Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A Force which you can't explain nor comprehend and which, by your admission, is incomprehensible, created the universe. Call it God, magic, or anything else you want to. Or refuse to give it a name. Does it make a difference?

Not really. As I've said elsewhere, I think there is ample room for science and religion to co-exist.

So why do you object when someone says that you believe in magic?

Because I'm inclined to trust scientists rather more than I trust religious fundamentalists.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

YOu know whats funny? The big bang is completely beyond your comprehension, but you know so much about it. It was compressed, and it had multi-dimensions. Sounds like you comprehend quite a bit. The problem is that it didn't happen. The big bang violates a couple laws of thermo-dynamics at least.

What alternative theory do you give more credibility to, since you know about at least a couple of laws of thermodynamics, apparently... ?

It always seems to come down to "we don't have an alternative theory, so we'll stick with what's broken" tsk tsk....

A Force which you can't explain nor comprehend and which, by your admission, is incomprehensible, created the universe. Call it God, magic, or anything else you want to. Or refuse to give it a name. Does it make a difference?

Not really. As I've said elsewhere, I think there is ample room for science and religion to co-exist.

So why do you object when someone says that you believe in magic?

Because I'm inclined to trust scientists rather more than I trust religious fundamentalists.

So you admit to having a lot of faith.

[pedroh 21]

YOu know whats funny? The big bang is completely beyond your comprehension, but you so much about it. It was compressed, and it had multi-dimensions. Sounds like you comprehend quite a bit. The problem is that it didn't happen. The big bang violates a couple laws of thermo-dynamics at least.

the thermodynamic laws applied to our universe are not the same that apply to an infinitely compressed multi-dimensional singularity.. plus the satellite that scanned the still traveling heat wave of the explosion proves that it can match current thermodynamic laws

I.e. Magical thing you have absolutely no evidence of.......

A heat wave proves that nothing exploded and created everything?

So you're saying that matter and energy CAN be created and destroyed? That everything tends toward ORDER?

a Singularity is not magic.. that point had a specific matter and density, just because it was compressed to an infinitesimal size doesn't mean it can't exist, or that it's magic or a 'bad theory'

and given the case the theory still left some gaps untouched, is that enough reason to dump science and say 'God did it'?

Edited September 15, 2009 by pedroh

[SMR 368]

No duh it hasn't been 'seen.' Humans can't usually make it more than 100 +/- 20 years or so.

What has been verified over and over again is the results of natural selection via a very clear fossil record and an even clearer genetic record that is actually not too hard to categorize. If you are not willing to entertain that natural selection, via all of the different mechanisms that have resulted in testable hypotheses, then you have no business trying to define what is and isn't an observable mechanism.

If my syntax is bothering you, deal with it. You are claiming nonsensical things either way the verbiage is ordered.

I know it's obvious that it has not been observed. That's my point.

And it's not a point of syntax. My point was that to many people science is a set of provable laws. Then you started talking about how science is the pursuit of knowledge. Both are acceptable definitions, but suggesting that someone should take remedial courses because he was using a different definition is somewhat punitive.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

How do you compress all matter into an infinitesimal region? What evidence shows that? Did the big bang create time space and matter?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, according the SMR, the theory of gravity is not science.

Where did he get his education? Someone needs to go back there and slap his teacher.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Evolutionary Biology conducts research, Creation Science does little more than crib, plagiarise and twist the research of others to fit a preconceived largely political agenda.

Its all very well trying to draw high-level parallels to suggest that the two are on a par, but in reality it just isn't the case.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

YOu know whats funny? The big bang is completely beyond your comprehension, but you so much about it. It was compressed, and it had multi-dimensions. Sounds like you comprehend quite a bit. The problem is that it didn't happen. The big bang violates a couple laws of thermo-dynamics at least.

the thermodynamic laws applied to our universe are not the same that apply to an infinitely compressed multi-dimensional singularity.. plus the satellite that scanned the still traveling heat wave of the explosion proves that it can match current thermodynamic laws

I.e. Magical thing you have absolutely no evidence of.......

A heat wave proves that nothing exploded and created everything?

So you're saying that matter and energy CAN be created and destroyed? That everything tends toward ORDER?

a Singularity is not magic.. that point had a specific matter and density, just because it was compressed to an infinitesimal size doesn't mean it can't exist, or that it's magic or a 'bad theory'

and given the case the theory still left some gaps untouched, is that enough reason to dump science and say 'God did it'?

There's that pesky word, science again....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you admit to having a lot of faith.

I never said I was an atheist Joe - but as far as religion goes I consider myself Christian. But I don't buy the supernatural stuff in the bible.

How do you compress all matter into an infinitesimal region? What evidence shows that? Did the big bang create time space and matter?

As I said - perhaps its time that Stephen Hawking found himself another line of work.

Apparently its wrong for scientists to theorise future developments in any discipline based on the body of existing work - even if that work ends up clarifying or refuting the earlier work.

[HAL 9000 96]

YOu know whats funny? The big bang is completely beyond your comprehension, but you know so much about it. It was compressed, and it had multi-dimensions. Sounds like you comprehend quite a bit. The problem is that it didn't happen. The big bang violates a couple laws of thermo-dynamics at least.

What alternative theory do you give more credibility to, since you know about at least a couple of laws of thermodynamics, apparently... ?

It always seems to come down to "we don't have an alternative theory, so we'll stick with what's broken" tsk tsk....

A Force which you can't explain nor comprehend and which, by your admission, is incomprehensible, created the universe. Call it God, magic, or anything else you want to. Or refuse to give it a name. Does it make a difference?

Not really. As I've said elsewhere, I think there is ample room for science and religion to co-exist.

So why do you object when someone says that you believe in magic?

Because I'm inclined to trust scientists rather more than I trust religious fundamentalists.

So you admit to having a lot of faith.

One lower reading comprehension course, then.

I merely asked for your alternative, not to judge it.

[SMR 368]

So, according the SMR, the theory of gravity is not science.

Where did he get his education? Someone needs to go back there and slap his teacher.

Actually, gravity is repeatable. You can perform a repeatable experiment and measure gravity. Evolution, not so much. Just because we can't explain the inner "why?" of gravity does disqualify it as science.

[pedroh 21]

How do you compress all matter into an infinitesimal region? What evidence shows that? Did the big bang create time space and matter?

there is mathematical evidence proving the ability of an infinitesimal region containing an infite amount of energy and matter. It's called a Calabi-Yau space which compresses N-universal dimensions to fit it.

If you read M-theory, or supersimmetry theories, it proves the different forces that exist nowadays in the universe like gravity, or the universal expansion constant, were created at the moment of the big bang, and converge mathematically without leaving any weird gap

Edited September 15, 2009 by pedroh

[HAL 9000 96]

No duh it hasn't been 'seen.' Humans can't usually make it more than 100 +/- 20 years or so.

What has been verified over and over again is the results of natural selection via a very clear fossil record and an even clearer genetic record that is actually not too hard to categorize. If you are not willing to entertain that natural selection, via all of the different mechanisms that have resulted in testable hypotheses, then you have no business trying to define what is and isn't an observable mechanism.

If my syntax is bothering you, deal with it. You are claiming nonsensical things either way the verbiage is ordered.

I know it's obvious that it has not been observed. That's my point.

And it's not a point of syntax. My point was that to many people science is a set of provable laws. Then you started talking about how science is the pursuit of knowledge. Both are acceptable definitions, but suggesting that someone should take remedial courses because he was using a different definition is somewhat punitive.

Based on a very scientific observation of the lad, what can be said?

I'd not go as far as say punitive. Instructional would be a better fit for the data observed.

Read back about what I stated about scientific literacy in this country.

Evolutionary Biology conducts research, Creation Science does little more than crib, plagiarise and twist the research of others to fit a preconceived largely political agenda.

Its all very well trying to draw high-level parallels to suggest that the two are on a par, but in reality it just isn't the case.

Creation science is an oxymoron.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, according the SMR, the theory of gravity is not science.

Where did he get his education? Someone needs to go back there and slap his teacher.

Actually, gravity is repeatable. You can perform a repeatable experiment and measure gravity. Evolution, not so much. Just because we can't explain the inner "why?" of gravity does disqualify it as science.

I don't where you learned about science but seriously, someone needs to find your old teacher and slap her or him. This is rudimentary science understanding from back in Middle School.

[HAL 9000 96]

So, according the SMR, the theory of gravity is not science.

Where did he get his education? Someone needs to go back there and slap his teacher.

Actually, gravity is repeatable. You can perform a repeatable experiment and measure gravity. Evolution, not so much. Just because we can't explain the inner "why?" of gravity does disqualify it as science.

And once again I divert your clear ignorance of evolutionary biology to your nearest journal in the field.

How do you compress all matter into an infinitesimal region? What evidence shows that? Did the big bang create time space and matter?

there is mathematical evidence proving the ability of an infinitesimal region containing an infite amount of energy and matter. It's called a Calabi-Yau space which compresses N-universal dimensions to fit it.

If you read M-theory, or supersimmetry theories, it proves the different forces that exist nowadays in the universe like gravity, or the universal expansion constant, were created at the moment of the big bang, and converge mathematically without leaving any weird gap

Damn!