A Christian republic (POLL)

[Landlord]

 

^ Most fields/hypotheses involving particle physics, quantum mechanics, dimensions, etc. are based primarily in lowercase-t theory.

No, they're based on observations, and they are working hypotheses that explain what we currently observe. Unlike religion, which purports to provide the answer before the question is asked, science asks the question and tests the possibilities to arrive at the answer.

 

Religion:

The answer is God. What's the question?

 

Science:

I have a question. What's the answer?

 

 

 

 

They are based on observations, yes. I was just trying to highlight the difference in a lot of those fields still being in hypothesis state instead of Theory state, because we don't have the data for it.

 

 

Anyways, I think your religion/science distinction is a little too simplistic personally. The main contrast between the two, I think, is that religion's primary undercurrent is assigning meaning to the answers we find. Science asks the what, religion asks the why. Whether the question is why the sky is making loud noises and flashes (Zeus is angry), or why humans suffer, science is amoral and incapable of providing ethical insight into our observation.

[BigRedBuster]

 

I know most charter/private schools are religious, but is there anything preventing a nonreligious charter schools from popping up?

 

I'm curious--I don't have any kids (don't plan to for a little bit give or take 8 years), so I'm probably not going to be directly impacted by a radical change to the public school system.

 

Yeah, there are a lot of sports-oriented charter schools in the DFW area (pretty much you pick your child's opiate when you sign up for a charter school in DFW--sports or religion). Deion Sanders even had one running for a while (Prime Prep Academy) before it went belly up and caused a lot of controversy for how it handled its closure.

 

And from the sound of things, it was a sports-first, education-second type of charter school.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2016/02/02/the-spectacular-collapse-of-prime-prep-academy

 

IMG Academy

[NM11046]

 

 

^ Most fields/hypotheses involving particle physics, quantum mechanics, dimensions, etc. are based primarily in lowercase-t theory.

No, they're based on observations, and they are working hypotheses that explain what we currently observe. Unlike religion, which purports to provide the answer before the question is asked, science asks the question and tests the possibilities to arrive at the answer.

 

Religion:

The answer is God. What's the question?

 

Science:

I have a question. What's the answer?

 

 

 

 

They are based on observations, yes. I was just trying to highlight the difference in a lot of those fields still being in hypothesis state instead of Theory state, because we don't have the data for it.

 

 

Anyways, I think your religion/science distinction is a little too simplistic personally. The main contrast between the two, I think, is that religion's primary undercurrent is assigning meaning to the answers we find. Science asks the what, religion asks the why. Whether the question is why the sky is making loud noises and flashes (Zeus is angry), or why humans suffer, science is amoral and incapable of providing ethical insight into our observation.

 

Appreciate this, but science also assigns the why. It's just that it's rational and not emotional. Sometimes there isn't meaning to things emotionally, sometimes it rains because the fronts collide, or because the earth's rotation allows for wet seasons so that we have green grass and replenish the water base and etc.

[Landlord]

Well, the most obvious to me is the theory that all of a sudden out of nothing, matter came together to explode to create the entire universe and everything in it. This is a phenomena that can not be replicated because no matter what you do, you start with something to create something.

 

Sure, we can observe evolution..etc. But, the theory of what was present the nano second before during and after the big bang is pure "theory". This is because the human brain can not comprehend what existed before anything existed.

 

Another one is where does space end? I was always told in science class that it never ends and goes on forever. Well.....we really don't have any proof of that. We can see through telescopes as far as we can see, but, beyond that, is pure theory. Again, the human brain can not comprehend eternity and we have no observable proof that it goes on forever.

 

 

Just because we can't physically touch, see, or comprehend something, doesn't mean we don't have observational evidence/proof of it.

 

The Big Bang Theory is a theory in the sense that it is a working scientific model. It is incomplete, because models are always incomplete, but it is very, very far from theory in the sense of a guess. Scientists build models to observe, test, and make predictions, then place confidence in beliefs directly proportionate to the amount of corroborating evidence, and there is a whole bunch of evidence for big bang theory. It underpins our knowledge of relativistic physics, offers comprehensive explanations for a broad range of phenomena including cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and more, and it's estimations for the age of the universe is consistent with other dating methods as well.

 

Not to mention the recent discovery of gravity waves, which confirm the past-tense history of space-time being much denser by allowing us to actually hear/see through the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and be able to observe much further in space-time in the coming years.

[Landlord]

Appreciate this, but science also assigns the why. It's just that it's rational and not emotional. Sometimes there isn't meaning to things emotionally, sometimes it rains because the fronts collide, or because the earth's rotation allows for wet seasons so that we have green grass and replenish the water base and etc.

 

 

The "why's" of science are subcategories of a bigger what question. Forgive me, the language isn't perfect because we use these words somewhat interchangeably, but the fundamental, rudder driving the ship kinds of questions of science are things like, "What is the universe?", which then progress to questions like, "Okay, measuring this red shift stuff is showing that things are moving faster. Why is that?", which leads to more research, but the base driving force is still a "what". Hopefully that makes sense.

[knapplc]

 

 

^ Most fields/hypotheses involving particle physics, quantum mechanics, dimensions, etc. are based primarily in lowercase-t theory.

No, they're based on observations, and they are working hypotheses that explain what we currently observe. Unlike religion, which purports to provide the answer before the question is asked, science asks the question and tests the possibilities to arrive at the answer.

 

Religion:

The answer is God. What's the question?

 

Science:

I have a question. What's the answer?

 

 

 

 

They are based on observations, yes. I was just trying to highlight the difference in a lot of those fields still being in hypothesis state instead of Theory state, because we don't have the data for it.

 

 

Anyways, I think your religion/science distinction is a little too simplistic personally. The main contrast between the two, I think, is that religion's primary undercurrent is assigning meaning to the answers we find. Science asks the what, religion asks the why. Whether the question is why the sky is making loud noises and flashes (Zeus is angry), or why humans suffer, science is amoral and incapable of providing ethical insight into our observation.

 

 

 

You're telling me that a 16-word definition encompassing all of science and all of religion is too simplistic?

 

[Landlord]

I expect nothing less from pastafarians.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Well, the most obvious to me is the theory that all of a sudden out of nothing, matter came together to explode to create the entire universe and everything in it. This is a phenomena that can not be replicated because no matter what you do, you start with something to create something.

 

Sure, we can observe evolution..etc. But, the theory of what was present the nano second before during and after the big bang is pure "theory". This is because the human brain can not comprehend what existed before anything existed.

 

Another one is where does space end? I was always told in science class that it never ends and goes on forever. Well.....we really don't have any proof of that. We can see through telescopes as far as we can see, but, beyond that, is pure theory. Again, the human brain can not comprehend eternity and we have no observable proof that it goes on forever.

 

 

Just because we can't physically touch, see, or comprehend something, doesn't mean we don't have observational evidence/proof of it.

 

The Big Bang Theory is a theory in the sense that it is a working scientific model. It is incomplete, because models are always incomplete, but it is very, very far from theory in the sense of a guess. Scientists build models to observe, test, and make predictions, then place confidence in beliefs directly proportionate to the amount of corroborating evidence, and there is a whole bunch of evidence for big bang theory. It underpins our knowledge of relativistic physics, offers comprehensive explanations for a broad range of phenomena including cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and more, and it's estimations for the age of the universe is consistent with other dating methods as well.

 

Not to mention the recent discovery of gravity waves, which confirm the past-tense history of space-time being much denser by allowing us to actually hear/see through the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and be able to observe much further in space-time in the coming years.

 

What existed a nano second before the explosion?

[knapplc]

Stay tuned for the "We don't know the answers to everything therefore science shouldn't be taught any more strenuously than religion" argument.

[NM11046]

 

Appreciate this, but science also assigns the why. It's just that it's rational and not emotional. Sometimes there isn't meaning to things emotionally, sometimes it rains because the fronts collide, or because the earth's rotation allows for wet seasons so that we have green grass and replenish the water base and etc.

 

 

The "why's" of science are subcategories of a bigger what question. Forgive me, the language isn't perfect because we use these words somewhat interchangeably, but the fundamental, rudder driving the ship kinds of questions of science are things like, "What is the universe?", which then progress to questions like, "Okay, measuring this red shift stuff is showing that things are moving faster. Why is that?", which leads to more research, but the base driving force is still a "what". Hopefully that makes sense.

 

I hear ya - you're expressing it better than I ever could.

 

I just could never get my head around "just believe me when I say god did this" vs. the ability to show facts and explaining how science did it. You're just getting my passive aggressive comments

 

My bigger views were expressed above by fun husker. The only thing I'd add is that if we get into the weeds and allow for the bible and creationism to be taught in public schools, then we also need to cover all the other information believed by the Koran, the Torah etc, etc. Once you get into teaching what others "believe" then you must cover it all. If you teach what has been proven it's pretty black and white.

 

EDIT: religious beliefs should be taught at home or in church by people who are experts or by the parents who believe so strongly

[BigRedBuster]

BTW...the thread has been derailed. I thought we had an emoji for that but I can't find it. So, I'll just say this.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Stay tuned for the "We don't know the answers to everything therefore science shouldn't be taught any more strenuously than religion" argument.

Won't come from me if that's what you are implying.

[knapplc]

 

Stay tuned for the "We don't know the answers to everything therefore science shouldn't be taught any more strenuously than religion" argument.

Won't come from me if that's what you are implying.

 

 

Sorry if I misinterpreted that line of questioning. I've seen it end up there many times.

[Landlord]

 

 

Well, the most obvious to me is the theory that all of a sudden out of nothing, matter came together to explode to create the entire universe and everything in it. This is a phenomena that can not be replicated because no matter what you do, you start with something to create something.

 

Sure, we can observe evolution..etc. But, the theory of what was present the nano second before during and after the big bang is pure "theory". This is because the human brain can not comprehend what existed before anything existed.

 

Another one is where does space end? I was always told in science class that it never ends and goes on forever. Well.....we really don't have any proof of that. We can see through telescopes as far as we can see, but, beyond that, is pure theory. Again, the human brain can not comprehend eternity and we have no observable proof that it goes on forever.

 

 

Just because we can't physically touch, see, or comprehend something, doesn't mean we don't have observational evidence/proof of it.

 

The Big Bang Theory is a theory in the sense that it is a working scientific model. It is incomplete, because models are always incomplete, but it is very, very far from theory in the sense of a guess. Scientists build models to observe, test, and make predictions, then place confidence in beliefs directly proportionate to the amount of corroborating evidence, and there is a whole bunch of evidence for big bang theory. It underpins our knowledge of relativistic physics, offers comprehensive explanations for a broad range of phenomena including cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and more, and it's estimations for the age of the universe is consistent with other dating methods as well.

 

Not to mention the recent discovery of gravity waves, which confirm the past-tense history of space-time being much denser by allowing us to actually hear/see through the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and be able to observe much further in space-time in the coming years.

 

What existed a nano second before the explosion?

 

 

 

First of all - there is likely no such thing as 'before' the explosion. Time is part of the substance of the expansion of our universe, not something by which to view the universe through.

 

Secondly - we don't really know.

 

Thirdly - Most likely, an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, primordial singularity of space-time, which is currently A) regarded as impossible in physics, but also B) not applicable to the laws of physics as we understand them, the equations of which aren't applicable before the universe cooled to Planck temp, and finally C) based on some assumptions that might or definitely can never be experimentally verified.

 

We have concrete data and observation about space-time going backwards up until very very close after the initial expansion of the universe, but anything before the actual 'bang' is still rooted, primarily, in speculative research.

 

 

Just for important clarity's sake, here is what big bang theory is and isn't. It IS an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a tiny, dense, hot, smooth state, into what it is today, because that is something we know has happened. It IS NOT an attempt to explain the origin of the universe. Big Bang Theory doesn't really even attempt to explain what initiated the expansion, or what came before. Those are other scientific streams.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Well, the most obvious to me is the theory that all of a sudden out of nothing, matter came together to explode to create the entire universe and everything in it. This is a phenomena that can not be replicated because no matter what you do, you start with something to create something.

 

Sure, we can observe evolution..etc. But, the theory of what was present the nano second before during and after the big bang is pure "theory". This is because the human brain can not comprehend what existed before anything existed.

 

Another one is where does space end? I was always told in science class that it never ends and goes on forever. Well.....we really don't have any proof of that. We can see through telescopes as far as we can see, but, beyond that, is pure theory. Again, the human brain can not comprehend eternity and we have no observable proof that it goes on forever.

 

 

Just because we can't physically touch, see, or comprehend something, doesn't mean we don't have observational evidence/proof of it.

 

The Big Bang Theory is a theory in the sense that it is a working scientific model. It is incomplete, because models are always incomplete, but it is very, very far from theory in the sense of a guess. Scientists build models to observe, test, and make predictions, then place confidence in beliefs directly proportionate to the amount of corroborating evidence, and there is a whole bunch of evidence for big bang theory. It underpins our knowledge of relativistic physics, offers comprehensive explanations for a broad range of phenomena including cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and more, and it's estimations for the age of the universe is consistent with other dating methods as well.

 

Not to mention the recent discovery of gravity waves, which confirm the past-tense history of space-time being much denser by allowing us to actually hear/see through the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and be able to observe much further in space-time in the coming years.

 

What existed a nano second before the explosion?

 

 

 

First of all - there is likely no such thing as 'before' the explosion. then what exploded?

 

Secondly - we don't really know. Because it can't be observed?

 

Thirdly - Most likely, an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, primordial singularity of space-time, which is currently A) regarded as impossible in physics, but also B) not applicable to the laws of physics as we understand them, the equations of which aren't applicable before the universe cooled to Planck temp, and finally C) based on some assumptions that might or definitely can never be experimentally verified.

 

We have concrete data and observation about space-time going backwards up until very very close after the initial expansion of the universe, but anything before the actual 'bang' is still rooted, primarily, in speculative research.

 

So, the theory that there was anything that came together all by itself out of unprovable physical powers is something that is both taught in science class and not observed.

 

No, I'm not saying this shouldn't be taught in science class. But, the idea that ONLY observable ideas are taught in science class is also wrong.