TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Fear of hell
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Science is like writting a book or practicing law. You have something you understand and a result. You try to give information on the state of things within the experiment. Then using time you descibe what happened from point a to point b. If things occur the same then you can develop a law - until something different occurs.

Science isn't all that much like writing books or practicing law at all, except in the sense that they involve a procedure of generalizations followed by refinement of generalizations. But practically any human intellectual activity is going to involve that.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Isn't that how science treats any theory? "The best we have at the moment" until some evidence turns up to prove it wrong?

Perhaps true, pure science does, but as a "regular" member of the public, I believe 100% that we evolved from apes, I believe 100% that water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen and I believe 100% that the stars are big balls of burning gas. Although it could certainly be argued by a determined person that these are not "true", verified facts, in my mind they are as true as anything. The big bang, however, is not.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Perhaps true, pure science does, but as a "regular" member of the public, I believe 100% that we evolved from apes, I believe 100% that water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen and I believe 100% that the stars are big balls of burning gas. Although it could certainly be argued by a determined person that these are not "true", verified facts, in my mind they are as true as anything. The big bang, however, is not.

I just don't see what makes the Big Bang theory different from those other theories you mentioned. Do you see any more evidence against Big Bang than you do against evolution by common descent, atomic theory, or stellar fusion?

Personally, I have a much easier time wrapping my mind around the Big Bang idea than I do with trying to think about special relativity or quantum mechanics...

you can split water all day, look at animals evolve all year, and send probes into the sun whenever. can't really observe a big bang.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail you can split water all day, look at animals evolve all year, and send probes into the sun whenever. can't really observe a big bang.

Well, you can't directly "observe" the evolutionary juncture where humans and chimps split from one another, either, and certainly not the one where animals and plants split or eukaryotes and prokaryotes. You just extrapolate back into the past based on what you observe in the present, which is the same method used to get the Big Bang theory...

I don't think the problem lies with the idea of it, just that evidence is limited

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail I don't think the problem lies with the idea of it, just that evidence is limited

But there is plenty of evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ba...tional_evidence

no doubt

Schrodinger's cat always blew my mind...the cat can be both dead and alive at the same time.

"A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Schrodinger's cat always blew my mind...the cat can be both dead and alive at the same time.

Just like how Yukii can both be choking on your dick and not choking on your dick at the same time.

Or maybe me observing your idiocy definitively determines the outcome that you shut the fuck up?

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Just like how mommy can both be choking on my dick and not choking on my dick at the same time.

fixed

Tag team fail. Interesting.

You need not fear hell. Just accept your Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour and you will be saved.

quick what's the energy for a 3-d particle in a box?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.