tecoyah

"Big Science" does not claim to know how gravity functions, or what causes it on a fundamental level. "Big Science" simply states it exists, and attempts to find out why. Magnetism is also very complicated in function, and effects multiple fields of "Big Science", The difference here is one of observation, and documentation.
Religious Creation cannot be framed as a scientific question, as it has neither documentation or observation, cannot be backed by testable theory, and does not change for these reasons...it is stagnant by definition. Those Hypothesis and Theories proposed by "Big Science", are based upon our current understanding of Physics, Cosmology, Biology....etc, and are ever expanding as new information becomes accepted into the Data stream.
If anyone with understanding of what we term "reality" takes even a glancing look at the options, the Creationist Hypothesis falls short in the first paragraph, and in fact often is nothing more than that one paragraph in the first place. When compared to the Reams of Data found within a single theory put forward by "Big Science", Creationism is laughable.

__________________
Self-Banned

Hymns

The point that I am trying to make is that they don't understand these things and still teach them. And just because you can't test it, doesn't mean that creation is bs. And I have not seen Big Science provide a legitimate basis for the ORIGIN of life (evolution does not count, as it deals with a separate subject: how life changes once it appears). And if I am not mistaken, there is a readily accepted scientific law that states "All life must come from life". Hmmm....does that not back up Creation? Life on Earth came from the life of God.

__________________
être et durer (to be and to last).

Hymns

I would really like to see a reverse debate between Big Science and religion...that would be interesting.

tecoyah

"Big Science"...does not teach these things, Universities do. Scientists try to learn. Universities teach what is already known or postulated, hypothesized, or theorized to engage the next generation of possible scientists. And yes, because it cannot be tested, Creation is in fact BS, from a hard scientific standpoint and instead falls to Philosophy. There are many theories as to the beginning of life, but as none are proven, they remain theoretical. The primary difference being they are based on observed and tested Data instead of a 2000 yr old book. You are indeed mistaken, as there is no Law stating what you claim that I have ever been introduced to.

Likely, Life on Earth began as Chemical reactions infused with outside energy sources...But we as of yet do not know for sure. We do not claim to know yet, and you do. We base our minimal understanding and theories on accepted and provable fact, you base your position on very old and dated scripts, written by men 2000 yrs ago and poorly scripted historical evidence.

Somehow, I think the educated mind sees a difference in the approaches.

tecoyah

I have a relatively good grasp of a few religious interpretations of creation, from Christian and Hindu...to Native and South American. I would happily play the devils advocate in a reverse debate, and as I also understand the Scientific approach, could easily rip apart anything my opposition tosses out there if its incorrect.

I will take this on if anyone cares to spar.

niftydrifty

creationism and religion aren't exactly the same thing. all creationists are religious. but not all religious are creationist. and some scientists are religious. the debate is between science and creationism. not science and religion.

__________________

Hymns

And Big science isnt just evolution. I mean a BIG debate. And tecoyah, I would gladly oblige, except that I know i would get ripped into shreds...oh well.

Hymns

And who do you think tells these Universities (and primary schools) to teach these things?
And Creation is from ancient hebrew texts, much more than 2000 years old, and was included in the Bible. And the one big problem I have with the theory that we are just a series of random accidents and mutations (I know it isnt scientific, its just my opinion) is this: What are the chances that, over time, a bunch of molecules will randomly assemble and mutate into a form where they can argue that they are not just a bunch of random molecules stuck together? And remember basic cell theory from High school biology? "aLl cells come from pre-existing cells dividing".

rathi

Thats over simplification, needed to teach basic level understanding. Its the same way you start doing physics problems with no air resistance at the basic level.

Pretty low. However, it had billions of years out of a near infinite numbers of planets to happen. Think of it like winning the lottery. Its an extremely long shot, but since enough people buy lottery tickets, someone always wins. Current evidence suggests its possible for it to have happened, although the probability is quite low.

Compare this with the current evidence for creationism, which is approaching zero.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

niftydrifty

Creation is in the bible but Creationism arguably isn't.

who believes it is random? does anyone? see Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker." or "The Origin of Species."