A discussion on evolution...

[Zanarkin]

I'm sorry, i find it hard to believe that a doctor can actually go into medicine while at the same time saying evolution isn't the best answer to why we are here. Instead the doctor chooses creationism which has no evidence for it AT ALLand decides it isn't worth his time to explain why other than the bible said so.

And yes, i do believe worship of a deity can be harmful. Things like blind faith are the worst things that can occur out of it.

Sangyui covered this much better than i did.

Also the big bang theory is central to the current model of astronomy. Its like evolution is to biology..............:/

Edited January 27, 2013 by SlayerX

[Fruity Insanity]

This topic. Just ... this topic.

I'm not going to try to convince OP of anything, because if no one else in the last few pages has been able to do so then I certainly won't succeed. The only reason I saw it fit to make a post is because this one particular thing that is bugging me.

Nope, you're not convincing me.

fef4e, if my memory from your FE13 thread in FFtF is correct, you are in junior year of high school. You are probably 16 years old. And yet, what I see you doing is spouting off a lot of nonsense about stuff that you couldn't possibly fully understand, unless you're a super genius or something. Science is always changing and never constant. Scientists are always learning new things about the world and trying to figure out how everything works and fits together. One thing I've always heard is this: "Science can never prove anything, but it can disprove." Which means that yes, we can't ever actually prove without a doubt that evolution is real or that the Big Bang theory is real (save for a time machine, I suppose). But we can disprove certain other theories, such as spontaneous generation, the very first elements, and the preliminary atomic orbital models.

I'm spouting off a lot of nonsense.

I recognize that.

You all keep on responding to my nonsense.

That's nonsense.

True scientists do not "pick and choose" their theories or findings. They should not be selective. Yes, there are some scientists who do fudge the truth for whatever reason, and they shame the entire scientific community. But no community is exempt from its share of people who reflect poorly on what they stand for. Yes, even religion has had its share of people who bring shame to that community.

I agree with this entirely.

What I am utterly pissed off about is you acting like a superior knowledge on a subject you understand very little about. I do not care that you took AP Chemistry. You are still in high school. Come back when you're my age and have taken upper division classes on science, scratched more than just the surface (and what I am learning is still nowhere near any understanding of my field), and then talk. I don't know if it is your intent or not, but you are still young and there are many things you don't understand. And yet, you have the audacity to say, "oh, but this is what scientists do," "this is what science is," "I don't have to cite anything," "no, I have better things to do than read my own article"? People aren't yelling at you about evolution. They're yelling at you for your arrogance and ignorance. UNLESS YOU'RE A SUPER GENIUS, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE AT YOUR AGE.

Pissed off? I thought I admitted that I know very little about this. I'd just shrug it off. *shrugs off*

Also, I see a lot of double standards in your arguments. You want people to prove evolution or the Big Bang theory, and then you say that all you need for your belief is "faith" and you use the Bible and your father's degree in it as evidence. First of all, I congratulate your father on his degree. It is certainly not an easy thing to accomplish. But your father is only one source. Why not ask other people who studied a similar topic as he had about how much the Bible has changed? You can't base all of your arguments on one source. What if everyone else disagrees? Is everyone else wrong, then? What if someone you're arguing with has a father who has studied and has a PhD in evolutionary theory? Are you just going to brush that person off by saying "prove it" while continuously using the fact that your father has studied the Bible as a source without proving anything yourself?

Just being ignorant ol' me.

As others may have said, you cannot translate languages directly from one another. I suspect you may be Korean, so you should know this if you are. Can you translate what is said in Korean directly into English? No, you cannot, because it would sound all messed up and nonsensical if you tried to direct-translate it. Languages have different ways of saying different things that other languages may not have. This can lead to unclear or vague translations. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to perfectly translate something from one language to another. Also, something that is passed down from so far into the past is naturally going to get corrupted some way or another. It's unavoidable.

Well... the idea's been kept the same... unchanged...

Word-for-word... maybe not.

But the idea - yes.

So, while not perfect, it's near perfect.

Faith is not a bad thing, but there are times when it doesn't work. I've heard stories of parents who had a sick child who could have been saved or at least received treatment had the parents just gone to the hospital. Instead, they prayed and said that faith would see them through, and the child died because of it. Would you say that faith is a "good thing" in this case? There's faith, and there's being so blindly stubborn that you are shooting yourself in the foot.

*ahem*

If my child were sick, I'd take him/her to the doctor.

I'm ignorant about my religion and beliefs pertaining to my religion... not everything.

Just clarifying a thing or two~

I'm pretty open-minded about everything else...

tl;dr

1. Please stop victimizing yourself. It is annoying. Sorry... Have any recommendations?

2. Please stop acting like you know more about science and the scientific community than the professionals in that community. You do not. I'm not. I've said that multiple times.

3. Please stop being a hypocrite and applying double standards. If you expect others to give you proof, then they expect proof beyond just "the Bible said so". Aren't we all?

EDIT:

This is what I mean by "you're a hypocrite". Why don't YOU get a PhD in evolutionary studies and then comment on what's true or not?

Hypocritical me~

I'm sorry, i find it hard to believe that a doctor can actually go into medicine while at the same time saying evolution isn't the best answer to why we are here. Instead the doctor chooses creationism which has no evidence for it AT ALLand decides it isn't worth his time to explain why other than the bible said so.

And yes, i do believe worship of a deity can be harmful. Things like blind faith are the worst things that can occur out of it.

Sangyui covered this much better than i did.

Also the big bang theory is central to the current model of astronomy. Its like evolution is to biology..............:/

...Right.

So there are only a handful of creationist doctors out there?

Really. There's more than that... because you don't have to really know about evolution to be a doctor.

*sigh*

Whatever...

(By the way... the BBT is just a theory.)

[Nanami Touko]

I don't see why of you are bothering to continue feeding an either extremely obvious troll or an extremely ignorant person.

[eclipse]

I'm sorry, i find it hard to believe that a doctor can actually go into medicine while at the same time saying evolution isn't the best answer to why we are here. Instead the doctor chooses creationism which has no evidence for it AT ALLand decides it isn't worth his time to explain why other than the bible said so.

And yes, i do believe worship of a deity can be harmful. Things like blind faith are the worst things that can occur out of it.

Sangyui covered this much better than i did.

Also the big bang theory is central to the current model of astronomy. Its like evolution is to biology..............:/

Folks, this isn't about discussing your views on religion, it's a talk on evolution. Please keep on track.

[Fruity Insanity]

Folks, this isn't about discussing your views on religion, it's a talk on evolution. Please keep on track.

What if I changed the title?

Jk.

Okay...

I'll do that...

...

I concede to you all.

I'm wrong.

You all are right.

I'm ignorant.

You guys aren't (?).

I have this disgustingly blind faith.

You guys are the sensible atheists.

Creationism is incorrect.

Evolution and chance are why we're here today.

You won't be changing my mind; nor I, yours.

I'll just leave now (for real, this time).

Once again, thanks for all your comments - good or not.

They were... enlightening. Really, I appreciated them.

And got to know you all better.

I hope this doesn't affect any future conversations. ^^

(I'll make sure it doesn't affect me.)

...

...

This is why I stay away from this sub-forum.

Thanks. Bye.

I'll be in another thread... for a long, long time...

(I'll just lurk here... not post... Nobody wants to hear crazy me, after all. Not about religion/whatever, that is. T_T)

Edit: Have fun discussing without me! ^^

Edited January 27, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Doga]

I'm gonna throw in the towel.

Maybe if I leave I'll like, evolve better arguments or something. Hell, I've barely contributed to this discussion as of late.

Gonna just grow some wings and get on out of here, out of your hair and all that.

[Constable Reggie]

The parts that are vague you don't take literally... like the creation of the earth... or the genealogies of the people. (Maybe they skipped generations. If C is the son of A, who's to say that C is A's actual son. Maybe there's a B in between. C would still be A's son... even if there was a B.)

How do you constitute vagueness? If the creation of the earth is vague, then how is the creation of humans not vague? How is the creation of animals not vague?

"Blind faith is not" - like I said before, evolution, while maybe not a blind faith, is... a foggy faith. A strong, foggy faith.

No matter how much evidence is out there, humans will never be able to prove that evolution is the way we're here today.

It's not a foggy faith, though. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that evolution is how we were created (whether you think it's credible evidence is irrelevant, as the majority, if not all of the scientific community accept it. It needs to be considered). Blind faith is when you completely ignore all the evidence introduced and remain adamant that what you believe in is right, at all costs. Supporters of evolution are doing the opposite of that.

Yes, it's blind faith... I don't mind blind faith.

Read this again. Then re-read it. If you don't see how destructive and damaging this kind of mindset is and can be, then really, nothing more left to say.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Solanum Tuberosum]

(By the way... the BBT is just a theory.)

You seem to be applying the layman's definition of a theory. "In common, everyday language when you have a theory it means you simply have a guess. It doesn't have to be supported by evidence or fact." In everyday conversation, one would equate a "theory" to a "guess". For example, 'I have a theory on why so-and-so is dating who' and 'I have a guess on why so-and-so is dating who' can be used interchangeably.

A theory, in science, has been tested and looked over many, many times by numerous individuals and groups in order to verify it's authenticity. A theory, in science, is held by the majority of scientists to be the strongest idea backed by facts and reasoning. Simply dismissing the BBT as a "theory" is hogwash, because the word "theory" can mean very different things in different contexts. If the BBT was called the Big Bang Hypothesis (scientific term for "a guess"), you'd be right in your dismissal of it. However, as it is, the BBT is not simply a "theory", it has a strong case for it throughout the multitude of studies that have been done in order to seek out our origins.

[Esau of Isaac]

First of all... the Civil War and evolution are two entirely different events. You know that, yet you use it as an example. Why?

Second of all... we know that the Civil War happened. It was recorded in our history... written about in the past.

We have documents of that time.

Do we have documents from millions of years ago?

Didn't think so.

We have documentation in the form of the fossil record. It's in fact more objectively verifiable in some senses, because it's not tinged by the subjectivity of human emotion that historical texts can often be plagued by.

Again, not true. We have seen with our own eyes the theory of gravity. How it works... what it does. It's all observable with our own eyes.

The same does not apply to the theory of evolution. You assume that the theory of evolution is correct. You know that they theory of gravity is true.

What are Galapagos finches? What is the lack of usefulness in modern penicillin? And so on.

Ri~ight~ You know better, right? Go get a Ph.D., then comment on what's true or not. Maybe then I'll believe you.

Or maybe you'll just blow it off like you did the entire generations of accredited scientists the world over already.

Okay... This is not true either...

Macroevolution suggests that a finch can become an eagle. (Drastic changes.)

Microevolution suggests that a finch can become a different kind of finch... but still a finch. (Minor changes.)

Minor changes over a long period of time produce major changes. No one is saying that a reptile changes into a bird overnight, but rather that gradual changes occur over long periods of time which cause a transition from one form of creature to another.

There are many creatures out there that are very difficult to even categorize in one way or another because they currently exist in such a transitional phase.

You obviously don't understand the reason why religions exist. That would explain you and your not-too-cool attitude.

I can say without the slightest doubt in my mind that not only do I understand the reason religion exists better than you, but that I understand your own religion better than you do.

No. Not true. They wrote down most, if not all, of the Bible.

They also existed before the Bible was written. What an eye-opener.

What the...?

The devil is mentioned in the Bible a ton of times.

Jesus was tempted by the devil.

C'mon, where are you hearing these things?

There is never a point in the original texts where the Devil is mentioned even a single time. The Devil as he is known today is a character the Church built up. It's much the same as our modern depictions of angels, creatures that in the Bible were anything but some kind of winged beautiful creature.

You are truly displaying your lack of education in not only the field of science but religion as well.

If you're talking about high school science, then I have that brushed up.

Which is why you stated as a fact that we use carbon dating to date fossils?

P.S. The other people commenting here are arguing with me... not putting me down. That's what you're doing. You most blatantly express your disgust in what I think. Please don't do that. (And geez, read the Serenes Forest Code of Conduct again...)

No. If I am disgusted by something I will say so. Your lack of knowledge on everything relevant to this discussion is astounding, almost as much as your insistence on the validity of your claims despite that.

Well... the idea's been kept the same... unchanged...

Word-for-word... maybe not.

But the idea - yes.

So, while not perfect, it's near perfect.

You can't translate a dickload of the Bible, since much of it relies on culture and understanding of the language it was written in. Let me give an example:

Genesis 47:31 "Swear to me," he said. Then Joseph swore to him, and Israel worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.

And then, God said, "Let there be the King James Bible."

Genesis 47: 31 "And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head."

Oh my it appears as though we have conflicting passages on account of translation error what could this mean? Oh yeah, it means that the Hebrew word for "bed," read differently, can also refer to the word "staff."

There are so many examples like this that help illustrate how easily translations can move away from the original meaning. For example, one thing that is never displayed in English translations is the familiar term that God refers to characters such as Abraham, one which roughly translated means "only one." It's a term that a father would use to their son, as Abraham uses to Isaac to gain his attention in the very story when he is to be tested by killing his son. It draws very clear parallels which are ignored in passages translated in the Bible you probably read, making the story much less impacting and meaningful.

Can you even positively identify for me what differentiates stories in the Old Testament from one another? What are the signs of Deuteronymists? Yahwists? The Elohists?

You don't know. I'd be willing to bet you have no idea at all.

[Fruity Insanity]

I can say without the slightest doubt in my mind that not only do I understand the reason religion exists better than you, but that I understand your own religion better than you do.

There is never a point in the original texts where the Devil is mentioned even a single time. The Devil as he is known today is a character the Church built up. It's much the same as our modern depictions of angels, creatures that in the Bible were anything but some kind of winged beautiful creature.

You are truly displaying your lack of education in not only the field of science but religion as well.

Take a look at this. ^^

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

It's just... I know my religion. :)

And it's not like I'm blindly claiming things... I've read through the Bible twice, from cover-to-cover.

Now do you believe me? The Devil is mentioned in the Bible... quite a few times.

Or is everything on that page wrong?

Why not look yourself?

I'm zipping my mouth on the rest.

Already conceded on that. ^^

Edited January 28, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Kon]

... Honey, I don't think linking to a wikipedia page is going to help you out here.

And man, all of this is making me want to read through the Bible again. I may be agnostic, but it is still quite a fascinating piece of literature~

[Fruity Insanity]

... Honey, I don't think linking to a wikipedia page is going to help you out here.

And man, all of this is making me want to read through the Bible again. I may be agnostic, but it is still quite a fascinating piece of literature~

Look at the links in the wikipedia link.

The references in the Bible - look at those.

[BK-201]

Take a look at this. ^^

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

It's just... I know my religion. :)

And it's not like I'm blindly claiming things... I've read through the Bible twice, from cover-to-cover.

I'm zipping my mouth on the rest.

Already conceded on that. ^^

So taking your wikipedia link, specifically Gnostics:

In various Gnostic sects, the serpent of Eden was praised as the giver of knowledge, sometimes with references to Lucifer... However, this being is never explicitly referred to as Satan

The fact that he isn't explicitly labelled as such means that the devil is a construct of extrapolations and not necessarily of the Bible in the case of this sect.

Also, I'm going to guess a bit at what Esau is saying, if his meaning is different I'll retract the following:

Esau appears to be talking about the devil in context of what we see the entity as today, a being that operates in the realm of hell and a literal figure who is in direct opposition to God.

Now with your own link:

The belief that Satan is in Hell has its roots in Christian literature rather than in the Bible.

Preemptively, maybe they don't attach a citation but the burden of proof is on you to show that the devil is there in the books literally as a being in hell.

[Fruity Insanity]

Revelations 20 (NIV)

"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. ² He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. ³ He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

⁴ I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. ⁵ (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. ⁶ Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

The Judgment of Satan

⁷ When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison ⁸ and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. ⁹ They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. ¹⁰ And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

¹¹ Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. ¹² And I saw the dead, great and small,standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. ¹³ The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. ¹⁴ Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. ¹⁵ Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

The lake of fire... the second death. That is hell.

Edited January 28, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[eclipse]

The discussion on whether or not Satan as we know it sounds really interesting. . .but not in this thread!

[Esau of Isaac]

Take a look at this. ^^

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

It's just... I know my religion. :)

And it's not like I'm blindly claiming things... I've read through the Bible twice, from cover-to-cover.

Now do you believe me? The Devil is mentioned in the Bible... quite a few times.

Or is everything on that page wrong?

Why not look yourself?

I'm zipping my mouth on the rest.

Already conceded on that. ^^

No, he isn't. Satan, the opposer, is mentioned multiple times. But there is no ultimate evil entity called the Devil that is actually mentioned in the texts. What we know of today is a congealed entity created and perpetuated by the Church to ensure people are cowed into religious submission. Satan was while a being of opposing force arguably a positive entity. He did his job, but wasn't a comically evil entity. From your own link:

"Christian tradition and theology changed "Satan" from an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith to God's godlike fallen opponent: "the Devil", "Shaitan" in Arabic (the term used by Arab Christians and Muslims)."

You don't have the barest idea what you're talking about. You're ignorant of the history of your own religion and it's beyond pathetic at this point.

Once again, go ahead and show me the extent of your knowledge of the very base of Biblical understanding. Describe for me the differences that accentuate the four story styles of the Old Testament. Name their defining factors and point to given examples in the Old Testament.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Excellen Browning]

In Germany, no one will believe you at first that creationism is still a thing, and even widely spread across America.

Yup, and a decent part of the German population is a Christian to boot!

Hmm, I suppose Christianity doesn't necessarily have to do with creationism the things we erronously call the big bang theory. Or the Earth being the center of the universe or flat for that matter! So... why is there an arguyment ongoing, again?

I have some random tidbits to say.

first tidbit - big bang theory. The theory seems to be based on the discovery or proof of our universe being finite, but expanding(finite or infinite universe was a great question for astronomers for a very long time, both presented problems). Einstein's theory of gravity had solutions for their equations that would describe an expanding universe. Light that came from an object would be redshifted, with the shift increasing as the distance to the object increased (redshifitng happens when light seen coming from an object (like a planet) that is moving away from you, is proportionally increased in wavelength). Edwin Hubble later measured the redshifts of some distant galaxies, and their relative distances. When he plotted the two, he found that the redshift increased as a linear function of their distance. This established that almost all galaxies were moving away from the Milky Way (galaxy in which Earth is), and that the further the galaxy was away, the faster they were moving away from it.

For those who do not think I'm being clear, a bit more meaty explanation. See the universe.jpg attachment. If we look at the universe, and then the three galaxies we've planted in them, galaxy 1 will be going the fastest, and galaxy 2 will be going a lot slower. So over time, the distance between galaxies 1 and 2 increase. Now, galaxy 2 is going faster than galaxy 3, so again, the distance between these two galaxies increases.

So... We established the universe expands over time. Now if we were to reverse time, if would be the other way around and the universe would condense. If we turned back time incredibly long, we find that we've condensed the universe so much we can't even see it anymore. In fact, it's so condensed right now, that it is infinitely close to having a volume of 0(any unit). In this case, having a volume of 0 presents itself with a problem. We know there is matter there, but we cannot put it in a place in space anymore, because there isn't none. Let's call the time in our universe at this point 0. At this point, our three dimensional world does not exist. When time and volume are at zero, our universe to be does not adhere to our current, three dimensional world. Therefore, we do not know what happens at this exact point, or before it. At this point, and before it, volume and movement(time) do not exist.

All of this means we can measure and model the rate at which the universe expands, and by reversing the model we can estimate when(point in time) the volume of the universe was infinitely close to being zero, and so get a pretty decent guess at how old the universe is. Estimate is at 15.000.000.000 years or 473.364.000.000.000.000 seconds or so

Now let's start moving the clock forward. As soon as the expansion starts, we create time and volume, and we have the beginnings of our universe. In the first few moments, the temperature is about 10.000.000.000K and a significant portion of the expansion happens in the shortest amount of time. In this timeframe, subatomitc particles also form (or were present before time and space, I have never been told) and as the expansion becomes larger, the temperature of the particles decrease due to them losing the heat energy in the movement energy and a force which we call the strong force is now finally stronger than the kinetic energy and protons and neutrons start bonding into atomic cores. Sometime later, the particles are cooled down even more and now the electromagnetic force is now stronger than the movement energy and electrons start being attracted to protons. At this point, about 2 hours into the start of our universe, we end up with matter. About 90% of it is hydrogen atoms, and 10% is helium atoms.

The resulting hydrogen and helium form clouds with the help of the gravitational force, and eventually the first stars. The compression of the elements in these stars becomes so large that, at a point, the cores of the atoms start fusing together, and then the resultant atoms do the same, and elements up to iron are produced this way. All the heavier elements are produced in a variety of ways that I won't be discussing.

What happens after this time is pretty common knowledge, IIRC. Gravity pulls together some things and planets form. Not my field of expertise, anyway, so I wouldn't be able to explain what happens exactly to you.

second tidbit - One thing the creation-of-the-universe hinges on is that all of the models for (sub)- atomic interactions apply during the first moments. That all of the forces were present is obvious, and if they weren't present they wouldn't be part of our space-time continuum. However the extreme conditions of the first few moments might have made forces work a differently than we would expect.

second tidbit. By definition, a "bang" or explosion is a shockwave of matter through matter. So how could the big bang be an actual bang when there was no matter yet to make a shockwave in?

Third tidbit - planet earth and life. I fast forward a bit to the planet earth, which is supposedly 4.5 billion years old. On this little earth, we have a "soup" of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and so forth. Basically all of the ingredients to synthesize a piece of DNA (life at it's most basic) were present, and the environment to keep it working. So what was needed now was to convert the "inorganic" elements into small "organic" molecules. Admittedly, you need high temperatures and pressures for that, but with the earth still being hot and pieces of space smashing into the surface frequently, those circumstances were met readily and boom we have a pool of organic materials floating around.

After this comes the tricky part, the synthesis of DNA. DNA is a very large molecule, but synthesis isn't the most difficult thing ever, and in fact humans have home made a piece of DNA some ten years ago, out of everyday materials, and then it started working (or living). So in this "soup" of the Earth, all in all the probability of a piece of DNA being randomly produced and then starting to work was not exactly a great chance, but there was 4.500.000.000 years worth of time to (randomly) get the combination right. And within this time, the right combination was hit (several times) and life on earth began, and everything spiraled out of control from there.

Fourth tidbit - evolution. Again, no expert, but DNA can be slowly modified by a variety of reasons, and this can produce things like cancers, cause the cell the DNA is in to kill itself (apoptosis) or not and make the DNA behave a bit differently, as well as all of it's offspring. And yes this is slow and tedius and random but again, there was 4.500.000.000 worth of time to get the right combinations and end up where we are today.

Fifth tidbit - entropy never decreases in an isolated system. What this ultimately means is that entropy (a measure for randomness, chaos or possible states of a system) in the isolated system called the universe never decreases so stays the same or decreases.

Sixth tidbit - on proof. Of course no one has witnessed the start of our universe, but the position the abrahamic religions hold with regards to their version of the universe isn't so great, either. If we just ignore all of the other scriptures and take Genesis, we don't really know who wrote it, and even if we still wouldn't know if what he (or they) was dealing with were divine revelations or normal hallucinations, or both. Or if he just thought something up. We will never know. Both explanations tell pretty much the same story, though the human theory allows for infinite detail. And both stories can't tell us what was there before our universe and what's outside it.

So in the end, the biblical creation myth finds itself based on hearsay, that was then or later judged true or at least canonical. On the human theory finds itself based on results of experiments and logical ability.

Ultimately, which one you think is "better" or maybe even "true", is really up to who you are, and I have no interest in which you choose. As long as you also remember you can still be a Christian and think the human theory is the right one.

[Sunwoo]

I feel that this clip may be appropriate for this topic:

[Snowy_One]

I just found this thread but I can already see one huge thing that I think needs commenting on.

A theory, in science, has been tested and looked over many, many times by numerous individuals and groups in order to verify it's authenticity. A theory, in science, is held by the majority of scientists to be the strongest idea backed by facts and reasoning. Simply dismissing the BBT as a "theory" is hogwash, because the word "theory" can mean very different things in different contexts. If the BBT was called the Big Bang Hypothesis (scientific term for "a guess"), you'd be right in your dismissal of it. However, as it is, the BBT is not simply a "theory", it has a strong case for it throughout the multitude of studies that have been done in order to seek out our origins.

No, it's not, even in science. In science there are three basic levels an idea can be at, hypothesis, theory, and law. Laws, to quote wikipedia, are 'A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.'

A result of this is that there is a HUGE difference between 'theory' and 'law' and theories can be WRONG! A LOT! In fact, that is how science works. By taking theories that were believed to be true, possibly even with scientific backing at time time, and testing them. Some of them are found to be lacking as well. This doesn't apply just to obvious things (like the Earth being flat) but to practically everything about science. Bigfoot is as much a theory as is if you are actually at your computer right now and not some web-bot or hyper-intelligent cat.

The main difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis' is the presence of evidence. That you are a hyper-intelligent cat is just a hypothesis, with just as much evidence that you're actually human. If you provided a picture of 'yourself' that showed you as human that would change the idea of you being a human to a theory. However, that doesn't mean you aren't one, just that the current evidence suggests that you are one. It's still possible that you, in your kitty-genius, doctored a photo or took one of the human in your house. If that were true the theory that you're human would be discarded in favor of the theory you are a super-smart cat.

[-Cynthia-]

No, it's not, even in science. In science there are three basic levels an idea can be at, hypothesis, theory, and law. Laws, to quote wikipedia, are 'A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.

Theories can be altered to adjust for new information. That does not mean that they should be dismissed as "just theories". To dismiss something like the Big Bang Theory, you would need to collect evidence refuting it by multiple sources. Theory does not mean absolute truth, but also cannot be dismissed on a whim.

A result of this is that there is a HUGE difference between 'theory' and 'law' and theories can be WRONG! A LOT! In fact, that is how science works. By taking theories that were believed to be true, possibly even with scientific backing at time time, and testing them. Some of them are found to be lacking as well. This doesn't apply just to obvious things (like the Earth being flat)

The Earth being flat was a commonly held belief at the time, not a scientific theory.

but to practically everything about science. Bigfoot is as much a theory

The scientific community largely had disregarded Bigfoot as possible due to a lack of evidence. link Theories require large amounts of evidence from many sources.

as is if you are actually at your computer right now and not some web-bot or hyper-intelligent cat.

Not a theory either. Theories are designed to explain some aspect of the natural world, not specific instances.

The main difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis' is the presence of evidence. That you are a hyper-intelligent cat is just a hypothesis, with just as much evidence that you're actually human. If you provided a picture of 'yourself' that showed you as human that would change the idea of you being a human to a theory.

This example is irrelevant. Theories are designed to explain aspects of the natural world. You would also need more evidence than one picture to create a theory.

However, that doesn't mean you aren't one, just that the current evidence suggests that you are one. It's still possible that you, in your kitty-genius, doctored a photo or took one of the human in your house. If that were true the theory that you're human would be discarded in favor of the theory you are a super-smart cat.

You would also need more than one piece of evidence to change a theory.

Maybe your post was designed to be some super simplified explanation, but when none of your examples are actually scientific theories it makes it seem like you know almost nothing on the subject.

[Original Alear]

The main difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis' is the presence of evidence. That you are a hyper-intelligent cat is just a hypothesis, with just as much evidence that you're actually human. If you provided a picture of 'yourself' that showed you as human that would change the idea of you being a human to a theory. However, that doesn't mean you aren't one, just that the current evidence suggests that you are one. It's still possible that you, in your kitty-genius, doctored a photo or took one of the human in your house. If that were true the theory that you're human would be discarded in favor of the theory you are a super-smart cat.

That people that operate computers and ipads and cell phones and the like are presumed to be humans on the groundings of common sense, not science. Science is grounded on common sense, and will never prove to the realm of impossibility, perhaps, that I'm not a hyper-intelligent cat, when presented with an infinitude of what-ifs and ors, especially if falsification of evidence is taken as something within the realm of the possible.

"Do we have him on the dissection table, and is he biologically identical to a human?"

"Yes, but perhaps this hyper-intelligent cat has merely imposed information distortion on our perceptions - since we know such things are within our capability, why not within his? - and is in fact running around on the floor, brushing against our legs and meowing contendedly at this very second."

I assume this is why the statistical structure for testing a hypothesis is structured either to favor, (or to appear to favor), prior assumptions over new assumptions.

My contesting this point is based in part on the belief that people in general aren't perfect - though they can be well equipped - with recognizing falsified data as such. Nor are they perfect in analyzing data. And people - even groups of people - can be wrong.

For things like bigfoot, it is the pervasive insistence on the story in the absence of decent evidence that leads to skepticism - among other things. Just why is the big guy so good at hiding, anyway? He's like the pinnacle of groundhog day groundhog existence!

In fact, it's so condensed right now, that it is infinitely close to having a volume of 0(any unit). In this case, having a volume of 0 presents itself with a problem. We know there is matter there, but we cannot put it in a place in space anymore, because there isn't none. Let's call the time in our universe at this point 0. At this point, our three dimensional world does not exist. When time and volume are at zero, our universe to be does not adhere to our current, three dimensional world. Therefore, we do not know what happens at this exact point, or before it. At this point, and before it, volume and movement(time) do not exist.

I don't understand the language, and I'd like to try and understand. The quarrel is, "since when does infinitely close to 0 mean 0?" That seems silly. It seems to assume impermanence of "thing" - object, matter, energy, whatever.

I understand it in principle as saying "have not worked off assumptions with no apparent reason to assume" though. I'm fine with that.[/b]

Edited February 3, 2013 by Mouse

[Snowy_One]

That people that operate computers and ipads and cell phones and the like are presumed to be humans on the groundings of common sense, not science. Science is grounded on common sense, and will never prove to the realm of impossibility, perhaps, that I'm not a hyper-intelligent cat, when presented with an infinitude of what-ifs and ors, especially if falsification of evidence is taken as something within the realm of the possible.

"Do we have him on the dissection table, and is he biologically identical to a human?"

"Yes, but perhaps this hyper-intelligent cat has merely imposed information distortion on our perceptions - since we know such things are within our capability, why not within his? - and is in fact running around on the floor, brushing against our legs and meowing contendedly at this very second."

I assume this is why the statistical structure for testing a hypothesis is structured either to favor, (or to appear to favor), prior assumptions over new assumptions.

My contesting this point is based in part on the belief that people in general aren't perfect - though they can be well equipped - with recognizing falsified data as such. Nor are they perfect in analyzing data. And people - even groups of people - can be wrong.

For things like bigfoot, it is the pervasive insistence on the story in the absence of decent evidence that leads to skepticism - among other things. Just why is the big guy so good at hiding, anyway? He's like the pinnacle of groundhog day groundhog existence!

[/b]I don't understand the language, and I'd like to try and understand. The quarrel is, "since when does infinitely close to 0 mean 0?" That seems silly. It seems to assume impermanence of "thing" - object, matter, energy, whatever.

I understand it in principle as saying "have not worked off assumptions with no apparent reason to assume" though. I'm fine with that.[/b]

Part of science, good science, is the fact that you cannot disprove a negative. This is actually very important to it when it is being done right because all it takes is some new theory arising to totally shatter everything perceived about science and the way we understand the world. When Darwin published his theory of evolution it went up against the current scientific theories that existed at the time regarding the origin of life. To claim that people had NO idea of the concept of evolution would be stupid as it was well known that breeding certain animals could produce 'superior' off-spring. Better war-horses, better nobles, poodles, everything. However, there were questions evolution didn't answer and questions the notion of 'no macroevolution' couldn't answer in reply. Evolution managed to hold it's own and, for all intents and purposes, has won a decisive victory. However, that doesn't mean evolution is true nor should it be preached as 'truth'. For all we know, it could very well be that some other process aided in the process of getting too man and evolution is, in fact, wrong.

This is science. We take what we can observe, we try to develop the best explanation for what we observe, and we test and refine that observation as best we can. We sit upon a mountain of prior generations knowledge and look down upon them. They were not 'dumber' than us by any means and I'm sure that, in the year 3000, people then will look down upon us and go 'Wow. Those people in 2000 sure were morons. I mean, duuuuurrrrr, internet is good! Never mind the Globarx waves frying my testicles! That stuff is just stupid even though I see my Thanix melting all around me and don't care in the slightest because all I care about is toiling in the fields of lolcats'. And likewise the people of the year 4000 will look down on them and laugh at their efforts to achieve non-corporal bodies without obtaining Buddhist enlightenment first.

What is my point with all of this? Simply this. The idea that theories are by any means 'fact' is simply stupid. Our knowledge of the universe grows every day and there is still much we don't fully grasp and our entire understanding of life, the universe, and everything can change overnight. Tomorrow Ptah could arrive and tell us that the Egyptian Gods are awakening from their slumber and wonder why no one follows them anymore and that would change a lot of what we take as scientific fact into fiction as our understanding changes. People who put theory, even ones that seem unquestionable, on an unquestionable pillar of truth while trashing others are not scientists. They are fanatics.

I believe that God created the world in seven days. I also rented a miniseries recently on how life on Earth might evolve over the next 1 billion or so years and downright enjoyed it and have 'Walking with the Monsters' up on Netflix right now. I accept that this is what science believes to be true and that it is different from what I believe; and that is fine. My belief could very well be wrong, theirs could be, we both could be, or whatever else there is. That doesn't mean I have to recoil like a vampire from garlic at the mention of the word 'evolution' or scientists from the word 'religion'. Just that I need to be able to keep the separate and understand what each means to me.

[Excellen Browning]

[/b]I don't understand the language, and I'd like to try and understand. The quarrel is, "since when does infinitely close to 0 mean 0?" That seems silly. It seems to assume impermanence of "thing" - object, matter, energy, whatever.

I understand it in principle as saying "have not worked off assumptions with no apparent reason to assume" though. I'm fine with that.[/b]

Infinitely close to zero is indeed not equal to zero, it's just that we cannot define how zero would have looked like. It's a bit of a stretch but in the formula 1 / X = Y, assuming that all values of X are larger than 0, we can approach 0 infinitely closely, but having 0 as the actual answer is not possible. Plugging in x=0 will not produce y=0. Or at least in ordinary arithmetic, because no number a can be produced from multiplying a number with 0. So we could say that, a/0=b, but because b*0=0 (the reverse action) does not produce a as a value, the answer to a/0 has to be indeterminate

So if we assume that the formula for the size of the universe looks like the 1/x formula, we cannot define the volume when we set the time(or X) to zero, but we can get infinitely close to time equalling 0, which allows us to examine the start of the universe.

But all in all, yes, we do not know what things were like when time was actually at 0 or even before that (or if there was even a concept like time)

[Esau of Isaac]

What is my point with all of this? Simply this. The idea that theories are by any means 'fact' is simply stupid. Our knowledge of the universe grows every day and there is still much we don't fully grasp and our entire understanding of life, the universe, and everything can change overnight.

So it is wrong to say that it is factual that matter is composed of atoms? Given that it's only atomic theory, of course.

I believe that God created the world in seven days. I also rented a miniseries recently on how life on Earth might evolve over the next 1 billion or so years and downright enjoyed it and have 'Walking with the Monsters' up on Netflix right now. I accept that this is what science believes to be true and that it is different from what I believe; and that is fine. My belief could very well be wrong, theirs could be, we both could be, or whatever else there is. That doesn't mean I have to recoil like a vampire from garlic at the mention of the word 'evolution' or scientists from the word 'religion'. Just that I need to be able to keep the separate and understand what each means to me.

But you should acknowledge that it's okay to refer to something that is an uncontested, abundantly observed phenomenon a fact.

[Snowy_One]

So it is wrong to say that it is factual that matter is composed of atoms? Given that it's only atomic theory, of course.

Both Big Rigs and World of Warcraft are video games, right? World of Warcraft allows you to play with thousands of players online, so Big Rigs MUST allow you to play with thousands of players online as well! After all, they're both video games! Kill Bill and Care Bears are both movies and Kill Bill is very gory, so Care Bears must also be pretty gory because they're both movies!

Obviously that's not the case. Just because both Evolution and Atomic theory are theories doesn't mean that they're suddenly on the same level. In fact, when you get really deep into science, a lot of the things you thought you took for granted suddenly become undone and science doesn't know the answer to some things we see in every day life, like how a bicycle stays up.

Atomic theory is our current theory for how the world works on a microscopic level, but there is no reason it can't change or be wrong. Tomorrow we might discover that there is a new particle in an atom that we previously just didn't notice. That is perfectly fine. In science 'facts' change constantly and there will always be unexplained things.

But you should acknowledge that it's okay to refer to something that is an uncontested, abundantly observed phenomenon a fact.

It is not uncontested. Nor is it 'abundantly observed'. We have only seen evolution happen on a small scale throughout history and most of our theories about it involving changing from one species to another are derived from observations of some fossils having similar bone structures or features (if you're lucky). We have interpreted these as best we can, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Think of science, particularly archaeology, like one huge game of Phoenix Wright. Everything can seem to fit in perfectly and point to one person as a murderer then, BAM! Some new piece of evidence comes to light and totally changes everything, yet every step forwards moves us closer to what really happened and the biggest crime is to ignore the truth in favor of pushing your own personal theory (which could result in poor little Maya getting sent to jail!).