Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Tomato)   News: Pro-evolution Christian writes that Cosmos's sloppy handling of religion is simply fueling more nonsense like evolution-free homeschooling and Creation Museums. Fark: Written by the creator of VeggieTales   ( christianitytoday.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, evolution, vegetables, Giordano Bruno, Neil deGrasse, Carl Sagan, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, short end, Ken Ham  
•       •       •

2488 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Mar 2014 at 7:15 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



313 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-17 05:40:44 PM  
Religion as "anti-science" is a common and tired old tale.

Probably because it's true.
 
2014-03-17 05:43:17 PM  
And nowhere is Tyson saying religion is anti-science, merely pointing out that science doesn't abide a certain worldview. A worldview that is, it should be noted, not held exclusively by religious people. Nor held by all religious people.
 
2014-03-17 05:45:20 PM  
sloppy? really?
 
2014-03-17 05:45:22 PM  
Was there some sort of war going on that no one told me about?

So which is it, do you want the "religion as anti-science" story to go away or do you want to continue pretending you don't know that it's been happening for centuries?
 
2014-03-17 05:46:41 PM  
Apparently, these people never saw the original show.
 
2014-03-17 05:53:30 PM  
Science is the evolution of religion. Religion is a dead concept shown to be wrong time and time again. By holding on to this old belief system we are screwing ourselves out of what could be.
 
2014-03-17 05:54:54 PM  
To be fair, Bruno certainly got himself into trouble with the Catholic Church. But his primary sins were theological, not cosmological. He denied the Trinity. He embraced Arianism. He rejected transubstantiation. He rejected the divinity of Christ. For a Dominican priest, these are obviously serious matters that are going to get you into trouble with your superiors.

Oh, well in that case...

BURN HIM!!!!!
 
2014-03-17 05:59:18 PM  
Submitted by the pirates who don't do anything?
 
2014-03-17 06:01:17 PM  

Kome: Religion as "anti-science" is a common and tired old tale.

Probably because it's true.


At the very least it WAS true (very, fatally true), back in the day.  And sure there are some who want to make it true again, usually the kind of people who whine that others are saying religion is anti-science.
 
2014-03-17 06:07:06 PM  
I don't really know enough about Bruno to pick apart his argument thoroughly, but it sounds an awful lot like the hair splitting some often do when trying to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
 
2014-03-17 06:07:46 PM  
Responding as if you're being persecuted only strengthen's the stereotype. If, on seeing themportrayal of Bruno's treatment, you'd said "that was a terrible and regrettable thing we did, but it is in tue past", you'd at least get some respect.
Cries of the show having an anti-christian bias on the other hand, merely earn an eyeroll and zero sympathy from people who've heard that cry of wolf far too often.
 
2014-03-17 06:10:07 PM  
It's only fueling more nonsense like evolution-free homeschooling and Creation Museums among the nonsensical who already are inclined to want evolution-free homeschooling and Creation Museums. Everyone else is like, "wow, what a cool show!"
 
2014-03-17 06:17:24 PM  
But not with Galileo this time, since historians have pointed out Sagan's less-than-accurate retelling of that incident. (Galileo's persecution came not for his science as much as for his profound lack of tact.)

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in what the indictment of Galileo actually said, here it is:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp
 
2014-03-17 06:21:51 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: Submitted by the pirates who don't do anything?


1.Veggie tales were awesome.

2. Creationism does not have to be evolution free.

3. If you can go all the way back to the big bang, I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to think that a Creator put it there. Every time we talk about this stuff, people say things like "the superheated gasses" or the "the primordial soup did this..."  Ok. I'm totally with you. But where did THAT come from?
 
2014-03-17 06:25:53 PM  

WhyteRaven74: And nowhere is Tyson saying religion is anti-science, merely pointing out that science doesn't abide a certain worldview. A worldview that is, it should be noted, not held exclusively by religious people. Nor held by all religious people.


Excellent points. It should also be pointed out that like any other human endeavor, including religion, science as practiced is often quite internally messier than its staunchist cultural champions admit. In my experience, the scientists I have known usually have about as much understanding of religion as vice-versa---which is to say, not much. There are notable exceptions.
 
2014-03-17 06:30:57 PM  

reprobate1125: 3. If you can go all the way back to the big bang, I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to think that a Creator put it there.


You mean like a timeless, omnipotent creator-being?

Why is a god allowed to be timeless and self-sufficient, but not a universe? Why do you consider that a valid rule?

In order for your argument to make any sense, you need to have cogent answers to the questions presented. Also, invoking a god in the answers is circular logic, so that's not going to wash.
 
2014-03-17 06:31:09 PM  

reprobate1125: But where did THAT come from?


Where did your Creator come from?
 
2014-03-17 06:42:35 PM  
We measure time relative to the beginning of the creation of the universe.

Who's not to say that the god that created our universe isn't just one of a billion gods that each have their own universe and ours is telling HIS particular story in this one universe.

I'm not preaching Christianity.  I'm not even saying that God isn't created.  My guess is that outside our universe there is something completely different that we can't even imagine.

But that doesn't change the fact that in this particular universe...something doesn't come from nothing.
 
2014-03-17 06:50:03 PM  

reprobate1125: antidisestablishmentarianism: Submitted by the pirates who don't do anything?

1.Veggie tales were awesome.

2. Creationism does not have to be evolution free.

3. If you can go all the way back to the big bang, I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to think that a Creator put it there. Every time we talk about this stuff, people say things like "the superheated gasses" or the "the primordial soup did this..."  Ok. I'm totally with you. But where did THAT come from?


The same place your "creator" came from?
 
2014-03-17 06:51:50 PM  
Ahh, good one.
 
2014-03-17 06:53:35 PM  

reprobate1125: 3. If you can go all the way back to the big bang, I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to think that a Creator put it there. Every time we talk about this stuff, people say things like "the superheated gasses" or the "the primordial soup did this..."  Ok. I'm totally with you. But where did THAT come from?


There was a evidence or a theory from the science community a month ago or so that said a black hole is another big bang happening in another universe, or our universe exists in a black hole.

Honestly I don't know and or care what started everything, I just want people to stop doing stupid sh*t in the name of their chosen supreme being.

/Yes, Veggietales was fun
 
2014-03-17 06:55:25 PM  
 I just want people to stop doing stupid sh*t in the name of their chosen supreme being.

Absolutely right there.
 
2014-03-17 06:59:47 PM  

reprobate1125: But that doesn't change the fact that in this particular universe...something doesn't come from nothing.


Your problem is you keep saying something came from nothing. The simple fact is, we don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang. we could be the remnants of a previous universe that rapidly shrank and then expanded again. We could be the product of two other universes bumping uglies. Hell we could be the creation of some being well beyond the scope of our reality.

But what you're trying to do is focus on one little sentence that I'm not even sure who said and use that as a "HA! Can't answer that can you Mr. smarty scientists!" That's the wrong way to think about it. Neil Tyson said "Question everything." and the great thing about science is you can question everything, but not putting in the due diligence to see if your question was answered is bad. That's what you're doing. You're saying "I question the Big Bang." But not doing anything to answer that question. You default to "God". Meanwhile people are actively trying to answer that question. Eventually we'll have an answer. Maybe not in our lifetime, but science progresses beyond generations and there will be answer someday.

As far as Veggietales guy is concerned, there is definitely a need to retell the Inquisition years. Not as a jab toward religion, but a reminder of what can happen when people refuse to question the nature of our existence and demand/force that others refuse also. The church set back scientific progress with its actions. And that's not to say that we'd be at a point of flying cars and colonies on Mars right now, but they definitely had a profoundly negative effect on science for a long period in time. The Catholic church has changed a lot in recent years, but history is history and needs to be retold.
 
2014-03-17 07:06:57 PM  

reprobate1125: I just want people to stop doing stupid sh*t in the name of their chosen supreme being.

Absolutely right there.


Sorry about being short there, I am sick of religious people being all 'it's my way or the highway' about religious beliefs and their application so society and everyday life. We have learned so much about nature and science since those texts were written that it frustrates me when people quote the bible or the koran or the torah to justify what they want or need.
 
2014-03-17 07:09:33 PM  
reprobate1125: We measure time relative to the beginning of the creation of the universe.

Problem: The measurement of time is an entirely subjective thing.

As far as the Cosmic Background Radiation is concerned, the universe came into being less than half a million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


Who's not to say that the god that created our universe isn't just one of a billion gods that each have their own universe and ours is telling HIS particular story in this one universe.

This is utterly meaningless. If you're going to pull wild conjectures out of nowhere, you're not forming an argument at all. You're just clouding the issue.

But that doesn't change the fact that in this particular universe...something doesn't come from nothing.

Problem: In this universe, something does come from nothing. All the time. Everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation


So far, everything you've said is just a lengthy version of, "I don't know, therefore God."
 
2014-03-17 07:09:48 PM  

reprobate1125: antidisestablishmentarianism: Submitted by the pirates who don't do anything?

1.Veggie tales were awesome.

2. Creationism does not have to be evolution free.

3. If you can go all the way back to the big bang, I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to think that a Creator put it there. Every time we talk about this stuff, people say things like "the superheated gasses" or the "the primordial soup did this..."  Ok. I'm totally with you. But where did THAT come from?


IANAPhysicist, but as I understand it, the big bang was triggered when all matter and energy in the universe were condensed into a single point by gravity. The laws of physics at that instant of the big bang probably differed from the laws that that we know now, so it's hard to know exactly how and why things worked the way they did. But moments after the explosion, things started to cool as all the matter and energy in the universe expanded.

The laws we know go back this far, but we can't recreate conditions on Earth closer to the moment of the big bang and observe them, so we don't know what happens when matter and energy are condensed into a single point. Chances are, we never will, but using math rather than physics, we can develop a theoretical understanding of those conditions.

The next, logical question is, "how did all matter and energy come to be in one point?" There are theories about this, such as the expansion-contraction theory and the Hartle-Hawking theory, but because they are even farther beyond our realm of observation, we haven't been able to mathematically prove what really happened.

This stuff fascinates me, but I lack the mathematical chops and IQ points required to really "get it." Hopefully, some Farker with a better grasp of such things will chime in and clear up any misinformation I've spewed. :-)
 
2014-03-17 07:13:57 PM  

reprobate1125: But where did THAT come from?


As for the origin of life stuff, that's a very active field in biology. And there's been some nifty advances in the last 30 years. Like the creation of self-replicating proteins in a lab. We don't have the answer just yet, but we've got pieces of it, or at least pieces of what we need to get the answer.
 
2014-03-17 07:13:58 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Your problem is you keep saying something came from nothing. The simple fact is, we don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang.


I'm saying that whatever existed prior to the big bang hand to come from somewhere too.

But I get what you're saying.  I LOVE science. Love it. Love astronomy, chemistry, physics (with a high school state physics championship under my belt).

This world is an amazing place.  If it were 92 million miles from the sun it would be too hot to sustain life as we know it. 94 million, too cold.  If the earth was not tilted on its axis or tilted 2 degrees in another direction, life would be gone. If it spun slower....or faster. If water was not the universal solvent it is....life would not exist.

It's just all so perfect.  I'm not going to argue with you and I'm not arguing for the God of the bible... I just think that the idea of something coming from nothing is so anti-scientific.
 
2014-03-17 07:19:03 PM  

BKITU: reprobate1125: 3. If you can go all the way back to the big bang, I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to think that a Creator put it there.

You mean like a timeless, omnipotent creator-being?

Why is a god allowed to be timeless and self-sufficient, but not a universe? Why do you consider that a valid rule?

In order for your argument to make any sense, you need to have cogent answers to the questions presented. Also, invoking a god in the answers is circular logic, so that's not going to wash.


transversalinflections.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-17 07:25:02 PM  

WhyteRaven74: reprobate1125: But where did THAT come from?

As for the origin of life stuff, that's a very active field in biology. And there's been some nifty advances in the last 30 years. Like the creation of self-replicating proteins in a lab. We don't have the answer just yet, but we've got pieces of it, or at least pieces of what we need to get the answer.


Our understanding of science is much better than when it was 30 years ago indeed. In our lifetime we have seen a revolution in science that has brought us things such as 3D printers (beginning of replication technology) and driverless cars, concepts that were once things only imagined about. We can almost talk to our devices like they do on Star Trek (Siri isn't even close to what the computers on ST can do, but its a start). I am most thankful to live in this time unlike the time when my grandfather lived. We are all lucky that we live in this sort of world.
 
2014-03-17 07:27:40 PM  
Haven't seen the show, or indeed, read the article, but I quite agree with the underlying sentiment.  My own opinion, not that anyone cares overmuch, is that science and religion need not be at odds.

--That is all
 
2014-03-17 07:28:33 PM  

RexTalionis: But not with Galileo this time, since historians have pointed out Sagan's less-than-accurate retelling of that incident. (Galileo's persecution came not for his science as much as for his profound lack of tact.)

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in what the indictment of Galileo actually said, here it is:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp


That's a very long sentence.
 
2014-03-17 07:28:51 PM  
Both space and time arose as a result of the Big Bang. The concept of something happening "before the big bang" is meaningless.

Go argue with Stephen Hawking.
 
2014-03-17 07:29:45 PM  
The problem with portraying fights with Galileo and Bruno religion versus science is that at the time science as we know it did not exist. At the time the word "scientist" had not even been invented; they were known as "natural philosophers." All of those were examples of philosophy versus philosophy, of people arguing over philosophical ideas, not what we now know as science.
 
2014-03-17 07:33:37 PM  
The only reason religion is not like that now is because science kicked the shiat out of it.

It could have been different. But perhaps, in another 30 years, we'll get another chance to try to get along.
Sigh.


So passive-aggressive.
 
2014-03-17 07:33:45 PM  
blah blah 'be nice to the religions and they will one day act like grownups and accept secular people and stop imposing their religious laws on everyone else. Any day now. right guys? guys?

GilRuiz1: The problem with portraying fights with Galileo and Bruno religion versus science is that at the time science as we know it did not exist. At the time the word "scientist" had not even been invented; they were known as "natural philosophers." All of those were examples of philosophy versus philosophy, of people arguing over philosophical ideas, not what we now know as science.


Well. one side did burn the others at the stake sometimes, which I suppose is a FORM of arguing..
 
2014-03-17 07:35:53 PM  

gaspode: blah blah 'be nice to the religions and they will one day act like grownups and accept secular people and stop imposing their religious laws on everyone else. Any day now. right guys? guys?


We should act like them to defeat them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
 
2014-03-17 07:37:12 PM  

reprobate1125: scottydoesntknow: Your problem is you keep saying something came from nothing. The simple fact is, we don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang.

I'm saying that whatever existed prior to the big bang hand to come from somewhere too.

But I get what you're saying.  I LOVE science. Love it. Love astronomy, chemistry, physics (with a high school state physics championship under my belt).

This world is an amazing place.  If it were 92 million miles from the sun it would be too hot to sustain life as we know it. 94 million, too cold.  If the earth was not tilted on its axis or tilted 2 degrees in another direction, life would be gone. If it spun slower....or faster. If water was not the universal solvent it is....life would not exist.

It's just all so perfect.  I'm not going to argue with you and I'm not arguing for the God of the bible... I just think that the idea of something coming from nothing is so anti-scientific.


Expansion-contraction theory states that if the mass of the whole universe is insufficient to keep expanding, it will collapse upon itself and start another big bang.

The Hartle-Hawking theory states that the big bang created time, as well as the universe. Before the big bang, there was only space. Wrap your head around that! :-)

As for the whole "life" aspect of things, consider the number of stars with planets orbiting them. We have just begun to look deep into space with enough resolution to discern them. And we've already found a few that could possibly support life as we know it. There are other places in our own solar system that might support life if we expand that definition. The thing is, given enough planetary systems, it's conceivable that life itself is inevitable--somewhere else in the universe--in a "give a million monkeys typewriters and you'll get a shakespeare play" kind of way.
 
2014-03-17 07:39:53 PM  

cman: gaspode: blah blah 'be nice to the religions and they will one day act like grownups and accept secular people and stop imposing their religious laws on everyone else. Any day now. right guys? guys?

We should act like them to defeat them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?


Nope, we should not act like them (in the areas where their behaviour is wrong), we should act in a way we consider appropriate. We should not act in a way calculated to avoid upsetting/confronting them.
 
2014-03-17 07:39:58 PM  

Hoban Washburne: To be fair, Bruno certainly got himself into trouble with the Catholic Church. But his primary sins were theological, not cosmological. He denied the Trinity. He embraced Arianism. He rejected transubstantiation. He rejected the divinity of Christ. For a Dominican priest, these are obviously serious matters that are going to get you into trouble with your superiors.

Oh, well in that case...

BURN HIM!!!!!


I love how American Protestants have suddenly become experts on a fairly obscure 16th century Italian monk.
 
2014-03-17 07:42:24 PM  

BKITU: reprobate1125: 3. If you can go all the way back to the big bang, I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to think that a Creator put it there.

You mean like a timeless, omnipotent creator-being?

Why is a god allowed to be timeless and self-sufficient, but not a universe? Why do you consider that a valid rule?

In order for your argument to make any sense, you need to have cogent answers to the questions presented. Also, invoking a god in the answers is circular logic, so that's not going to wash.


This. Either the universe created itself or the universe was created by a being who created itself. Occam's razor states the simplest solution is often the correct.  And as there has not been one single piece of evidence of a god, there is no reason to even have the notion in the equation.
 
2014-03-17 07:43:22 PM  

BKITU: reprobate1125: We measure time relative to the beginning of the creation of the universe.

Problem: The measurement of time is an entirely subjective thing.

As far as the Cosmic Background Radiation is concerned, the universe came into being less than half a million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


Who's not to say that the god that created our universe isn't just one of a billion gods that each have their own universe and ours is telling HIS particular story in this one universe.

This is utterly meaningless. If you're going to pull wild conjectures out of nowhere, you're not forming an argument at all. You're just clouding the issue.

But that doesn't change the fact that in this particular universe...something doesn't come from nothing.

Problem: In this universe, something does come from nothing. All the time. Everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation


So far, everything you've said is just a lengthy version of, "I don't know, therefore God."


You're quoting two different people. One of them is on your side.
 
2014-03-17 07:44:05 PM  
Religious types do have an answer from where God came from. Their faith tells them that he was always there and they don't need to ask the question. That fits their worldview and is free of contradiction. And they are ridiculed for it.  And yet when asked, where did the superheated gases or all the matter in the universe come from before the big bang, a lot of Farkers are just snidely saying "same place your god came from. So you're admitting that you have faith it was just always there.

If you want to separate yourself from religious types, it would help not to have to default to the same answers they use. Because your worldview demands that something can't come from nothing and there must be an explanation. Yet you can't answer the simple question without a snide comment or trying to sidestep the issue and put it back on the religious. Too bad that doesn't work. They gave their answer. Faith. So really, what's yours?

Where did the superheated gases or matter come from that started the big bang? And no, if you're going to scold religious people, you can't use any part of their answer. You're the ones always talking about real explanations. So lets here it.

BKITU: You mean like a timeless, omnipotent creator-being?

Why is a god allowed to be timeless and self-sufficient, but not a universe? Why do you consider that a valid rule?


jj325: The same place your "creator" came from?



How about you just answer the question instead of sidestepping it?
 
2014-03-17 07:45:23 PM  

reprobate1125: I just think that the idea of something coming from nothing is so anti-scientific.


It's not anti-scientific.  You thinking that you know better despite observation and evidence to the contrary (in fact we do have good knowledge that something comes from nothing all the time, everywhere) is stupendously anti-scientific.
 
2014-03-17 07:45:54 PM  
I'll give you a hint. If you keep asking "and where did that come from" enough times, you eventually have to concede with "I don't know". And when you answer "I don't know" but still maintain that the big bang explantion has to be true, there is a precise word for that...faith.
 
2014-03-17 07:50:12 PM  

taurusowner: I'll give you a hint. If you keep asking "and where did that come from" enough times, you eventually have to concede with "I don't know". And when you answer "I don't know" but still maintain that the big bang explantion has to be true, there is a precise word for that...faith.


How so?  We have evidence the big bang happened.  If I have evidence my grand-father exists, but don't know where his mother came from, I only can rely on faith that grand-dad happens to exist?
 
2014-03-17 07:51:01 PM  

taurusowner: I'll give you a hint. If you keep asking "and where did that come from" enough times, you eventually have to concede with "I don't know". And when you answer "I don't know" but still maintain that the big bang explantion has to be true, there is a precise word for that...faith.


WTF are you talking about?  "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to where the universe came from.  The big bang theory does not concern itself with where the universe comes from, it concerns the expansion of the early universe and its relation to the future of that early universe, i.e. from about t = 10^-30 s until now.  The big bang theory explicitly does not postulate anything before that threshold.

We don't know what's past that threshold.  And... that's OK.  We're going to keep trying to find out.  But saying that because we don't know, that implies faith or gods or what-have-you... is ridiculous.
 
2014-03-17 07:52:16 PM  

Farker Soze: reprobate1125: I just think that the idea of something coming from nothing is so anti-scientific.

It's not anti-scientific.  You thinking that you know better despite observation and evidence to the contrary (in fact we do have good knowledge that something comes from nothing all the time, everywhere) is stupendously anti-scientific.


I have been in this thread on the pro-science side, but even I can see that he has point. Something coming from nothing is about as crazy as a creator who willed the universe into existence. I cant see that something coming from nothing about as likely as I cant see a god. It does require a bit of faith as you need to be certain that those who tell you how the world works know how to analyze the evidence properly. Who knows whether or not that preacher is right or that scientist is right?

That human factor of bias and emotion will always cloud rational judgment. No one can really separate emotion from rationality. We can try, but it goes against our programming. As such we are one confused people.

To summarize this rant, there is a bit of the uncertainty factor in our universe and it should be respected.
 
2014-03-17 07:53:36 PM  

reprobate1125: scottydoesntknow: Your problem is you keep saying something came from nothing. The simple fact is, we don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang.

I'm saying that whatever existed prior to the big bang hand to come from somewhere too.

But I get what you're saying.  I LOVE science. Love it. Love astronomy, chemistry, physics (with a high school state physics championship under my belt).

This world is an amazing place.  If it were 92 million miles from the sun it would be too hot to sustain life as we know it. 94 million, too cold.  If the earth was not tilted on its axis or tilted 2 degrees in another direction, life would be gone. If it spun slower....or faster. If water was not the universal solvent it is....life would not exist.

It's just all so perfect.  I'm not going to argue with you and I'm not arguing for the God of the bible... I just think that the idea of something coming from nothing is so anti-scientific.


The idea is not "something came from nothing", it is "our current theory is X, because of reason Y. It is subject to revision as we gather more data"

Science is a *process of discovery*, and no one with a brain will state that science claims to know all the answers - meaning there are *still questions to answer*, not meaning science has zero chance of coming up with a solution

However "I dunno, yet" is not the same as "Science has no answer, therefore God."
 
2014-03-17 07:53:51 PM  
This is real simple, if you're not a religious person who would burn people at the stake for disagreeing with you, don't defend religious people who do.   I'm sorry people who share your faith were assholes, but taking that personally is your problem.
 
Displayed 50 of 313 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report