View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 24th, 2014, 4:12 pm



Reply to topic  [ 368 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 25  Next
 Astronomy/Scientific Question 
Author Message
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2570
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Quote:
he truth of the matter is that nobody knows. The Big Bang is a theory, just as Creationism is a theory as well. Neither can be proven.


This isn't true. Nothing can be proven, no doubt. But not all theories are the same. The Big Bang has supporting evidence, creationism does not. Creationism remains a hypothesis; a hypothesis that goes against nearly all the evidence.


June 12th, 2011, 12:04 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
slybri19 wrote:
The truth of the matter is that nobody knows. The Big Bang is a theory, just as Creationism is a theory as well. Neither can be proven. However, from my perspective, more evidence lies with the Big Bang theory. I know Christians will disagree, but that's based upon their faith more than anything else.

For those that doubt the existence of singularities and fitting everything into the size of a pin head, I'll use placing steensn in a trash compactor as an example. :D I'm just kidding here, but bear with me on this. Once the compactor has squished him into the size of a piece of paper, he would still have the same mass. Volume (or size) has absolutely nothing to do with it. Now, increase the power of that trash compactor to infinity. What couldn't it crush down to that size?


The amount of hot air coming out of your pie hole \:D/

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 12th, 2011, 12:57 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
slybri19 wrote:
What couldn't it crush down to that size?


Solids as they are not compressible right? Isn't that proven science?

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 12th, 2011, 1:00 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
he truth of the matter is that nobody knows. The Big Bang is a theory, just as Creationism is a theory as well. Neither can be proven.


This isn't true. Nothing can be proven, no doubt. But not all theories are the same. The Big Bang has supporting evidence, creationism does not. Creationism remains a hypothesis; a hypothesis that goes against nearly all the evidence.


Actually Blue, creationism is only against current science if you yourself artificially limit it to young Earth creationist ideas. That is utterly intellectually dishonest and you know better than that. The Big Bang event itself isn't against Creationism either, the question is what happened before that. Anything talking about prior to the Big Bang in just as much a hypothesis as what you claim religion to be.

You need to expand the possibilities of religion and science and stop focusing on just the easy things to pick off to make your point. The Bible fits just fine with the current science when you take it for what it intended to be.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 12th, 2011, 1:05 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2570
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
When people say "creationism" I only consider the idea that god put us all here pretty much exactly how we are. I don't consider ideas like: god was the driving force behind evolution, etc. Alternative pseudo-creation ideas aren't really science because they can't be tested or falsified.

We can test the idea that life has not changed over time, however. And the tests show that idea to be false.


June 12th, 2011, 1:09 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Exactly why I say science answers HOW and religion tries to define WHO and WHY.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 12th, 2011, 2:40 pm
Profile
Online
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3636
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
steensn wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
What couldn't it crush down to that size?


Solids as they are not compressible right? Isn't that proven science?


No sir. even very complex solids still have empty pockets when you break it down to an atomic levels. There is no mass on this planet that cant be condensed down in size, given the amount of external force. Black holes dont just eat comets and space gasses, they eat galaxies, Universes.

The debate comes in as to where all that mass that gets eaten goes. Does it get tossed into other dimensions? Or does it somehow store it? The theory i like best is the one that says ultimatly a black hole can become "full" and implode upon itself, and instead of pulling in mass it would expell everything it has consumed. Thus the begining of a big bang. There's crazy stuff on how the gas expelled gives births to suns...but that went over my head...but thats the gist of it as i understood.


June 12th, 2011, 2:45 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
But the point is that the theories require compressibility of any piece of matter to infinity... to make up for the fact that is seems untrue, they have to say the material "goes somewhere." The more we develop these theories the more we have to conjure up to answer other questions that arise. We go so far down one path that it's like starting out with a little white lie and we have to come up with more and more stuff. By the end the thing we started out with is treated as fact and taught in schools...

I am just trying to get people to realize just how uncertain any of this stuff is... because many people here act like science has things down, which is complete crap.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 12th, 2011, 3:53 pm
Profile
Online
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3636
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
well of course! thats why they call it theory. I dont think there is anyone pretentious enough here to say they know for a fact about any of this stuff. There are all kinds of logical guesses and conclusions thrown "into" black hole theory...Untill we find a way to enter one and come back out it again we will never know what is really going on,(unless we get lucky enough to randomly spot one while its happening)

once again, the logical conlcusions we can make from what we DO know does let us narrow things down a bit though.


June 12th, 2011, 9:36 pm
Profile
Veteran General Manager
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7127
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
steensn wrote:
But the point is that the theories require compressibility of any piece of matter to infinity... to make up for the fact that is seems untrue, they have to say the material "goes somewhere." The more we develop these theories the more we have to conjure up to answer other questions that arise. We go so far down one path that it's like starting out with a little white lie and we have to come up with more and more stuff. By the end the thing we started out with is treated as fact and taught in schools...

I am just trying to get people to realize just how uncertain any of this stuff is... because many people here act like science has things down, which is complete crap.


I agree. Science, at one time, thought the Earth was square. And despite the evidence to the contrary, ( Just go to the edge of a large body of water and look out to the horizon, There is a noticeable curvature ), Scientist bull headedly held the square Earth theory for centuries.


June 12th, 2011, 10:14 pm
Profile
Veteran General Manager
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7127
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
regularjoe12 wrote:

The debate comes in as to where all that mass that gets eaten goes. Does it get tossed into other dimensions? Or does it somehow store it? The theory i like best is the one that says ultimatly a black hole can become "full" and implode upon itself, and instead of pulling in mass it would expell everything it has consumed. Thus the begining of a big bang. There's crazy stuff on how the gas expelled gives births to suns...but that went over my head...but thats the gist of it as i understood.


Basically, Black holes do eject everything they eat. It all gets released into the center of Galaxies. It eats mass on one side. Crushing and shredding everything, continuously, that gets to close. And when everything has been crushed and shredded to the atomic level and it has reached the end of the funnel, it explodes out the other end of the Black Hole to fuel the Galaxy it supports.

So, yes it does go somewhere.

edited to add:

At least that is my understanding of how a Black Hole works.


June 12th, 2011, 10:22 pm
Profile
3rd Round Selection

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1112
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
steensn wrote:
Actually Blue, creationism is only against current science if you yourself artificially limit it to young Earth creationist ideas.

Creationism is against science because of its lack of falsefiability. For a hypothesis to be scientific, you have to be able to prove it wrong. Any hypothesis that introduces "god" as part of the explanation is not falsefiable (how do you disprove the existence of an omnipotent being?) and is therefore not science.

So creationism simply does not belong in science class.

The main problems in this debate, to me, always come about from a lack of understanding of what science is. It's not "the truth", it's an attempt to model phenomena and test that model to see if it's correct. Take Newton's laws: absolutely incredible science, a huge boon to advances for mankind. But 'wrong' - as Einstein showed. Well, they are close enough approximations at speeds we humans experience on a day to day basis (and are mathematically easier to use than relativity theories) to remain extremely useful but they are still technically 'wrong'.

Was Newton (and those scientists that continued to consider his theories correct until they were falsified) 'boneheaded', as Billy would have it? Absolutely not. Newton's laws were a tremedous piece of science that helped mankind's understanding of the world around it.

Does science's adoption of Newton's laws for such a long period of time and then abandoment of them in the face of Einstien's theories show science to have been somehow misguided? Absolutely not. This demonstrates the beauty of science: when a theory is proven wrong, it is time to come up with a new one. It is this constant process of renewal that is science's greatest strength in producing new, useful knowledge.

I am sure that a great number of scientific theories that are held dear today will likely be replaced, improved upon, refined or even abandoned entirely in the face of new discoveries. This is not a bad thing - on the contrary, this avoidance of sticking to dogma (c.f. the Church's response to Galilleo) is a very good thing indeed.

Equally, though, as a process of modelling science and scientists (if they are doing science properly) cannot lay claim to any special, unchallengable truths. That is the realm of dogma and therefore not the realm of science. Likelihoods of things being true given today's knowledge, fair enough, but absolute truths: nope.

To me, the whole science vs religion debate is founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of what each is. Science in no way rules out the possibility of religion (despite what some ardent athiests may claim), neither do many of the religious' criticisms of science hold water (such as contained in many of the posts populating this thread).


June 13th, 2011, 8:33 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
UK Lion wrote:
To me, the whole science vs religion debate is founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of what each is. Science in no way rules out the possibility of religion (despite what some ardent athiests may claim), neither do many of the religious' criticisms of science hold water (such as contained in many of the posts populating this thread).


Don't have to tell me twice, I said this like 100 times so far.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 13th, 2011, 10:18 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9268
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
steensn wrote:
Exactly why I say science answers HOW and religion tries to define WHO and WHY.


Religion tried to answer HOW, there is just a pesky fossil record that gets in the way. Let's not forget religion already tried to answer WHEN, only off by about 4.1 billion years there. Religion also tried to answer WHERE, remember the Earth is the center of the universe, oh wait snap. Despite the fact that religion is so far off base, we are expected to think it may hold the answers to WHO and WHY now? :roll:

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 13th, 2011, 10:29 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
I liek how you blame mistakes on religion and not science. Just because a people in a time period couldn't seperate them doesn't mean you have to be so blind to do the same. We grow and learn from past mistakes.. well some of us ;)

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 13th, 2011, 10:40 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 368 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 25  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.