1. LOL: so, you're basing your belief on the big bang on FAITH! your argument is the same as 'i don't have to prove god exists!'
2. this is just silly. how do we know things? do you simply believe what everybody else tells you? of course not. is it the majority is right then? i hope not!
You don't need to understand it .. thats my point. I would say a good 50 % of people who believe in evolution don't actually understand how it works and are in awe when missing links are discovered lol. Does that make them smarter with regards to creation compared to the average religious idiot? Of course. They are simply looking at the statistical facts and concensus of the scientific community. You don't need to understand the structural engineering and integrity of the concrete in an appartment building to live in one. Don't you see how silly your argument is?
You are trying to make a comparison of fairy tales to science (Theories represented by continuous experiements and statistical probability of proven outcome.)
The way our society and civilization has developed isn't because everyone knows everything about everything. We have people who specialize in certain things and are certified and recognized by that community.
quote:
i'm simply saying the entire point of science is to be critical and not take things for granted. there must be research to prove the PROBABLE reality. it takes education to be able to critique advanced scientific theories. if you don't have the basic understanding of scientific workings then how the hell are you going to understand their theories??
I am definatley not debating the nature of science. But one can obviously take its side without understanding even the basics. If you wish to understand the theories by all means go ahead. Sure the big bang can be disproven, why not. But the facts are that genesis and most religious doctrines are all fable so they can be readily dismissed without a doubt. Do you have doubts about the big bang? sure many of us do. But to proclaim that this is a plausable idea without understanding it would still be acceptable rather then saying god miraculously made everything in 7 days. Why? Because you have an understanding that science has taken us thus far and the scientific community has come to the concensus that this is a probable theory for creation.
quote:
saying the big bang happened, but not knowing how is similar to saying god exists, but i don't know why. in my opinion of course
Fine ill give you that. But its not similar to saying that god created the earth in 7 days and jesus was his son who walked on water.
Theory with some testable hypothesis and observation compared to pure FABLE
I'll let you do the math Einstein.
Posted by EgosXII on Oct-27-2009 06:48:
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
You don't need to understand it .. thats my point. I would say a good 50 % of people who believe in evolution don't actually understand how it works and are in awe when missing links are discovered lol. Does that make them smarter with regards to creation compared to the average religious idiot? Of course. They are simply looking at the statistical facts and concensus of the scientific community. You don't need to understand the structural engineering and integrity of the concrete in an appartment building to live in one. Don't you see how silly your argument is?
You are trying to make a comparison of fairy tales to science (Theories represented by continuous experiements and statistical probability of proven outcome.)
The way our society and civilization has developed isn't because everyone knows everything about everything. We have people who specialize in certain things and are certified and recognized by that community.
I am definatley not debating the nature of science. But one can obviously take its side without understanding even the basics. If you wish to understand the theories by all means go ahead. Sure the big bang can be disproven, why not. But the facts are that genesis and most religious doctrines are all fable so they can be readily dismissed without a doubt. Do you have doubts about the big bang? sure many of us do. But to proclaim that this is a plausable idea without understanding it would still be acceptable rather then saying god miraculously made everything in 7 days. Why? Because you have an understanding that science has taken us thus far and the scientific community has come to the concensus that this is a probable theory for creation.
Fine ill give you that. But its not similar to saying that god created the earth in 7 days and jesus was his son who walked on water.
Theory with some testable hypothesis and observation compared to pure FABLE
I'll let you do the math Einstein.
i'm talking about lay-scientists, not people who go to a drs office if they're sick! you're analogy about the person using concrete but not knowing how it's made is not the same.
i'm saying it's more like a person with no experience building his own house, thinking that, since he's seen concrete before he can use it. THAT is what you're doing saying darwinian theory is true if you have no idea why.
i'm not saying it's not true, but i'm saying i wouldn't be boasting about something i didn't understand. A lot of people do, and make themselves look extremely stupid doing so (unless they're talking to similarly clueless people, in which case it's just another load of hypocritical n00bs chatting each other up).
once again, i'm not defending religion, so i have no idea at all why you keep bringing up the comparison as if i'm defending it
science IS fairytales unless you know what you're talking about.
Science is based on empirical proof. You're saying it's fine to skip the proof!
sorry, but saying you believe in evolution is exactly the same as saying the world was built in 7 days unless you know what you're talking about.
since you like bagging religion, you should realise that yu're sounding extremely similar to a religious nut... i'm not defending religion at all, but at least everybody knows most of them are full of shit...
"science is the way, the truth and the light! i don't have to know how it works, it just works!!! WHAT?? SHUTTUP!!"
Posted by Gauss on Oct-27-2009 11:56:
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
Can someone answer me a question please?
I have always thought of space as being a two-dimensional plane, so if you want to travel from Earth to Mars it would be much like travelling from point to point on a completely flat plain in a desert. I�ve always heard it described and drawn this way too, such as below:
So what happens if you go �up� or �down�? Surely these directions are as infinite as going �forward� or �back�, as the universe extends in all directions. Or do these concepts not have any relevance to space?
If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn�t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not?
This is a great question and I'm curious to hear the answer as well.
Posted by Cloudburst on Oct-27-2009 12:16:
quote:
Originally posted by Gauss
This is a great question and I'm curious to hear the answer as well.
Originally posted by EgosXII
this sums up my beliefs about people who believe in science, but aren't scientists..
Atheists are also stupid when they are atheists. Why? Because they categorically state that God does not exist. That makes them just as bad as religious zealots (well ok, maybe not as bad) but at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
Posted by Capitalizt on Oct-27-2009 13:18:
quote:
Originally posted by Fledz
Atheists are also stupid when they are atheists. Why? Because they categorically state that God does not exist. That makes them just as bad as religious zealots (well ok, maybe not as bad) but at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
wtfbbq? It is not illogical to lack a belief in something for which there is no evidence. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? If not, that makes you an a-spaghettimonsterist. Do you believe Russell's Teapot is orbiting the sun? If not, I suppose you are an "ateapotist". There are lots of ateapotists in the world but they aren't labeled criticized for it..but for some reason people like to do it to atheists. I agree it makes no sense to say categorically "THERE IS NO GOD"..but you will notice most atheists don't do this..not even Richard Dawkins. He says the chances of one existing are extremely improbable..and given the lack of evidence he holds no belief..but he never says with absolute certainly that there isn't one. That would be unscientific. Posted by Fledz on Oct-27-2009 13:30:
Shhhhhh, I'm trying to bait PKC with that one since I know how much it riles him up
Posted by Omega_M on Oct-27-2009 15:11:
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
Can someone answer me a question please?
I have always thought of space as being a two-dimensional plane, so if you want to travel from Earth to Mars it would be much like travelling from point to point on a completely flat plain in a desert. I�ve always heard it described and drawn this way too, such as below:
So what happens if you go �up� or �down�? Surely these directions are as infinite as going �forward� or �back�, as the universe extends in all directions. Or do these concepts not have any relevance to space?
If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn�t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not?
Our reference here is the central sun and the fact that all planets are pretty much distributed around it in a single plane, just like the flat desert you described. And there's a reason why this is so, and it actually gives us a clue of how planets must have formed.
If you were to go "up" or "down" you wouldn't travel to any of our planets. You would come out of the planetary disk and sort of look at them from above or below. There are however galaxies "above" us and "below" us and all around us. The "flat coins" are distributed all around us and their planes are also distributed in all directions. They are not parallel to the flat plane of our planets.
Originally posted by Capitalizt
wtfbbq? It is not illogical to lack a belief in something for which there is no evidence. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? If not, that makes you an a-spaghettimonsterist. Do you believe Russell's Teapot is orbiting the sun? If not, I suppose you are an "ateapotist". There are lots of ateapotists in the world but they aren't labeled criticized for it..but for some reason people like to do it to atheists. I agree it makes no sense to say categorically "THERE IS NO GOD"..but you will notice most atheists don't do this..not even Richard Dawkins. He says the chances of one existing are extremely improbable..and given the lack of evidence he holds no belief..but he never says with absolute certainly that there isn't one. That would be unscientific.
+100
but... but... it's real right??
Posted by nefardec on Oct-27-2009 23:25:
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn�t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not?
guess 2 - equilibrium of gravitational directions due to large force of central gravity - everything eventually follows the same direction. some galaxies are not discs, but rather ellipsoidal, and they tend to lack the supermassive central stars, and so exhibit more random gravitation.
gravity doesn't necessarily work in all directions when centralized forces dominate the field
planets aren't perfect spheres btw. all celestial bodies seem to exhibit this flattening behavior
however i think an interesting general question is the relationship between magnetism and gravity...
Posted by Domesticated on Oct-27-2009 23:34:
quote:
Originally posted by Omega_M
Our reference here is the central sun and the fact that all planets are pretty much distributed around it in a single plane, just like the flat desert you described. And there's a reason why this is so, and it actually gives us a clue of how planets must have formed.
If you were to go "up" or "down" you wouldn't travel to any of our planets. You would come out of the planetary disk and sort of look at them from above or below. There are however galaxies "above" us and "below" us and all around us. The "flat coins" are distributed all around us and their planes are also distributed in all directions. They are not parallel to the flat plane of our planets.
Thanks. That was a very precise and lucid answer to my questions. Good to have it cleared up.
Posted by Gauss on Oct-28-2009 01:44:
quote:
Originally posted by Omega_M
Our reference here is the central sun and the fact that all planets are pretty much distributed around it in a single plane, just like the flat desert you described. And there's a reason why this is so, and it actually gives us a clue of how planets must have formed.
If you were to go "up" or "down" you wouldn't travel to any of our planets. You would come out of the planetary disk and sort of look at them from above or below. There are however galaxies "above" us and "below" us and all around us. The "flat coins" are distributed all around us and their planes are also distributed in all directions. They are not parallel to the flat plane of our planets.
Okay, that answers the question about our solar system being a flat plane. But what about space being a flat plane? Where do you get if you turn up or down and go forward?
Posted by Domesticated on Oct-28-2009 01:46:
quote:
Originally posted by Gauss
Okay, that answers the question about our solar system being a flat plane. But what about space being a flat plane? Where do you get if you turn up or down and go forward?
He answered that.
"If you were to go "up" or "down" you wouldn't travel to any of our planets. You would come out of the planetary disk and sort of look at them from above or below. There are however galaxies "above" us and "below" us and all around us. The "flat coins" are distributed all around us"
Posted by astroboy on Oct-28-2009 02:06:
I think the planar nature of the solar system has to do with the way it formed. As the cloud of matter began to fall in on itself the densest spot in the middle began to rotate and formed the sun, as the sun rotated, the surrounding matter was pulled along by its gravity and naturally formed into a flat-ish accretion disc somewhat like this:
out of which formed our planets already in their co-planar orbits.
Pluto (though it's not a planet) was probably just randomly passing by and got caught by the sun, which is why it's out of alignment.
edit: a similar principle applies to spiral and disc shaped galaxies. There's a more dense bit in the middle that rotates and pulls the rest into a disc perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Kind of like the bubbles in a bath spinning around the drain. In the case of the milky way I believe they've observed a black hole in the middle, which kind of aids the analogy
Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Oct-28-2009 02:23:
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
science IS fairytales unless you know what you're talking about.
idiot
quote:
Science is based on empirical proof. You're saying it's fine to skip the proof!
why do you have to reinvent the wheel when its already made?
quote:
sorry, but saying you believe in evolution is exactly the same as saying the world was built in 7 days unless you know what you're talking about.
ok.. you keep thinking its the same thing trot along now
quote:
since you like bagging religion, you should realise that yu're sounding extremely similar to a religious nut... i'm not defending religion at all, but at least everybody knows most of them are full of shit...
right except that science has testable findings where religion does not. I gave you solid examples which you neglected and saying "oh its not the same". OF course it is. Structural engineering is based on newtons testable laws.. do you need to fully understand them to trust the integrity of the structure? Its all science.. If it wasn't science it would be classified as myth, fairytale or relgion. Semantics learn how to use it properly.
quote:
"science is the way, the truth and the light! i don't have to know how it works, it just works!!! WHAT?? SHUTTUP!!"
sure it is.. if you don't like it grab your berkenstocks and toga and wait for the next messiah until the cows come home.
Otherwise shut the fuck up because mythology and the abrahamic religions are nothing but political tools to motivate the masses and or primitive attempts to reason our observable surroundings. Do I believe in god? Perhaps. I'm not sure but i know and trust the findings of science even though i don't understand all the theories that scientists have spent their whole lives to advance in sometimes only a small fraction. Will you simply sit there and proclaim its the equivalent of fable?
Do you believe the earth is still flat? Was everything really created in 7 days? Is evolution not plausable? Does god make the airplanes fly?
Good luck with your future endeavors and may god bless your idiotic soul for being such a moron.
Posted by yukii on Oct-28-2009 02:34:
i suggest he goes back to school with a thick science book for his thick head.
Posted by astroboy on Oct-28-2009 02:44:
I think believing that a scientific theory is a best current approximation of the relevant facet of reality without knowing the detailed proofs and mechanics behind it doesn't equate with a blind faith in a God.
It is sufficient that you understand the basic logic behind mathematical processes and have a firm grasp of, and trust in the integrity of the scientific method. Trusting the hypotheses that arise out of it without knowing the specifics simply means you understand and trust the process that gives rise to them. Your belief can be affirmed by observing the predictive value of these theories or even the predictive value of other hypotheses arising from the scientific method.
Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Oct-28-2009 02:46:
quote:
Originally posted by yukii
i suggest he goes back to school with a thick science book for his thick head.
That or a Holy bible. Apparently they are in equivalence for factual information.
Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Oct-28-2009 02:52:
quote:
Originally posted by astroboy
I think believing that a scientific theory is a best current approximation of the relevant facet of reality without knowing the detailed proofs and mechanics behind it doesn't equate with a blind faith in a God.
It is sufficient that you understand the basic logic behind mathematical processes and have a firm grasp of, and trust in the integrity of the scientific method. Trusting the hypotheses that arise out of it without knowing the specifics simply means you understand and trust the process that gives rise to them. Your belief can be affirmed by observing the predictive value of these theories or even the predictive value of other hypotheses arising from the scientific method.
Thank you for reiterating what i have been saying in a more coherant and calm rhetoric.
Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Oct-28-2009 02:56:
Also i'd like to appologize for ruining this thread with this diversion.
Posted by astroboy on Oct-28-2009 03:23:
Lol these science/religion diversions are always amusing. I think the irony of the whole conversation about "arrogant science" etc is that if the religious fundamentalists stayed out of science the debate wouldn't even exist.
Posted by Lira on Oct-28-2009 04:07:
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Also i'd like to appologize for ruining this thread with this diversion.
Hey, I want to play this game too!
quote:
science IS fairytales unless you know what you're talking about.
quote:
idiot
Hey, hey, hey... let's not be so harsh on the heretic, shall we?
Unless properly understood, science is fairy tales, and there's nothing wrong with it: Fairy tales serve the purpose of explaining the world, and science does a marvellous job at that. Science is able to explain loads of things no other human enterprise ever even intended to know, no one here is disputing that. But, science is not the report of scientists - it's their practice. If you take what they say at face value, you're much better off than following a priest most of the time, but that does not make you smarter than a religious believer. You're believing what you're told, pure and simple.
quote:
Science is based on empirical proof. You're saying it's fine to skip the proof!
quote:
why do you have to reinvent the wheel when its already made?
Because that's exactly what scientists need to do to understand how their predecessors got where we are now. Why do you think undergraduates do basic experiments in their own fields? These experiments have been done hundreds of times before, why do they bother? Because science is based on facts, not on hearsay: It's getting out there in the world and messing up with it that gives you knowledge. It's reading about the hypotheses and playing with them that give you the necessary insight to grasp whatever theory you're interested in.
Do you really think I just pick up a book on linguistics and take everything as facts because other people made some experiments? Well, screw them, I want to have some of the fun myself!
quote:
sorry, but saying you believe in evolution is exactly the same as saying the world was built in 7 days unless you know what you're talking about.
quote:
ok.. you keep thinking its the same thing trot along now
Yeah, dismiss him. Darwinism is sacred, how can he lump it together with these puny beliefs barbarians hold?
quote:
since you like bagging religion, you should realise that yu're sounding extremely similar to a religious nut... i'm not defending religion at all, but at least everybody knows most of them are full of shit.
quote:
Right except that science has testable findings where religion does not. I gave you solid examples which you neglected and saying "oh its not the same". OF course it is. Structural engineering is based on newtons testable laws.. do you need to fully understand them to trust the integrity of the structure? Its all science.. If it wasn't science it would be classified as myth, fairytale or relgion. Semantics learn how to use it properly.
Oh, you want to play with semantics? Good, allow me to pick myth and look it up on Encyclopaedia Britannica:
quote:
Traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.
[Source] - Newtonian physics is a very nifty idea that allows engineers come of with cool buildings to this day! It unfolds part of the worldview of not just engineers, but also physicians, airplane pilots, and baseball players. But, alas the world is not quite like Newton imagined - and this takes us to yet another definition of myth found in Cambridge's Advanced Learners Dictionary (which is what I think you've got in mind):
quote:
a commonly believed but false idea
[Source] - Has it come to this? Unfortunately, classical mechanics is not a very faithful portrait of what the world as we understand today is like, so it's a "false idea", but it's still a useful idea. The difference, therefore, between classical mechanics and the biblical genesis is that the former is a lot more useful if you want to act upon the world, whereas the latter probably makes people feel special about themselves or something.
I'm sorry, words and concepts are not as clear as you take them to be. By the way, before we go on, you said "If it wasn't science it would be classified as myth, fairytale or religion". Well, who is in charge of making these classifications?
quote:
"science is the way, the truth and the light! i don't have to know how it works, it just works!!! WHAT?? SHUTTUP!!"
quote:
sure it is.. if you don't like it grab your berkenstocks and toga and wait for the next messiah until the cows come home
Oh, yeah, because the world is divided between science and religion! If I don't blindly trust one, I must blindly the other, right? How naïve are Egos and I to believe people should actually bother to know more about the things they believe, do their own research and not take anything for granted, instead of relying on others for everything! I guess that makes us religious fanatics.
And I thought I was an atheist scientist Posted by EgosXII on Oct-28-2009 04:55:
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
I guess that makes us religious fanatics.
And I thought I was an atheist scientist
you are my hero, once again, thanks for explaining it in far clearer terms than i was able to! Posted by yukii on Oct-28-2009 05:11:
Posted by Lira on Oct-28-2009 05:33:
quote:
Originally posted by yukii
Suddenly, the world isn't black and white any more, is it? Pages (6): «123 [4] 56»
