How can anyone not believe in evolution?

Last thing, the Big Bang is NOT something coming from nothing. The main idea is just that the universe is expanding. What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is that originally everything was contained in one point that was infinitely dense... or something. But there was still... stuff. What happened before that or where that matter came from... who knows?
 
This is outside the scope of the supported (as you would have it) Theory of Evolution; I will grant you that many people want to take that extra step, but they are drifting into ontology and abiogenesis, fields which are much more up for debate.

A point I've been trying to make I think.
 
Last thing, the Big Bang is NOT something coming from nothing. The main idea is just that the universe is expanding. What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is that originally everything was contained in one point that was infinitely dense... or something. But there was still... stuff. What happened before that or where that matter came from... who knows?

And either that itsy-bitsy stuff is eternal or created....
 
What? No. This is 100% wrong.

How could I forget the inevitable post from metaphysistbiologistastrophysicistengineersabermetricandwhateveryoucallwastingyourtimestudyingancientgreekwriting would come into play. Must be hard living your life pitying us who don't have a degree from Google. Apparently in your mind Natural Selection has no part in evolution. Which is cute.
 
Last thing, the Big Bang is NOT something coming from nothing. The main idea is just that the universe is expanding. What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is that originally everything was contained in one point that was infinitely dense... or something. But there was still... stuff. What happened before that or where that matter came from... who knows?

Maybe you should read more. Many theorize against singularity. Of course singularity is the past prevailing theory but many are against it.
 
considering your stance on things and blinded, I am not surprised.

uh, your post pretty much said, liberal have no morals

not sure where that would mean i am "blinded" etc

it makes zero sense to say that and then to insinuate that "conservatives have morals"
 
Maybe you should read more. Many theorize against singularity. Of course singularity is the past prevailing theory but many are against it.

Ay, mane take your own reading advice. Here's what I said:

"What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is..."

That caveat pretty much covers what you are saying.
 
Ay, mane take your own reading advice. Here's what I said:

"What happens when you go all the way back to the beginning is fairly conjectural, but... the prevailing gist is..."

That caveat pretty much covers what you are saying.

And my point about reading has to do with the seeming (though granted I don't read every one) prevailing theories now are that singularity probably didn't exist.

Actually many no longer even bother discussing what happened at the start of the universe before rapid inflation because no one can really know. Singularity point you brought up is old.
 
I don't care... until those people try and implement public policy based on their beliefs. People only have these internet arguments because folks keep trying force garbage science into schools. If people wanna home school their children to think dumb things, more power to them. Leave the rest of us be.

That sounds great and all, but I'm still not sure why it matters specifically about evolution. And you didn't really answer that. Generally speaking, sure you're right but I wasn't typing generally.

"Science" isn't a book of facts that individual scientists add things to. People don't defer to "a scientist," people defer to a consensus of a massive number of scientists who all work with empirical data. Science is a process, one with extremely visible fruits, and one where there is an enormous incentive to disprove any established tenets. Comparing trust in that process with faith in a divinity is more than a bit of a stretch.

If a blind man asks 100 people what color his shirt is, and they all tell him blue, he is indeed taking it on "faith" that his shirt is blue. But that is a completely different category of faith than religious faith, which entails embracing apparently paradoxical ideas as equally true.

That's a great point. My point, and I admit I'm not good at all about stating my position, is that those who don't understand the process put their faith in scientists even though they don't understand that process. I think that's a better way to state my position. I think there are a lot of folks who just state... "Well scientists state this..." but they don't really understand what science really is and how it works. So my post isn't really for you or most folks that post on this forum who understand science, but the dbags who belittle intelligent religious folk like Bedell, but don't really understand the science they themselves blindly accept. Hopefully that makes more sense.

edit: I have another post in that quote there you may not have noticed. Still really horrible at the internet.
 
Almost everything one does in modern life is done with complete faith in science and scientists. If not you wouldn't be able to start a car, use public transportation or even plug in an appliance, much less get on a plane and travel around the world. People are perfectly willing to trust the science of modern convenience a thousand times a day, but when new information all of a sudden endangers long-accepted religious views these scientists are said to be evil, untrustworthy and acting from a liberal agenda.
 
And my point about reading has to do with the seeming (though granted I don't read every one) prevailing theories now are that singularity probably didn't exist.

Actually many no longer even bother discussing what happened at the start of the universe before rapid inflation because no one can really know. Singularity point you brought up is old.

Thus the "... or something." You are being pedantic, which is fine when you are right, which you aren't. I elided over any and all details of "first point of time" because it isn't relevant to my point. As I stated, the theory of the big bang is about the expansion of the universe, not the creation of the matter from nothingness.
 
10386756_732484353475654_86301965550033282_n.jpg
 
That sounds great and all, but I'm still not sure why it matters specifically about evolution. And you didn't really answer that. Generally speaking, sure you're right but I wasn't typing generally.

What specifics are you looking for? Do you want me to go cite the well-known examples of creationists attacking science curriculums? Do you really not understand why people care about what their children are taught?

I mean, I would agree that this is overblown. This is one of those issues, like gay marriage, that has been exacerbated by folks trying to rile up political bases. But that exacerbation has had real world effects.

That's a great point. My point, and I admit I'm not good at all about stating my position, is that those who don't understand the process put their faith in scientists even though they don't understand that process. I think that's a better way to state my position. I think there are a lot of folks who just state... "Well scientists state this..." but they don't really understand what science really is and how it works. So my post isn't really for you or most folks that post on this forum who understand science, but the dbags who belittle intelligent religious folk like Bedell, but don't really understand the science they themselves blindly accept. Hopefully that makes more sense.

I would surely agree that there are plenty of people, we'll call them all "Zitoes," who lecture with their butts about things they don't understand. But those people are just being stupid, not exercising a religious kind of faith. The word science literally just means "knowledge." The empirical scientific process is just a fairly simple means of compiling collective knowledge (look, write down, guess, test, repeat). Most people can understand that, and everybody can see the results. The faith is not blind; the faith is predicated on extremely strong evidence. This is true even for Zitoes who are always wrong about the actual facts. They can use their Android phones to look up nudie picks of British chicks eating mustard and correctly think "Damn, thanks for making this possible science." This kind of trust in the scientific process is induction, not faith.

Bedell is mostly just trolling these Zitoes anyway. He knows enough to know that they don't know what they are talking about, so he's just amusing himself to pass the time.
 
Thus the "... or something." You are being pedantic, which is fine when you are right, which you aren't. I elided over any and all details of "first point of time" because it isn't relevant to my point. As I stated, the theory of the big bang is about the expansion of the universe, not the creation of the matter from nothingness.

If that's all it's about then why bother discussing the creation point if it isn't relevant?
 
uh, your post pretty much said, liberal have no morals

not sure where that would mean i am "blinded" etc

it makes zero sense to say that and then to insinuate that "conservatives have morals"

Did I say that?

No. They have no morals either.
 
What specifics are you looking for? Do you want me to go cite the well-known examples of creationists attacking science curriculums? Do you really not understand why people care about what their children are taught?

I mean, I would agree that this is overblown. This is one of those issues, like gay marriage, that has been exacerbated by folks trying to rile up political bases. But that exacerbation has had real world effects.

I would surely agree that there are plenty of people, we'll call them all "Zitoes," who lecture with their butts about things they don't understand. But those people are just being stupid, not exercising a religious kind of faith. The word science literally just means "knowledge." The empirical scientific process is just a fairly simple means of compiling collective knowledge (look, write down, guess, test, repeat). Most people can understand that, and everybody can see the results. The faith is not blind; the faith is predicated on extremely strong evidence. This is true even for Zitoes who are always wrong about the actual facts. They can use their Android phones to look up nudie picks of British chicks eating mustard and correctly think "Damn, thanks for making this possible science." This kind of trust in the scientific process is induction, not faith.

Bedell is mostly just trolling these Zitoes anyway. He knows enough to know that they don't know what they are talking about, so he's just amusing himself to pass the time.

There are parts of this ^^^ that I like. Carry on.
 
Reminds myself never to get in an argument with Meta. After the dress down I would feel like I am back in 1st grade.
 
What specifics are you looking for? Do you want me to go cite the well-known examples of creationists attacking science curriculums? Do you really not understand why people care about what their children are taught?

I mean, I would agree that this is overblown. This is one of those issues, like gay marriage, that has been exacerbated by folks trying to rile up political bases. But that exacerbation has had real world effects.

I would surely agree that there are plenty of people, we'll call them all "Zitoes," who lecture with their butts about things they don't understand. But those people are just being stupid, not exercising a religious kind of faith. The word science literally just means "knowledge." The empirical scientific process is just a fairly simple means of compiling collective knowledge (look, write down, guess, test, repeat). Most people can understand that, and everybody can see the results. The faith is not blind; the faith is predicated on extremely strong evidence. This is true even for Zitoes who are always wrong about the actual facts. They can use their Android phones to look up nudie picks of British chicks eating mustard and correctly think "Damn, thanks for making this possible science." This kind of trust in the scientific process is induction, not faith.

Bedell is mostly just trolling these Zitoes anyway. He knows enough to know that they don't know what they are talking about, so he's just amusing himself to pass the time.

Yeah, it's way overblown which is my point. It's fairly trivial knowledge and everyone makes such a stink about it.

I disagree with the induction thing. You give folks too much credit.
 
Back
Top