[Prometheus The Supremo]

"Shelled to the masses" could be just as well used to describe teaching our children evolution.

why just evolution? what about cosmology? chemistry? geography? geology? etc..

we are not telling a lie when we teach evolution to children. we are telling a lie when we teach there is a god. just because something can't be disproven, doesn't mean that it's not a lie.

if i were to say that britney spears will join this forum and post nude pictures of her self for all to see an april 1 2045, is it true just because you can't prove me wrong? am i telling the truth? or am i a liar?

 

[urbanboom]

Evolution is a scientific theory based on observational data. Data that is quantified. Of course science should be taught to children. Sadly, religious people are threatened by evolution and want it erased from the curriculum because it destroys some of their baseless God theories.

My God theory doesn't hinder evolution. Of course evolution should be taught in school. Separation of church and state must be absolute.

 

[Mot]

My God theory doesn't hinder evolution. Of course evolution should be taught in school. Separation of church and state must be absolute.

On that we can agree. Separation of church and state is for the benefit of both institutions.

 

[urbanboom]

why just evolution? what about cosmology? chemistry? geography? geology? etc..

we are not telling a lie when we teach evolution to children. we are telling a lie when we teach there is a god. just because something can't be disproven, doesn't mean that it's not a lie.

if i were to say that britney spears will join this forum and post nude pictures of her self for all to see an april 1 2045, is it true just because you can't prove me wrong? am i telling the truth? or am i a liar?

But we're not teaching a lie by telling our kids that many believe in a God. So should our kids simply not know about an aspect of society that has shaped so much of history?

And no, it wouldn't be a lie because it would be possible. Very unlikely, but not impossible. As of now, it is not an absolute lie

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

My God theory doesn't hinder evolution. Of course evolution should be taught in school. Separation of church and state must be absolute.

your "god theory" and theory of evolution are not on the same level. yours is a guess while the other is a scientific explanation.

science:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

of course people do attach the word science to whatever they want, such as creation science. of course those people don't understand what the word science means. it's like me attaching the word computer to the lid of a toilet.

 

[urbanboom]

your "god theory" and theory of evolution are not on the same level. yours is a guess while the other is a scientific explanation.

science:




of course people do attach the word science to whatever they want, such as creation science. of course those people don't understand what the word science means. it's like me attaching the word computer to the lid of a toilet.

but you say in terms of the origin of the universe that "you don't know". Where is Science (the state of knowing) in that?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

But we're not teaching a lie by telling our kids that many believe in a God. So should our kids simply not know about an aspect of society that has shaped so much of history?

And no, it wouldn't be a lie because it would be possible. Very unlikely, but not impossible. As of now, it is not an absolute lie

where did i say we shouldn't teach our children that many people believe in god?
we can teach that along with "if everyone jumped off a bridge....." like i was taught in school. too bad i never thought to apply it to my beliefs.

to answer your other part of the question, YES it would be a lie. it doesn't matter if it is possible. if i go to the cops and i say person X is going to kill me. it's not true just because it may be possible. i would be labeled a liar.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

but you say in terms of the origin of the universe that "you don't know". Where is Science (the state of knowing) in that?

science knows how the universe was formed. if science doesn't know something, it doesn't claim to know.

no information is better than false information.

 

[urbanboom]

to answer your other part of the question, YES it would be a lie. it doesn't matter if it is possible.

If it is possible and it take place in the future (2025), then it wouldn't be a lie, as anything is possible.

 

[urbanboom]

science knows how the universe was formed. if science doesn't know something, it doesn't claim to know.

no information is better than false information.

Once again, it isn't false information because it isn't proved or disproved. Right now its an "unproved theory".

Again to the formation of the universe, it knows what happened, but not how. (as is the case with most of science)

 

[digi]

If you're going to make claims, back it up with proof.

I quoted the proof for you. You're being willfully ignorant.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

If it is possible and it take place in the future (2025), then it wouldn't be a lie, as anything is possible.

and if i say the jews are going to take over the world in 2018? it's not a lie since it's in the future and it is possible? because anything is possible?

it's a baseless claim, a lie. lies like that have led to some serious misfortunes.


now if you don't like future examples, lets try past examples.

what if i were to say that you committed crime "X" and there is no proof that you did or didn't. would i be telling the truth because there's no way to know?

 

[urbanboom]

now if you don't like future examples, lets try past examples.

what if i were to say that you committed crime "X" and there is no proof that you did or didn't. would i be telling the truth because there's no way to know?

You would be making a claim. Since there was no evidence for or against, it would remain a claim - neither true or false.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

You would be making a claim. Since there was no evidence for or against, it would remain a claim - neither true or false.

yes it's a claim, it's also written in english, on the internet, etc. but it's also a lie.

if i claim to know that you committed a crime when i don't know if you did, tell everyone that you did commit the crime. it's a lie. doesn't matter if it's remotely possible.

 

[Hydrogen]

In regards to the big bang theory, I think it just may prove the existence of God. In a nutshell, the Big Ban theory is this: we know that galaxies are moving further away from each other as time goes on, so simple logic says that at one point - many billions of years ago - all matter in the universe was at one point just a tiny dot in the centre of space. That is as far a science can can explain it. For some reason, the matter just appeared there, AKA "Something from Nothing... At first there was nothing, then God created the heavens and the earth... (and all that jazz)" and then unexplained forces made the matter expand into all that there is. I call these unexplained forces "God".

There is only one explanation to why something matter appeared where there was no matter before: there is a higher power.

How does the Big Bang prove the existence of god? How do you arrive at this conclusion?

The Big Bang is a physical theory that describes the universe as having a beginning. The original version of the theory left a number of lingering issues unanswered (the "flatnness" and "horizon" problems). These were addressed with an updated version of the Big Bang, which is referred to as "inflation." Scientific theories live or die depending how on how well they can explain different phenomena, and by providing testable references. The theory of the Big Bang is still evolving and is not yet a final answer to the nature and structure of the universe, so it's hard to see how it proves the existence of a god. That is your wishful thinking in operation, not any set of verifiable facts or evidence.

As for unexplained forces, why not just call them unexplained forces? If they are "unexplained" then they can't be god. That "unexplained" status suggests nothing in particular, so why pretend to have knowledge of what fills that unexplained space? These forces are, by your own admission, unexplained.

As for this "higher power," it is just a gift wrapping to cover up a lack of knowledge. What is the nature of this power? What do you mean by "higher" power? How high? Where? None of this is remotely measurable or accessible. You want to call it god, others might want to call it pixie dust.

Once again, the invocation of god always hints of a tendency to play god, or speak on behalf of a god. All too often, there is tendency for people who believe in god to think themselves as better than those who don't. Then they have special knowledge.