Before the Big Bang

Regardless of how many may be in US prisons (I suspect they'd have more christians in there!) It doesn't mean a science forum is an excuse for ganging up on someone's faith. To do so would simply illustrate that it runs deeper than mere knowlede interpretation, but a hatred of God. That is why, we would tend to try to avoid that, should some be tempted to lean that way.Divorce is something widespread, and, if kids aren't involved, perhaps not the greatest evil on earth. Prisons have a high percentage of minorities in there, and less wealthy people, and less educated. Being there in many wicked countries is no shame. Putting many of the people who are in there is!Besides, claiming some belief is a common thing in history. Many mass murderers who stsrted wars even claimed such things. The people who kiled Jesus claimed such things. It wasn't what they claimed to believe that was bad, but their real beliefs and actions.

Yes, but how the hell do you really know if a fact is truth?

True. I don't really know about your abilities, but I do have a working hypothesis based on what I've seen of you so far. Then why are you borrowing opinions from Hoyle and presenting them as fact when you obviously don't understand the basis for them?

I have no such authority, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. There is no such authority for anyone to have. I am a rational human being, capable of thought and evaluation. That's all I need.In science, the evidence is all that matters. When an intelligent, eminent, and learned scientist such as Sir Fred Hoyle is wrong, he's wrong, and anyone can call him on it. Scientific findings stand or fall on their own, not on the so-called "authority" of the person making the claim.If my arguments are wrong, they're wrong. If they're right, they're right. Who's making the argument, or the attributes of the person making the argument, are irrelevant. You are steadfastly avoiding discussion of the evidence and the arguments in favor of discussing the people, and that's a fallacy on which a moderator may call you soon.I've made my arguments, presented a brief precis of the evidence, and pointed you to easily accessible deeper discussion of my arguments and evidence.So, the ball's in your court now; we've pointed out why Sir Fred was wrong and why you've misinterpreted/misrepresented Crick. Time for you to discuss our arguments rather than committing more appeal-to-authority and ad-hominem fallacies.{fixed typo}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-16-2005 20:02 AM

Honestly? If elements of your faith would butt out of science, you wouldn't see this happening. But as long as a major movement within your faith demands that its fairy tales be advanced on the same scientific footing as genuine research, you're going to see the backlash.Clean house before you accuse us of "ganging up on your faith." Quite frankly, your faith is the one that started it. Which was what I was talking about. Why do the people who believe in God have worse real actions in spite of their supposed better real beliefs?

quote:

---

. Why do the people who believe in God have worse real actions in spite of their supposed better real beliefs?

---

The ones I know don't. The ones that killed Jesus did. But they were just pretending to be sheep, and were actually wolves, in sheep's clothing. Don't be fooled by the clothes, or claims, but look at what their actions say more.

quote:

---

Clean house before you accuse us of "ganging up on your faith." Quite frankly, your faith is the one that started it.

---

Actually Cain struck the first blow, but we will finish it once and for all soon at Armageddon. In recent times defending faith against doctrinal fables of our orgins, by anti creationists, is a defensive mechanism, like if someone pokes you in the eye, you react.
There is no middle ground, a devision needs to take place. It's not one big happy family. At least that's my opinion.{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-17-2005 14:11 AM

Do you mean that you, lacking any fundamental training in the area can decide that Fred Hoyle was wrong based on common sense??

---

Mihkel

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". I'm telling you what their actions say. Their actions say that those who believe in God are less likely to act responsibly.

This thread seems to have gotten off topic just a wee little bit.I think a few hours will give time for participants to figure out what the topic might be.ABEOpened now that the off topic discussion has a thread of it's own.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-17-2005 13:48 AM

Nobody is "borrowing opinions" from Hoyle - I merely pointed out what he had to say.

---

Mihkel

It amazes me somewhat that my original posting (no time before the Big Bang) caused such a reaction on my suggestion that life on Earth emerged in a pattern inconsistent with random processes. That was a brief afterthought; the main message on the Big Bang - which I consider far more controversial - caused no reaction at all!An interesting forum, this.

---

Mihkel

No, absolutely not, although it could be decided based on almost no knowledge of probability. See Message 1.

I understand what you are saying - but to me it is not credible. It seems to be a limited 20-20 hindsight reaction. Chick, Wald, Barghorn and Hoyle were in agreement. Did they all miss what is so obvious to you now?All the best,

---

Mihkel

quote:

---

Did they all miss what is so obvious to you now?

---

Evidently they did. That happens sometimes when one delves into a field in which one does not have the appropriate training or experience.Tell us, how have the hundreds of researchers that work in these fields miss something that seems to have been obvious to these very few individuals?

Ned's gonna be so pissed ... we should be doing this in the appropriate thread. Nope. See Message 3 and please reply there Hoyle made a mistake, Crick and Wald don't agree, and I see no reason to believe that Barghoorn (note spelling) agrees.