LOL! They have no idea where astrological formations came from in the first place, and it’s now a surprise to them that their made up model of how the earth and surrounding solar systems originated is flawed? Too funny!
Big bang! Right! And just where did this matter come from that suddenly blew up randomly? Unbelievable!
Observational studies? I want to meet that guy who was here to observe the universe being formed.
Maybe what is not “normal” is there evolutionary model? No, of course not, that would be too scientific to re-evaluative your theory in light of new conflicting evidence!
[/quote]
Um, what? First of all, these are Astronomers/Physicists and not Biologists so Evolution is not what they are interested in. This discovery is not related to Evolution.
Secondly, here “Observational studies” means looking at current data and extrapolating events in the past from current conditions. At this point in time we are learning new things about our larger universe all the time. As such theories are going to change frequently and often drastically.
Much to the surprise of many people, this is not a problem. Changing, rejecting and reinventing theories is the heart and soul of the scientific process. That is what it means to be scientific.
Anyway, is the big band theory really that incompatible with religion? I imagine that there are a lot of scientists who work with the big bang theory and still have faith. The big bang theory makes no claims about what caused the bang just that it happened (there are claims to this point, like colliding universes/god/huge black holes).
Anyway, is the big band theory really that incompatible with religion? I imagine that there are a lot of scientists who work with the big bang theory and still have faith. The big bang theory makes no claims about what caused the bang just that it happened (there are claims to this point, like colliding universes/god/huge black holes).[/quote]
The big bang is very compatible with religion. The catholic church has embraced it. The big bang goes hand in hand with God creating everything from nothing.
If I recall correctly in A Brief History of Time Hawking ends up making a strong case that the universe did not start with a singularity (big bang). Of course that was 20 years ago and I think he is back on the big bang bandwagon.
No one knows anything in this field and I would not be surprised if their observations are completely wrong. There was probably a smudge on the lens.
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
A-Dizz wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
And I always thought a wet vagina was god’s doorway.
Not with that avatar it isn’t.
-dizzle
I’d love to compare check marks, but that would be pretty unfruitful online. [/quote]
With over 400 posts in about a month and a half…I’m guessing your bed post is notchless (or checkless if you wish). That is unless you’re typing and fucking…
“oh baby, deeper.”
“Just a sec babe, I wanna finish this thought.”
[quote]vroom wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
Since we are dealing with theories, it won’t be long before all sorts of new theories explaining ties between this newly discovered instance and existing theories will be made up. They will also remain theories and will be taught repeatedly until they are thought of more as fact than theory.
LOL.
Dude, until a better theory comes along or some evidence pops up to make the theory seem incorrect. There’s no conspiracy or brainwashing or anything like that.
When a “long” period of time goes past without a conflict arising, theories can get generally accepted, but then, once in a while, some zinger evidence pops up to challenge things.
The alternative is to believe things “just because” without requiring any ability to test those ideas.[/quote]
This mind set is just a better worded belief in Zeus and the Pantheon.
You can’t prove it’s wrong, so it’s right. I’m not angling for conspiracy, but it is pretty sheepleish to just believe it because you can’t prove it wrong.
I’ve heard a theory that aliens fucking in another universe lost a wayward sperm and egg that randomly met in out universe and formed the earth and all of it’s life.
[quote]spurlock wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
A-Dizz wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
And I always thought a wet vagina was god’s doorway.
Not with that avatar it isn’t.
-dizzle
I’d love to compare check marks, but that would be pretty unfruitful online.
With over 400 posts in about a month and a half…I’m guessing your bed post is notchless (or checkless if you wish). That is unless you’re typing and fucking…
“oh baby, deeper.”
“Just a sec babe, I wanna finish this thought.”[/quote]
nope. but i do type while finishing up class assignments or while sitting in class.
It’s always funny to me when one guy on an internet forum bashes another for using an internet forum. Hell i got laid last night. What about you?
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
This mind set is just a better worded belief in Zeus and the Pantheon.
You can’t prove it’s wrong, so it’s right. I’m not angling for conspiracy, but it is pretty sheepleish to just believe it because you can’t prove it wrong.
I’ve heard a theory that aliens fucking in another universe lost a wayward sperm and egg that randomly met in out universe and formed the earth and all of it’s life.
Prove that wrong!
[/quote]
No. Good scientific theories are falsifiable. That doesn’t mean that you believe them until they are proven wrong. It means that they are stated in such a way that there can be events or situations that disprove them. “Believing in Zeus” doesn’t meet this test, because “Zeus” could always be more cunning than we are. Any discrepancies would be originated by Zeus in that theory. The theory is not falsifiable.
Relativity is falsifiable. Put an atomic clock in a vehicle moving very fast relative to another atomic clock on earth. If time is exactly the same for both clocks when you’ve brought them back together, you have either erred in your experimental procedures or you have falsified relativity. The theory might need to be corrected or scrapped.
Predictive power is also nice in science… which your Zeus and alien-fucking examples do not give.
Why does it seem like there’s always a few people out to get scientists for being close-minded and stuck in their ways. I’m pretty sure most scientists are willing to explore new ideas and theories. They don’t “believe” in the big bang the way someone “believes” in God. Almost all of the time, they are just drawing conclusions about what the data gives them, trying to find answers.
Scientific theories are there not because they’re right, but because they’re not wrong. Look at Newtonian physics. It’s not “right” when Einstein came up with Relativity, but it’s not wrong either because it still explains things about the universe.
However, if something comes up that completely violates a certain theory, the theory becomes wrong and is thrown away.
It’s always funny to me when one guy on an internet forum bashes another for using an internet forum. Hell i got laid last night. What about you?
[/quote]
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
You can’t prove it’s wrong, so it’s right. I’m not angling for conspiracy, but it is pretty sheepleish to just believe it because you can’t prove it wrong.
I’ve heard a theory that aliens fucking in another universe lost a wayward sperm and egg that randomly met in out universe and formed the earth and all of it’s life.
[/quote]
LOL. How anti-science are you?
Nephorm already addressed your drivel, but again, science is based on the observable. Theories are created, and tested, based on tests that are created just to see if the theory can be proven wrong.
Some things are difficult to test, or take a lot of time until tests can be determined and then put into place, but that is the process of science.
If you spent less time trying to discredit science, and simply understood that people are putting up and testing ideas for events around them as observed, and that it is NOT incompatible with religion, you wouldn’t sound so silly.
[quote]fireplug52 wrote:
Um, what? First of all, these are Astronomers/Physicists and not Biologists so Evolution is not what they are interested in. This discovery is not related to Evolution.
[/quote]
Check your facts again Bro, these Astronomers are the ones who made the reference to evolution, its quoted in the article. So they seem to think the origin of the universe is part of the evolutionary process, not me.
First, that is my point. It is very funny that someone would be surprised that a theory they “extrapolated” might not be accurate in light of new information. That was my point. If they truly used the scientific method as you indicated, this would occur all the time and they would never be surprised that their current theory was no longer consistent with new data. So the fact that they were surprised indicates to me that they do not regularly re-evaluate and charge their theories based on new data.
If that were true it would be great, but I think you are wishful thinking. I agree that that is how the process is supposed to work, but in reality doubt that they honestly change their minds very often. Again, that is why they were “surprised”.
[quote]
Anyway, is the big band theory really that incompatible with religion? I imagine that there are a lot of scientists who work with the big bang theory and still have faith. The big bang theory makes no claims about what caused the bang just that it happened (there are claims to this point, like colliding universes/god/huge black holes).[/quote]
Not sure why you mention religion because it has nothing to do with the scientific process.
Secondly, here “Observational studies” means looking at current data and extrapolating events in the past from current conditions. At this point in time we are learning new things about our larger universe all the time. As such theories are going to change frequently and often drastically.[/quote]
If the theories change drastically on a frequent basis that means they are doing an awful job of predicting based on their discoveries. New discoveries don’t always diverge from current predictions, and even minor discoveries that do dispute current evidence only cause changes that are rarely known to the mainstream public. Major discoveries are labeled as such because they don’t come around often, and when they do they cause shock, and widescale change.
This is when you see the frequent adjustments you speak of, as they research a phenomenon and quickly learn new things about it. Then it falls back into the slow gap of making very minute adjustments to hard set theories. The best way to see this in action is in computers, where breakthrough discoveries cause major upgrades to happen and increase work capacity at a fast pace, but gradually slow down as the peak is reached very quickly due to the burst in research.
You can expect something and still be surprised when it happens, or more importantly “how” it happens. You’re reading much too far into a single word.
I don’t even know how to respond to this, if anything, scientists are extremely fickle, riding current bandwagons in the way that research points. If the second coming of Jesus happened tomorrow, they would all be on it.
[quote]Not sure why you mention religion because it has nothing to do with the scientific process.
[/quote]
The thread title does happen to be “God’s Doorway?” Religion being discussed was inevitable.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
This mind set is just a better worded belief in Zeus and the Pantheon.
You can’t prove it’s wrong, so it’s right. I’m not angling for conspiracy, but it is pretty sheepleish to just believe it because you can’t prove it wrong.
I’ve heard a theory that aliens fucking in another universe lost a wayward sperm and egg that randomly met in out universe and formed the earth and all of it’s life.
Prove that wrong!
No. Good scientific theories are falsifiable. That doesn’t mean that you believe them until they are proven wrong. It means that they are stated in such a way that there can be events or situations that disprove them. “Believing in Zeus” doesn’t meet this test, because “Zeus” could always be more cunning than we are. Any discrepancies would be originated by Zeus in that theory. The theory is not falsifiable.
Relativity is falsifiable. Put an atomic clock in a vehicle moving very fast relative to another atomic clock on earth. If time is exactly the same for both clocks when you’ve brought them back together, you have either erred in your experimental procedures or you have falsified relativity. The theory might need to be corrected or scrapped.
Predictive power is also nice in science… which your Zeus and alien-fucking examples do not give.[/quote]
Except that the big bang can not be tested in a manner you’ve listed and that prevents it from being any more predictive than zeus and horny aliens.
Of course a theory would have to have situations where it can be proven wrong, otherwise it would be fact. Making theories falsifiable isn’t intentional, it is inherent to the nature of a theory and it prevents one theory from being any more credible than another, even if one sounds more outlandish. Both must be relied upon by evidence presented and if neither source of evidence can be proven or disproven, neither theory is better than the other.
defending one over another becomes an issue of semantics and scientific dogma, not good science.