Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[Hokulele]

They might teach more about the BB "theory" now but they didn't teach anything about it in those 2 courses I mentioned above that I took in the 70s.

This is the point several people have tried to make. Science is not static (unlike the bible you idolize). We know far more about the universe, evolution, alternate theories (whether strings or M-branes), abiogenesis, and even the historical background of various parts of the bible than people did over 30 years ago. Several theories have fallen by the wayside. This is actually one of the strengths of the scientific method, rather than one of its weaknesses.

Your difficulty with admitting to failure may have something to do with your rejection of science.

 

[Elizabeth I]

(OT. I appologise)

I fail to understand the American education system. How on earth are people allowed into university without a grasp of the basics? A friend of mine in America is having to take science and english courses despite being an Advertising/PR student.

Why on earth are these things not covered earlier in the school process? Why must it wait until University for there to be a class in basic grammar?

I fail to get it.


Back ON topic, may I register my utter shock at DOC not knowing that there was no such thing (effectively) as space before the Big Bang?

I mean wow. You took a physics class and didn't know THAT?

They usually are covered earlier in the school process. But many students don't pay attention or do the work. If the teacher fails them, their parents complain to the principal, who tells the teacher to pass them to get these damn parents of her back. Low grades make the school look bad and make parents complain, so there is a lot of pressure to give good grades to poor students.

OR, you get people like the college freshman my mother tried to tutor, who, it quickly developed, was completely clueless about American history ("How many children did George Washington have?" "None of his own that he acknowledged, although he did have two stepchildren." "Then why does my history instructor say he was the father of his country?" True story.) It turned out that her high school American history teacher was one of the football coaches [note to readers outside the U.S. - here coaches are also "required" to teach an "academic subject" as well as coaching a sport] and "he said we could do anything we wanted as long as we didn't bother him, so we planned all the class parties."

The sad thing is that, in the U.S., a large percentage of school administrators come from the coach cadre, which means that schools devote more and more funding to sports, specifically football (American version), followed by basketball, then baseball.

(i.e., "day" and "night" and "okra" existed before "sun" and "moon" and "stars").

Okra...yummmm, okra.

 

[Prometheus]

OR, you get people like the college freshman my mother tried to tutor, who, it quickly developed, was completely clueless about American history ("How many children did George Washington have?" "None of his own that he acknowledged, although he did have two stepchildren." "Then why does my history instructor say he was the father of his country?" True story.) It turned out that her high school American history teacher was one of the football coaches [note to readers outside the U.S. - here coaches are also "required" to teach an "academic subject" as well as coaching a sport] and "he said we could do anything we wanted as long as we didn't bother him, so we planned all the class parties."

The sad thing is that, in the U.S., a large percentage of school administrators come from the coach cadre, which means that schools devote more and more funding to sports, specifically football (American version), followed by basketball, then baseball.



Okra...yummmm, okra.

Huh?

 

[arthwollipot]

It is also worth mentioning that one can study high-school level physics without that particular course ever touching on cosmology. However, it is far less likely for an astronomy course.

 

[FireGarden]

I believe his "point," though he scrupulously avoids stating it, is that science makes some incredible claims. He thinks it's unfair that people accept the incredible claims which science makes (i.e., all life has a common origin), while ridiculing the incredible claims made by his favorite religious book (i.e., "day" and "night" and "okra" existed before "sun" and "moon" and "stars"). He seems steadfastly oblivious to the notion of "evidence" as a possible justification for accepting one set of incredible claims while rejecting another.

I remember flipping through the pages of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and finding "Lasers". I was about 7 years old and very, very surprised that lasers were real -- I thought they were sci-fi!

It was exciting that something weird turned out to be well-founded. But I'm disappointed by the ammount of evidence in favour of life on other planets -- an idea I still have sympathetic support for.

Our feelings on what is and isn't likely tend to lead us astray. Hence the need for a scientific method.

 

[DOC]

That's why I said you should get your tuition money back. Either you went to a crappy college or you missed a couple classes.

This is all irrelevant. "When" I learned something I'm talking about doesn't matter. What matters is the subject.

 

[Hokulele]

This is all irrelevant. "When" I learned something I'm talking about doesn't matter. What matters is the subject.

I disagree, modern scientific theories have changed quite a bit since the '70's. If your incredulity is based on outdated information, that is relevant to your OP.

 

[Lothian]

This is all irrelevant. "When" I learned something I'm talking about doesn't matter. What matters is the subject.

You are quite right, DOC. The key is that you are no longer residing in the ignorance taught by your school, college and church.

Now how do you suggest we educate others who mistakenly believe that the formation of the universe is somehow unrelated to the events of the big bang ?

 

[DOC]

I believe his "point," though he scrupulously avoids stating it, is that science makes some incredible claims. He thinks it's unfair that people accept the incredible claims which science makes (i.e., all life has a common origin), while ridiculing the incredible claims made by his favorite religious book (i.e., "day" and "night" and "okra" existed before "sun" and "moon" and "stars"). He seems steadfastly oblivious to the notion of "evidence" as a possible justification for accepting one set of incredible claims while rejecting another. His PFA "90%" statistic, and request for others to add their own PFA stats to this thread suggest that, in his mind, guesses are just as good as any other kind of evidence.

You really ought to let my posts speak for themselves. There are over 2100 to choose from.

If you see a post of mine, then ask a question from that post. If I don't respond to it, then I don't respond to it. Please don't speak for me. There should be a Randi rule if there isn't one already -- Don't speak for other people, let their posts do the speaking.

And your last sentence is an absolute joke. But since it's not me who spoke it, I won't comment on it anymore.

 

[kmortis]

2+3=raccoon!

Waitaminute...
If 2+3=raccoon, and 2=3, for sufficiently large values of 2, then doesn't that imply that 3=large Haldron collider?

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC
What percentage of Americans alive today do you believe know that according to the BB theory there wasn't any "space" in existence before the BB?

What does it matter DOC? What percentage of Americans can actually program a computer? What percentage can perform heart surgery? What percentage know that Cepheid variables are used to measure interstellar distances? What percentage have heard of ATP and its role in energy transfer in cells? Seriously, what is your point?

My point is that some people have no problem believing all the "matter" and "space" included in 100 billion galaxies came from something smaller than an atom without understanding any of the science behind the "theory", but then mock Christianity as being too hard to believe or accept.

 

[Wally]

My point is that some people have no problem believing all the "matter" and "space" included in 100 billion galaxies came from something smaller than an atom without understanding any of the science behind the "theory" but then mock Christianity as being too hard to believe or accept.

If you had said this in the opening post instead of being so inscrutable, it would have save a lot of speculation by everyone else and made you appear less trollish.

 

[arthwollipot]

If you had said this in the opening post instead of being so inscrutable, it would have save a lot of speculation by everyone else and made you appear less trollish.

And, I might add, this statement is significantly different from the original statement, which was that most people didn't know that 100 gillion balaxies bla bla bla...

Now the statement is that most people do know, but don't understand the science.

 

[Fitter]

Posted by DOC
What percentage of Americans alive today do you believe know that according to the BB theory there wasn't any "space" in existence before the BB?




My point is that some people have no problem believing all the "matter" and "space" included in 100 billion galaxies came from something smaller than an atom without understanding any of the science behind the "theory", but then mock Christianity as being too hard to believe or accept.

Ain't evidence a bitch?

 

[joobz]

DOC, why did you admonish bokonon for his post?

I believe his "point," though he scrupulously avoids stating it, is that science makes some incredible claims. He thinks it's unfair that people accept the incredible claims which science makes (i.e., all life has a common origin), while ridiculing the incredible claims made by his favorite religious book (i.e., "day" and "night" and "okra" existed before "sun" and "moon" and "stars").

when it is clear that he was right about what you thought?

Posted by DOC
My point is that some people have no problem believing all the "matter" and "space" included in 100 billion galaxies came from something smaller than an atom without understanding any of the science behind the "theory", but then mock Christianity as being too hard to believe or accept.

The difference between science and religion is evidence. this isn't a small difference.

 

[Lothian]

My point is that some people have no problem believing all the "matter" and "space" included in 100 billion galaxies came from something smaller than an atom without understanding any of the science behind the "theory", but then mock Christianity as being too hard to believe or accept.

You make a good point, modern science is so far advanced that most people have a poor understanding of it. Give a layman all the materials and they wouldn’t know how to put them together to make a radio. They don’t know what parts of an engine do. They struggle with basic maths and wouldn’t be able to tell you where a 1lb ball fired from cannon at 20 miles an hour at 45 degrees would land.

People have ‘learned’ to accept what scientists tell them in just the same way that they accept what a priest tells them or a psychic. They are so used to having a lack of understanding that they do accept things without demanding evidence.

However, and this, is the difference. When it comes to science anyone wanting to find out more can. Although it can be difficult to understand; the evidence is there and people will show you. Experiments are repeatable and measurements can be made again and again and again.

It is not only possible to understand the theory but to see the evidence that supports the theory with your own eyes.

I could measure radio waves I could test the parts see what they do how they interact. With support I could understand how to and actually could build a working radio. The same can not be said of religion. I can not know with the same certainty God spoke to Moses, or Jesus turned water to wine or that in 7 days God made the universe. But I could stand on the shoulders of the giants of astronomy, see what they saw and I could look back to the start of time.

Yes, people have no problem believing all the "matter" and "space" included in 100 billion galaxies came from something smaller than an atom without understanding any of the science behind the "theory", but then mock Christianity as being too hard to believe or accept. The reason is they know that the evidence for the big bang is there for anyone who wants to see it. Christianity on the other hand is only theory; no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

In the spirit of bokonon’s, Lothian’s, and other folks’ excellent posts, here’s a list extolling some of the observations which uphold the Big Bang theory. If you follow the link, you’ll find fascinating and extensive discussions on each issue, along with various problems and objections.

Often, the more one learns about a theory, the less difficult it is to believe. It usually becomes more difficult only when one is learning a mangled strawman version, or one twisted to suit an agenda.

Observational Evidence of the BBT
a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy
z) Consistency

 

[DOC]

You are obviously part of the 93.14159% percent of Christians (by my estimate) who don't know that according to Genesis 1:14, it was day 4 when God "made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

Where did the light come from that God made on Day 1 (Genesis 1 verse 4 and 5)?

God could have made stars on Day 1, Day 4, Day 782, Day 1,619, and as we speak. In fact here is a site that says stars are being churned our at a furious pace.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14309

Genesis did not give all the knowledge about the universe to the illiterate desert wanderers -- just some. For example it gave them this knowledge:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

 

[joobz]

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

So, it's your opinion that the bible got the general picture right, but the devil is in the details? I guess that gives us a clue as to who one of the authors of the bible must have been.

 

[Fiona]

My point is that some people have no problem believing all the "matter" and "space" included in 100 billion galaxies came from something smaller than an atom without understanding any of the science behind the "theory", but then mock Christianity as being too hard to believe or accept.

Er.....did I not answer this in post #381?