Science sets up standards and paradigms that lead to conclusions that are against Scripture.
That is subjective. It did no such thing for me.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
In addition, it is evident that higher academia teaches (as least covertly) an anti-Biblical philosophy.
Higher academia is the bastion of free exchange of ideas. Universities are not required to support the Bible. Those schools that receive government funding are, in fact, legally obligated to neutrality. The fact that they don't support your worldview doesn't mean they are against it, as you imply. They are, however, certainly entitled to their own opinions, and if the majority of college faculty dislike Christianity, I submit that is only because Creationists constantly demonize them as fraudulent, God-hating atheists.
Higher academia is the bastion of free exchange of ideas. Universities are not required to support the Bible. Those schools that receive government funding are, in fact, legally obligated to neutrality. The fact that they don't support your worldview doesn't mean they are against it, as you imply. They are, however, certainly entitled to their own opinions, and if the majority of college faculty dislike Christianity, I submit that is only because Creationists constantly demonize them as fraudulent, God-hating atheists.
I think he also fails to realize that someone coming out the latter end of university not having a Christian faith wasn't the actual intention of the U... it was a by-product of the person receving higher learning.
Like he said, Universities are legally obligated to maintain neutrality. They aren't for anything except for a fuller understanding of the facts/theories of life. If you 'lose your faith' in one of these establishments... it wasn't the purposeful intention of your prof (well maybe it was.)
It is a matter of acceptance, not belief. Scientific theories don't start becoming true only when people start believing in them - that makes it the exact opposite to faith.
This sounds more like an attempt by you not to sound like a religion. But I’m not buying it.
And when is a scientific theory ever true?
When you present your scientific findings in scientific journals do you expect the reader to accept it, or do you expect them to believe it? Or do you expect them to accept it without believing it?
Not completely. There's usually a grain of truth in the initial proposition of a theory, otherwise they wouldn't be retained and improved upon.
What was true about Fr. Lamaitre’s big bang theory? And why was it completely discarded?
I'm not all that certain about this "explosive big bang" quote you keep bandying about - Lemaitre never called it the big bang, it was done by someone else two decades later (again, you have been told this).
He might not have called it a big bang, but he certainly explained it like a big bang:
Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time...Source
Sounds like a big hot fiery explosive bang to me.
Analysing the math doesn't mean the theory has to be 100% correct. And improving the theory doesn't mean it's fundamentally flawed - that is what science does.
I take this to mean that Fr. Lemaitre’s big bang theory was 100% incorrect because it was completely replaced. The modern big bang now comes without the “burst”, the “fireworks”, the “burning” the “embers” and the “bang”.
It is only a problem to those who misunderstand science and treat it like a religion, and their own opinions of religion are such that they think it has to be 100% correct first time round
Tell that to Fr. Lemaitre, he was 100% incorrect the first time around it would seem.
To think that the big bang model began as a big blunder, and now we are trying to perfect a blunder.
__________________
God exists, therefore you are wrong.
“Let God be true, and every man a liar.”
(Rom 3:4)
__________________
Last edited by Doveaman; 26th October 2009 at 08:09 PM.
I think he also fails to realize that someone coming out the latter end of university not having a Christian faith wasn't the actual intention of the U... it was a by-product of the person receving higher learning.
Like he said, Universities are legally obligated to maintain neutrality. They aren't for anything except for a fuller understanding of the facts/theories of life. If you 'lose your faith' in one of these establishments... it wasn't the purposeful intention of your prof (well maybe it was.)
Meh, I don't understand why people think Universities are so against religion. I think the fact that professors will sometimes make a crack about Christianity is unfortunately understandable given the lunatics like Ray Comfort who go to campuses to hand out Creationist tracts.
People like Comfort turn Christianity into a spectacle and a laughingstock. Why wouldn't people laugh? And even so, its not nearly as partisan as people claim. These professors want to either gain or keep their tenure and their jobs. They have nothing to gain by being needlessly controversial.
Exactly... everything is proven, or held in question as a theory until it is proven. If it is proven incorrect, then Whoosh... theory absolved, and all the scientists that thought it was potentially so go "Oh! Well there you go, my bad... back to the lab." .
Is a theory ever proven correct? And if it is “proven” correct do you “believe” it is true?
Absolutely! This is why Lemaitre's model of the big bang has been abolished, and a new model, that conforms to the mathematical analyses has taken its place. Truth's don't have to be outlined in every detail from the get go to be true. Truth's take time to expound upon. It take's time to find the whole truth in anything. Most people don't have things right the first time, and you act like 'cause Lemaitre's model was 'incorrect,' that the whole theory is incorrect.
This makes no sense to me.
The model is based on the theory. You cannot separate the two. If the model doesn’t hold up it’s because the theory is flawed. If the theory is flawed then the model is meaningless.
Today's theory of the big bang is a different theory to that of Lemaitre and therefore a different model.
__________________
God exists, therefore you are wrong.
“Let God be true, and every man a liar.”
(Rom 3:4)
__________________
Last edited by Doveaman; 26th October 2009 at 08:29 PM.
This sounds more like an attempt by you not to sound like a religion.
Gee, I wonder why I'm having to do that, could it be because I'm debating with the person who's had to be told umpteen times that science is NOT religion and still hasn't gotten it into their skull?
This is how science works. Deal with it, and stop strawmanning.
But I’m not buying it.
Your mistake. And the point will still stand regardless.
And when is a scientific theory ever true?
A theory is deemed correct when there's enough empirical evidence for it to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
When you present your scientific findings in scientific journals do you expect the reader to accept it, or do you expect them to believe it? Or do you expect them to accept it without believing it?
I expect them to read further on the matter before making up their minds, and if possible I expect them to replicate the observations. Funnily enough, I expect them to think about it too....
What was true about Fr. Lamaitre’s big bang theory?
The fact that the universe was expanding. This was a pretty controversial idea for its time, the contemporary point of view was that the universe was static.
And why was it completely discarded?
Errr, last time I checked, the universe was still expanding
He might not have called it a big bang, but he certainly explained it like a big bang:
Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time...Source
Sounds like a big hot fiery explosive bang to me.
That isn't a direct quotation from Lemaitre.
*clicks on link*
Sounds like Mark Midbon (who he?) thinks that the Big Bang was an explosion.
Got anything that shows that Lemaitre considered the Big Bang an explosion?
I take this to mean that Fr. Lemaitre’s big bang theory was 100% incorrect because it was completely replaced. The modern big bang now comes without the “burst”, the “fireworks”, the “burning” the “embers” and the “bang”.
You have not sufficiently demonstrated that. Try again.
Tell that to Fr. Lemaitre, he was 100% incorrect the first time around it would seem.
Why would that matter to him? He came up with a scientific theory, not a religion. I was addressing those who insist on dubbing science they disagree with faith on the basis of a mistaken notion, that science must get it right the way their faith allegedly does. Sound familiar?
To think that the big bang model began as a big blunder, and now we are trying to perfect a blunder.
You have definitely not established that. Evidence please
The fact that the universe was expanding. This was a pretty controversial idea for its time, the contemporary point of view was that the universe was static.
It is still a controversial idea. Can you empirically demonstrate that space can stretch? Can anyone empirically demonstrate that space can stretch? Show me the experiment that can demonstrate this. There is none. Absolute zero. All you have are consensus assumptions based on poorly interpreted observations.
When you or anyone can demonstrate how space can stretch then your big bang/inflation gremlin will have empirical merit. Until then it has none, therefore it is just a crazy idea.
It is still a controversial idea. Can you empirically demonstrate that space can stretch? Can anyone empirically demonstrate that space can stretch? Show me the experiment that can demonstrate this. There is none. Absolute zero. All you have are consensus assumptions based on poorly interpreted observations.
When you or anyone can demonstrate how space can stretch then your big bang/inflation gremlin will have empirical merit. Until then it has none, therefore it is just a crazy idea.
There's a certain degree of irony whenever a Creationist tries to criticize the flaws in the proof for a Big Bang or Evolution....
Linear Mode
