badastronomy.com — George Deutsch, 24-year-old journalism major turned NASA public affairs officer (who also happens to be a Bush appointee), says that the Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion ... It is not NASA's place [to] make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
Feb 5, 2006 View in Crawl 4
timeblindFeb 6, 2006
Universe is 14 billion years old and its 24 billion light years across.Einstein, Hawkins and many others do have "God designed it" concepts.The proponents of ID are idiots who are obstructing science's role in understanding Nature, the Universe and God.The nature of time itself is only your perception of it.Discussing what "happened" or didn't just shows you didn't understand the question.My Theory: When the Universe stops wondering who created it then it will figure out that it is itself God.
xtopherFeb 6, 2006
that is fine, Just amend all the "in god we trust" to "in the theory of god we trust"
starmanjonesFeb 6, 2006
@LittleOni>>"so... go Hillary you got my vote. why don't you and bill run."----starmanjones>Ok...seeing as how she AND Bill could NEVER run together because the "tragic">loss of her as a possible president would lead to Bill being president for a>third time/term (which is now no longer an available possibility) it wouldn'tHUMPH! it would be catastrophic not tragic. Similarly... there may be somedispute about whether Clinton is ineligible or disqualified. i mean certainlymeets the criteria for president... but there is a rule that disqualifies him. I’d add-on a scale of unconstitutionality... even if he is barred from beingvice president and then president, the bush administration has demonstrated justhow flexible it really is. With two questionable elections and what appears tobe a wholesale disregard for the constitution- i mean it gives us the opportunityto have the greatest president come back to fix things again... a shortcomparison:clinton: executed a major war in europe with remarkably few lives lost... broughtthe bad guys to justice.bush: iraq. nuf said.clinton: economy great... budget at least semantically balanced.bush: out of control. we owe more than we’ve ever owed before.clinton: almost had peace treaty in the middle east in his final days aspresident. bush: almost has wwIII going. possibly motivated by a belief he isto bring on the rapture.clinton: presided over a period where the US was held in the highest regard.bush: even our closest allies bailing on us.clinton: world sees us as the good guys.bush: world sees us as irrational cowboys that might do any crazy thing.clinton: honesty... lied about a blow job.bush: honesty...it would be easier to list the things he hasn’t lied about buteveryone knows whats going on now. the list is too long. go read the headlines.clinton: supports the sciences and see many probes off to distant places.bush: wants NASA to push creationism>happen. But then again you're a man of science and not of politics, so it's>understandable that you'd miss this little point. That or you're attempting to>be funny through all the venomous statements that you've thrown out about the>"nazi christians" over the majority of your posts.actually... i was attempting humor. your on the other side and it was at yourexpense so its ok if it bothered you. anything i wrote about nazis was areference to some one else's comment. he was trying to be diplomatic and made animplication that if you call nutty christians names then you are like the nazis. i just pointed out that in that analogy i would be calling the nazis names.>Look, I'm no scientist but from the limited amount of knowledge that I've>accrued over the past three decades or so, I do recall that the Big Bang is in>fact a "fact in progress", or theory, as you like. It hasn't been proven to be>the end-all be-all of our universe's beginnings. Quite frankly, we don't have>ALL the facts to say what DID happen in the beginning. i agree with that. i don’t really like that term big bang. you didn’t see memake any direct support of that as the correct model. its certainly morecomplicated than a big bang- thats a lot of territory not a single model.>Both science and>religion require some basis of faith. In order to truly feel that what you are>telling the world, as a scientist, that something is a fact or a viable theory,>there must be at least some amount of faith in the work that has been done to>prove your side. people that argue this are distorting the question they are asking. religion isa faith with no evidence presented in any form. in fact, its faith in the faceof a large body of evidence to the contrary. to minimize this is a deliberatedistortion.on its face science rejects faith. science is about the facts. i guess i mightconcede that some quality of faith or intuition or deduction is needed to findthe next answer. whatever.>The same can be said for religious individuals. But to bash>people who feel or think differently than you do is just ignorant, disruptive,>childish, and, most importantly, human. I'm not saying that church and state>shouldn't be separate, they should. actually, i explained why i am unforgiving about this subject. i am one of themost tolerant people on the planet. i used hold my tongue when someone madebizarre religious statements... about the universe. it really is the americanway. but when i look around and see a president that is so illiterate that heallows this nutty idea to influence him... and when i have to deal with nuttyidea in the schools my kids attend... i look back and wish that i’d have justhumiliated people with that idea. if i had, if we all had... its entirelypossible that this whole religion fad would have stayed in the closet and maybebush would not be president. thats it in short.>I think it's wrong to force someone of a>different religious belief to pray to the God I believe in if they, in fact, do>not. I also think that it's wrong to vehemently push the scientific view point>down someone's throat and call them "religious nuts" and "nazis" because they>don't fully buy in to what the scientific community is saying. again an reference to nazi by me was in answer to someone else's use of nazi.however, i sentiment isn’t lost on me when i look around see whats become ofthis country under the influence of people that support ID. they are largelythe same demographic. and it does remind one of the nazis. that sentiment isprevalent all over the world. i have no desire to go to any church and teachscience. and i don’t expect anyone to come to the public schools and teachreligion. i think thats fair.>In the end I>think that there is some basis of truth to both "acceptable" science and>Intelligent Design.what possible truth could there be in ID.lets cut the wordiness designed to obfuscate. in this context this is the definition of faith.faith: belief in something without any evidence.bottom line. science looks for evidence and tries to construct a model thatincorporates the evidence in some logical way. religion requires that youbelieve without question and without evidence. i mean... if you find a proofand hard evidence that religion is true then you have no more faith. where doesthat leave religion. its basic tenant of unquestioning adherence is gone.
starmanjonesFeb 7, 2006
>This just in: bush's paper boy picks his nose! This must mean that Bush picks his nose!>FLAME ON!typical. i mean... paperboy... doesn't work for bush. doesn't take orders from bush. i guess that the same logic that causes one to invade a random country when you can't find the people that flew the jet into a building.
starmanjonesFeb 7, 2006
@Corrosionx>the reason you're all wrong is that you think politicians are scientists, and>that NASA are more than just billion-dollar con artists.what exactly have they done? what con have they pulled off? or are you justwaxing stupid.>You nerds shouldn't keep your hopes up that NASA will make your scifi dreams of>space travel reality. They are actually preventing any kind of progress by>bogarting all the ressources.well, so far they have done pretty good working within the budget limitations. spaceshipone just went up. and there are a number of other projects that lookpromising. do you think nasa had nothing to do with that? do you thinkthere is anything you do today after you get out of bed that doesn’t have sometechnology spinoff from the space program? we’ve received payback many timesover the investment.>Also if you have a problem with the things thought to your children, get the>government out of education and send your kids to schools that teach what you>believe is right.that might be workable if all parents were good parents. but some, like those religious nuts that want to teach creationism that would abuse their kids and deprive them a proper education. >No amount of taxpayer money should be spent to teach any posted by >No amount of taxpayer money>should be spent to teach any of these theories, end of story.oh! i get it. just like people can’t afford health care! we have a huge numberof people without... we can do the same with education. then... we’d create an steady supply of underclass people to work cheap for corporate government.>You pay for your own child's education and you get it the way you want it, end>of story, stop shoving your theories down our throats (ALL OF YOU)religions are the only ones that want to shove stupidity down everyones throat.regular people just wish they'd go back in the closet and leave us alone.
craniumFeb 9, 2006
The basic argument of ID is an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy:Since we don't know of a natural process that could explain X, X could not be the result of a natural process.That's essentially the line of reasoning used by the first protohumans to become smart enough to bang rocks together and drool. It's sad to see that many have not moved beyond that by now.