44% of people are idiots.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Math doesn't tell us anything about science. Math is not evidence. Observations are evidence. Math is simply a language.

Any scientific theory worth a damn is used to generate mathematical models to quantify things. Math allows us to quantitatively test whether observations agree with theory.

But that isn't what you said. Scientific facts can be expressed mathematically, but mathematics does not inform our science. Strictly speaking, mathematics have nothing to do with the real world.

Mathematics are not observations, dumbass. Holy shit you're stupid.

What exactly is your background? You drag your knuckles on the ground, bleed a little bit, and think that qualifies you to lecture me on what science is?

Credentials are irrelevant since they obviously haven't prevented you from uttering such ridiculous claptrap.

How do you think observations are tested against a theory if not by using mathematical models?

They are tested by experiment, and specifically observation. You don't "observe" math.

Oh, that's right - you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, let alone a theory from a hypothesis.

This from a guy who still thinks he has proposed a theory. That's a laugh.

Which is creationist code for: I can't argue against the evidence.

Please point out where I said anything in support of creationism or any other theory. You can't, because it hasn't happened. You have no clue what I think, what I think of the "evidence," or anything else because it has never been said. You think that because I can consider both possibilities, I'm some ignorant hillbilly who has no clue about anything. In reality, you're simply demonstrating that you're a lot closer to that extreme than I am by ignoring everything I've said.

Hey if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Nonsense. A testable hypothesis will have specific predictions, and when you find those predictions to be true the hypothesis is validated.

Wrong. As Einstein himself said, a million observations cannot prove me right, but one observation can prove me wrong (paraphrased). Mathematical concepts can be proved, but scientific theories can never be because there exist infinitely many explanations for any observation.

I didn't say anything about proof. I'm talking about validation. Read for comprehension, Poindexter.

You didn't put forth a theory. Regardless, some googling on parallax should supply those readers-along with precisely the evidence you will doubtlessly continue to pretend doesn't exist.

In other words, you can't do it.

No, in other words, the answer went over your head. We can use parallax to triangulate the position of astronomical objects such as stars, thereby calculating their distance and minimal age of the universe.

Since I work in ophthalmology, I have a pretty good idea of what parallax is. Nothing I know about or am finding on Google that could possibly address the question at hand.

You obviously know next to nothing about stellar parallax.

That's because both theories would give the same result in any parallax-based analysis.

There aren't two theories. There is one, and then there is your fairy tale.

If there is such evidence, you should be able to find it and supply it. And please don't call me a dumbass in the future. Swearing is the last recourse of the ignorant, and you are obviously far from ignorant.

Any amount of googling for the age of the universe will supply you with the relevant information. The real problem is that you don't understand the fact that your 10,000 year old proposition does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis the way that the naturalistic one does. Science must be methodologically naturalistic out of necessity, and you're too fucking stupid to know that. See my other responses to you in this thread for the illustrations of the consequences of your sloppy thinking.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

1) Math is science In fact, as described by Gauss himself "Math is the queen of sciences". Remember, a scientific law is a concept/explanation proven to behave exactly as described under the conditions set. This means formulas Math is in fact the most powerful tool in the arsenal of science to disprove the myths.

Math is not science. Math is language. Your claim makes about as much sense as saying "English is science."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: QueBert

really? you can explain to me how it all started?

What evidence do you have that "it all" actually has a starting point?

not a theory at to what is believed to have happened. I'm a fucking retard for wondering WHY. A question nobody can answer, even the HOW question can't be answered with more than a theory. I wouldn't say I'm a retard for wondering about shit that's impossible to prove or even begin to figure out. Maybe it's the Newcastles in me talking but when I think about the universe and how it had to have existed forever. How the fuck do you figure that out? I don't believe there was a ever a start it's just always been there. I know what air is, but WHY? If you know all this you should really write a book, I've read a couple and they don't answer any of my questions. They just go over shit I learned in High School, just in far greater detail.

I can see from this paragraph that any kind of rational dialogue with you will be a nearly insurmountable challenge.

 

[drdops]

.

 

[Freshgeardude]

I believe in evolution, I also believe that G-d made the world in 7 days.

now, what does 1 day= to?

that is the unknown part that no one knows, so some probably say they think g-d did it in 7 days, which could potentially be billions of years per day

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: BW86
What makes more sense?

That we adapted to our environments over the span of millions of years or that some supernatural being created everything we see in 7 days....

:disgust:

Considering how many variables could be taken into consideration and how easily one or two things might have wiped out the entire species...

I don't believe in the 7 day theory, though I don't believe we did it all on our own either. No idea personally how it happened and I doubt anyone else can precisely say how we overcame certain barriers and reached certain milestones as a society to progress the way we did. Just a casual thought excersize reveals the enormous potential for extinction we as a species had over those millions of years.

Originally posted by: OOBradm
lol. explain dinosaurs?!

Hmm, well look at that.

The dinosaurs could have made that same case that just because they hadn't all died out yet, they couldn't have evolved over many millions of years. Hey, what's that bright, streaking object in the sky?

And now here we are, with no defenses against that same sort of extinction-level event. Maybe our time will come tomorrow, or maybe not for many thousands of years.

The point is, many species have flared into existence over the eons, and many have died out completely. During their heydays, I'm sure many of them, if given the ability, could have made that same argument, that they'd overcome so many obstacles that they surely couldn't have evolved by chance.
Then a thousand years later, there's nothing left of them but a few dozen fossils.

Originally posted by: QueBert
Nice response, somehow people will still manage to be more knowledgeable then you here. If you question ANYONE on ATOT you're a stupid n00b, because ATOT is a collective of the absolute most intelligent people on the planet. Regardless of the topic they always know more than you. It's mind blowing how some of the most brilliant people to every walk this earth spend their time neffing on ATOT.

All I know about this debate is nobody, and I mean nobody can explain how and why the universe is here. Where did the first cell come from? Who cares about what happened later, if you can't explain how it all started it's useless to even discuss. And the Big Bang tells me nothing because something had to make that happen.

A shame none of them will read your response here, as they cannot possible be wrong, EVER.

An explanation I've seen of the Big Bang says it was an eruption of space, energy, and time.
Cause and effect is a product of a linear timeline. Try imagining a place where there was no time, the realm in which that Big Bang singularity may have "originated" from. Causality may have existed, but we'd have no way to really quantify or even envision it.
The COBE mission showed some of the best evidence ever that the Universe was once very uniformly hot. The data it returned matched the predictions for blackbody radiation almost precisely.

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
I believe in evolution, I also believe that G-d made the world in 7 days.

now, what does 1 day= to?

that is the unknown part that no one knows, so some probably say they think g-d did it in 7 days, which could potentially be billions of years per day

And this all-knowing deity made a unit error when inspiring/giving the account of Creation to us simple-minded beings?
Besides, the Bible says that God separated light from dark, and called the light "day." Well here on Earth, day and night are pretty easily measured lengths of time. So unless Earth was rotating very slowly during the creation, I'd say that one instance of daytime and one instance of nighttime add up to about 24 hours.

 

[BoomerD]

44% of people are idiots.

Yep...and the other 66% ain't so sharp either...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Actually, the first cells aren't incredibly difficult to explain.

The cell walls form very easily in fact. I forgot the specifics of it. But scientists found out that cell wall structures formed in large quantities in a solution that mimicked early oceans.

So we now have the cell wall, now what goes into it?

We already know that a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water creates many amino acids that life uses. These amino acids are just in a huge primordial soup. being jostled around and colliding with each other for years. They start combining.. and combining as they collide and form bigger and bigger chains, and then? You get the first strand of RNA. This RNA enters the cell membrane created. We Now have the first primitive cell.

But where did the shit originate? The oceans, the dirt, the sun, nobody can explain that. Fine cells came from what mimicked early oceans, but how did the oceans get here? The most basic question is also the most complex. No scientist or religious dude can tell me why or how. Science makes perfect sense to me with their explanation of everything coming from a single cell, but they can't explain how beginning of everything started. That's really the only question I have

Of course they can tell you how these things happen. They (we) have been telling the world for centuries how these things came about. Amazing, the conclusive discoveries that have been made. Truly Amazing!

You just won't listen. I don't know why; and I'm pretty sure I'll never know why. My only explanation is that you're fucking retarded.

but that's just a theory of mine. my evidence is your posts. Amazingly, this is as much evidence as any religion as yet attempted to posit for itself.

really? you can explain to me how it all started? not a theory at to what is believed to have happened. I'm a fucking retard for wondering WHY. A question nobody can answer, even the HOW question can't be answered with more than a theory. I wouldn't say I'm a retard for wondering about shit that's impossible to prove or even begin to figure out. Maybe it's the Newcastles in me talking but when I think about the universe and how it had to have existed forever. How the fuck do you figure that out? I don't believe there was a ever a start it's just always been there. I know what air is, but WHY? If you know all this you should really write a book, I've read a couple and they don't answer any of my questions. They just go over shit I learned in High School, just in far greater detail.

/facepalm

really?

Really?


so, honestly...you want to pull out the "just a theory" BS again? Tell me you're joking.

Do you know how tiring it is to point out that some 70% of you clearly have no idea what a scientific theory is?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
/facepalm

really?

Really?


so, honestly...you want to pull out the "just a theory" BS again? Tell me you're joking.

Do you know how tiring it is to point out that some 70% of you clearly have no idea what a scientific theory is?

*raises hand*

Umm...gravity is a theory right? Does that mean that someone is going to prove it wrong and we'll all fly off into space?

Would everyone stop working on science for a little while so I can tie a few things down? It'll only take a bit.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Recent poll finds only 14 percent of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution

Holy crap..

These the same people that put a Democrat in the President's office?

<- PN

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
High time the world of science grew some balls and called it The Fact of Evolution. They only call it a theory to appease brainless morons.

I take it you are getting close to submitting a paper that will establish scientifically all the unanswered questions around the theory? If so I look forward to reading it, it will prove interesting and we can finally move on to more pressing thought exercises.

Evolution is everywhere - there's no doubt that it exists. Just because we don't understand every single bit of it doesn't mean it's not there.

A sky wizard that created the entire universe in a week....where's the proof?

there's as much proof for the sky wizard as evolution, I mean yes humans evolved from cells, but WHERE did the cells come from? No scientist or religious nutt can explain that to me. So in fact it's a theory as to how it started either way you look at it. And neither make sense to me. Since nobody will ever be able to explain how and why the first cell existed and where it came from nobody is right here.

Actually, the first cells aren't incredibly difficult to explain.

The cell walls form very easily in fact. I forgot the specifics of it. But scientists found out that cell wall structures formed in large quantities in a solution that mimicked early oceans.

So we now have the cell wall, now what goes into it?

We already know that a simple mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water creates many amino acids that life uses. These amino acids are just in a huge primordial soup. being jostled around and colliding with each other for years. They start combining.. and combining as they collide and form bigger and bigger chains, and then? You get the first strand of RNA. This RNA enters the cell membrane created. We Now have the first primitive cell.

But where did the shit originate? The oceans, the dirt, the sun, nobody can explain that. Fine cells came from what mimicked early oceans, but how did the oceans get here? The most basic question is also the most complex. No scientist or religious dude can tell me why or how. Science makes perfect sense to me with their explanation of everything coming from a single cell, but they can't explain how beginning of everything started. That's really the only question I have

Of course they can tell you how these things happen. They (we) have been telling the world for centuries how these things came about. Amazing, the conclusive discoveries that have been made. Truly Amazing!

You just won't listen. I don't know why; and I'm pretty sure I'll never know why. My only explanation is that you're fucking retarded.

but that's just a theory of mine. my evidence is your posts. Amazingly, this is as much evidence as any religion as yet attempted to posit for itself.

really? you can explain to me how it all started? not a theory at to what is believed to have happened. I'm a fucking retard for wondering WHY. A question nobody can answer, even the HOW question can't be answered with more than a theory. I wouldn't say I'm a retard for wondering about shit that's impossible to prove or even begin to figure out. Maybe it's the Newcastles in me talking but when I think about the universe and how it had to have existed forever. How the fuck do you figure that out? I don't believe there was a ever a start it's just always been there. I know what air is, but WHY? If you know all this you should really write a book, I've read a couple and they don't answer any of my questions. They just go over shit I learned in High School, just in far greater detail.

/facepalm

really?

Really?


so, honestly...you want to pull out the "just a theory" BS again? Tell me you're joking.

Do you know how tiring it is to point out that some 70% of you clearly have no idea what a scientific theory is?

No my question is why we're here, there's not even a theory for why so I gues that was the Newcastle talking. I'm not trying to discuss science here or how cells were originally formed. I was talking about the start of the start, that cannot be explained by anybody. If time is finite and there was a starting point*sips Newcastle* I want to know how the first something came about as you cannot have something from nothing.

As far as science I believe the Big Bang Theory, I even read a book on it but it doesn't answer my most basic question, which I guess is also the most complex.

any ways I'll stop posting when I'm drinking as it makes my brain run too fast and I can't keep up with my thoughts sorry lol.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: zinfamous
/facepalm

really?

Really?


so, honestly...you want to pull out the "just a theory" BS again? Tell me you're joking.

Do you know how tiring it is to point out that some 70% of you clearly have no idea what a scientific theory is?

*raises hand*

Umm...gravity is a theory right? Does that mean that someone is going to prove it wrong and we'll all fly off into space?

Would everyone stop working on science for a little while so I can tie a few things down? It'll only take a bit.

Gravity is a theory for a reason. If you took any in depth look at that subject you would know why

Not to mention, there is a difference, very very big difference between a theory we can test either through examples of mathematically and a theory that we can "guess at".

We can test gravity on different levels and scales and usually arrive at the same conclusion. Can you tell me how you plan to test the exact events that helped us overcome every single possible extinction issue we had over the last few million years?

Or even more basically, how will you test the evolution theory to a degree of a species ability to overcome very large issues that require enormous leaps in thinking, dexterity and ingenuity in short periods of time?

The idea that a theory becomes law because a lot of people keep repeating what they are told when they cannot answer anything but the basic questions regarding the theory that we learn at an elementary level is the ridiculousness you accuse others of.

 

[nutxo]

I thought retarded shit like this was for P&N.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Gravity is a theory for a reason. If you took any in depth look at that subject you would know why

Not to mention, there is a difference, very very big difference between a theory we can test either through examples of mathematically and a theory that we can "guess at".

We can test gravity on different levels and scales and usually arrive at the same conclusion. Can you tell me how you plan to test the exact events that helped us overcome every single possible extinction issue we had over the last few million years?

Or even more basically, how will you test the evolution theory to a degree of a species ability to overcome very large issues that require enormous leaps in thinking, dexterity and ingenuity in short periods of time?

The idea that a theory becomes law because a lot of people keep repeating what they are told when they cannot answer anything but the basic questions regarding the theory that we learn at an elementary level is the ridiculousness you accuse others of.

Yeah. The theory part of gravity isn't whether gravity exists, but how it works. We may eventually figure that out, but we certainly won't if we stop looking and write it off as divine intervention. In order to keep finding these things out you have to start from the assumption that there is a naturalistic explanation for them. If you don't believe that then where is the motivation to search? No, scientists continue to plumb the depths because they believe the answer is right there. Guess what? So far, it has always been there, right up to the limitations of our ability to observe it (which is getting better all the time). More and more of it is uncovered every day.

You're asking me how I would test the events in our species' past which lead to our ascension as the dominate animal on earth? I'm asking you why is the hand of god the default assumption if I cannot? If I were to really think that God's influence represents everything that natural science has yet to test then why test at all? I start from the assumption that there is an answer to find, and that gives me the motivation to find it. I don't have to know what that answer is. I do have to assume that what I find won't be supernatural, or else I might as well not bother looking. That isn't to say that there is nothing supernatural, just that I don't have the tools to observe it. If I did then it wouldn't be supernatural, would it?

What I'm getting at here is the intellectual dishonesty of hiding God behind a shimmering shield made up of "the currently untestable". As far as I can tell, the logic behind this is "Well, you don't really know what's there...God could be there couldn't he? Couldn't he"? "I think I'll go right ahead and believe he's there while challenging you to prove he's not by some impossible method". "Let's forget about the fact that I'm not holding my own claim to the same standards of proof, because we all know it is the default assumption in the event of your failure".

God is NOT the only answer to a lack of knowledge. I know that humanity survived the test of time because humanity is still here. I know that I can't go looking for god or looking for his absence because he will always retreat to the borders of what I know, regardless of how many places I don't find him in. You don't test for God, because finding him would reduce him to being part of the natural, testable world, and therefor not God at all. That makes his existence doubtful to me, because the natural, testable world is all that I think there is. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't expect to find evidence of him in humanity's past.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: RichardE
Gravity is a theory for a reason. If you took any in depth look at that subject you would know why

Not to mention, there is a difference, very very big difference between a theory we can test either through examples of mathematically and a theory that we can "guess at".

We can test gravity on different levels and scales and usually arrive at the same conclusion. Can you tell me how you plan to test the exact events that helped us overcome every single possible extinction issue we had over the last few million years?

Or even more basically, how will you test the evolution theory to a degree of a species ability to overcome very large issues that require enormous leaps in thinking, dexterity and ingenuity in short periods of time?

The idea that a theory becomes law because a lot of people keep repeating what they are told when they cannot answer anything but the basic questions regarding the theory that we learn at an elementary level is the ridiculousness you accuse others of.

Yeah. The theory part of gravity isn't whether gravity exists, but how it works. We may eventually figure that out, but we certainly won't if we stop looking and write it off as divine intervention. In order to keep finding these things out you have to start from the assumption that there is a naturalistic explanation for them. If you don't believe that then where is the motivation to search? No, scientists continue to plumb the depths because they believe the answer is right there. Guess what? So far, it has always been there, right up to the limitations of our ability to observe it (which is getting better all the time). More and more of it is uncovered every day.

You're asking me how I would test the events in our species' past which lead to our ascension as the dominate animal on earth? I'm asking you why is the hand of god the default assumption if I cannot? If I were to really think that God's influence represents everything that natural science has yet to test then why test at all? I start from the assumption that there is an answer to find, and that gives me the motivation to find it. I don't have to know what that answer is. I do have to assume that what I find won't be supernatural, or else I might as well not bother looking. That isn't to say that there is nothing supernatural, just that I don't have the tools to observe it. If I did then it wouldn't be supernatural, would it?

What I'm getting at here is the intellectual dishonesty of hiding God behind a shimmering shield made up of "the currently untestable". As far as I can tell, the logic behind this is "Well, you don't really know what's there...God could be there couldn't he? Couldn't he"? "I think I'll go right ahead and believe he's there while challenging you to prove he's not by some impossible method". "Let's forget about the fact that I'm not holding my own claim to the same standards of proof, because we all know it is the default assumption in the event of your failure".

God is NOT the only answer to a lack of knowledge. I know that humanity survived the test of time because humanity is still here. I know that I can't go looking for god or looking for his absence because he will always retreat to the borders of what I know, regardless of how many places I don't find him in. You don't test for God, because finding him would reduce him to being part of the natural, testable world, and therefor not God at all. That makes his existence doubtful to me, because the natural, testable world is all that I think there is. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't expect to find evidence of him in humanity's past.

I never stated god or some supernatural being had any hand on our advancement. I simply stated we do not know.

Your defense over a conclusion I did not state only shows precisely what I had said earlier, that most people defend a theory they do not understand, cannot explain and do not know anything beyond elementary details about.

It reminds me of individuals who defend global warming, yet have a knowledge that is equivalent to Al Gore you tube videos on the subject. I understand the importance of taking a stance, but before you wish to destroy other peoples beliefs be it in god, in evolution unaided, in aided evolution, in luck, in a clockmaker theory, whatever belief you subscribe too, before you attack someones else's beliefs you should have a better explanation of your own besides "Someone told me it was true".

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Recent poll finds only 14 percent of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution

Holy crap..

These the same people that put a Democrat in the President's office?

christians are predominantly repubs.

Evolution is a crock. It didn't happen in 7 days, nor 10,000 years, but I can't reasonably accept all this occured randomly. Perhaps what we see as evolution was actually the process of creation. I dont know. I do know there's no chance in hell we just randomly got here.

You are pretty scary.

 

[DangerAardvark]

In everyday usage, ?theory? often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, ?I have a theory about why that happened,? they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially.

What is hard about this?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: RichardE
I never stated god or some supernatural being had any hand on our advancement. I simply stated we do not know.

Your defense over a conclusion I did not state only shows precisely what I had said earlier, that most people defend a theory they do not understand, cannot explain and do not know anything beyond elementary details about.

Bah, I was reading the implication behind your post. If I can't test the things you asked me to test then what? Nothing? There was no point you were getting at there?

What of the theory of gravity? Gravity itself isn't a theory at all, it is an observed fact. The theory part is us guessing how it works. That doesn't actually make a very good parallel to any theory regarding abiogenesis, which is what I assume quebert and zinfamous were arguing about. That's what got us into this particular discussion. If anything you should have called me out on that.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

In everyday usage, ?theory? often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, ?I have a theory about why that happened,? they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially.

What is hard about this?

Well no one is truly arguing that evolution did not occur, the argument generally rallies around whether mans ingenuity and luck was the key factor or another outside source.

Multiple scientific theories have been altered or invalidated over the centuries.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: RichardE
I never stated god or some supernatural being had any hand on our advancement. I simply stated we do not know.

Your defense over a conclusion I did not state only shows precisely what I had said earlier, that most people defend a theory they do not understand, cannot explain and do not know anything beyond elementary details about.

Bah, I was reading the implication behind your post. If I can't test the things you asked me to test then what? Nothing? There was no point you were getting at there?

What of the theory of gravity? Gravity itself isn't a theory at all, it is an observed fact. The theory part is us guessing how it works. That doesn't actually make a very good parallel to any theory regarding abiogenesis, which is what I assume quebert and zinfamous were arguing about. That's what got us into this particular discussion. If anything you should have called me out on that.

Of course their is a point, which is the same one I made throughout this topic which garners massive responses

The central idea that outside of a proven theory of a evolution of man where we can go "they were here 3-4 million years ago, they started using X tools here 1.5-2million ect ect ect" we really have no real explanation for why we have massive technological advances in seemingly short periods of times pretty regularly that usually come when we need them most.

Anyway, the entire point, is we don't know whether we had help from a "god" from another long gone species, from a past species we have not found evidence of, from help outside, or whether we as some people enjoy believing are the lucky products of a Universe lottery.

I didn't really need to discuss the scientific validity of gravity or its comparison to different theories regarding evolution. The point I've been trying to make is we simply do not know what exactly let us be the species to survive a few million years and grow so as we did. To say anything at all "roll of the dice" "god" "luck" "help from other species" or anything is nothing but faith and is in the same boat as some religions that advocate creationalism. (obviously creationalism theory that takes into account the scientific evidence we have collected so far).

So anyway, that was my point I see it more as a thought excercize than anything else since in the end it truly doesn't change anything how we got here.

As Satre once said " That even if God did exist, that would change nothing. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue"

 

[BoomerD]

IMO, there's no evidence to support creationism OR evolution beyond mere theories.

For those who believe in a creator...where did that being come from?

What did the creator use for materials to create the universe, and where did "he" create it?



IF there was no creator, how did the universe come to be? "How is babby formed?"

From WHAT materials was it formed, and where were those materials at?

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
IF there was no creator, how did the universe come to be? "How is babby formed?"

How girl get pregnant?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

IMO, there's no evidence to support creationism OR evolution beyond mere theories.

For those who believe in a creator...where did that being come from?

What did the creator use for materials to create the universe, and where did "he" create it?



IF there was no creator, how did the universe come to be? "How is babby formed?"

From WHAT materials was it formed, and where were those materials at?

Beyond mere theories? Are you on crack? Evolution is a scientific theory, which as previously stated is held to much higher standards than your everyday theory.

Plus, evolution isn't about how life began, it's about how existing life changed over time to get what we have today.

As for the universe - background radiation indicates that there was a big bang in which matter rapidly expanded from a singularity. As the universe cooled, hydrogen came together in massive clumps to form stars powered by fusion reactions. Those fusion reactions created the elements up to ~Iron. As stars died out and went super-nova, the heavier elements were created. or something there about...

None of these theories address whether there was a creator or not. A creator is beyond the scope of what is testable, and thus is not even asked at a hypothesis stage.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: BoomerD

IMO, there's no evidence to support creationism OR evolution beyond mere theories.

For those who believe in a creator...where did that being come from?

What did the creator use for materials to create the universe, and where did "he" create it?



IF there was no creator, how did the universe come to be? "How is babby formed?"

From WHAT materials was it formed, and where were those materials at?

Beyond mere theories? Are you on crack? Evolution is a scientific theory, which as previously stated is held to much higher standards than your everyday theory.

Plus, evolution isn't about how life began, it's about how existing life changed over time to get what we have today.

As for the universe - background radiation indicates that there was a big bang in which matter rapidly expanded from a singularity. As the universe cooled, hydrogen came together in massive clumps to form stars powered by fusion reactions. Those fusion reactions created the elements up to ~Iron. As stars died out and went super-nova, the heavier elements were created. or something there about...

None of these theories address whether there was a creator or not. A creator is beyond the scope of what is testable, and thus is not even asked at a hypothesis stage.

<plop>.....whiiiiiiiizzzzzzzzzz! Caught another one...

OK, where did this singularity happen?

What was there first?

Where did the matter come from?

Where did the hydrogen come from?


I understand that scientific theories are a bit more than, "Who would win a fight between A and B?"
"Well, based on the comic books I've seen lately, I think..."


I get that...BUT, we do not KNOW how the universe was created, where it was created, and from what materials it was created.
At this point, everything IS mere theory...scientific or not.

Yes, I understand that evolution is the progression from one stage to another, by whatever causors. IMO, evolution is more believable than creation...but hell, sci-fi authors have written about "seeding" planets with life for many years...IMO, THAT's just about as believable as "The GREAT Sky-Fairy" said, "Let there be light," and there was, and he saw that it was good."

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: alexruiz
2) Cyclo, your example is wrong. You are just picking a pair of linear equations where one is displaced in the X axis, hence making the result match the first equation. It obviously will have the same values. To make a VALID comparison, you need to take the SAME equation and pick different points in time. Again, as you would say "use math properly" The model usage you are trying to use doesn;t apply to this situation.

The explanation is perfectly valid. It was just very simple so the knuckle draggers in this thread would be able to understand. Both of them are solutions to the same differential equation (dy/dt=5). The only difference is the initial condition and relative time. The exact same principle applies to the field equations relevant to relativity, mass/heat/momentum transfer, viscoelasticity, or any other time-dependent phenomenon. The only reason I didn't use such an example is that it's needlessly complicated and would at best serve to demonstrate the same point I just made using such a simple example.

Now cyclo, you are the mathematician, or so you say. You are right that having only only measure cannot reveal the initial state of the equation. You are wrong that it cannot be shown at all.
Here is your proof of the universe age, or at least that YOU really can measure the age of some things from the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay
Unlike your example, where you have a pair of equations, hence making it invalid, you need to use only one equation. Geologists measure the amount of some isotope, measure it some point in time later, and then, because we already know the half life of such isotope, calculate the initial amount in the same equation N(t) = N0 * e^(-tau/t) Or, if you wanna do it properly, use the differential equation and solve it dN/dt = -tau/N Your assessment about carbon 14 not being useful is wrong, and you know it. Oh, I forgot, we don't want to know No, we want to know the value of "t" at N0.... simple, just rearrange the equation. Use the values of the 2 measures in time as the integration limits, and you are set.

No, I never said I was a mathematician. I'm an engineer. And your "proof" is meaningless in attempting to say anything about the two "theories" being discussed for reasons I've already gone in to in this very thread. Since you obviously missed the boat in the first example, I'll rework it in terms of your example. Since you brought it up, I'll assume you understand the derivation of exponential decay. However, I'll go into it for the sake of tradition.

To begin, we have a differential equation governing the number N of a given isotope. The rate of disappearance (appearance is achieved by simply switching the sign) of this isotope, dN/dt, is proportional to the size of the current population with proportionality constant tau. This is expressed mathematically as a differential equation,
dN/dt=-tau*N.
This is a very simple differential equation which may be solved by separating and integrating, yielding
ln(N)=t/tau, or N=e^t/tau,
evaluated with the initial condition N(t=0)=N0. This gives
ln(N)-ln(N0)=e^(-(t-t0)/tau), or N=N0*e^(-(t-t0)/tau).

Well, who cares? you might ask. I'll tell you. If you assume that all carbon started out as C14 at t0=0, you get a certain solution for t>0. If instead, you assume that carbon started out in an isotope ratio given by the previous case at time t0 then you will get an identical curve for all times t>t0.

Thus, both theories predict the exact same result. I have even solved one example of this for you in Excel for your convenience, because no one here believes me or they just can't figure it out on their own. Here it is - the middle column is the "Big Bang" theory and the other is the "more recent appearance of everything at the initial state predicted by the BB theory." Enjoy.

tau 6
t0 0 3
N0 1 0.60653066

t Nbb N10k
0 1.000000
1 0.846481725
2 0.716531311
3 0.60653066 0.60653066
4 0.513417119 0.513417119
5 0.434598209 0.434598209
6 0.367879441 0.367879441
7 0.311403224 0.311403224
8 0.263597138 0.263597138
9 0.22313016 0.22313016

edit: forgot to define tau. Not that it matters.