Messages

To Omaghjoe (response to post #99 - way too long to quote!)

1.   Unexplained questions does not equal holes. When one talks of holes, one thinks of holes in a plot or a film story i.e. inconsistencies, contradictions, logical fallacies etc. which are just passed over in the hope that no one notices or cares too much. Creationism is full of holes. Plate tectonics is not. Disagreements over the formation of plates and the mechanisms of convection may exist, but those are not holes in the theory. They are just unanswered questions awaiting further study.

I should have have been clearer when the edge of the plate is being pulled under, it is by gravity not by convection. That's the theory anyway who knows? But the convection current theory has not been proved far from it. Contintental drift and tectonic plates is widely accepted but what is driving them is subject to many different theories, such as the bulging of the earth due to spinning and even my favorite.. the tides. Is that worthy of the term hole? Maybe not, a little strong I admit lets call it a gap hows that?
How is creationism relevant to this point? I never compared it to tectonic plate theory, I was only using as an example for how scientific theory can be superseded, debunked and refined. You wanted to talk further about tectonic plate theory I thought we were on a side discussion about tectonic plates. But I completely agree that the two are in comparable in terms of being proven.

Honestly, this is getting tedious.

Yes, I was talking about plate tectonics, the theory. I would have thought that was clear when I spoke about disagreements on the specifics of convection etc.

I used creationism as an example of a "theory" which is full of holes. I would have thought that was clear from the context of the paragraph in which the comment appeared.

2.   Yes, I think we are something more than "just floating atoms and molecules". Air is just floating atoms and molecules.

Well what else do you believe we consist off?

Again, this is getting tedious! I don't have the time to get into a detailed, prolonged, pedantic back and forth about whether we are more than "just floating atoms and molecules". So yeah, atoms and molecules are our basic building blocks. Just like the stones are the basic building blocks of the Pyramids of Giza and the Great Wall of China.

3.   I never said I wasn't open to new ideas. I said, in my opinion, plate tectonics is unlikely to be replaced as the dominant framework in geology (if there is some other even semi-legitimate and respectable alternative, please list it).
But how is saying that those theories are unlikely to be debunked "narrow minded"? And where did I dismiss new discoveries and observations? What part of "it might well be augmented and improved upon" do you not understand?
We are talking about the overarching theories – evolution, plate tectonics etc. Evolutionary biology, as a serious science, has existed since Darwin sailed on the Beagle. From the 1860s onwards, pretty much all serious biologists have accepted the fact that species evolve. Natural selection fared less well initially as the main mechanism, being somewhat in limbo for a period until the evolutionary synthesis reconciled it with population genetics in the 1930s. So while the overall framework i.e. species evolve still stood, the details were debated and researched and refined until eventually natural selection was restored to its dominant position as the main mechanism driving evolution. Even today, evolutionary biology is still a huge and active field of study, and probably will be for centuries. So "unlikely to be debunked" does not equal "the end of scientific study" or "being narrow minded"

Yeah but here is thing, you didn't say "unlikely to be debunked" what you said was

"And no one is denying that scientific theories are often replaced and debunked. We've even mentioned some of them here. However, plate tectonics is not going anywhere."

If you are modifying clarifying that, to "unlikely to be debunked" that fine then we are in agreement I agree that plate tectonics is unlikely to be debunked, however if you are sticking with your original statement I will maintain smacks of narrow mindedness and what's more arrogance.

Seriously, what is the qualitative difference between "unlikely to be debunked" and "plate tectonics is not going anywhere"? Its pretty f**king clear from my statements in this thread that I am well aware of how science works and that paradigms may be overthrown and that scientific knowledge is always provisional, always subject to revision and correction. Yeah I suppose there is a miniscule chance that plate tectonics might turn out to be bullshit, that plates are not in fact moving across the planet, despite all the evidence to the contrary, including, recently, GPS tracking.

4.   That big bang link doesn't even attempt to debunk the big bang. Their model still includes an expanding universe and initial rapid inflation. They're addressing the point before the big bang occurred, at the so-called big bang singularity stage. I don't see this research as a potential overthrowing of the big bang at all. If that is your standard, then the world of science must be in constant upheaval.

Actually it does attempt to debunk the big bang, it bypasses the the big bang at the point where relatively can no longer be proved and says the universe existed before the big bang. I thought these were two  fairly standard components of the big bang?
But at last we have got to something that is is comparable to creationism and that is the big bang theory, both of which are full of holes creationism more so obviously as it has been disproved but I suspect that day is coming too for the big bang.
The more likely scenario tho is that we will never understand the universe, precious few people understand the theories that are put forward at the minute, the likelihood is that we are incapable of understanding it.
The more important question is why even bother with it? Its relevance is minuscule

We must be being directed to two different websites then, because I saw nothing in that one that would indicate that that research contradicts the big bang.

5.   My "faith", or more accurately, confidence, is in science, not necessarily scientists. I've a strong scientific background, I know plenty of scientists, and I'm fully aware that they're subject to the same faults and biases as the rest of us. The field, or process, of science is self-correcting however, and it a process of sorting wheat from the chaff and narrowing in on the correct answers in the end. If your experiment is poorly designed, or you didn't quite get your stats right, someone else will be along to critique and improve upon your work (hopefully these issues will be ironed out prior to submission, or at least by the referees, but obviously papers can get through to be savaged by the wider field).
The "faith" I may have in the empirically successful scientific process is in no way comparable to having faith in the existence of a god, however.

Your final statement smacks of an agenda that you are out to disprove God, why even mention that? You have faith and not just in your believe and trust of scientists but I suspect in other parts of your life as well. Some of which maybe completely inexplicable to science, such as Donegal winning the all-Ireland maybe? I dunno maybe you didn't believe they could, but the players did even tho many would have laughed at that notion. Faith in any form is a very powerful thing and our lives and society would implode without it, science on the other hand we could and did exist without.

I mention that based on your previous comments and seemingly pointed use of the word "faith" to prove some point about those of us who are not believers. Faith to me is about believing in the existence of something for which we have no evidence. Confidence or trust in science is not faith in that religious or spiritual sense. Being of the opinion that ET life may well exist is not faith.
And one hopes that Donegal can win another AI title. One is more or less confident that they can based on what we're seeing and have seen from the team. Not sure I've ever seen anyone who has "faith" that their sports team can win, other than maybe they're deluding themselves that their prayers will be answered.

6.   Unless one is an expert in a field, or say the analytical techniques involved, trying to come to your own conclusions is mostly a waste of time and, often, the height of arrogance (or maybe ignorance or both). A statistician might well be qualified to critique an experimental design or statistical analysis in a field in which he is not an expert, or a geologist might have an issue with the conclusions drawn by a palaeontologist regarding the rocks in which he found a fossil, but the average layman is not going to be in any way qualified to critique arcane scientific issues in any meaningful way (politicians and the media fail miserably at this).

Is this relating to a particular point I made? Or maybe its just this discussion in general that it is pointless as we are not qualified to discuss them? But I suspect not as you have continued with more posts after this one
In any case I agree completely with this point.

Yes, it was addressing your final point.

[in its day]

Adam and Eve in its day was a reasonable theory for how we (as in the people of times before Charles Darwin) all got here based on the knowledge available? And that if we had been alive back then we all most likely have been adherents to it?[/b][/li][/list]

But surely the prevalence of creationism was a product of people doing science within the confines of the religious views that prevailed at the time. Many naturalists, for example, back then were clergymen, because most other people just didn't have the resources or the time. Professional science didn't really exist and there was no reason to doubt the bible story as no serious scientific case against it was outlined until Darwin came up with evolution by natural selection.

I wouldn't see it as a theory but as religious dogma which had not yet been challenged due to the prenatal state of science at the time.

Even today, young earth creationists don't see the Genesis story as a scientific theory. They think it happened that way because that is what it says in the bible, which they see as literal truth. They're openly honest about that and don't deny that their objection to evolutionary biology has little to do with science. Sure, apologists propose half-baked pseudoscientific nonsense to try to backfit "scientific" facts to line-up with the bible story, but that is little more than propaganda to reassure the faithful, who, in general, aren't exactly au fait with evolutionary biology in the first place.

That we would almost all have been creationists 200 years ago is not evidence that Genesis is a scientific theory. Its evidence of the collective ignorance, the dominance of the religious world view, and the primitive state of scientific research at the time.

I don't think the observation of an expanding universe came before the theory. However, given it was the 1920s and the first theory was published within 2 years of the first confirmed observation, it is possible the order was not what I think it was. Especially when this occurred on different continents.

As for Adam & Eve, I think it is revisionism to describe it as a theory. It was very much a dogma. That is not to say you are pushing this dogma, or a creationist, but the people over the last two millennia who spoke of Adam & Eve certainly delivered it as an irrefutable truth. We were told it was the Word of God. So apologies but I can't accept it as a former theory.

So you are presuming that because it didnt come from the scientific community it doesn't deserve to be considered a theroy? Tell me this...if you compare Spontenous generation (a widely accepted scientifitc theroy that was debunked) with the Adam and Eve story/theroy which seems more crazy and illogical?
Science is just as responsible as religon for creating crazy ideas and theories

The Big Bang makes some sense to my tiny mind. Red Shift was one of the few concepts I could grasp. I will read up on your link but it may be beyond me.

But do you ignore what happened before? or even during? when relativity falls apart? Ignoring those things is an act of faith in the presumption that the overall theory is correct.

Abiogenesis is a very incomplete field. Does that mean that we should throw out evolutionary biology, just because we don't necessarily know how life came to exist? Just because we may not know what happened before the big bang does not erase how the model explains what we do know. Anyone with even a modicum of interest knows that the big bang theory, to date, has been limited in this way.

And don't you think there is a difference between something like Big Bang or plate tectonics theories, and spontaneous generation, a product of the state of scientific investigation from ancient Greece through the middle ages? Its like comparing the work of a young child to that of an expert adult.

What can be said for spontaneous generation is that at least it was based on observation and logic, flawed (and laughable) as the idea appears from our highly advanced technological and scientific perspective. I cannot even begin to imagine how you could think that about the Genesis story.

To Omaghjoe (response to post #99 - way too long to quote!)


1.   Unexplained questions does not equal holes. When one talks of holes, one thinks of holes in a plot or a film story i.e. inconsistencies, contradictions, logical fallacies etc. which are just passed over in the hope that no one notices or cares too much. Creationism is full of holes. Plate tectonics is not. Disagreements over the formation of plates and the mechanisms of convection may exist, but those are not holes in the theory. They are just unanswered questions awaiting further study.

2.   Yes, I think we are something more than "just floating atoms and molecules". Air is just floating atoms and molecules.

3.   I never said I wasn't open to new ideas. I said, in my opinion, plate tectonics is unlikely to be replaced as the dominant framework in geology (if there is some other even semi-legitimate and respectable alternative, please list it).
But how is saying that those theories are unlikely to be debunked "narrow minded"? And where did I dismiss new discoveries and observations? What part of "it might well be augmented and improved upon" do you not understand?
We are talking about the overarching theories – evolution, plate tectonics etc. Evolutionary biology, as a serious science, has existed since Darwin sailed on the Beagle. From the 1860s onwards, pretty much all serious biologists have accepted the fact that species evolve. Natural selection fared less well initially as the main mechanism, being somewhat in limbo for a period until the evolutionary synthesis reconciled it with population genetics in the 1930s. So while the overall framework i.e. species evolve still stood, the details were debated and researched and refined until eventually natural selection was restored to its dominant position as the main mechanism driving evolution. Even today, evolutionary biology is still a huge and active field of study, and probably will be for centuries. So "unlikely to be debunked" does not equal "the end of scientific study" or "being narrow minded"

4.   That big bang link doesn't even attempt to debunk the big bang. Their model still includes an expanding universe and initial rapid inflation. They're addressing the point before the big bang occurred, at the so-called big bang singularity stage. I don't see this research as a potential overthrowing of the big bang at all. If that is your standard, then the world of science must be in constant upheaval.

5.   My "faith", or more accurately, confidence, is in science, not necessarily scientists. I've a strong scientific background, I know plenty of scientists, and I'm fully aware that they're subject to the same faults and biases as the rest of us. The field, or process, of science is self-correcting however, and it a process of sorting wheat from the chaff and narrowing in on the correct answers in the end. If your experiment is poorly designed, or you didn't quite get your stats right, someone else will be along to critique and improve upon your work (hopefully these issues will be ironed out prior to submission, or at least by the referees, but obviously papers can get through to be savaged by the wider field).
The "faith" I may have in the empirically successful scientific process is in no way comparable to having faith in the existence of a god, however.

6.   Unless one is an expert in a field, or say the analytical techniques involved, trying to come to your own conclusions is mostly a waste of time and, often, the height of arrogance (or maybe ignorance or both). A statistician might well be qualified to critique an experimental design or statistical analysis in a field in which he is not an expert, or a geologist might have an issue with the conclusions drawn by a palaeontologist regarding the rocks in which he found a fossil, but the average layman is not going to be in any way qualified to critique arcane scientific issues in any meaningful way (politicians and the media fail miserably at this).

Tetonic Plate theory like many scientific theroies has many holes, for example many geologists don't buy the convection theory, as they figure it aint possible with the measured densities of rock. I'm fairly well convinced on it but I am open to new theories. However the weathering and cooling theory was accepted until about 50 years ago, as the evidence for it also appeared quite strong (and still does!).
Floating atoms is pretty much what we are and everything else to according to the atomic theory, which I might add has been all but proven. So if that is the case then everything is possible in this universe and the only thing that is preventing us from seeing it all are our bodies which are incapable of observing those things. In other words we most likely will never be able to understand the universe!

Agreed, but what is your point?

It was a response to J70 that it was cast iron certainty, however the whole statement could be considered as a demonstration of how scientific theories are often replaced and debunked

Plate tectonics is NOT controversial. And what holes are you referring to? And you do realize that rocks as the depths where they undergo convection are in a plastic state fueled by radioactivity, right? And the convection currents are rather slow, like cm/year? There may be debate over the types of convection, but that hardly translates into a controversy over convection itself.

And no one is denying that scientific theories are often replaced and debunked. We've even mentioned some of them here. However, plate tectonics is not going anywhere. The evidence for shifting plates is simply overwhelming and it explains everything from vulcanism to earthquakes to mountain building to deep sea trenches to biogeography.

Your original statement on atoms was that scientists tell us we are "just" floating atoms.

However surely the basis of looking for new life is not looking to some far off world it would be researching how it started here in the first place, of which we have no idea.

Anyway let me say this, if you believe in the Big Bang and ET on the availble evidence then you are taking an enormous leap of faith. And I am glad that you have it in your lifes and it is a vital component for living.

What leap of faith? I said I believe it is very possible that ET life exists. Once again, given the development of life on earth AND the sheer scale of the universe meaning that there are probably some other planets somewhere with similar conditions to earth, there is a good chance that it has developed somewhere else. There is nothing fantastical about that. No leap of faith. Its simple logic.

As for the big bang, its the theory that best fits the evidence. Faith doesn't come into it. Anyone with a clue about science realizes that all the knowledge is provisional and that good scientific research necessarily leads to even more questions.

The likelihood of some of these grand theories being overthrown is not high. We are not talking about Newton's gravitation theory. Fine as it was, it was, necessarily, limited by the relative infant state of science at the time. There are thousands upon thousands of scientists today studying all of this stuff, competing in a cutthroat world to beat each other to the punch. Anything that's stood till now, while it might well be augmented and improved upon, is unlikely to be completely thrown out.

On the "looking for life" question, why not do both? Its more than 60 years since the Miller Urey experiments - abiogenesis is not a young field. The search for extraterrestrial life is, obviously, much more difficult, especially in terms of justifying funding, but there is no harm in incorporating it into stuff such as the Martian exploration (at least it makes headlines).

Yessss!!! Great stuff to watch again. Ibe looks class.

Mario was bound to come good some time - never doubted him

Not sure about Ibe. Clearly has bucket loads of talent but holds the ball too long and as a result ends up running down too many blind alleys.

People weren't sure about the end product of Cristiano Ronaldo and Giggs in their early days. Ibe can be worked on like they were if he has the dedication and hopefully be a top class player.

[At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.

It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

What are you talking about?

The point of my post is that proposing that some intelligence created the big bang only introduces one more thing, way more fantastical, that has to be explained.

As for "only a theory"... a classic non-scientific dismissal.  Theory in science means something different to theory in everyday use.

There is lots of evidence for the big bang.  Its been around since Hubble in the 20s and predicted the discovery of background microwave radiation in the 60s and is still standing 50 years on as scientific study only gets more detailed.  Doesn't mean another model wont build on it and replace it, but its been very successful so far.

Yes but scientific theories are  based on evidence and there is scant evidence of the Big Bang. Unlike: Evolution which has been all but proven.
The atomic theory where the evidence is overwhelming
Or the Tectonic Plate theory where the evidence is pretty solid but still needs open to question and further refinement.

Lets not confuse the Big Bang with theories like those above, it is just a case of something that was floated but is very difficult to disprove and it will probably take a Darwin eureka like moment to disprove it.
The problem for me is that it is hard to swallow that in the whole complexity of the universe is something as simple as the Big Bang? Just doesn't add up. Its the Adam and Eve of its day I don't have an alternative explanation tho but I don't feel the need to have a scientific explanation for the origins of the universe, it becomes pretty irrelevant anyway to our lives don't you think?

Al scientific theories are open to refinement. Plate tectonics, like evolution with biology, is nothing short of amazing in the way it tied together the entire field of geology under one overarcing framework. Not sure why you think it is still open to question.

All it would take to disprove the big bang theory would be evidence that the universe was NOT expanding. Unless you are going to align yourself with a theory that says it started expanding sometime AFTER its origin (is there such as theory?), I'm not sure what your objection to it is. Like I said previously, it is still standing 90 years after the idea was first proposed. That is pretty robust by any scientific standards. What it DOES say is that even if the big bang theory as a whole is ultimately rejected, much of it will probably be retained given its proven explanatory power. Similar to Newton and Einstein.

[could]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

Do you believe in the existence of fairies?

Never looked into it in depth, so I wouldn't really be in a position to comment on their full existence. Alot of their happenings seem to have a perfectly logical explanation but at the same time I know I wouldn't want to the man who had to go at fairy fort with a digger. I suppose its a case of who knows, so why mess with it?

Now let me ask you a question.... Do you believe in Extra Terrestrial life forms? And do you think that it is a logical thing to search for evidence of those life forms?

First, I don't believe in fairies as there is zero evidence to support their existence.  Same with werewolves,  banshees, vampires, ghosts, Bigfoot, gods, etc. etc.

ET life is, of course, a possibility.  Our planet is obviously proof that life exists. No reason why, given the magnitude of the galaxy and wider universe,  it should not have developed elsewhere.

As for looking for it, well that is a question of feasibility and economics.

Very strange that you believe in ET life when there is no evidence that such a thing could exist, we don't even know how or why it started on earth FFS. But if the universe is so large then pretty much anything is possible including Bigfoot, banshees, faires etc

Also if according to scientists we are all just floating atoms and molecules how would we even recognise life if we did find it? Could we have already passed over other life forms as they see themselves and vise versa? Including on this planet?

The scientific evidence and theroy would suggest all things are possible and we could never possibly understand the whole thing.

What do you mean there is no evidence for ET life? We're here, aren't we? There is no reason why a planet similar to earth somewhere else could not harbor life. Doesn't mean it exists  or existed elsewhere, but the strong possibility is certainly there given the age and vastness of the universe.

Yeah fairies and the like could exist (is there anything that couldn't?), but there is zero evidence for them being anything other than a figment of the imagination which took hold at a time when people were ignorant, uneducated and casting about for something to explain the world. To compare them to the possibility of extraterrestrial life is simply ludicrous.

I don't think I've ever heard a scientist describe us a "just floating atoms and molecules". And unless you're aware of life forms that don't grow, reproduce, use energy, interact with their environment etc. etc. I don't what you're talking about when you say "how would we even recognise life if we did find it?"

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

Do you believe in the existence of fairies?

Never looked into it in depth, so I wouldn't really be in a position to comment on their full existence. Alot of their happenings seem to have a perfectly logical explanation but at the same time I know I wouldn't want to the man who had to go at fairy fort with a digger. I suppose its a case of who knows, so why mess with it?

Now let me ask you a question.... Do you believe in Extra Terrestrial life forms? And do you think that it is a logical thing to search for evidence of those life forms?

First, I don't believe in fairies as there is zero evidence to support their existence.  Same with werewolves,  banshees, vampires, ghosts, Bigfoot, gods, etc. etc.

ET life is, of course, a possibility.  Our planet is obviously proof that life exists. No reason why, given the magnitude of the galaxy and wider universe,  it should not have developed elsewhere.

As for looking for it, well that is a question of feasibility and economics.

[At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.

It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

What are you talking about?

The point of my post is that proposing that some intelligence created the big bang only introduces one more thing, way more fantastical, that has to be explained.

As for "only a theory"... a classic non-scientific dismissal.  Theory in science means something different to theory in everyday use.

There is lots of evidence for the big bang.  Its been around since Hubble in the 20s and predicted the discovery of background microwave radiation in the 60s and is still standing 50 years on as scientific study only gets more detailed.  Doesn't mean another model wont build on it and replace it, but its been very successful so far.

"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"

All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.

And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.

So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?

You forgot sheep, given that you're resorting to slippery slope arguments.

That aside, bisexuals not being allowed to marry a man AND a woman is hardly an equality issue given that NO ONE ELSE has the right to marry more than one person at a time. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal.

But surely these people's human rights are being infringed by not being allowed marry in their preferred combination?

I'm sure some feel they should be entitled to pay for sex or take a shite in the street or drive 120 mph. Society has rules. Currently we don't allow people to marry more than one person.  If someone feels strongly that that is a denial of human rights, let them make the argument.  It has nothing to do with gay people wanting what straight people are already entitled to. It is not an equality issue if the same rules apply to all.

[At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

Do you believe in the existence of fairies?

"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"

All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.

And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.

So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?

You forgot sheep, given that you're resorting to slippery slope arguments.

That aside, bisexuals not being allowed to marry a man AND a woman is hardly an equality issue given that NO ONE ELSE has the right to marry more than one person at a time. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal.

[I think Science and Creationism are aligning slowly. I don't know how literal the animal stories are but surely you see the correlation between the big bang and God speaking the world into existence?]

If Jesus was the son of god 2000 odd years ago how can we be so certain there hasn't been another one sent? Do David Icke and the Waco guy not have equal claim... What are we basing it on?

Isn't there a massive chance that Jesus was a confidence trickster who was extremely intelligent/deluded and was able to brainwash a lot of people who were ripe for the taking?

Can creationism exist given the overwhelming evidence of the universe being Billions of years old? What about Dinosaurs and surely there's no way Noah had 2 of everything on his boat. Did he have the insects that eat your eyes from the inside on as well?

These are some of the questions I struggle with. I would like to think there was a God and I'm open to it but I need something more than "you just have to have faith" to convince me!

There have been many people who have claimed to be God, the Son of God, the Daughter of God.... They've all died. Jesus rose from the dead and stands undisputed on that front....

If he was a confidence trickster - what did he gain from it? Oh yeah - He was beaten, tortured, scourged and crucified - that worked out....

I think Science and Creationism are aligning slowly. I don't know how literal the animal stories are but surely you see the correlation between the big bang and God speaking the world into existence?

Again you and muppet could find better answers on other forums but without "faith" I don't know how open to anyone's answers you might ever be...

Come on man, that is thin! The only commonality between the big bang and "God speaking the world into existence" is that they both are a starting point. Given that the universe and earth have to have a starting point somewhere, "God speaking the world into existence" can be consistent with whatever theory is put forward by cosmologists. If the big bang is replaced tomorrow by some other model, the "God speaking..." will not suffer one bit.

(BTW, if you're talking literally about the earth and not the universe, there is a gap of 9 odd billion years between the big bang and the formation of the earth.)

As for the animals (and plants, fungi, algae, bacteria etc. etc.), creationism is nonsense, pure and simple. Even the Catholic Church hierarchy now accept that evolutionary biology offers the best explanation for the development of life on earth. Sure, they dress it up in a few undetectable extras such as the instillation of a soul in humans somewhere along the line, but creationism it ain't. But any supposed alignment is the church accepting that some things are undeniable and moving toward science, not the other way around.

Believe me, I give them credit for it. There are plenty of religions and sects who embrace willful ignorance and fraud when it comes to science.