DeletedUser
Wow Seamus, you really do need to get a formal education, because all these quotes are taken out of context and were plucked by you from various creationist websites.
Before I bother to defend the predominant theory referred to as Big Bang, let me point out that Creationism IS NOT a theory, has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and any attempt to argue otherwise, by presentation of things you don't even begin to comprehend (for lack of an education) is lay "boomstick" tactics.
Basically, what you and the creationism movement are trying to do is insert yourself into the scientific debate, but it's just not going to happen. Reason being, just because there are differing scientific theories does not mean a non-scientific postulation will be accepted into the scientific debate. Differing theories does not mean they're, "unsure of themselves, and thus have a weakened belief system." No, it means that it's science (analysis), not religion (belief) and until you, and the rest of your creationist bedfellows get that through your head, you're just going to be looking rather comical and desperate.
Let's cut to the chase --- the Big Bang theory is the predominant theory, but it is not the only theory. Nonetheless, it is a theory, like all scientific theories, based on analysis of existing data and evidence. It is, by reasonable interpretation, a "good guess." It is not, however, an assumption. It is not, as well, a belief. It is argued and questioned, updated and reviewed by those within the scientific community, always working, through analysis, examination of evidence, and interpretation of data, to find a series of sub-theories that best fits the available evidence.
This mistake you, and so many other ignorant folk make (I'm assuming ignorance, because otherwise it's merely dishonesty), is that you think because scientists debate on theories that somehow their BELIEF system is flawed. The mistake here is thinking in your limited terms, as theories are not even remotely beliefs.
And just to reiterate: If you argue that it is not ignorance, then I will have to surmise you are intentionally trying to mislead people into thinking that creationism is a theory. That, dear sir, is opportunistic redress and specifically geared to take advantage of the notion that, "OMG, scientists are unsure, so creationism could be just a good a guess as anything else they throw out," which is just crap, as is creationism. In fact, let's call it what it is, HOGWASH.
Creationism has no foundation whatsoever. It has no evidence, no supporting data, and is a conclusion posed before examining any evidence. It is a process of reverse determinacy, whereby you grab your belief and then attempt to grab whatever you think might fit into the framework of your belief (or at least might confuse naysayers enough so they don't question your line of crap). Truthfully, I'm disgusted that you attempt to grab scientific discoveries and follow along blindly misquoting (and quoting out of context) physicists and philosophers in an attempt to discredit the very fields of study they spent their entire lives researching.
Seriously, what do you have? A high school education? The persons studying this material, and the relevant data, have been doing so for 40+ years, and learned from the shoulders of giants, who themselves learned from giants, and so on. The wealth of information and knowledge in the sciences are not some cheap dime-store novels you can pick up and understand overnight, but you try and argue this very notion with your ridiculous presentation.
As to Dawkins, you really need to stop taking his comments out of context. You and others repeatedly try and present him as some sort of believer, when in fact he's merely being British in his presentation of argument. Stated, his stance on these issues is firm, in that he contends Creationism is unsubstantiated tripe and anyone trying to argue otherwise is being dishonest. Finally, your claim of my intolerance denotes a complete ignorance about who I am and what is my background.
"The fundamentalists deny that evolution has taken place; they deny that the earth and the universe as a whole are more than a few thousand years old, and so on. There is ample scientific evidence that the fundamentalists are wrong in these matters, and that their notions of cosmogony have about as much basis in fact as the Tooth Fairy has." ~ Isaac Asimov [quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]
Before I bother to defend the predominant theory referred to as Big Bang, let me point out that Creationism IS NOT a theory, has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and any attempt to argue otherwise, by presentation of things you don't even begin to comprehend (for lack of an education) is lay "boomstick" tactics.
Basically, what you and the creationism movement are trying to do is insert yourself into the scientific debate, but it's just not going to happen. Reason being, just because there are differing scientific theories does not mean a non-scientific postulation will be accepted into the scientific debate. Differing theories does not mean they're, "unsure of themselves, and thus have a weakened belief system." No, it means that it's science (analysis), not religion (belief) and until you, and the rest of your creationist bedfellows get that through your head, you're just going to be looking rather comical and desperate.
See, this is what i'm talking about. First off, unfortunately for you, I do know about the above-mattered celestial bodies and their associated (and non-associated) measurable effects. Granted, not everything, but a helluva lot more than you. So when you try and pose these "boomsticks" to impress the other ignorant folks, you don't impress me because I know you're grasping for justification on an otherwise non-evidential stance.
Let's cut to the chase --- the Big Bang theory is the predominant theory, but it is not the only theory. Nonetheless, it is a theory, like all scientific theories, based on analysis of existing data and evidence. It is, by reasonable interpretation, a "good guess." It is not, however, an assumption. It is not, as well, a belief. It is argued and questioned, updated and reviewed by those within the scientific community, always working, through analysis, examination of evidence, and interpretation of data, to find a series of sub-theories that best fits the available evidence.
This mistake you, and so many other ignorant folk make (I'm assuming ignorance, because otherwise it's merely dishonesty), is that you think because scientists debate on theories that somehow their BELIEF system is flawed. The mistake here is thinking in your limited terms, as theories are not even remotely beliefs.
And just to reiterate: If you argue that it is not ignorance, then I will have to surmise you are intentionally trying to mislead people into thinking that creationism is a theory. That, dear sir, is opportunistic redress and specifically geared to take advantage of the notion that, "OMG, scientists are unsure, so creationism could be just a good a guess as anything else they throw out," which is just crap, as is creationism. In fact, let's call it what it is, HOGWASH.
Creationism has no foundation whatsoever. It has no evidence, no supporting data, and is a conclusion posed before examining any evidence. It is a process of reverse determinacy, whereby you grab your belief and then attempt to grab whatever you think might fit into the framework of your belief (or at least might confuse naysayers enough so they don't question your line of crap). Truthfully, I'm disgusted that you attempt to grab scientific discoveries and follow along blindly misquoting (and quoting out of context) physicists and philosophers in an attempt to discredit the very fields of study they spent their entire lives researching.
Seriously, what do you have? A high school education? The persons studying this material, and the relevant data, have been doing so for 40+ years, and learned from the shoulders of giants, who themselves learned from giants, and so on. The wealth of information and knowledge in the sciences are not some cheap dime-store novels you can pick up and understand overnight, but you try and argue this very notion with your ridiculous presentation.
As to Dawkins, you really need to stop taking his comments out of context. You and others repeatedly try and present him as some sort of believer, when in fact he's merely being British in his presentation of argument. Stated, his stance on these issues is firm, in that he contends Creationism is unsubstantiated tripe and anyone trying to argue otherwise is being dishonest. Finally, your claim of my intolerance denotes a complete ignorance about who I am and what is my background.
"The fundamentalists deny that evolution has taken place; they deny that the earth and the universe as a whole are more than a few thousand years old, and so on. There is ample scientific evidence that the fundamentalists are wrong in these matters, and that their notions of cosmogony have about as much basis in fact as the Tooth Fairy has." ~ Isaac Asimov [quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]
