The Democrat Thread

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Really? So taking a theory like the Big Bang is so vastly different than a theory about an old bearded guy in the sky? Don't both require a belief in something that's entirely unprovable (God, or the existence of elements that just happened to be hangin' around in space).

 

Not really.

 

I'm not claiming to be up on my metaphysics or whatever that field of study is called, but they can make some pretty good guesses/claims/theories based on actual verified and recorded evidence. Take a few minutes to read about what CERN is doing and you will see that. I am a Catholic, but the only "theory" supporting the existence of (a) God is pure faith.

 

Faith and documented scientific fact/evidence are not the same thing.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Not really.

 

I'm not claiming to be up on my metaphysics or whatever that field of study is called, but they can make some pretty good guesses/claims/theories based on actual verified and recorded evidence. Take a few minutes to read about what CERN is doing and you will see that. I am a Catholic, but the only "theory" supporting the existence of (a) God is pure faith.

 

Faith and documented scientific fact/evidence are not the same thing.

I agree. My main point was about how to teach, but its still a SCIENCE class, and religion shouldn't enter into it, and political takes, or beliefs, should be avoided.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Because there had to have been a beginning. A beginning does not just "exist," it has to be created. There is no answer for how elements or energy exist without a "they were created by..." It is impossible to prove the creation of the universe. At best, we can theorize that, after that first step, steps 2 through X happened in Y way.

 

IMO the difference between a scientific theory of creation and a religious theory of creation is trivial. At the end of the day you have to have pure belief in the manner of creation. The rest of is just filler. So to say one belief is silly, but the other makes complete sense is comical to me. I wish we could all just agree we don't know anything, and start from there. Religion and science don't have to be polar opposites.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Because there had to have been a beginning. A beginning does not just "exist," it has to be created. There is no answer for how elements or energy exist without a "they were created by..." It is impossible to prove the creation of the universe. At best, we can theorize that, after that first step, steps 2 through X happened in Y way.

 

And to me personally, I believe that is a very compelling reason for the existence of some sort of greater "power". However, just because something is unproveable at present does not mean it will be in 10, 50, 100, 1000 years or beyond. Also, what you are using is an argument using a lack of evidence to prove a theory, whereas the Big Bang uses actual measured and observed actions. That is what makes them entirely different.

 

IMO the difference between a scientific theory of creation and a religious theory of creation is trivial. At the end of the day you have to have pure belief in the manner of creation. The rest of is just filler. So to say one belief is silly, but the other makes complete sense is comical to me. I wish we could all just agree we don't know anything, and start from there. Religion and science don't have to be polar opposites.

 

No one is saying that one is silly or better than another, but what we are saying is that they are not on equal footing in terms of what is used or can be used to support each said theory. In fact, they are not even comparable. The scientific theory of creation is leaps and bounds more factually supported than any form of pure relgious creation story i've ever heard of.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Because there had to have been a beginning. A beginning does not just "exist," it has to be created. There is no answer for how elements or energy exist without a "they were created by..." It is impossible to prove the creation of the universe. At best, we can theorize that, after that first step, steps 2 through X happened in Y way.

 

The Big Bang is precisely steps 2 through X. What happened before the Big Bang is not just unknown, it is unknowable and scientists would admit as much.

 

IMO the difference between a scientific theory of creation and a religious theory of creation is trivial. At the end of the day you have to have pure belief in the manner of creation. The rest of is just filler. So to say one belief is silly, but the other makes complete sense is comical to me. I wish we could all just agree we don't know anything, and start from there. Religion and science don't have to be polar opposites.

 

I wouldn't want you on a jury. All the evidence could completely point to one guy and you'd think it was equally reasonable a leprechaun was the murderer.

 

Religious creation myths aren't theories; they're not even hypotheses.

[Jenksismyhero]

The Big Bang is precisely steps 2 through X. What happened before the Big Bang is not just unknown, it is unknowable and scientists would admit as much.

 

What? Scientists don't claim that the big bang created life and that there's no other explanation? I think that's their whole argument! They think a greater power is laughable (clearly some of you agree), despite not being able to answer the first part of the question. That's like saying you understand the creation of a human without being able to answer where the egg and sperm came from and why they came together in the first place.

 

I wouldn't want you on a jury. All the evidence could completely point to one guy and you'd think it was equally reasonable a leprechaun was the murderer.

 

Religious creation myths aren't theories; they're not even hypotheses.

 

 

No, that's why I'm a lawyer, because I think critically and need more evidence than "believe me when I tell you this."

 

All I'm saying is that academia preaches just as much as religion. At the end of the day science can answer more questions than religion, no doubt, but not the important questions. Not the questions of why we are here, how we got here, etc. Those are unknowable. It makes me laugh how self-righteous the anti-religious people are, how they know they're right, and how they know that anyone who thinks differently is so obviously unintelligent.

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

What? Scientists don't claim that the big bang created life and that there's no other explanation? I think that's their whole argument!

 

No. The Big Bang has nothing to do with the creation of life.

 

They think a greater power is laughable (clearly some of you agree), despite not being able to answer the first part of the question. That's like saying you understand the creation of a human without being able to answer where the egg and sperm came from and why they came together in the first place.

 

It would be more accurate to say that a greater power is unsupported or, in the cases of some 'greater powers', unscientific.

 

No, that's why I'm a lawyer, because I think critically and need more evidence than "believe me when I tell you this."

 

Are you serious? You're completely backwards.

 

Scientific ideas are created and modified, or discarded based on evidences and are presented with those evidences. Religious ideas are not.

 

 

All I'm saying is that academia preaches just as much as religion. At the end of the day science can answer more questions than religion, no doubt, but not the important questions. Not the questions of why we are here, how we got here, etc. Those are unknowable. It makes me laugh how self-righteous the anti-religious people are, how they know they're right, and how they know that anyone who thinks differently is so obviously unintelligent.

 

Science does not even attempt to tackle questions of "why". These are out of its scope, and not what we have been discussing.

 

The questions of "how" can be addressed (not in every case, of course), and for them, the scientific method is a far superior method of discovering truths than revelation, which is arbitrary.

[StrangeSox]

That's interesting. The hard science guy found lots of politics in college, and the poli sci guys found surprisingly little of it.

 

I was in engineering, and aside from one guy who ranted about Bush my first semester, my classes were pretty much as politics-free as they could be.

[StrangeSox]

Because there had to have been a beginning. A beginning does not just "exist," it has to be created. There is no answer for how elements or energy exist without a "they were created by..." It is impossible to prove the creation of the universe. At best, we can theorize that, after that first step, steps 2 through X happened in Y way.

 

Science doesn't just fall back to "just so" stories for explanations, though. The Big Bang Theory isn't meant as a final, definitive answer to the formation of the universe. It is simply the most accurate explanation of observed natural phenomenon. When Hubble looked to the sky, he wasn't trying to "prove the creation of the universe" but simply trying to understand what was going on. Scientific papers generally aren't filled with philosophical arguments.

 

Also, for the bolded part, it's turtles all the way down.

 

 

IMO the difference between a scientific theory of creation and a religious theory of creation is trivial. At the end of the day you have to have pure belief in the manner of creation.

 

There isn't a scientific theory of creation. There are theories on why the universe looks the way it does ("big bang" is a broad umbrella explaining observed expansion, cosmic background radiation, the measured age of stars and a whole host of other physics I don't know). There are theories on how the first forms of life emerged that fall under abiogenesis; they're not formed by a bunch of people sitting around a table throwing out idea but by testing and observing data. Then, of course, is the "grand unifying theory" of biology, evolution. Again, it is based on mountains of data and about 150 years of research.

 

How, exactly, does this compare to a religious story of creation? How do religious text's accounts of historical events, of which their is often no evidence or contradicting evidence, compare to modern historical and archaeological accounts of past civilizations and events? Where do you see this almost-inseparable similarity between religious stories and modern scientific research?

 

But, no, at the end of the day, you have scientific papers with large data and methodology sections and explanations of observed events. And then you have religious myths with no supporting evidence and often a whole lot of contradicting evidence/ logic pitfalls. One is attempted to explain physical reality, the other is attempting to provide philosophical reasoning for humanity. They couldn't be more different.

Edited February 17, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

No, that's why I'm a lawyer, because I think critically and need more evidence than "believe me when I tell you this."

 

That's why they have data and methodology sections of papers.

 

You're doing some major flailing here.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

No. The Big Bang has nothing to do with the creation of life.

 

Really? So life is independent of the Big Bang? How does that make any sense? The Big Bang supposedly explains that whole process of how we go from elements to talking over the internet on a message board in the year 2010.

 

It would be more accurate to say that a greater power is unsupported or, in the cases of some 'greater powers', unscientific.

 

Just like this specific scientific explanation is unsupported and unientific. It's a cop out to say that science answers all when it can't answer certain questions, like where did life begin.

 

Are you serious? You're completely backwards.

 

How exactly? I'm saying I need more than "here's the answer to where did life come from, unfortunately we can't start with the most pressing question, so we'll just stick to what we think happened AFTER all that..."

 

Scientific ideas are created and modified, or discarded based on evidences and are presented with those evidences. Religious ideas are not.

 

I'm not disputing this. But that doesn't mean science answers all, or that if science can't answer it, nothing can.

 

The questions of "how" can be addressed (not in every case, of course), and for them, the scientific method is a far superior method of discovering truths than revelation, which is arbitrary.

 

I'm not disagreeing with this, in general. But when you're talking about teaching this stuff to kids in school it's important. No one thinks we should stop teaching biology and start teaching meditation or something. But we're talking about teaching controversial, political issues, like when/how did life begin. I completely agree that SCIENCE should be taught, but again, it's crazy to me that any sort of religious explanation is instantly thrown out the window as entirely impossible, yet SCIENCE also fails to have an answer.

[StrangeSox]

Really? So life is independent of the Big Bang? How does that make any sense? The Big Bang supposedly explains that whole process of how we go from elements to talking over the internet on a message board in the year 2010.

 

No, it doesn't. Sorry to be an asshole, but you do not have even a basic understanding of what you're talking about here.

 

 

we're talking about teaching controversial, political issues, like when/how did life begin. I completely agree that SCIENCE should be taught, but again, it's crazy to me that any sort of religious explanation is instantly thrown out the window as entirely impossible, yet SCIENCE also fails to have an answer.

 

Religion is thrown out as untestable, unfalsifiable and, therefore, unscientific. Current ideas of when/ how life began may get a blurb in a high school textbook, but that's about it.

 

One thing you're showing you don't understand here is that "I don't know, but let's find out" is a perfectly reasonable answer for science. It's why scientists do science. To learn. To understand. To expand our knowledge. Falling back to a just-so story as a nice explanation doesn't actually explain anything or add any knowledge.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Really? So life is independent of the Big Bang? How does that make any sense? The Big Bang supposedly explains that whole process of how we go from elements to talking over the internet on a message board in the year 2010.

 

No, the Big Bang involves the initial expansion of the universe. It doesn't cover the initial development of life or the evolution of life to more complex forms. For that, there are theories of abiogenesis and evolution.

 

 

Just like this specific scientific explanation is unsupported and unientific. It's a cop out to say that science answers all when it can't answer certain questions, like where did life begin.

 

Can you tell me how the Big Bang Theory is unsupported or unscientific? Or evolution?

 

And no one claimed science answers ALL, just that it is a great (arguably the best) method of finding answers.

 

 

How exactly? I'm saying I need more than "here's the answer to where did life come from, unfortunately we can't start with the most pressing question, so we'll just stick to what we think happened AFTER all that..."

 

You implied scientists want you to believe things just because they say so. This is certainly untrue, as scientific ideas are presented with their evidences.

 

Were the religious beliefs you hold presented similarly?

 

I'm not disputing this. But that doesn't mean science answers all, or that if science can't answer it, nothing can.

 

No, but it certainly distinguishes the 2 forms of ideas.

 

I'm not disagreeing with this, in general. But when you're talking about teaching this stuff to kids in school it's important. No one thinks we should stop teaching biology and start teaching meditation or something. But we're talking about teaching controversial, political issues, like when/how did life begin. I completely agree that SCIENCE should be taught, but again, it's crazy to me that any sort of religious explanation is instantly thrown out the window as entirely impossible, yet SCIENCE also fails to have an answer.

 

Religious explanations aren't thrown out of science classrooms for no reason; they're thrown out because they're *not scientific* or *wrong*.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

^^^Yes

 

Science is a methodology, a tool, not a collection of facts.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it doesn't. Sorry to be an asshole, but you do not have even a basic understanding of what you're talking about here.

 

Well, sorry to be an asshole back, but you are being an asshole, and you're wrong. I dunno how you can claim that a scientific theory that attempts to explain the origin of the building blocks of life doesn't deal with the origin of life.

 

Religion is thrown out as untestable, unfalsifiable and, therefore, unscientific. Current ideas of when/ how life began may get a blurb in a high school textbook, but that's about it.

 

Well, I dunno how old you are, but I'm not that old (near 28). I was taught in school that life was created by a big explosion in the universe which created elements, which by hundreds of different means formed, multiplied, split, connected, molded, morphed, grew, blah blah until my beautiful face came into the world. When I asked where those elements came from, I was told "we don't know yet," an answer I continually see out there which is just crap.

 

I am not, and have not, argued that science does not help us explain the means of we got from that stage to this stage, but it's incredibly narrow minded to claim that science doesn't try and answer the question of creation or that it's just a "blurb" in the text book. It's the f***ing essential question that science in this arena attempts to answer. Like a religious belief, however, it's untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. And that's my point. You can either believe in a book, or you can believe that there's an answer, we just dunno what it is yet, both are equally "unscientific" and both require some leap of faith. Yet one is considered to be moronic (clearly your opinion), but the other is perfectly acceptable.

 

One thing you're showing you don't understand here is that "I don't know, but let's find out" is a perfectly reasonable answer for science. It's why scientists do science. To learn. To understand. To expand our knowledge. Falling back to a just-so story as a nice explanation doesn't actually explain anything or add any knowledge.

 

Clearly you didn't read me qualifying my answers to a specific issue here, which is the unanswerable and unproveable question about creation, and how science still thinks its got the right answer, despite not having any answer (oh but we have a methodology!), and it poo-poo's everything else.

 

/participation in this thread. I'll go back to the Republican thread where us unedumicated folk gather and talk about people in the clouds.

[BigSqwert]

Well, sorry to be an asshole back, but you are being an asshole, and you're wrong. I dunno how you can claim that a scientific theory that attempts to explain the origin of the building blocks of life doesn't deal with the origin of life.

 

 

 

Well, I dunno how old you are, but I'm not that old (near 28). I was taught in school that life was created by a big explosion in the universe which created elements, which by hundreds of different means formed, multiplied, split, connected, molded, morphed, grew, blah blah until my beautiful face came into the world. When I asked where those elements came from, I was told "we don't know yet," an answer I continually see out there which is just crap.

 

I am not, and have not, argued that science does not help us explain the means of we got from that stage to this stage, but it's incredibly narrow minded to claim that science doesn't try and answer the question of creation or that it's just a "blurb" in the text book. It's the f***ing essential question that science in this arena attempts to answer. Like a religious belief, however, it's untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. And that's my point. You can either believe in a book, or you can believe that there's an answer, we just dunno what it is yet, both are equally "unscientific" and both require some leap of faith. Yet one is considered to be moronic (clearly your opinion), but the other is perfectly acceptable.

 

 

 

Clearly you didn't read me qualifying my answers to a specific issue here, which is the unanswerable and unproveable question about creation, and how science still thinks its got the right answer, despite not having any answer (oh but we have a methodology!), and it poo-poo's everything else.

 

/participation in this thread. I'll go back to the Republican thread where us unedumicated folk gather and talk about people in the clouds.

 

 

What grade did you get in science because you didn't seem to retain anything resembling what I've been taught.

[StrangeSox]

Well, sorry to be an asshole back, but you are being an asshole, and you're wrong. I dunno how you can claim that a scientific theory that attempts to explain the origin of the building blocks of life doesn't deal with the origin of life.

 

Well, I'll continue to be an asshole by letting your own words demonstrate that you do not have a wikipedia-level understanding of the theories you're discrediting. The "Big Bang" theory does not incorporate nor is incorporated by abiogenesis or evolution.

 

 

Well, I dunno how old you are, but I'm not that old (near 28). I was taught in school that life was created by a big explosion in the universe which created elements, which by hundreds of different means formed, multiplied, split, connected, molded, morphed, grew, blah blah until my beautiful face came into the world. When I asked where those elements came from, I was told "we don't know yet," an answer I continually see out there which is just crap.

 

Two points:

 

Elements come from stars. This is well-understood physics.

 

"We don't know yet" isn't a crap answer. It is an honest answer and it's better than making something up without evidence.

 

I am not, and have not, argued that science does not help us explain the means of we got from that stage to this stage, but it's incredibly narrow minded to claim that science doesn't try and answer the question of creation or that it's just a "blurb" in the text book.

 

Abiogenesis is maybe a few paragraphs in a HS textbook. The Big Bang may be given some more coverage in HS physics, but the main focus there is classical mechanics and E&M, not cosmology.

 

It's accurate to claim that scientists use scientific methodology to explain observed natural phenomenon, such as cosmic background radiation, the expansion of the universe and the existence of life forms. It is not attempting to answer a question of creation.

 

It's the f***ing essential question that science in this arena attempts to answer. Like a religious belief, however, it's untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. And that's my point. You can either believe in a book, or you can believe that there's an answer, we just dunno what it is yet, both are equally "unscientific" and both require some leap of faith. Yet one is considered to be moronic (clearly your opinion), but the other is perfectly acceptable.

 

What is untestable, unfalsifiable and therefore scientific? The Big Bang? No, it's testable. We can measure blue shift and CBR. Abiogenesis? It's not a fully-developed area but scientific work is certainly being done. It's not just philosophy. The explanation of the origin of species has about 150 years worth of data and testing behind it. It doesn't require a leap of faith to accept cosmology or biology, just an understanding of the science.

 

You've also missed a third option; there is an answer but it may be unknowable. Either way, both are philosophically preferable to me personally than making up a non-explanation.

 

And, of course, you're conflating the methodological naturalism of science with atheism, agnosticism and philosophical naturalism. There are tens of thousands of religious scientists working in this fields.

 

 

 

Clearly you didn't read me qualifying my answers to a specific issue here, which is the unanswerable and unproveable question about creation, and how science still thinks its got the right answer, despite not having any answer (oh but we have a methodology!), and it poo-poo's everything else.

 

"Science" doesn't think it has a final or definitive answer of creation. Again, you do not understand what you're talking about.

 

And, yeah, in the science classroom and literature, untestable supernatural explanations are poo-poo'd because they're not science. They're theology or philosophy.

 

/participation in this thread. I'll go back to the Republican thread where us unedumicated folk gather and talk about people in the clouds.

 

This ties nicely into the meme of Republicans trumpeting ignorance as a virtue.

 

edit:

also please answer Crimson's question:

[No, that's why I'm a lawyer, because I think critically and need more evidence than "believe me when I tell you this."]

 

Were the religious beliefs you hold presented similarly?

Edited February 17, 2010 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

What? Scientists don't claim that the big bang created life and that there's no other explanation? I think that's their whole argument! They think a greater power is laughable (clearly some of you agree), despite not being able to answer the first part of the question.

I don't really know where you get this from, science doesn't attempt to answer this question because it can't be done.

[lostfan]

I was in engineering, and aside from one guy who ranted about Bush my first semester, my classes were pretty much as politics-free as they could be.

My instructors were never political but a lot of times in discussions, students would give themselves away and it was pretty annoying. Usually they were conservatives that would do it but there was one that had to go on time-out when she kept ranting about Bush in every answer. lol. poor girl.

[lostfan]

Jenks, I think I know what you're trying to say but you're pretty far off base and (I hate to have to phrase this cuz it sounds kind of condescending and I don't mean to be) you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the point of science is, or the things it tries to do and doesn't try to do. Science can't prove or disprove how life was created so it doesn't even try to touch the topic, and also "science" isn't just some repository of facts, it's a method used to reach conclusions based on observable data, like people have already mentioned. There is no observable data on how life started. There is for the Big Bang. I've also never heard anybody claim the Big Bang explains how life started, they say it's how the UNIVERSE started (universe ≠ life), but just now is the first time I've heard anybody say that's what the Big Bang is. Evolution is something totally different.

[kapkomet]

Maybe I'm timid, though I doubt it, but I also think those questions are out of place for the class.

 

Elaboration: When I take a science class, I do not go into it looking to prove my beliefs, I go into it for knowledge on how to do the science and how to understand their topics/jobs.

 

A better way to explain this, This 6,000 year belief is based on religion. The biologists work is not based off of religion, but based on the work they've done. I think the importance of the class is to ask questions pertaining to that work. And I think it's shortsighted to say you can't still find you're beliefs on that 6,000 even moreso by knowing how the science works.

 

And more elaboration: I took religious studies courses on the torrah and also a christianity course. When in the torrah class, I didn't feel it germane to the class to ask "Why do the jews reject the son of god when there is clear evidence that he was the prophet?" The class is about the teachings of the torah and the societies it represented. My questions stuck to them. In the Christianity class, I did not ask for proof to counter my growing atheism. I learned what there was to learn, and I found it a fulfilling class.

 

It's just as important to learn the topic at hand without forcing the topic to extrapolate to your own hypotheses. That can be done at professor hours. But I find it a bit disrespectful to ask the teacher to debate something off topic.

 

Good post. I agree with you, although I may disagree with your conclusions. But, it's your ability and free will to decide what's best for you. And that's what makes this a really insightful and well meaning post.

 

As for cramming down people's throat the politics of a scientific answer, bulls***. I'll just leave it right there, because obviously there's room for only black and white in any argument, and that's not only shameful, but why college gets the bad rap it does now.

[Balta1701]

My god, the corporatist democrats have been replaced by shape-shifting aliens!

The Senate should reform the filibuster as a way to end partisan gridlock, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said today.

 

Bayh, who cited partisanship and incivility as reasons for his retirement, said the filibuster has been used by the Republican minority too frequently.

 

"Now it's being routinely used to frustrate even low level presidential appointees," Bayh told MSNBC. So perhaps the threshold should be lowered again."

 

Bayh noted that the Senate had previously lowered the threshold for ending debate to 60 votes from 67. The Indiana Democrats said it may be time to lower that to 55.

 

"It's just brought the process to a halt and the public is suffering," Bayh said.

[Balta1701]

Science can't prove or disprove how life was created so it doesn't even try to touch the topic, and also "science" isn't just some repository of facts, it's a method used to reach conclusions based on observable data, like people have already mentioned.

Origin of life science is something of an odd topic, because we're highly unlikely to ever stumble in the fossil record upon the exact location and setup that gave rise to the first cells. Thus, sometimes people are sort of coming up with ideas for ways in which it could have happened, and if they test something, they're testing small portions of the sequence rather than the whole thing. But I woul,dn't say "it doesn't even try to touch the topic", I'd say it's something we're working on, and there have been some exciting ideas appearing in the last 10 years or so.

[bmags]

would it kill TPM to get some sort of marginally talented graphic designer or photo editor?

[Balta1701]

“And the president couldn’t find anywhere to set up a teleprompter to announce new taxes,”

That's soon-to-be Republican Senate Candidate from Florida Marco Rubio, reading from a teleprompter.