Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I can't believe people still...

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:06:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Define "big bang theory." Evolution I agree with you, but different scientists define "big bang theory" with a broader or narrower scope, and many of the assertions some include in their definitions are definitely not supported by any evidence I've ever heard of. Like the assertion that time was a product of the singularity (as though the concept of "time" allows for a beginning at all).

If by "big bang theory" you mean "15 billion years ago some s*** exploded that happens to include all matter astronomers have observed," yeah, as far as I can tell, astronomers have good reason to believe that. Keep in mind most people(myself for example) are not astronomers, and most of those don't even understand how astronomers explain it to mildly interested laymen.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:05:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:06:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Define "big bang theory." Evolution I agree with you, but different scientists define "big bang theory" with a broader or narrower scope, and many of the assertions some include in their definitions are definitely not supported by any evidence I've ever heard of. Like the assertion that time was a product of the singularity (as though the concept of "time" allows for a beginning at all).

If by "big bang theory" you mean "15 billion years ago some s*** exploded that happens to include all matter astronomers have observed," yeah, as far as I can tell, astronomers have good reason to believe that. Keep in mind most people(myself for example) are not astronomers, and most of those don't even understand how astronomers explain it to mildly interested laymen.

I mean the Big Bang Theory where the Universe started a single point (probably caused by a quantum fluctuation) and expanded (didn't actually explode), where the byproduct was the universe, energy, and matter.

Also, I think Neil degrasse Tyson explains things really well to the lawmen.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:42:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

Funny. I think it very ridiculous to accept the baloney that is TOE and certain aspects of the Big Bang (such as metric space expansion & space curvature). At least, let's agree on one thing: the data which constitutes evidence of a theory doesn't come out labelled evidence, it must be interpreted within the logic of a theory which is proposed to explain the data.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 3:02:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:05:53 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:06:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Define "big bang theory." Evolution I agree with you, but different scientists define "big bang theory" with a broader or narrower scope, and many of the assertions some include in their definitions are definitely not supported by any evidence I've ever heard of. Like the assertion that time was a product of the singularity (as though the concept of "time" allows for a beginning at all).

If by "big bang theory" you mean "15 billion years ago some s*** exploded that happens to include all matter astronomers have observed," yeah, as far as I can tell, astronomers have good reason to believe that. Keep in mind most people(myself for example) are not astronomers, and most of those don't even understand how astronomers explain it to mildly interested laymen.

I mean the Big Bang Theory where the Universe started a single point (probably caused by a quantum fluctuation) and expanded (didn't actually explode), where the byproduct was the universe, energy, and matter.

Also, I think Neil degrasse Tyson explains things really well to the lawmen.

Sure he does. But talkorigins does a better job. And more importantly, reading academic papers, starting from the abstracts and conclusions, if what's in between is hard to digest: because in there you'll find that RM is overplayed. Take speciation in plants for example, RM isn't responsible, genome (or chromosome) doubling is. It's quite annoying to hear RM get so much rep and you don't hear of adaptive or directed mutations. Till one searches the term on NIH.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 6:45:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:42:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
Funny. I think it very ridiculous to accept the baloney that is TOE and certain aspects of the Big Bang (such as metric space expansion & space curvature). At least, let's agree on one thing: the data which constitutes evidence of a theory doesn't come out labelled evidence, it must be interpreted within the logic of a theory which is proposed to explain the data.

I find it ridiculous that you think evolution is "baloney" with all the evidence that points to it. You also saying that those aspects of the BBT are "baloney", but you have never once been able to scientifically prove it.

You are saying that evidence does not get labeled evidence, that it is interpreted within the logic of a theory that is proposed to explain the data. This is not accurate. A theory forms when you try to disprove the hypothesis and during the process find evidence for the hypothesis and you are unable to debunk the hypothesis. It is labeled evidence from the perspective of trying to disprove the hypothesis/theory.

At 3/27/2014 3:02:52 AM, Iredia wrote:
Sure he does. But talkorigins does a better job. And more importantly, reading academic papers, starting from the abstracts and conclusions, if what's in between is hard to digest: because in there you'll find that RM is overplayed. Take speciation in plants for example, RM isn't responsible, genome (or chromosome) doubling is. It's quite annoying to hear RM get so much rep and you don't hear of adaptive or directed mutations. Till one searches the term on NIH.

From talkorigins own website, ""How do I know the contents of this archive are reliable?" Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup."

Talkorigins is not accurate enough to use for information.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 8:06:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 6:45:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:42:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
Funny. I think it very ridiculous to accept the baloney that is TOE and certain aspects of the Big Bang (such as metric space expansion & space curvature). At least, let's agree on one thing: the data which constitutes evidence of a theory doesn't come out labelled evidence, it must be interpreted within the logic of a theory which is proposed to explain the data.

I find it ridiculous that you think evolution is "baloney" with all the evidence that points to it. You also saying that those aspects of the BBT are "baloney", but you have never once been able to scientifically prove it.


You are saying that evidence does not get labeled evidence, that it is interpreted within the logic of a theory that is proposed to explain the data. This is not accurate. A theory forms when you try to disprove the hypothesis and during the process find evidence for the hypothesis and you are unable to debunk the hypothesis. It is labeled evidence from the perspective of trying to disprove the hypothesis/theory.

At 3/27/2014 3:02:52 AM, Iredia wrote:
Sure he does. But talkorigins does a better job. And more importantly, reading academic papers, starting from the abstracts and conclusions, if what's in between is hard to digest: because in there you'll find that RM is overplayed. Take speciation in plants for example, RM isn't responsible, genome (or chromosome) doubling is. It's quite annoying to hear RM get so much rep and you don't hear of adaptive or directed mutations. Till one searches the term on NIH.

From talkorigins own website, ""How do I know the contents of this archive are reliable?" Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup."

Talkorigins is not accurate enough to use for information.

Let's start from talkorigins. My point that talkorigins is better at explaining evolution. It's obviously wrong to argue against this. For one 'Cosmos' isn't peer-reviewed, and doesn't go into details as talkorigins does. Neither does it comprehensively address criticisms against the TOE. To then state that talkorigins isn't rigorously peer reviewed and hold that as a counter to my point is disingenuous. In fact, your talk of peer review on TO is very arguable, given the informal peer review there by scientists of good standing, some who probably engage in formal peer-review.

Then there's your take on evidence. It doesn't rebut my point, it reinforces it. In simple terms, what you say is that a hypothesis is established when your attempts to falsify it fails given evidence you find. In this case, your hypothesis has a logic to it, it has predictions and inferences to be made from a given set of data. This easily falls under my statement that there is a logic to theory (or hypothesis) proposed to explain data.

As to the reason I dismiss the evolution and aspects of the BBT, that is simply stated: I don't agree with assumptions inherent in them. For instance, I believe there's a clear limit to the variation a species can have over time. This usually revolves about the body plan which is based on highly conserved Hox genes. This is contrary to the TOE, Darwin himself argued that variation in species must be plastic. I'm not convinced. And you may be flattered to know that, at least, for all my doubts, I think evolution is physically possible; but I think space expansion or curvature starts out logically absurd. The reason is elementary: space is nothing and has no properties, it can't expand or curve. I have asked people like Roy and Enji what material space is made of. They insist that space is immaterial and isn't made up of anything. I then say it is absurd to attribute material properties to what is immaterial. About this point I see appeals to authority, obfuscations etc. As long as I hold this presuppositions, it only follows that I wouldn't see these theories as valid. I don't like to have to be against what is mainstream, but I have good reasons to be in this case.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 8:33:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

evolution and big bang theory have quite a bit of holes. And its the Big Bang THEORY its definitely whats right just what they think its right
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
el_em_en_oh
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 8:47:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:06:37 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:45:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:42:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
Funny. I think it very ridiculous to accept the baloney that is TOE and certain aspects of the Big Bang (such as metric space expansion & space curvature). At least, let's agree on one thing: the data which constitutes evidence of a theory doesn't come out labelled evidence, it must be interpreted within the logic of a theory which is proposed to explain the data.

I find it ridiculous that you think evolution is "baloney" with all the evidence that points to it. You also saying that those aspects of the BBT are "baloney", but you have never once been able to scientifically prove it.


You are saying that evidence does not get labeled evidence, that it is interpreted within the logic of a theory that is proposed to explain the data. This is not accurate. A theory forms when you try to disprove the hypothesis and during the process find evidence for the hypothesis and you are unable to debunk the hypothesis. It is labeled evidence from the perspective of trying to disprove the hypothesis/theory.

At 3/27/2014 3:02:52 AM, Iredia wrote:
Sure he does. But talkorigins does a better job. And more importantly, reading academic papers, starting from the abstracts and conclusions, if what's in between is hard to digest: because in there you'll find that RM is overplayed. Take speciation in plants for example, RM isn't responsible, genome (or chromosome) doubling is. It's quite annoying to hear RM get so much rep and you don't hear of adaptive or directed mutations. Till one searches the term on NIH.

From talkorigins own website, ""How do I know the contents of this archive are reliable?" Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup."

Talkorigins is not accurate enough to use for information.

Let's start from talkorigins. My point that talkorigins is better at explaining evolution. It's obviously wrong to argue against this. For one 'Cosmos' isn't peer-reviewed, and doesn't go into details as talkorigins does. Neither does it comprehensively address criticisms against the TOE. To then state that talkorigins isn't rigorously peer reviewed and hold that as a counter to my point is disingenuous. In fact, your talk of peer review on TO is very arguable, given the informal peer review there by scientists of good standing, some who probably engage in formal peer-review.

Then there's your take on evidence. It doesn't rebut my point, it reinforces it. In simple terms, what you say is that a hypothesis is established when your attempts to falsify it fails given evidence you find. In this case, your hypothesis has a logic to it, it has predictions and inferences to be made from a given set of data. This easily falls under my statement that there is a logic to theory (or hypothesis) proposed to explain data.

As to the reason I dismiss the evolution and aspects of the BBT, that is simply stated: I don't agree with assumptions inherent in them. For instance, I believe there's a clear limit to the variation a species can have over time. This usually revolves about the body plan which is based on highly conserved Hox genes. This is contrary to the TOE, Darwin himself argued that variation in species must be plastic. I'm not convinced. And you may be flattered to know that, at least, for all my doubts, I think evolution is physically possible; but I think space expansion or curvature starts out logically absurd. The reason is elementary: space is nothing and has no properties, it can't expand or curve. I have asked people like Roy and Enji what material space is made of. They insist that space is immaterial and isn't made up of anything. I then say it is absurd to attribute material properties to what is immaterial. About this point I see appeals to authority, obfuscations etc. As long as I hold this presuppositions, it only follows that I wouldn't see these theories as valid. I don't like to have to be against what is mainstream, but I have good reasons to be in this case.

"Space is nothing"... wouldn't 'dark energy' (which hasn't yet been observed or proven) be considered SOMETHING?

I'm a layman, so I'll apologize in advance for my lack of in-depth knowledge on the subject/topic, but the "space is nothing" part of your comment jumped out at me.

From everything I've seen and read, proving that dark energy exists is at the top of every astronomers, physicists, scientists, etc, etc, list, because it would disprove the "space is nothing" argument.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:07:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:33:32 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

evolution and big bang theory have quite a bit of holes. And its the Big Bang THEORY its definitely whats right just what they think its right

What holes are there? Also, do you know what a scientific theory is?

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A Scientific Theory is valid as long as there is no real evidence to dispute it.

A Scientific Law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a Scientific Law. Scientific Laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a Scientific Law and a Scientific Theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Laws tell us what happens. Theories examine what happens and tell us how and why it happens. There is not a hierarchical structure for Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws. A Scientific Theory does not become a Scientific Law. They are two entirely different things that do two different things in science.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:35:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:47:45 AM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:06:37 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/27/2014 6:45:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 2:42:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
Funny. I think it very ridiculous to accept the baloney that is TOE and certain aspects of the Big Bang (such as metric space expansion & space curvature). At least, let's agree on one thing: the data which constitutes evidence of a theory doesn't come out labelled evidence, it must be interpreted within the logic of a theory which is proposed to explain the data.

I find it ridiculous that you think evolution is "baloney" with all the evidence that points to it. You also saying that those aspects of the BBT are "baloney", but you have never once been able to scientifically prove it.


You are saying that evidence does not get labeled evidence, that it is interpreted within the logic of a theory that is proposed to explain the data. This is not accurate. A theory forms when you try to disprove the hypothesis and during the process find evidence for the hypothesis and you are unable to debunk the hypothesis. It is labeled evidence from the perspective of trying to disprove the hypothesis/theory.

At 3/27/2014 3:02:52 AM, Iredia wrote:
Sure he does. But talkorigins does a better job. And more importantly, reading academic papers, starting from the abstracts and conclusions, if what's in between is hard to digest: because in there you'll find that RM is overplayed. Take speciation in plants for example, RM isn't responsible, genome (or chromosome) doubling is. It's quite annoying to hear RM get so much rep and you don't hear of adaptive or directed mutations. Till one searches the term on NIH.

From talkorigins own website, ""How do I know the contents of this archive are reliable?" Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup."

Talkorigins is not accurate enough to use for information.

Let's start from talkorigins. My point that talkorigins is better at explaining evolution. It's obviously wrong to argue against this. For one 'Cosmos' isn't peer-reviewed, and doesn't go into details as talkorigins does. Neither does it comprehensively address criticisms against the TOE. To then state that talkorigins isn't rigorously peer reviewed and hold that as a counter to my point is disingenuous. In fact, your talk of peer review on TO is very arguable, given the informal peer review there by scientists of good standing, some who probably engage in formal peer-review.

Then there's your take on evidence. It doesn't rebut my point, it reinforces it. In simple terms, what you say is that a hypothesis is established when your attempts to falsify it fails given evidence you find. In this case, your hypothesis has a logic to it, it has predictions and inferences to be made from a given set of data. This easily falls under my statement that there is a logic to theory (or hypothesis) proposed to explain data.

As to the reason I dismiss the evolution and aspects of the BBT, that is simply stated: I don't agree with assumptions inherent in them. For instance, I believe there's a clear limit to the variation a species can have over time. This usually revolves about the body plan which is based on highly conserved Hox genes. This is contrary to the TOE, Darwin himself argued that variation in species must be plastic. I'm not convinced. And you may be flattered to know that, at least, for all my doubts, I think evolution is physically possible; but I think space expansion or curvature starts out logically absurd. The reason is elementary: space is nothing and has no properties, it can't expand or curve. I have asked people like Roy and Enji what material space is made of. They insist that space is immaterial and isn't made up of anything. I then say it is absurd to attribute material properties to what is immaterial. About this point I see appeals to authority, obfuscations etc. As long as I hold this presuppositions, it only follows that I wouldn't see these theories as valid. I don't like to have to be against what is mainstream, but I have good reasons to be in this case.

"Space is nothing"... wouldn't 'dark energy' (which hasn't yet been observed or proven) be considered SOMETHING?

I'm a layman, so I'll apologize in advance for my lack of in-depth knowledge on the subject/topic, but the "space is nothing" part of your comment jumped out at me.

From everything I've seen and read, proving that dark energy exists is at the top of every astronomers, physicists, scientists, etc, etc, list, because it would disprove the "space is nothing" argument.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Well, I'm a layman too. Just using a good dose of common sense and logic. I don't have in-depth knowledge of the issue, especially as it pertains to math. But I see no reason why dark energy disproves space is nothing. First of all, I consider the statement that space is nothing be axiomatic and true because space is a fundamental aspect of reality. It's like hearing a neuroscientist prove that consciousness isn't real from studies, the knee-jerk reaction would be to reject it. Then again, I've noted that the issue also involves virtual particles. But what I see done is interesting. Krauss does this a lot. First, he states the definition of space as nothing. Then he says space IS a bubbling brew of virtual particles_which doesn't make sense. I would expect a bubbling brew of virtual particles to exist IN space, not to be space themselves. Hence, I don't see how this is evidence that space is something. Neither would the idea of space having energy be sensible to me, except in a metaphysical sense. To conclude, I wish there could be a clear definition of energy. I sometimes feel like physicists hissyfoot over what energy means. I won't. I was taught that energy is the capability of a physical object or system to do work, that's what it is. As it applies to dark energy physicists aren't clear on what they mean; what they make clear is that dark energy is what explains the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:48:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

As a former member of the christian church, I can say that accepting that evidence as fact and abandoning any notions of heaven, is a hard pill to swallow. Before I was going to heaven where you live in eternal bliss. Now I can't say for sure what happens when we die. For some people, that reality is far to harsh to accept. To be honest, it can be a bit overwhelming.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:00:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 9:48:54 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

As a former member of the christian church, I can say that accepting that evidence as fact and abandoning any notions of heaven, is a hard pill to swallow. Before I was going to heaven where you live in eternal bliss. Now I can't say for sure what happens when we die. For some people, that reality is far to harsh to accept. To be honest, it can be a bit overwhelming.

Coming from a former member of the christian Church, I never had that issue.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:25:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 8:06:37 AM, Iredia wrote:
Let's start from talkorigins. My point that talkorigins is better at explaining evolution.

That does not mean it explains it accurately. Talkorigins is not a reliable website.

It's obviously wrong to argue against this. For one 'Cosmos' isn't peer-reviewed, and doesn't go into details as talkorigins does.

Who here mentioned Cosmos? I didn't. Neil degrasse Tyson has done many radio shows, lectures, etc. You also need to look at the information provided. Talkorigin's information is from the readers and members of the site, Cosmos's information comes from peer reviewed papers and other peer reviewed documents.

Neither does it comprehensively address criticisms against the TOE.

Because there is no real evidence against evolution.

To then state that talkorigins isn't rigorously peer reviewed and hold that as a counter to my point is disingenuous. In fact, your talk of peer review on TO is very arguable, given the informal peer review there by scientists of good standing, some who probably engage in formal peer-review.

It actually says SOME members are scientists, but that ANYONE can submit and change information. It shows even more that it is not an accurate source.

Then there's your take on evidence. It doesn't rebut my point, it reinforces it. In simple terms, what you say is that a hypothesis is established when your attempts to falsify it fails given evidence you find. In this case, your hypothesis has a logic to it, it has predictions and inferences to be made from a given set of data. This easily falls under my statement that there is a logic to theory (or hypothesis) proposed to explain data.

There is a logic to every scientific theory, but the logic for them is not biased.

As to the reason I dismiss the evolution and aspects of the BBT, that is simply stated: I don't agree with assumptions inherent in them. For instance, I believe there's a clear limit to the variation a species can have over time.

And why do you come to that conclusion? What evidence is there that there is a "clear limit" to the variation a species can have?

This usually revolves about the body plan which is based on highly conserved Hox genes.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

This is contrary to the TOE, Darwin himself argued that variation in species must be plastic.

And evolution has advanced drastically since Darwin.

I'm not convinced. And you may be flattered to know that, at least, for all my doubts, I think evolution is physically possible;

If you think it is possible, why do you reject it?

but I think space expansion or curvature starts out logically absurd.

Why should the universe work based off of the logic of a species that developed to survive in Africa? Our instincts are not science, our instinctive logic is going to be flawed.

The reason is elementary: space is nothing and has no properties, it can't expand or curve.

Why do you say this? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

I have asked people like Roy and Enji what material space is made of. They insist that space is immaterial and isn't made up of anything.

Space is immaterial, HOWEVER, space is NOT nothing. Empty space still follows the laws of quantum mechanics, meaning that Empty Space is, in fact, a Quantum Vacuum.

I then say it is absurd to attribute material properties to what is immaterial.

What makes it a material property anyways? Your own opinion?

About this point I see appeals to authority, obfuscations etc. As long as I hold this presuppositions, it only follows that I wouldn't see these theories as valid. I don't like to have to be against what is mainstream, but I have good reasons to be in this case.

Are you a scientist? Have you studied this subject in detail for a life time, as a job? Why do you think that you should be able to understand complex ideas in science? You have presented no good reasons for your stance against evolution and the Big Bang Theory.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:25:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:00:52 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 9:48:54 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

As a former member of the christian church, I can say that accepting that evidence as fact and abandoning any notions of heaven, is a hard pill to swallow. Before I was going to heaven where you live in eternal bliss. Now I can't say for sure what happens when we die. For some people, that reality is far to harsh to accept. To be honest, it can be a bit overwhelming.

Coming from a former member of the christian Church, I never had that issue.

Will I certainly did. And my feelings are valid. I'm not the first. Maybe you were not indoctrinated like I was. This was a big change in my life.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:39:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:25:25 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:00:52 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 9:48:54 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

As a former member of the christian church, I can say that accepting that evidence as fact and abandoning any notions of heaven, is a hard pill to swallow. Before I was going to heaven where you live in eternal bliss. Now I can't say for sure what happens when we die. For some people, that reality is far to harsh to accept. To be honest, it can be a bit overwhelming.

Coming from a former member of the christian Church, I never had that issue.

Will I certainly did. And my feelings are valid. I'm not the first. Maybe you were not indoctrinated like I was. This was a big change in my life.

I was indoctrinated deeply. When I found everything that convinced me to be an atheist i still decided to keep faith for a couple years, but I still accepted the facts. It was a contradiction, and after those couple of years I became an atheist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:51:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:39:01 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:25:25 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:00:52 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 9:48:54 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

As a former member of the christian church, I can say that accepting that evidence as fact and abandoning any notions of heaven, is a hard pill to swallow. Before I was going to heaven where you live in eternal bliss. Now I can't say for sure what happens when we die. For some people, that reality is far to harsh to accept. To be honest, it can be a bit overwhelming.

Coming from a former member of the christian Church, I never had that issue.

Will I certainly did. And my feelings are valid. I'm not the first. Maybe you were not indoctrinated like I was. This was a big change in my life.

I was indoctrinated deeply. When I found everything that convinced me to be an atheist i still decided to keep faith for a couple years, but I still accepted the facts. It was a contradiction, and after those couple of years I became an atheist.

Well my father is a pastor and life after death was something frequently discussed in church. The concept is something I've grown up with. Life after death certainly concerned me. In my experience, this fear is is prevalent in Christians. That an he fear that God isn;t real which would make our existence way less significant.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:03:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:51:43 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Well my father is a pastor and life after death was something frequently discussed in church. The concept is something I've grown up with. Life after death certainly concerned me. In my experience, this fear is is prevalent in Christians.

Understandable to an extent....

That an he fear that God isn;t real which would make our existence way less significant.

I say that is completely wrong.

Christianity teaches that the only real paradise is found after you die and that you do evil all the time, so much so that you deserve to be tortured for eternity. What significance does life hold? It looks like death is what is significance in Christianity (as well as many other religions)

When we see things for as they are we see just how amazing humans are. We are a species that is 200,000 years old, but look at what we have done. We have started to unlock the secrets of our 14 BILLION year old universe. We all have the ability to discover this information and we can all work to make a brighter future. A single species that evolved from the same common ancestor as all life on this planet has the intelligence to discover, to improve this world, to live a fulfilling life. I find more meaning and awe with that then any religious version of life's significance.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:14:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 11:03:45 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:51:43 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Well my father is a pastor and life after death was something frequently discussed in church. The concept is something I've grown up with. Life after death certainly concerned me. In my experience, this fear is is prevalent in Christians.

Understandable to an extent....

That an he fear that God isn;t real which would make our existence way less significant.

I say that is completely wrong.

Christianity teaches that the only real paradise is found after you die and that you do evil all the time, so much so that you deserve to be tortured for eternity. What significance does life hold? It looks like death is what is significance in Christianity (as well as many other religions)

When we see things for as they are we see just how amazing humans are. We are a species that is 200,000 years old, but look at what we have done. We have started to unlock the secrets of our 14 BILLION year old universe. We all have the ability to discover this information and we can all work to make a brighter future. A single species that evolved from the same common ancestor as all life on this planet has the intelligence to discover, to improve this world, to live a fulfilling life. I find more meaning and awe with that then any religious version of life's significance.

Well that is an amazing thought but it is your opinion. Some people have fears just as I have described them. I happen to think that it does make it us less significant.At least for now. I don't consider myself an atheist. That is because I don't believe that we can say for sure that god doesn't exist. Although he certainly doesn't exist as the bible describes him. We don't know what this universe has in store for us. I think it makes us less significant because it takes us from being the apple of Gods eye to the unknown. Our existence is that of chance, literally. I'd much rather be a "child of God". It's easier.

However I also believe that humans have only scratched the surface of our true potential. With time our significance will become clear to us. But our technological capabilities aren't there yet.
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:33:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

Well, both theories make assumptions that are, at their best, questionable. Cosmology that adheres to the Big Bang conveniently treats Time and Space as one dimension, hence why the likes of Hawking do not speak of what happened before the Big Bang. They conclude that the dimension of space was created with the big bang, and thus, time begins at the big bang because space and time are the same dimension. Where this assumption fails is in it's basic nature, the belief that you can combine time and space into one dimension. Time is an artificial construct, and depends wholly upon the frame of reference. Time has no physical reality. It was devised by humans to measure change, and has no use outside mathematical models. That doesn't mean it's not useful in our analysis, just that to speak of a beginning of time or an end of time is not logical.

Once we recognize that assumption, we can acknowledge the faults of saying time begins with the Big Bang. It follows, then, that we cannot dismiss sequences of events that happened prior to the explosive expansion outward that was the Big bang, simply on the grounds of "time didn't exist then." So the question now becomes, what set everything in motion? Matter existing in a hot dense state is consistent with compression of matter. What compressed the matter to beginwith? For if we are to believe motion originates when matter is subjected to forces, we must question how matter came to exist in a dense and hot state in the first place. Hawking, from my readings of his lectures, refuses to even entertain this question, because he assumes time and space are a single dimension.

The next assumption that Cosmologists make is two-fold: 1) that the laws of physics and nature as we have them now are absolutely perfect, and 2) that the laws of physics and nature are constant across all time and space. As a species, we have existed for mere milliseconds compared to the universe. We can't possibly know that the laws of physics as we know them now held true 30 trillion miles away, let alone 2 billion years in the past. We may hypothesize they do, but we can't make any claims to their objective and universal truth.

The assumption above actually is a basic assumption of all science. It's fine to conduct analysis with mathematical models based on this assumption, but to make absolute statements and objective value judgments based on the results from such analysis is unscientific.

When it comes to Evolution, we have very little proof that micro-evolution takes place across the entirety of all the species on the planet. In fact, we have only observed micro-evolution in a tiny fraction of all species on the planet, a statistically insignificant fraction, I might add. To make sweeping conclusions based around statistically insignificant data is also unscientific. Next, we have absolutely no way to confirm that micro-evolution as we observe it in the present day occurred exactly the same way hundreds of millions of years ago. Nor do we have any way to actually prove this. Third, fossilized remains are relatively rare, compared to the total number of distinct animals and species that have existed on the earth in it's entire life-span. To make generalized conclusions on such fossils as we have unearthed, which again, represent a statistically insignificant proportion, is unscientific. Fourth, we have no method of observing whether or not the fossils we unearth were selected for, or against by nature, likewise with the traits and phenotypes observed in the fossils. Fifth, genetic analysis of fossils is very unreliable. DNA samples become contaminated within hours of the organism's death. A fossil that has been laying in the earth for literally thousands or millions of years does not yield enough genetic information for us to determine whether or not it evolved from another fossil, and even if it did, we'd have to take into account all the probability of error that comes with contaminated and degenerating DNA analysis. The only thing we can say about Evolution is that we have observed it taking place on a small scale in a statistically insignificant proportion of species on earth. It clearly takes place, but not on a scale that warrants the rabid faith in it that is so often present in the Scientific Community and elsewhere.

Likewise, the only thing we can say about Cosmology is that we have observed phenomena which might be due to our hypothesis, but we don't have any true method of confirming a causal mechanism.

Add all of this together, and I'll let you decide what conclusions to draw.

Now, it's fine to believe in Evolution and Cosmology based on the evidence we do have. But it's not fine to treat these theories as given and objective facts of the universe, because the inherent assumptions made in these theories can themselves be questioned.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:47:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:25:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
That does not mean it explains it accurately. Talkorigins is not a reliable website.


That's a first. You know what ? I'm wrong and you're right. TO isn't peer-reviewed and Cosmos is.


Who here mentioned Cosmos? I didn't. Neil degrasse Tyson has done many radio shows, lectures, etc. You also need to look at the information provided. Talkorigin's information is from the readers and members of the site, Cosmos's information comes from peer reviewed papers and other peer reviewed documents.

Okay.


Because there is no real evidence against evolution.

I don't have the balls for another long-winded argument, needless to say, I differ.


It actually says SOME members are scientists, but that ANYONE can submit and change information. It shows even more that it is not an accurate source.

You do know apart from the usenet forum the site has articles written by scientists. Maybe I should suggest Panda's Thumb instead, but then, Babinski isn't a scientist as far as I know.


There is a logic to every scientific theory, but the logic for them is not biased.

It isn't a mark of weakness to concede a point. Your talk here doesn't at all hamper my point that there is a logic to a theory which informs how data is interpreted in it.


And why do you come to that conclusion? What evidence is there that there is a "clear limit" to the variation a species can have?

The fact that man, horses, pigeons etc have ESSENTIALLY remained the same over time. This is also evident in Darwin's finches on the Galapagos. Over a century since Darwin saw them, yet they're still finches.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Simply talks about Hox genes. Check Wikipedia for confirmation that Hox genes are highly conserved.


And evolution has advanced drastically since Darwin.

Its assumptions haven't. For instance, universal common ancestry and the centrality of natural selection as still emphasized on. And as it happens, if you believe that then you believe there's is no limit to change in species.


If you think it is possible, why do you reject it?

The evidence isn't valid. Its based on poor inferences.


Why should the universe work based off of the logic of a species that developed to survive in Africa? Our instincts are not science, our instinctive logic is going to be flawed.

And the universe owes no need to work to how theories describe. IOW theories may be wrong.


Why do you say this? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

If I did the claim would be contradicted because space would be something. I say space is nothing. Your question here is akin to asking someone for evidence that love or consciousness exist. I can't evidence presuppositions. But I can argue for them. The argument I have is that I infer space based on the observation that objects exist in a context, the most conspicuous of which is the picture of Earth suspended in (outer) space.


Space is immaterial, HOWEVER, space is NOT nothing. Empty space still follows the laws of quantum mechanics, meaning that Empty Space is, in fact, a Quantum Vacuum.

The only thing that is immaterial without being nothing (a paradox IMO) are concepts. For example, justice or beauty are immaterial but aren't nothing. I would add consciousness but we might go off-track. Let's focus on concepts. Because, clearly space is not material. And the only things which we see curve and expand, are materials. Now if somone said pain accelerates, expands or twists, I won't take him/her seriously. How then can you insist something immaterial, but not nothing, has material properties of expansion and curvature ? A quantum vacuum seems to be the consideration of virtual particles within a vacuum. It isn't space.

Now think about this. Saying something is immaterial but not nothing is like saying something is untrue but not false. Or that something is unpretty but not ugly. It involves a word game.


What makes it a material property anyways? Your own opinion?

Oh ! So curvature and expansion aren't material properties ? To take it further, strippers and bimetallic strips are non-extant right ?


Are you a scientist? Have you studied this subject in detail for a life time, as a job? Why do you think that you should be able to understand complex ideas in science? You have presented no good reasons for your stance against evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

Damn ! I should write this as a law. The time it takes for someone differing with an aspect of mainstream science to hear an argument from authority.

The only complex things are the details (esp the jargons used ) and the math behind such details as they describe such aspects of the natural world. The concepts aren't especially if they are clarified: then, even toddlers can grasp them.

The presuppositions I've forwarded are more sensible. Regarding TOE, there are limits to change in species. Funny how I hardly see predictions of how species other than man will evolve in the future. As to metric space expansion and GTOR in the Big Bang, they make no sense given the axiom that space is nothing.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 2:28:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:47:12 PM, Iredia wrote:
You do know apart from the usenet forum the site has articles written by scientists. Maybe I should suggest Panda's Thumb instead, but then, Babinski isn't a scientist as far as I know.

As far as you know

The fact that man, horses, pigeons etc have ESSENTIALLY remained the same over time. This is also evident in Darwin's finches on the Galapagos. Over a century since Darwin saw them, yet they're still finches.

You are saying centuries, CENTURIES. So a couple hundred years of observation when life has been evolving for 3.6 BILLION years?

Simply talks about Hox genes. Check Wikipedia for confirmation that Hox genes are highly conserved.

"they are homologous"inherited from our common ancestor"

Its assumptions haven't. For instance, universal common ancestry and the centrality of natural selection as still emphasized on. And as it happens, if you believe that then you believe there's is no limit to change in species.

1. Natural selection DOES happen.
2. Common ancestry is also supported by evidence.

The evidence isn't valid. Its based on poor inferences.

But you have not supported this claim.

And the universe owes no need to work to how theories describe. IOW theories may be wrong.

Except that theories are our explanation about the universe based off of our constant study of the universe. If a theory is wrong then there will be evidence against it, evolution does not have any real evidence against it.

If I did the claim would be contradicted because space would be something. I say space is nothing. Your question here is akin to asking someone for evidence that love or consciousness exist. I can't evidence presuppositions. But I can argue for them. The argument I have is that I infer space based on the observation that objects exist in a context, the most conspicuous of which is the picture of Earth suspended in (outer) space.

Love is seen by chemical reactions in the brain.
Define what you mean by consciousness.

The only thing that is immaterial without being nothing (a paradox IMO) are concepts.

What is your evidence for this? You have none.

For example, justice or beauty are immaterial but aren't nothing.

Beauty is subjective, there is a specific reaction in the brain when someone finds something beautiful. I will look into justice.

I would add consciousness but we might go off-track. Let's focus on concepts. Because, clearly space is not material. And the only things which we see curve and expand, are materials.

You are making a claim, now provide your evidence.

Now if somone said pain accelerates, expands or twists, I won't take him/her seriously. How then can you insist something immaterial, but not nothing, has material properties of expansion and curvature ? A quantum vacuum seems to be the consideration of virtual particles within a vacuum. It isn't space.

But scientists have observed empty space and discovered that it follows the same exact property as a quantum vacuum. What is your evidence to the contrary?

Now think about this. Saying something is immaterial but not nothing is like saying something is untrue but not false. Or that something is unpretty but not ugly. It involves a word game.

Association fallacy. Evidence exists for the claim I am taking, there is no evidence for your claim about this subject.

Oh ! So curvature and expansion aren't material properties ? To take it further, strippers and bimetallic strips are non-extant right ?

Is that an answer to my question? NO! I am asking what makes something a "material" property? What specifically?

Damn ! I should write this as a law. The time it takes for someone differing with an aspect of mainstream science to hear an argument from authority.

Did I use argument from authority? No. I simply asked you why you think that you would understand this concept. I could attempt to argue about the hunger game series but I have only ever heard people talk about it and watched the first movie. Would I be able to understand everything about the Hunger Games? No.

The only complex things are the details (esp the jargons used ) and the math behind such details as they describe such aspects of the natural world. The concepts aren't especially if they are clarified: then, even toddlers can grasp them.

So quantum mechanics (for the Big Bang Theory) is not a complex subject?

The presuppositions I've forwarded are more sensible.

Any reason why they are more "sensible"?

Regarding TOE, there are limits to change in species.

No evidence for that claim.

Funny how I hardly see predictions of how species other than man will evolve in the future.

I bet you could find a few out there if you looked.

As to metric space expansion and GTOR in the Big Bang, they make no sense given the axiom that space is nothing.

But space is not true nothingness. Space still must follow quantum physics, it acts the same exact way as a quantum vacuum. You have NO evidence to state otherwise.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 5:04:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 1:05:53 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:06:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Define "big bang theory." Evolution I agree with you, but different scientists define "big bang theory" with a broader or narrower scope, and many of the assertions some include in their definitions are definitely not supported by any evidence I've ever heard of. Like the assertion that time was a product of the singularity (as though the concept of "time" allows for a beginning at all).

If by "big bang theory" you mean "15 billion years ago some s*** exploded that happens to include all matter astronomers have observed," yeah, as far as I can tell, astronomers have good reason to believe that. Keep in mind most people(myself for example) are not astronomers, and most of those don't even understand how astronomers explain it to mildly interested laymen.

I mean the Big Bang Theory where the Universe started a single point (probably caused by a quantum fluctuation) and expanded (didn't actually explode), where the byproduct was the universe, energy, and matter.

where the Universe started a single point

the Universe started
What's wrong with this picture?
Not the only thing wrong mind you (every observation we have is that energy is conserved, for example), but what's the main one?

Also, explode is a word that means the same thing as "expand really fast."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 5:55:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

All supporting evidence is based on observation and observation alone. What if what is observed is not at all what science thinks it is based on it's rudimentary observations? Things are not always what they seem, I reserve a level of skepticism on both. They both sound good on paper, but then again I can draw things on paper that cant be built.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 7:18:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 5:04:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What's wrong with this picture?
Not the only thing wrong mind you (every observation we have is that energy is conserved, for example), but what's the main one?

I recommend you research quantum mechanics for the "energy is conserved". Quantum fluctuations explain it perfectly.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:19:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:25:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 8:06:37 AM, Iredia wrote:
Let's start from talkorigins. My point that talkorigins is better at explaining evolution.

That does not mean it explains it accurately. Talkorigins is not a reliable website.

Maybe it depends on which part of the site you are using, but I think it's a pretty great resource for learning about evolution -- particularly Douglas Theobald's 29+ evidences for macroevolution. Theobald is an evolutionary biologist and he does a good job of citing relevant sources and explaining a lot of different aspects of evolution and how they come together. Why don't you think it's reliable?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 8:01:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 2:28:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:

You are saying centuries, CENTURIES. So a couple hundred years of observation when life has been evolving for 3.6 BILLION years?

But even organisms like coelacanth, ginkgo trees, sharks etc show little change in the fossil record (emphasis on little change. There's change but little). Also centuries which include records of organisms then are far less of an extrapolation than UCA, and far more reliable.


Except that theories are our explanation about the universe based off of our constant study of the universe. If a theory is wrong then there will be evidence against it, evolution does not have any real evidence against it.

I can see you really fancy the theory.



Love is seen by chemical reactions in the brain.
Define what you mean by consciousness.

I stopped at 'seen'.


What is your evidence for this? You have none.

Concepts are known. Did you ask for evidence before you knew you had self-awareness, or acknowledged concepts lile justice, multiplication, stupidity etc ? You need to inform yourself on WHEN to ask for evidence, if you were informed, you wouldn't be asking for it here.


Beauty is subjective, there is a specific reaction in the brain when someone finds something beautiful. I will look into justice.

*shakes head* ROFL. What the heck !


You are making a claim, now provide your evidence.

For space?! I already said I can't bring evidence. Space is nothing we infer its existence from the fact that obhects exist in a context (which we call space)


But scientists have observed empty space and discovered that it follows the same exact property as a quantum vacuum. What is your evidence to the contrary?

A quantum vacuum is a fancy term for virtual particles in space. I have explained myself. I don't think you even want to know what my points are.


Association fallacy. Evidence exists for the claim I am taking, there is no evidence for your claim about this subject.

My claim is that it is incoherent to say that space is not nothing, not material and say it expands. Only materials expand. Why do you deny this simple fact ?


Is that an answer to my question? NO! I am asking what makes something a "material" property? What specifically?

Dimensions, mass, etc Material properties describe the object eg a material property of water is that it is a liquid at room temp.


Did I use argument from authority? No. I simply asked you why you think that you would understand this concept. I could attempt to argue about the hunger game series but I have only ever heard people talk about it and watched the first movie. Would I be able to understand everything about the Hunger Games? No.

??


So quantum mechanics (for the Big Bang Theory) is not a complex subject?

Its concepts aren't. Its math, very complex.


Any reason why they are more "sensible"?

They are more in line with facts. Space is nothing, and species vary within limits.


No evidence for that claim.

How would here be ? You screamed 'BILLIONS OF YEARS' when I pointed to centyries of maintained similarities in organisms like finches and horses. Let's see how you'll respond to my point on fossils. Evolutionary stasis mayhaps ?


But space is not true nothingness. Space still must follow quantum physics, it acts the same exact way as a quantum vacuum. You have NO evidence to state otherwise.

Space is actually true nothingness. Just because virtual particles are in it doesn't mean it is 'not material but not nothing'. And that it expands. For one our universe is sometjing and all things in it are seen to exist in space. One must extrapolate that virtual particles are IN space. They are not space itself.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 6:09:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 7:18:38 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 5:04:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What's wrong with this picture?
Not the only thing wrong mind you (every observation we have is that energy is conserved, for example), but what's the main one?

I recommend you research quantum mechanics for the "energy is conserved". Quantum fluctuations explain it perfectly.

Unfortunately, my study time is taken up with the physics of things that actually have observable effects here at NNPTC.

"Quantum fluctuation" is not really an explanation. It's a label, like phlogiston.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 6:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You have NO evidence to state otherwise.
Scuse me, where is burden of proof again?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
WheezySquash8
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 7:10:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:52:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I cannot believe that people still fight against evolution and the Big Bang theory. I understand scientists doing it, since it is their job, but really? There is so much evidence for them both that it is laughable that people do not accept them.

Hi, please do not talk about people who believe differently in such a negative way. People believing in different things is not always bad. Do you think that you think that the people in Nazi Germany who believed secretly against the Nazis were bad? Also, please do not say such mean things. Believe it, or not some people can take what you've said to the heart. Religious people such as myself understand that others are converting to your theories, and we respect that. Please respect us still wanting to believe in olden ways if we want to. We haven't hurt you. You really should not talk like that because even though you may think that you're right, in the end we're all right for believing in a certain theory. Humans cannot always agree, and sometimes we just have to respect that.

Thank you,
Pacifist Since 3/12/14
Wheezy