|
On July 11 2013 07:40 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:25 beg wrote:On July 11 2013 07:23 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion. Every time someone says "just a theory" when talking about science, I die a little inside. ? do you have no imagination whatsoever? big bang theory is just a theory, sorry bro The earth being of a spherical shape is just a fact, sorry bro. Honestly, the point isn't that theories can't be disputed, of course they can. We are talking about scientific theory, the whole point of science is to question things and progress our knowledge. HOWEVER, you can't just dismiss a theory with the amazing argument "it's just a theory" because your understanding of a scientific theory is lacking. That's just not how it works. If I have an argument and base it on a widely accepted scientific theory, you only really have one option: come up with a better theory which still conforms to all observable evidence, which supports your position instead of mine. That's how scientific theory works: You come up with a framework concerning certain observable phenomenon and you test it by prediction. If it all works out and people can't find holes in it, good job, you have a working theory. Now you can use it as a basis for argument, because unlike the people saying "bohoo you have no proof", you actually have a basis for your argument. Saying "The Big Bang theory is just a theory" is about as strong of an argument as disputing someones experimental results by saying "Uh, you probably messed up the experiment". That's not how science works, if you want to disprove a conclusion from an experiment, you do the same or similar experiments which prove the opposite, you don't just disregard it out of hand. Ps. I know you were probably being sarcastic, this is just my general comment on the topic.
that's a fundamental understanding of what science is. this is not meant to be a contribution to scientific progress, but a fundamental understanding, which can help to keep an open mind (: ... every scientist should be aware, but throughout history never has been. nowadays people believe they are so much wiser compared to "back then"... i just dont think so. sorry!
On July 11 2013 07:41 TritaN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:33 beg wrote:On July 11 2013 07:31 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 07:25 beg wrote:On July 11 2013 07:23 TritaN wrote:On July 11 2013 06:53 Napoleon53 wrote:On July 11 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Your fear of women controlling breeding practices makes more sense now that you're actively questioning the Big Bang. In science you can actually question anything (not that it is constructive to do so). Big Bang is just a theory - and was always meant as a theory. And it is kinda unwise not to leave the theory open for discussion. Every time someone says "just a theory" when talking about science, I die a little inside. ? do you have no imagination whatsoever? big bang theory is just a theory, sorry bro The atomic theory is just a theory The theory of gravity is just a theory The germ theory of disease is just a theory Evolution is just a theory Saying "just a theory" when talking about science is probably the #1 thing you can do to expose your lack of understanding of science. Try again, bro. i assume you have a good understanding of physics. you know we dont have a really good theory about gravity, do you? Wrong. Our theory of gravity, at least when talking about newtonian gravity as it relates to large objects, is rock solid. Its only when you get into quantum gravity that things get shaky. If you want to run around going "hurf blurf everything's just a theory lololol0llol" then by all means you're free to do so, but you'll look like a child.
understanding that scientific theories are just theories is a deep understanding and has nothing to do with being childish. as you pointed out, our understanding of gravity fails when not talking about macroscopic objects.
|
On July 11 2013 07:48 beg wrote:
understanding that scientific theories are just theories is a deep understanding and has nothing to do with being childish. as you pointed out, our understanding of gravity fails when not talking about macroscopic objects.
Our understanding of gravity doesn't fail when not talking about macroscopic objects. Newtons laws of gravity however, do not work as well on the quantum level as for the macroscopic level. That doesn't mean you can disregard an argument based on newtons laws of gravity because "it's just a theory", it means you can use the theory of general relativity to correct the argument.
I agree that knowing the difference between "fact" and "theory" shows a good understanding of science, but it's a pretty fine line where saying "it's just a theory" shows understanding, rather than ignorance. Saying "it's just a theory" might be fitting if someone says "it's a scientific fact that the universe came from an initial singularity". It's not fitting to use as an argument against someone basing their argument on the theory of the big bang.
|
On July 11 2013 07:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:48 beg wrote:
understanding that scientific theories are just theories is a deep understanding and has nothing to do with being childish. as you pointed out, our understanding of gravity fails when not talking about macroscopic objects. Our understanding of gravity doesn't fail when not talking about macroscopic objects. Newtons laws of gravity however, do not work as well on the quantum level as for the macroscopic level. That doesn't mean you can disregard an argument based on newtons laws of gravity because "it's just a theory", it means you can use the theory of general relativity to correct the argument. I agree that knowing the difference between "fact" and "theory" shows a good understanding of science, but it's a pretty fine line where saying "it's just a theory" shows understanding, rather than ignorance. Saying "it's just a theory" might be fitting if someone says "it's a scientific fact that the universe came from an initial singularity". It's not fitting to use as an argument against someone basing their argument on the theory of the big bang.
yea, shouldnt have said "the theory fails". but obviously there's some big problems due to not being compatible with quantum mechanics.
|
On July 11 2013 07:27 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:17 xM(Z wrote:oh wow, i offended the religion of science. the groupies jumped me. no one observed the big bang and no one proved it. fully educated PHDs in physics are arguing and disagreeing amongst each other about the theory of big bang and you found me to pick on?. fuck off and google, i'm only repeating what they're saying. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htmhttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-4.htmlSteinhardt emphasizes that his analysis holds only because, so far, the LHC has not found any discrepancies with the standard model of particle physics. If future runs of the LHC discover exotic particles, then the energy profile of the Higgs will be recalculated accordingly. “But if you take the data we’ve been given and just follow your nose, then inflation and the whole Big Bang paradigm seem to be in big trouble,” Steinhardt says. Cycling cosmos The theory claims to reconcile the notion of a cyclic universe, which expands and contracts for eternity, with the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to imply that the current expansion cannot reverse.
As escape clauses go, this one is jaw-droppingly extravagant. Not only does the turnaround happen less than a thousand-trillion-trillionth (10-27) of a second before a 'Big Rip' in which everything falls apart, but it splits our Universe into countless new and independent ones.
And as the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of cycles, the model predicts an already infinite number of parallel universes, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report in Physical Review Letters1. This is what you said: Show nested quote +the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory.
as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God.
after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference.
(edited for clarity, i think) People objected to: "It's just a theory" (Weird view of science) Putting the Big Bang theory at the level of believing in God, clearly skipping over what actually the theory is founded on. Maybe you should google some yourself and see WHY people actually believe it instead of the opposite... And maybe you should ask yourself why people are jumping on you in several of the main board threads instead of throwing us all into the "groupies" category like we have some secret motive to smear your name.
you do realize that "It's just a theory" does not imply that the theory is wrong, right?; and if you'd read those links you'd realize that your last phrase doesn't even make sense. i google it and saw why people believe it and why people don't believe it and ... ?.
theory = 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.
but, if you're so keen in defending theories, why don't you defend this one http://www.thegodtheory.com/
(ps: of course they have, bringing past threads and all .. what the hell is that?. all of them acted irrationally, out of instinct, because i challenged their set of believes)
|
On July 11 2013 16:43 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:27 nihlon wrote:On July 11 2013 05:17 xM(Z wrote:oh wow, i offended the religion of science. the groupies jumped me. no one observed the big bang and no one proved it. fully educated PHDs in physics are arguing and disagreeing amongst each other about the theory of big bang and you found me to pick on?. fuck off and google, i'm only repeating what they're saying. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htmhttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-4.htmlSteinhardt emphasizes that his analysis holds only because, so far, the LHC has not found any discrepancies with the standard model of particle physics. If future runs of the LHC discover exotic particles, then the energy profile of the Higgs will be recalculated accordingly. “But if you take the data we’ve been given and just follow your nose, then inflation and the whole Big Bang paradigm seem to be in big trouble,” Steinhardt says. Cycling cosmos The theory claims to reconcile the notion of a cyclic universe, which expands and contracts for eternity, with the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to imply that the current expansion cannot reverse.
As escape clauses go, this one is jaw-droppingly extravagant. Not only does the turnaround happen less than a thousand-trillion-trillionth (10-27) of a second before a 'Big Rip' in which everything falls apart, but it splits our Universe into countless new and independent ones.
And as the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of cycles, the model predicts an already infinite number of parallel universes, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report in Physical Review Letters1. This is what you said: the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory.
as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God.
after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference.
(edited for clarity, i think) People objected to: "It's just a theory" (Weird view of science) Putting the Big Bang theory at the level of believing in God, clearly skipping over what actually the theory is founded on. Maybe you should google some yourself and see WHY people actually believe it instead of the opposite... And maybe you should ask yourself why people are jumping on you in several of the main board threads instead of throwing us all into the "groupies" category like we have some secret motive to smear your name. you do realize that "It's just a theory" does not imply that the theory is wrong, right?; and if you'd read those links you'd realize that your last phrase doesn't even make sense. i google it and saw why people believe it and why people don't believe it and ... ?. theory = 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. but, if you're so keen in defending theories, why don't you defend this one http://www.thegodtheory.com/(ps: of course they have, bringing past threads and all .. what the hell is that?. all of them acted irrationally, out of instinct, because i challenged their set of believes)
you are right about the last thing you say, most people will react like that, most people wont even take the time to understand the argument.
But you are wrong to put God within the scientific discourse, and Nihlon is right to say that putting Big Bang theory at the same level as believing in God is skipping over what the theory is founded on. He says it perfectly, and that is exactly the root of the problem. It is not the big bang theory, which, within science, is just a theory (even though it is a very important and well regarded one), it is the metaphysical foundation of science which you could put on a same level as believing in god. Why is that? Because they are both metaphysical foundations which cannot be proven, they cannot be defended with arguments from within the discourse without being circular. Does this put the practice that comes from the scientific foundation on the same level as that comes from these theological foundations? No, the proper practice of science is different than that of religion, however, the moment PEOPLE start to USE science for politics, to make claims and do things which cannot be made or done with science, then this can take religious forms.
Thieving magpy has been saying it all along though and he can probably say it better than me, but it is a pointless argument, they do not contradict neccesarily.
|
No. Everything on the surface may seem like its chemical, but its not. Beyond the atom are so called particles, obviously you have quarks as the smallest right now.
These quarks are sort of pseudo rotating energy so fast in its orbit, which practically doesn't even exist, but we can mathematically interpret it as such and thus creating a quark.
Ultimately we are all part of the same consciousness that some may know as god, so while our experience is sort of individual and aware around ourself, there is a lot more to it.
So ultimately no, we are not chemical or electrical, we are consciousness itself, having a manifestation of ourself in this unique way which we have assumed and called physical.
|
On July 11 2013 18:16 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 16:43 xM(Z wrote:On July 11 2013 07:27 nihlon wrote:On July 11 2013 05:17 xM(Z wrote:oh wow, i offended the religion of science. the groupies jumped me. no one observed the big bang and no one proved it. fully educated PHDs in physics are arguing and disagreeing amongst each other about the theory of big bang and you found me to pick on?. fuck off and google, i'm only repeating what they're saying. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htmhttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-4.htmlSteinhardt emphasizes that his analysis holds only because, so far, the LHC has not found any discrepancies with the standard model of particle physics. If future runs of the LHC discover exotic particles, then the energy profile of the Higgs will be recalculated accordingly. “But if you take the data we’ve been given and just follow your nose, then inflation and the whole Big Bang paradigm seem to be in big trouble,” Steinhardt says. Cycling cosmos The theory claims to reconcile the notion of a cyclic universe, which expands and contracts for eternity, with the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to imply that the current expansion cannot reverse.
As escape clauses go, this one is jaw-droppingly extravagant. Not only does the turnaround happen less than a thousand-trillion-trillionth (10-27) of a second before a 'Big Rip' in which everything falls apart, but it splits our Universe into countless new and independent ones.
And as the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of cycles, the model predicts an already infinite number of parallel universes, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report in Physical Review Letters1. This is what you said: the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory.
as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God.
after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference.
(edited for clarity, i think) People objected to: "It's just a theory" (Weird view of science) Putting the Big Bang theory at the level of believing in God, clearly skipping over what actually the theory is founded on. Maybe you should google some yourself and see WHY people actually believe it instead of the opposite... And maybe you should ask yourself why people are jumping on you in several of the main board threads instead of throwing us all into the "groupies" category like we have some secret motive to smear your name. you do realize that "It's just a theory" does not imply that the theory is wrong, right?; and if you'd read those links you'd realize that your last phrase doesn't even make sense. i google it and saw why people believe it and why people don't believe it and ... ?. theory = 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. but, if you're so keen in defending theories, why don't you defend this one http://www.thegodtheory.com/(ps: of course they have, bringing past threads and all .. what the hell is that?. all of them acted irrationally, out of instinct, because i challenged their set of believes) you are right about the last thing you say, most people will react like that, most people wont even take the time to understand the argument. But you are wrong to put God within the scientific discourse, and Nihlon is right to say that putting Big Bang theory at the same level as believing in God is skipping over what the theory is founded on. He says it perfectly, and that is exactly the root of the problem. It is not the big bang theory, which, within science, is just a theory (even though it is a very important and well regarded one), it is the metaphysical foundation of science which you could put on a same level as believing in god. Why is that? Because they are both metaphysical foundations which cannot be proven, they cannot be defended with arguments from within the discourse without being circular. Does this put the practice that comes from the scientific foundation on the same level as that comes from these theological foundations? No, the proper practice of science is different than that of religion, however, the moment PEOPLE start to USE science for politics, to make claims and do things which cannot be made or done with science, then this can take religious forms. Thieving magpy has been saying it all along though and he can probably say it better than me, but it is a pointless argument, they do not contradict neccesarily.
the question is not: which one is better to believe in - god or the scientific discourse but rather: is the effect (on believers) of those believes the same?.
i'm not disagreeing with what you said but as you can see, the mob is the mob regardless of what or whom they believe in.
|
On July 11 2013 06:32 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:23 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 11 2013 02:56 wherebugsgo wrote:
You can represent neurons relatively well classically, but no, I would say it's not possible to completely accurately represent what happens at the synapse of a neuron purely with classical physics.
That's interesting. I just did a search but couldn't come up with any papers on quantum effects playing significant roles in neural activity and behavior. It was a quick search, so i'm probably just missing them. Maybe you could provide some? It sounds like an interesting idea, and I'd be curious to check out some papers from, say, Nature Neuroscience or something on that level of impact/prestige Check this one out: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qua.560110109/pdfOn the other hand, on the scale of the brain, there are contradictory articles on whether the brain as a whole should be treated as a classical system or a quantum sysetm; one that argues in the favor of the classical approach is this one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdfIt very well could be outdated though, as the article is from 1999. The following is not an article, just really an essay, but I thought the introductory paragraph succintly describes the problem of conflicting ideas between physicists and neuroscientists pretty well. You don't really need a good background in QM to understand the gist of what's being discussed, though a background in QM certainly helps. http://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/koch-hepp-06.pdf
Again, I point toward the simple truth. Quantum mechanics discussions do not belong in this thread, nor discussions on unified theories or cosmololgy and apparently a new thread needs to be opened for this..
Please stop trying to use quantum mechanics in neurology.
I quote from your article -
" Although brains obey quantum mechanics, they do not seem to exploit any of its special features." (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/koch-hepp-06.pdf)
Again your sources point to the simple truth quantum behavior leads to uncertainty which cannot happen in the brain.
Let me give you the example of what would happen if quantum mechanics formulas were relevant. Neurons would lose their ability to polarize. These channels are voltage gated in a deterministic behaviour. Effectively your neurons sit at about -60-75 mv, until an influx of sodium raises that to about +55 mv, now the chemical potential enters since there is an influx of ions, forcing potassium out. This causes depolarization. The sodium potassium pump uses energy and repolarizes the cell. The trigger event which starts depolarization is over about 10^6+ neurotransmitters.
Even if neurons were able to do maintain the polarization, the amount of neural transmissions in the network having even one error would results in a mass amount of more depolarizations of neurons. Have you ever heard of epilepsy? Imagine siezures like that that but even more severe. Grand mal siezures all the time if it were based off of quantum signal. The original work on these theories were done by (Katz 1955) using patch clamps.
Discussions on quantum mechanics are not relevant, except that they lead to the causal behavior in neurology due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle. Even your source even argues this. This is also aruged in Weiss biophysics book which i recommended that you still haven't addressed. Also, I recommend another book. http://www.amazon.com/Ionic-Channels-Excitable-Membranes-Bertil/dp/0878933212
I would gladly discuss in private the math behind such things in private.
|
On July 11 2013 19:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 18:16 TSORG wrote:On July 11 2013 16:43 xM(Z wrote:On July 11 2013 07:27 nihlon wrote:On July 11 2013 05:17 xM(Z wrote:oh wow, i offended the religion of science. the groupies jumped me. no one observed the big bang and no one proved it. fully educated PHDs in physics are arguing and disagreeing amongst each other about the theory of big bang and you found me to pick on?. fuck off and google, i'm only repeating what they're saying. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htmhttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-4.htmlSteinhardt emphasizes that his analysis holds only because, so far, the LHC has not found any discrepancies with the standard model of particle physics. If future runs of the LHC discover exotic particles, then the energy profile of the Higgs will be recalculated accordingly. “But if you take the data we’ve been given and just follow your nose, then inflation and the whole Big Bang paradigm seem to be in big trouble,” Steinhardt says. Cycling cosmos The theory claims to reconcile the notion of a cyclic universe, which expands and contracts for eternity, with the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to imply that the current expansion cannot reverse.
As escape clauses go, this one is jaw-droppingly extravagant. Not only does the turnaround happen less than a thousand-trillion-trillionth (10-27) of a second before a 'Big Rip' in which everything falls apart, but it splits our Universe into countless new and independent ones.
And as the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of cycles, the model predicts an already infinite number of parallel universes, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report in Physical Review Letters1. This is what you said: the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory.
as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God.
after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference.
(edited for clarity, i think) People objected to: "It's just a theory" (Weird view of science) Putting the Big Bang theory at the level of believing in God, clearly skipping over what actually the theory is founded on. Maybe you should google some yourself and see WHY people actually believe it instead of the opposite... And maybe you should ask yourself why people are jumping on you in several of the main board threads instead of throwing us all into the "groupies" category like we have some secret motive to smear your name. you do realize that "It's just a theory" does not imply that the theory is wrong, right?; and if you'd read those links you'd realize that your last phrase doesn't even make sense. i google it and saw why people believe it and why people don't believe it and ... ?. theory = 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. but, if you're so keen in defending theories, why don't you defend this one http://www.thegodtheory.com/(ps: of course they have, bringing past threads and all .. what the hell is that?. all of them acted irrationally, out of instinct, because i challenged their set of believes) you are right about the last thing you say, most people will react like that, most people wont even take the time to understand the argument. But you are wrong to put God within the scientific discourse, and Nihlon is right to say that putting Big Bang theory at the same level as believing in God is skipping over what the theory is founded on. He says it perfectly, and that is exactly the root of the problem. It is not the big bang theory, which, within science, is just a theory (even though it is a very important and well regarded one), it is the metaphysical foundation of science which you could put on a same level as believing in god. Why is that? Because they are both metaphysical foundations which cannot be proven, they cannot be defended with arguments from within the discourse without being circular. Does this put the practice that comes from the scientific foundation on the same level as that comes from these theological foundations? No, the proper practice of science is different than that of religion, however, the moment PEOPLE start to USE science for politics, to make claims and do things which cannot be made or done with science, then this can take religious forms. Thieving magpy has been saying it all along though and he can probably say it better than me, but it is a pointless argument, they do not contradict neccesarily. the question is not: which one is better to believe in - god or the scientific discourse but rather: is the effect (on believers) of those believes the same?.
that is indeed the question, and i think the answer is yes.
|
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent and your question is nothing profound.
|
On July 11 2013 19:44 Reason wrote:
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent.
There is actually proof. My prayer or more of a rant has been answered. In fact 1 major rant/payer/ask has been answered and dealt with and two a bit lesser, but still huge.
That and you can just know it and understand it at a deep conscious level.
|
On July 11 2013 18:25 BillGates wrote:
No. Everything on the surface may seem like its chemical, but its not. Beyond the atom are so called particles, obviously you have quarks as the smallest right now.
These quarks are sort of pseudo rotating energy so fast in its orbit, which practically doesn't even exist, but we can mathematically interpret it as such and thus creating a quark.
Ultimately we are all part of the same consciousness that some may know as god, so while our experience is sort of individual and aware around ourself, there is a lot more to it.
So ultimately no, we are not chemical or electrical, we are consciousness itself, having a manifestation of ourself in this unique way which we have assumed and called physical.
On July 11 2013 19:50 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 19:44 Reason wrote:
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent. There is actually proof. My prayer or more of a rant has been answered. In fact 1 major rant/payer/ask has been answered and dealt with and two a bit lesser, but still huge. That and you can just know it and understand it at a deep conscious level.
Keep it coming...
Proof for God... sigh.
|
On July 11 2013 19:50 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 19:44 Reason wrote:
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent. There is actually proof. My prayer or more of a rant has been answered. In fact 1 major rant/payer/ask has been answered and dealt with and two a bit lesser, but still huge. That and you can just know it and understand it at a deep conscious level.
Well ! I think this thread has hit rock bottom ! Thanks for coming everyone.
|
On July 11 2013 19:44 Reason wrote:
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent and your question is nothing profound.
pointing to random things and saying you believe in them doesn't make it so.
|
On July 11 2013 20:57 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 19:44 Reason wrote:
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent and your question is nothing profound. pointing to random things and saying you believe in them doesn't make it so.
Correct.
|
On July 11 2013 16:43 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:27 nihlon wrote:On July 11 2013 05:17 xM(Z wrote:oh wow, i offended the religion of science. the groupies jumped me. no one observed the big bang and no one proved it. fully educated PHDs in physics are arguing and disagreeing amongst each other about the theory of big bang and you found me to pick on?. fuck off and google, i'm only repeating what they're saying. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htmhttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trouble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-4.htmlSteinhardt emphasizes that his analysis holds only because, so far, the LHC has not found any discrepancies with the standard model of particle physics. If future runs of the LHC discover exotic particles, then the energy profile of the Higgs will be recalculated accordingly. “But if you take the data we’ve been given and just follow your nose, then inflation and the whole Big Bang paradigm seem to be in big trouble,” Steinhardt says. Cycling cosmos The theory claims to reconcile the notion of a cyclic universe, which expands and contracts for eternity, with the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to imply that the current expansion cannot reverse.
As escape clauses go, this one is jaw-droppingly extravagant. Not only does the turnaround happen less than a thousand-trillion-trillionth (10-27) of a second before a 'Big Rip' in which everything falls apart, but it splits our Universe into countless new and independent ones.
And as the Universe has already gone through an infinite number of cycles, the model predicts an already infinite number of parallel universes, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report in Physical Review Letters1. This is what you said: the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory.
as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God.
after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference.
(edited for clarity, i think) People objected to: "It's just a theory" (Weird view of science) Putting the Big Bang theory at the level of believing in God, clearly skipping over what actually the theory is founded on. Maybe you should google some yourself and see WHY people actually believe it instead of the opposite... And maybe you should ask yourself why people are jumping on you in several of the main board threads instead of throwing us all into the "groupies" category like we have some secret motive to smear your name. you do realize that "It's just a theory" does not imply that the theory is wrong, right?
Saying "it's just a theory" implies a lack of understanding for what a scientific theory is, because it clearly demonstrates you do not get that there is no higher level of systematic scientific understanding, as IreScath explained to you very clearly.
On July 11 2013 16:43 xM(Z wrote:
theory = 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.
Good job showing us you still don't understand the difference between the common use of the word "theory" and its use for scientific theories. Since I suppose you took that definition from thefreedictionary.com, let me point out that the first definition listed was: "1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
I don't think I have to point out how laughable it is that you went out of your way to select the common use of the word when everyone has been explaining to you the difference between that and the use of "theory" in science.
On July 11 2013 16:43 xM(Z wrote:
(ps: of course they have, bringing past threads and all .. what the hell is that?. all of them acted irrationally, out of instinct, because i challenged their set of believes)
Since this probably includes our exchange in the rape and abortion thread, you didn't challenge anything - all you did was propose an absurd scenario which not only completely failed to support your own point that women's rights should be limited to prevent them from controlling procreation, but backfired since it should have logically led you to want to limit men's rights as well. It was an impressive display of a complete failure from your part to put forward a coherent argument.
|
Speaking to the original question of the thread:
It's a super hot day. You walk into a friend's new house and see most of his living room is taken up by a gigantic air-conditioning unit. There are tubes and vents everywhere and it's clearly sucking up a lot of electricity doing it's job.
Pointing to the enormous air-con unit you say "Wow, that's a massive investment and inconvenience, but I guess it's worth it. Nice and fresh in here."
Your friend shakes his head. "What, that? No, it's all mind over matter. I just think cool thoughts."
|
On July 11 2013 21:42 Umpteen wrote:
Speaking to the original question of the thread:
It's a super hot day. You walk into a friend's new house and see most of his living room is taken up by a gigantic air-conditioning unit. There are tubes and vents everywhere and it's clearly sucking up a lot of electricity doing it's job.
Pointing to the enormous air-con unit you say "Wow, that's a massive investment and inconvenience, but I guess it's worth it. Nice and fresh in here."
Your friend shakes his head. "What, that? No, it's all mind over matter. I just think cool thoughts."
So.... what?
|
On July 11 2013 19:44 Reason wrote:
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent and your question is nothing profound.
This post makes it clear that you haven't understood or read a word I wrote.
|
On July 11 2013 19:50 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 19:44 Reason wrote:
If you challenge my belief in God you are well justified in doing so because there's no evidence for God.
If you challenge my belief in the water cycle you're an idiot.
Trying to equate the two does not make you look intelligent. There is actually proof. My prayer or more of a rant has been answered. In fact 1 major rant/payer/ask has been answered and dealt with and two a bit lesser, but still huge. That and you can just know it and understand it at a deep conscious level.
Can't tell if trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
