Alfresco

Pride Rock is curved. Explain that!

roaringmouse

Not sure why you would think that, I find the big picture to be encouraging rather than something I don't like being reminded of. Science does not think anything - it can't. Science provides evidence for theories and the most likely cause or reason. I'm not a "creationist" in the way that I think you mean, and I also don't deny natural selection or evolution. That's another misconception that people have - first the one that it is always about "science vs God", the second that it is always "evolution vs creation". Just as scientists can disagree, so can those who believe in creation.

Bix

Nothing more than an artist dream.

chris955

Well it's been there as long as I remember at the very least

GarryP

Err, I never said you were - it's just an example of the same kind of logical fallacy that creationists exhibit being shown in the boltzmann brain argument (IMHO).

BTW it's not Science vs god anyway - as far as I'm concerned gods don't come into the discussion about where the universe came from etc. That would be like explaining how rainbows occur as the "Optics vs Leprechauns" argument.

Swerv-o

And similarly there's no pot of gold at the end...


S

Jon77

Indeed. the idea that there is an edge to the University is similar to people believing that the Earth was flat and that if you kept on going you would fall of the edge!

There is no edge to the universe and there is nothing beyond the universe either. If you travelled for billions and trillions of years across the University and kept on going there is a theory that you might end up back where you started again eventually. Might look very different of course.

Wol

Actually I don't think it IS: rainbows are completely explainable, case closed.

And I think the other poster is mixing up Creationists (Capital "C") who delude themselves that everything was bodged together a few thousand years ago, dinosaurs, ants and people - and those who believe in a "creation" by some supernatural entity. Say, in a big bang?

And if nothing explainable existed before the big bang - not even space or time - then that's as good an explanation as you're likely to get.

Jon77

Until science can explain with some degree of credibility the following I will keep an open mind -

Where did the material that caused the big bang come from?
Can something come in to existence from nothing?
What was there before the big bang?
What triggered the big bang?
What caused that tiny singular point of energy that eventually exploded out?

GarryP

Well yes, but I was trying to illuminate just how much I don't think we're talking a peer level debate - and hence why I don't think in terms of Science vs god.

You can go a bit further than that.

There are theories associated with answering all of those questions. They aren't complete and nailed down at all yet, but they do exist and you can use evidence derived from this universe to make headway. You asked for " some degree of credibility", well those theories are certainly the most credible around at the moment, much better off than 'god did it' - which little kids tend to be able to poke holes in.

For instance here is an explanation of the ekpyrotic 'brane' based theory of the universe's creation : http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...ng-theory.html with has recently suffered a big setback with the MCB curl results from BISEP2. It would have ticked all your boxes (let's see if the string theorists can rescue it).

Wol

When you get to a point "at" or "before" the BB ( not that there IS a "before") the maths can describe things but still give no explanation. Just because the equations are solvable proves nothing.

In a timeless, spaceless nothing, a deity is as good an explanation as any, IMO. And I'm an atheist (to be accurate, an agnostic.)

Pulaski

That's as good, and honest a post as I've seen here on BE about the relationship between science and religion. Since I was at high school I have had a firm belief that science and religion can coexist quite happily along side each other, with science documenting the hard facts of the world and universe around us, and handling the "how?" and religion handling the "why?" and matters of morality.

It diminishes both science and religion if either choose to go head to head across the dividing line between them, and accordingly I have no time either for people who try to use the Bible as a science test book, or even a reliable historical record, OR for the likes of Richard Dawkins who believe that they can prove that God does not exist. Each should stick to their frame of reference and area of expertise.

GarryP

If they make predictions that are falsifiable, and those predictions pan out, then it's 'The Theory'. That's science.

Err, 'to be accurate'?They are pretty orthogonal - so to be 'accurate' you have to define yourself on each axis. If you go in for Boston 2by2s and define yourself relative to deities, that is.

Wol

Nit picking. I would be willing to accept a "God answer" but consider it a vanishingly small probability. So a blanket description of agnostic ticks the boxes but atheist would be closer to the truth.

Not an answer that would appeal to Bertrand Russell, but I'm happy with it.

GarryP

It's science - pick at those nits

Sounds like "Agnostic Atheist" - if you don't 'believe', then you are an atheist; independent of if you might be convinced of a 'vanishingly small probability'.