when carried out. However, socialists argue that an idea that is fantastic in theory but a bit of a letdown when carried out is still a fantastic idea, and should therefore be carried out."-Uncyclopedia

Reply

LannSi
Governor
Joined: 23 Jun 2005, 14:31

20 Nov 2007, 17:35 #9

I would also like to take this time to state that God is just as valid an explanation as any of the other ideas concernign how the universe got here.
Any takers? HBG, wanna dispute it? How about you Dennis?"Socialism is a fantastic idea in theory, but turns out to be a bit of a letdown when carried out. However, socialists argue that an idea that is fantastic in theory but a bit of a letdown when carried out is still a fantastic idea, and should therefore be carried out."-Uncyclopedia

Reply

Brother Kevin
Revolutionary Legend
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 05:39

20 Nov 2007, 17:52 #10

Science teaches that nothing can happen without a cause.
So what caused the Big Bang?----------------------------
ImageImage
Conservatives For Freedom!
CourtZero - Come And See!
Mecca Weather Forecast : Monday through Thursday, lows in the mid 40's, high in the mid to upper 90's. Friday, low in mid 40's, highs around 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit with partial Sunni's and scattered Shiites.
Pro-lifers are the only group of people who do not get called what they call themselves. They are called "anti-choice". So be it. That makes abortion supporters "anti-life" or "pro-death". - BK

Image
Reply