Scalia

[chum1]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/06/scalia-commencement-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/

[MakeItRain]

The explosion itself didn't spark life.  No one is saying it did

I've asked about this distinction at least four different times and you're the first person to not completely ignore it. Now that we've got that out of the way I'd like to know how you believe life started and how it's maintained. What's the alternative to creationism? I was always under the impression that it was the big bang theory and I thought I made that clear earlier.

[MakeItRain]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

In your mind, could the presence of scientific evidence supporting one theory make it make it more plausible than a theory with no evidence if neither can be replicated?

Or are all theories that can't be replicated equally implausible?

More plausible, yes. For example, I think I could get to the place where I can be convinced that the big bang created our universe, I think I'm pretty close to that already. However, I will need incredibly strong evidence to believe that the big bang as an explanation for life as we know it.

Well, just keep in mind that there were a few billion years and a shitload of randomness between the theoretical big bang and creation of earth and the solar system, and then even more to get from the creation of the solar system to the creation of life on earth. (Theoretically.) It seems like you're ignoring everything that happened over that time and just going straight from the big bang to creation of life.

I'm not ignoring anything, you're assuming that. My juxtaposing of the big bang and seven day creationism should have led you to believe that I was unaware of an alternative. Well that and me telling you specifically that your posting is leading me to believe that you think the big bang created life.

[Dugout DickStone]

Big train covered it.  Primordial ooze bro.

[MakeItRain]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/06/scalia-commencement-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/

and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.

Teaching children creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is a form of child abuse and should not be tolerated.

[MakeItRain]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

You obviously don't follow this very closely.  They replicate conditions billionths of seconds after the Big Bang all the time at the LHC. So yeah, we can and do replicate that scientific evidence.

I would love a link, it sucks not having something to believe in. Before you provide that link I'm looking for proof that the big bang created the universe but more importantly, life as we know it on this universe.

All life was just created by a chemical process that started with amino acids.  Without the physical universe that process wouldn't be able to happen.  Believing in something higher can help some people, but not everyone needs that comfort. 

http://earthsky.org/human-world/lhc-creates-liquid-from-big-bang

Thanks for this I missed it the first time. That is interesting info and put in a concise, easy to understand way. I'm standing outside right now. I'm looking at snow, grass, trees, a river, people, and a dog. I simply cannot wrap my hands around colliding protons as an explanation for the diversity of life right in front of my face right now, that obviously gets overwhelming scaling this to the entire globe. If we really want to open the box we can discuss how or why some naturally occurring beings seem to evolve and others don't. I guess what I'm saying is there is definitely a limit to what science can reasonably explain.

[catastrophe]

Anyone who thinks they understand the origin of the universe (whether religious, agnostic, or atheist) is probably not worth engaging with.

So instead of engaging with thoughtful, intelligent people you should just engage with other idiots?  Got it

My point is that anyone who is completely confident we have figured out the answers to these questions is a deadly combination of ignorance and pride (not thoughtful and intelligent).

So many people that quickly dismiss creationism in favor of "science" like the Big Bang and evolution seem to completely miss that the scientific method is primarily a means of eliminating the impossible as opposed to arriving at unassailable truth. It might not be blind faith, but it does require faith in something to believe in just about any scientific theory. Most of what we claim to know about the universe is based on unconfirmed inferences rather than direct observation.

[CHONGS]

What is a big banger?

One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?

Well i honestly have no idea what you meant by that phrase.   I mean they're is overwhelming evidence the big bang happened, so does acknowledging that evidence make one a big banger? 

I ask because when i hear big bang i am  thinking of it from a physics pov.

[MakeItRain]

What is a big banger?

One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?

Well i honestly have no idea what you meant by that phrase.   I mean they're is overwhelming evidence the big bang happened, so does acknowledging that evidence make one a big banger? 

I ask because when i hear big bang i am  thinking of it from a physics pov.

In this context yes, but I believe we've moved beyond that in the course of this conversation and the distinction should be drawn at what you believe the scale of influence the big bang had on the creation of life as we know it. From a physics prospective the big bang is much less nebulous.

[Dugout DickStone]

What is a big banger?

One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?

Well i honestly have no idea what you meant by that phrase.   I mean they're is overwhelming evidence the big bang happened, so does acknowledging that evidence make one a big banger? 

I ask because when i hear big bang i am  thinking of it from a physics pov.

I think it's a cutesie term meant to minimize the belief.  Like "birther" or "truther"

[MakeItRain]

What is a big banger?

One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?

Well i honestly have no idea what you meant by that phrase.   I mean they're is overwhelming evidence the big bang happened, so does acknowledging that evidence make one a big banger? 

I ask because when i hear big bang i am  thinking of it from a physics pov.

I think it's a cutesie term meant to minimize the belief.  Like "birther" or "truther"

Nope. Was my explanation not sufficient enough for you?

[Dugout DickStone]

Just use the term scientist

[star seed 7]

sad to see so many here are in the pocket of big bang

[MakeItRain]

Just use the term scientist

You have to be a scientist to believe in the big bang? Should I call creationists clergy instead?

[michigancat]

Thanks for this I missed it the first time. That is interesting info and put in a concise, easy to understand way. I'm standing outside right now. I'm looking at snow, grass, trees, a river, people, and a dog. I simply cannot wrap my hands around colliding protons as an explanation for the diversity of life right in front of my face right now, that obviously gets overwhelming scaling this to the entire globe. If we really want to open the box we can discuss how or why some naturally occurring beings seem to evolve and others don't. I guess what I'm saying is there is definitely a limit to what science can reasonably explain.

^Everything you posted here perfectly reasonable.

I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.

^This isn't

So I think you're making progress.

[MakeItRain]

Thanks for this I missed it the first time. That is interesting info and put in a concise, easy to understand way. I'm standing outside right now. I'm looking at snow, grass, trees, a river, people, and a dog. I simply cannot wrap my hands around colliding protons as an explanation for the diversity of life right in front of my face right now, that obviously gets overwhelming scaling this to the entire globe. If we really want to open the box we can discuss how or why some naturally occurring beings seem to evolve and others don't. I guess what I'm saying is there is definitely a limit to what science can reasonably explain.

^Everything you posted here perfectly reasonable.

I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.

^This isn't

So I think you're making progress.

It's amazing what the acquisition of additional information can do to an open mind. Thankfully TBT, sys, and chingon felt the need to engage so thanks to them.

[Dugout DickStone]

I feel slighted

[Kat Kid]

I think celebrating the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance on a subject (not pejorative or condescending, the actual definition) and being willing to ask questions is a HIGHLY underrated attribute in people of all ages. 

[catastrophe]

I think celebrating the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance on a subject (not pejorative or condescending, the actual definition) and being willing to ask questions is a HIGHLY underrated attribute in people of all ages.

[Kat Kid]

I think celebrating the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance on a subject (not pejorative or condescending, the actual definition) and being willing to ask questions is a HIGHLY underrated attribute in people of all ages.

what a word salad!

celebrate the acknowledgement of ignorance, willingness to ask questions/consider/learn

[Asteriskhead]

I think celebrating the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance on a subject (not pejorative or condescending, the actual definition) and being willing to ask questions is a HIGHLY underrated attribute in people of all ages.

what a word salad!

celebrate the acknowledgement of ignorance, willingness to ask questions/consider/learn

your a word salad.

[michigancat]

I didn't think MiR was asking serious questions. My mistake!

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The blind faith in government was a better analogy than blind faith in the ever expanding universe analogy.

[MakeItRain]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-hasn-t-asked-question-decade-n520801

[DQ12]

I think celebrating the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance on a subject (not pejorative or condescending, the actual definition) and being willing to ask questions is a HIGHLY underrated attribute in people of all ages.

what a word salad!

celebrate the acknowledgement of ignorance, willingness to ask questions/consider/learn

Yes!  I agree.  If you're wrong about something, notice it and be happy about it.  You just sharpened your intellectual knife.

It really is a great thing to notice.