Ron Paul Naysayers. Put this in your chamber and fire it!

[goett047]

Some people seem to have a misunderstanding of what science really is. It's not a philosophy or set of beliefs that claims infallibility, it's a working system for collecting data and finding or creating theories that best fit the data that's been collected. Scientific theories therefore get junked as soon as it is proven that they don't fit all the facts that are known. Every currently accepted scientific theory, from evolution to the big bang, has the implied subtext of "This is possibly/probably not the final absolute truth, but it is what best fits the facts as we now know them."

This is why any other set of beliefs, such as creationism, whether it actually winds up being the deeper "Truth" or not, must not be taught as science unless it is testable and can be fitted to the known data.

And, all Ron Paul is saying is that he thinks the current theories hold no ground. let's be honest here, the big bang hypothesis is not
able to be proven or disproven any more than creationism. Without a solid theory of origin, evolution itself is just a small part of what we are essentially clueless about. Yet, it is taught like it is the ultimate answer

[Heffay]

let's be honest here, the big bang hypothesis is not able to be proven or disproven any more than creationism. Without a solid theory of origin, evolution itself is just a small part of what we are essentially clueless about. Yet, it is taught like it is the ultimate answer

There is a lot of evidence* and math that shows that the big bang model is most accurate one out there currently.

There is no evidence* of God. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

Comparing the two is ridiculous. In fact, admitting one exists has absolute zero bearing on the existence of another. Likewise, using one to prove that the other is more likely is just as disingenuous. You're confusing theology with science.

The big bang theory isn't taught as the ultimate answer. It's taught as what the currently accepted model points to. It is also taught in the same class that discusses scientific theory, where you are rewarded for being able to prove theories are lacking. It's easy to see who was busy sleeping in science classes, and who actually paid attention.


*testable in a scientific manner.

[tt3]

<snip>
Comparing the two is ridiculous. In fact, admitting one exists has absolute zero bearing on the existence of another. Likewise, using one to prove that the other is more likely is just as disingenuous. You're confusing theology with science.<snip>

I've been saying this for years to no effect.

[Heffay]

<snip>
Comparing the two is ridiculous. In fact, admitting one exists has absolute zero bearing on the existence of another. Likewise, using one to prove that the other is more likely is just as disingenuous. You're confusing theology with science.<snip>

I've been saying this for years to no effect.

I know. But some people default to the traditional tropes when they can't argue on merits. It's annoying, but just like they continually misuse the terminology, we have to continually correct them.

It's a heavy burden, but teaching the ignorant is a task I take on for the betterment of mankind. Everyone is welcome. It only becomes a drag when you run into stupidity, because while ignorance can be cured, stupidity is a permanent condition.

[DeanC]

There are a large number of educational and scientific policies that would be affected by this

If the government gave up it's monopolistic control of the education system this would probably be a moot point.

[Jeff Bergquist]

There are a large number of educational and scientific policies that would be affected by this

If the government gave up it's monopolistic control of the education system this would probably be a moot point.

That's why it doesn't much matter to me what RP's personal beliefs are, he seems perfectly content to live and let live, in the spirit in which the Constitution was framed.

[illbits]

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence..

Actually faith as I understand it is confidence in something that is not proven fact. But if the conversation has devolved to semantics and name calling I see no point in discussing the matter any further.

[Heffay]

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence..

Actually faith as I understand it is confidence in something that is not proven fact. But if the conversation has devolved to semantics and name calling I see no point in discussing the matter any further.

"Proven fact" isn't a legitimate term if you're going to use it with faith. Faith is belief that a hypothesis is right. A theory is a hypothesis that has a preponderance of testable evidence to support it. A fact is something that is mathematical provable.

There is a world of difference between the hypothesis of creationism and the theory of the big bang.

[illbits]

You're making up definitions to suite the point you hope to make. I do agree that the big bang theory is exponentially more plausible then creationism or zombie Jesus, but regardless neither are proven fact. Belief in something that is not known to be true IS faith by definition.

[Heffay]

You're making up definitions to suite the point you hope to make. I do agree that the big bang theory is exponentially more plausible then creationism or zombie Jesus, but regardless neither are proven fact. Belief in something that is not known to be true IS faith by definition.

Actually, I'm not. You should study up a bit on the scientific process. When you're caught up, we can continue this discussion.

[goett047]

Assume we are uneducated tells us about yourself

[illbits]

All caught up! Let's continue!!!

[Heffay]

Assume we are uneducated tells us about yourself

I'm the smartest guy on the forum.

But to be fair, the bar has been set very low.

[Squib Joe]

Who would have known that I would stick religion into a political discussion and it would get so heated? Huh.

[goett047]

Who would have known that I would stick religion into a political discussion and it would get so heated? Huh.

My guess is you