The validity of science.

[Korskin]

 

 

 

 

 

Should've kept reading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being as this IS reality, I surely think that it is.

 

 

 

Care to explain/elaborate what I'm clearly not getting?

 

 

 

So basically, you're saying "God did it, stop thinking, God just did it, he's supernatural so there's no point", rather than having us try and uncover the Truth of existence, am I correct? That's the vibe I'm getting, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If so, then let me respond by saying this: God, if He exists, is infinite. We can never fully understand Him. But the more we learn about him, the closer we are to Him. Science, through it's analysis of what is and isn't Truth, theoretically brings us closer to knowing God, and as some religious guy would say it, "sharing in His glory".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is on God's side. Dunno why some people seem to think otherwise.

 

 

 

I can agree to some extent that science is bringing us closer to understand God's creation. However, science tends to fill gaps with theories that don't correspond with my world view such as neo-darwinism. Therefore I'm sceptic to the "science is aiming towards the truth all the time".

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

You still didn't explain what causes gravity. Why do masses attract?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The simple answer is: matter warps the fabric of spacetime, which causes the effects of gravity that we see today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rolling a ping pong ball along a sheet stretched flat is the basic analogy. If the sheet is flat and there is no other mass acting on the sheet then the ball will travel in a straight line. If we placed a large bowling ball at the centre of the sheet it would create a dip (the warping of spacetime) which the ping pong ball would roll in to, and if we didn't have friction (like in space) the ping pong ball would go into orbit around the bowling ball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See the thing is there isn't a simple answer. With your analogy the ping pong ball would not go into orbit around the bowling ball. It would just hit it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree its a very logical explanation the only problem is that you are comparing newtons laws with quantum physics and I might be mistaking but quantum physics don't always follow newtons laws? Correct me please. In truth I don't know a lot up quantum physics. But I do know the basics of a lot of physics.

[assassin_696]

 

 

You still didn't explain what causes gravity. Why do masses attract?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The simple answer is: matter warps the fabric of spacetime, which causes the effects of gravity that we see today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rolling a ping pong ball along a sheet stretched flat is the basic analogy. If the sheet is flat and there is no other mass acting on the sheet then the ball will travel in a straight line. If we placed a large bowling ball at the centre of the sheet it would create a dip (the warping of spacetime) which the ping pong ball would roll in to, and if we didn't have friction (like in space) the ping pong ball would go into orbit around the bowling ball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See the thing is there isn't a simple answer. With your analogy the ping pong ball would not go into orbit around the bowling ball. It would just hit it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree its a very logical explanation the only problem is that you are comparing newtons laws with quantum physics and I might be mistaking but quantum physics don't always follow newtons laws? Correct me please. In truth I don't know a lot up quantum physics. But I do know the basics of a lot of physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your response to the first part of your post, that would depend on the trajectory of the ping pong ball. Similarly, a comet aimed directly at the Sun would indeed hit it, but if it was aimed on a trajectory not at the Sun but in an area under the influence of it's gravitational curvature, it might go into orbit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't comparing Newton's laws with quantum laws. The notion of the curvature of the fabric of spacetime is actually using the laws of General Relativity, devised by Einstein. They are more accurate than Newton's laws. Relativity describes things on the macroscopic scale, and there is heaps of information out there about it if you're interested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your correct however in saying that quantum mechanics doesn't match well with relativity. Quantum mechanics is a lot more complicated, but it deals with the realms of the very small. Using quantum mechanics to describe the gravitational curvature of stars would be pointless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A marriage of quantum mechanics and general relativity would occur however at the singularity inside a black hole, and the laws that scientists are searching (a marriage of quantum and relativity) would be called quantum gravity. Not much is know about it at the moment, but it's entirely forseeable that it will be fully uncovered in a few decades.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

 

 

You still didn't explain what causes gravity. Why do masses attract?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The simple answer is: matter warps the fabric of spacetime, which causes the effects of gravity that we see today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rolling a ping pong ball along a sheet stretched flat is the basic analogy. If the sheet is flat and there is no other mass acting on the sheet then the ball will travel in a straight line. If we placed a large bowling ball at the centre of the sheet it would create a dip (the warping of spacetime) which the ping pong ball would roll in to, and if we didn't have friction (like in space) the ping pong ball would go into orbit around the bowling ball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See the thing is there isn't a simple answer. With your analogy the ping pong ball would not go into orbit around the bowling ball. It would just hit it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree its a very logical explanation the only problem is that you are comparing newtons laws with quantum physics and I might be mistaking but quantum physics don't always follow newtons laws? Correct me please. In truth I don't know a lot up quantum physics. But I do know the basics of a lot of physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your response to the first part of your post, that would depend on the trajectory of the ping pong ball. Similarly, a comet aimed directly at the Sun would indeed hit it, but if it was aimed on a trajectory not at the Sun but in an area under the influence of it's gravitational curvature, it might go into orbit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it isn't the same. Regardless of friction the earth would pull the ping pong ball towards the bowling ball.

[trapical]

I also believe science has the truth for any tangible/measurable thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10^4,478,296

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not only is that false, but it's comical if you think about your path of logic. I should put this is my signature:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At 3:21.32pm, March 10 of the year 2007 C.E, a 19 year old American going by the name of trapical will "post" on the "Internet" at a site known as the Tip.It forums; he will be using a Dell laptop and should have been doing a paper for his Genetics class but he got bored. Five billion years in the past, the chance of the above prediction coming true would be 1 in 10^4,478,296,292,402,399,323,135,237,469,741,579,753,235,908

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, its incredible that even with those odds it happened!

[assassin_696]

No it isn't the same. Regardless of friction the earth would pull the ping pong ball towards the bowling ball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? In my analogy I was isolating the ping pong ball and bowling ball from external forces like gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're trying to disprove relativity and gravity to find comfort in your religion you will not succeed with that line of reasoning.

[Guest XplsvBam]

I also believe science has the truth for any tangible/measurable thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10^4,478,296

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not only is that false, but it's comical if you think about your path of logic. I should put this is my signature:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At 3:21.32pm, March 10 of the year 2007 C.E, a 19 year old American going by the name of trapical will "post" on the "Internet" at a site known as the Tip.It forums; he will be using a Dell laptop and should have been doing a paper for his Genetics class but he got bored. Five billion years in the past, the chance of the above prediction coming true would be 1 in 10^4,478,296,292,402,399,323,135,237,469,741,579,753,235,908

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, its incredible that even with those odds it happened!

I think assassin linked this. You should read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance.

[Adam007]

 

I also believe science has the truth for any tangible/measurable thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10^4,478,296

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not only is that false, but it's comical if you think about your path of logic. I should put this is my signature:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At 3:21.32pm, March 10 of the year 2007 C.E, a 19 year old American going by the name of trapical will "post" on the "Internet" at a site known as the Tip.It forums; he will be using a Dell laptop and should have been doing a paper for his Genetics class but he got bored. Five billion years in the past, the chance of the above prediction coming true would be 1 in 10^4,478,296,292,402,399,323,135,237,469,741,579,753,235,908

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, its incredible that even with those odds it happened!

I think assassin linked this. You should read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance.

 

 

 

Of course a cell doesn't just occur by chance. It started smaller than that. I can't remember exactly, but before RNA there were just small chains of molecules that were able to self replicate. Really simple things. Even if the chance of them occuring is so extremely rare, know that if given billions of years, it's bound to happen, even if the odds are extremely low. Claiming that the odds of this happening could exist itself is acknowledging the possibility of it happening. And given the billions of years it took for life to appear, why's it seem so far-fetched to you?

[assassin_696]

So my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And your expertise in evolutionary biology, microbiology and abiogenesis is what exactly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're simply quoting some ridiculous figure or statistic calculated using poor science to comfort your notion that therefore there must be a god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if the chance of life occurring on any given planet with the right conditions for life is 1 in a billion (and it's probably not that much) then still over a billion planets will have life.

[trapical]

 

I also believe science has the truth for any tangible/measurable thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10^4,478,296

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not only is that false, but it's comical if you think about your path of logic. I should put this is my signature:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At 3:21.32pm, March 10 of the year 2007 C.E, a 19 year old American going by the name of trapical will "post" on the "Internet" at a site known as the Tip.It forums; he will be using a Dell laptop and should have been doing a paper for his Genetics class but he got bored. Five billion years in the past, the chance of the above prediction coming true would be 1 in 10^4,478,296,292,402,399,323,135,237,469,741,579,753,235,908

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, its incredible that even with those odds it happened!

 

 

 

"They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I did read it, but I really didn't need to since I am a Biology major and have discussed this topic throughly before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I wouldn't say it's impossible for a cell to occur by chance, just very improbable. Just like in my example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And your expertise in evolutionary biology, microbiology and abiogenesis is what exactly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're simply quoting some ridiculous figure or statistic calculated using poor science to comfort your notion that therefore there must be a god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if the chance of life occurring on any given planet with the right conditions for life is 1 in a billion (and it's probably not that much) then still over a billion planets will have life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He brings a good point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are 400 billion stars in our galaxy . If each of them have the same number of planets (on average) as our own sun, then that's about 4 trillion planets in our own galaxy alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, so we have 4 trillion planets, now multiply that by the estimated 125 billion galaxies in the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, we're up to ~5.0 ÃÆÃââââ‰â¬

[trapical]

---All this talk about probability and I double post. -.- ---

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're simply quoting some ridiculous figure or statistic calculated using poor science to comfort your notion that therefore there must be a god.

 

 

 

Why do you think I need this comfort? Do you think it makes me sleep better at night? Not fear death? Have a reason to live? No I need none of this. I just look outside and have an appreciation. And because of this appreciation I argue for his side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you gain by attacking my faith? You can't disprove God, you can't even disprove the Bible. You attempts are futile.

[Parabola]

You can't disprove God, you can't even disprove the Bible. You attempts are futile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't disprove there isn't a china teapot (a Utah teapot, for modellers) orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. That is not an argument for its existence though.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

You can't disprove God, you can't even disprove the Bible. You attempts are futile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't disprove there isn't a china teapot (a Utah teapot, for modellers) orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. That is not an argument for its existence though.

You got me. I've been wasting all this time trying to disprove this. Wth is wrong with me.

[Adam007]

 

 

You can't disprove God, you can't even disprove the Bible. You attempts are futile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't disprove there isn't a china teapot (a Utah teapot, for modellers) orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. That is not an argument for its existence though.

You got me. I've been wasting all this time trying to disprove this. Wth is wrong with me.

 

 

 

As silly as this teapot example sounds to you, the existence of a God seems to Parabola. Beyond that, his point is that you can't just defend everything because you can't prove against it. That's just weak argument. You can't does disregard proof if you're trying to have a logical argument.

[assassin_696]

What do you gain by attacking my faith?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing, I just dislike it when people parade incorrect or irrelevant science as some sort of proof for the existence of a creator. It nearly misled me in the past, i'd hate others to be converted on that kind of basis.

[malo2]

a better question would be; why not? As long as something has good evidence backing it up, I'm willing to believe it, and global warming is not one of them :roll:

[trapical]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're simply quoting some ridiculous figure or statistic calculated using poor science to comfort your notion that therefore there must be a god.

 

 

 

Why do you think I need this comfort? Do you think it makes me sleep better at night? Not fear death? Have a reason to live? No I need none of this. I just look outside and have an appreciation. And because of this appreciation I argue for his side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you gain by attacking my faith? You can't disprove God, you can't even disprove the Bible. You attempts are futile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off I never said that, it was assassin_696, but regardless, what do I gain from posting? Well I just like debating, asking why I posted on this thread is like asking why I posted on the "what do you find most attractive in a women" thread. I post to see if people can find flaws in my argument and then I try my best to counter those, I find it fun and sometimes challenging.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and by the way, this is a off topic forum on a gaming site. We're all mostly gamers. Most gamers = "nerds". Mostly nerds = mostly people in the sciences = mostly people who are agnostic. I don't consider myself a gamer or a nerd, but this board speaks for itself. My point is you started a losing battle by posting religious stuff here, it's like trying to sell freezers to Eskimos.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

What do you gain by attacking my faith?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing, I just dislike it when people parade incorrect or irrelevant science as some sort of proof for the existence of a creator. It nearly misled me in the past, i'd hate others to be converted on that kind of basis.

What did I try to pass off as proof of a creator? I'm just saying that the answers that science doesn't have I do. Simple as that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off I never said that, it was assassin_696, but regardless, what do I gain from posting? Well I just like debating, asking why I posted on this thread is like asking why I posted on the "what do you find most attractive in a women" thread. I post to see if people can find flaws in my argument and then I try my best to counter those, I find it fun and sometimes challenging.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and by the way, this is a off topic forum on a gaming site. We're all mostly gamers. Most gamers = "nerds". Mostly nerds = mostly people in the sciences = mostly people who are agnostic. I don't consider myself a gamer or a nerd, but this board speaks for itself. My point is you started a losing battle by posting religious stuff here, it's like trying to sell freezers to Eskimos.

Attacking faith isn't debating. I never brought religion into the discussion to prove anything. I stated how I personally view unexplained situations. You put a word on something that isn't known for sure like the origin of the universe and I put on how I view the world through common sense. I'm not saying that not believing in creation isn't common sense but I am using common sense when I believe in what I believe. In other words when I am stating anything religious its more of a "agree to disagree" kind of thing. I'm all for debating science though. That is why I am here. I love science, and I do very well in my science classes. I will be majoring in something science related in college next year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that we got that out of the way. Why does attacking a faith encourage debate at all? All it encourages is flame wars.

[Parabola]

I'm just saying that the answers that science doesn't have I do. Simple as that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's no reason to continue scientific research in any field then. I'd best tell all the universities and research institutions in the world and all the Nobel Prize committees so they can stop wasting their money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's see where we'd be if people like you had had their way:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Dying of dysentery and infections at age 40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Knowing nothing about the world outside our own continent, not exploring for fear of falling off the edge of the world

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Praying to a dung beetle to make the sun rise each day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Having no surgical procedures whatsoever. Got appendicitis? Tough. Need a kidney transplant? What's a kidney?

[assassin_696]

I'm just saying that the answers that science doesn't have I do. Simple as that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answers that science doesn't currently have isn't the same as answers it won't ever have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's an arrogant and deluded statement anyway, not even the most religious people profess to have all the answers, most of them are wiser than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corrected your misquoting of trapical as well.

[trapical]

Attacking faith isn't debating. I never brought religion into the discussion to prove anything. I stated how I personally view unexplained situations. You put a word on something that isn't known for sure like the origin of the universe and I put on how I view the world through common sense. I'm not saying that not believing in creation isn't common sense but I am using common sense when I believe in what I believe. In other words when I am stating anything religious its more of a "agree to disagree" kind of thing. I'm all for debating science though. That is why I am here. I love science, and I do very well in my science classes. I will be majoring in something science related in college next year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that we got that out of the way. Why does attacking a faith encourage debate at all? All it encourages is flame wars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Realize that things often get out of hand in arguments, mentioned religious views even indirectly and they are fair ground for the next person to discuss. Although I am somewhat curious on what makes religion so special that it can't be debated. You completely bash evolutionist views by stating "my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance." Why isn't an atheist's view under the same protection from debate that you want for faith? I'm not an atheist but being a biology major I have spent hundreds, soon to be thousands of hours studying texts on biology for exams and to further my education on the subject. You can say I have "devoted my life" to biology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what gives you the right to step in and say everything I believe in is false? Personally I believe you can since that is how we learn, but as to why you are offended when people discuss your faith... I am puzzled.

[warri0r45]

Sure, it uncovers truth. If knowledge is what matters most to you, then I guess science is the most absolute thing for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what's your suggestion for a better system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should've kept reading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being as this IS reality, I surely think that it is.

 

 

 

Care to explain/elaborate what I'm clearly not getting?

 

 

 

So basically, you're saying "God did it, stop thinking, God just did it, he's supernatural so there's no point", rather than having us try and uncover the Truth of existence, am I correct? That's the vibe I'm getting, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If so, then let me respond by saying this: God, if He exists, is infinite. We can never fully understand Him. But the more we learn about him, the closer we are to Him. Science, through it's analysis of what is and isn't Truth, theoretically brings us closer to knowing God, and as some religious guy would say it, "sharing in His glory".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is on God's side. Dunno why some people seem to think otherwise.

 

 

 

I can agree to some extent that science is bringing us closer to understand God's creation. However, science tends to fill gaps with theories that don't correspond with my world view such as neo-darwinism. Therefore I'm sceptic to the "science is aiming towards the truth all the time".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh how rich. It upsets your beliefs. Let me tell you something, the same line of thinking that thought up evolution thought up how to succesfully farm and cultivate edible food. If you are so upset with some aspects of science, suggest to us a better objective way of uncovering truth and gaining knowlege.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also believe science has the truth for any tangible/measurable thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10^4,478,296

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not only is that false, but it's comical if you think about your path of logic. I should put this is my signature:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At 3:21.32pm, March 10 of the year 2007 C.E, a 19 year old American going by the name of trapical will "post" on the "Internet" at a site known as the Tip.It forums; he will be using a Dell laptop and should have been doing a paper for his Genetics class but he got bored. Five billion years in the past, the chance of the above prediction coming true would be 1 in 10^4,478,296,292,402,399,323,135,237,469,741,579,753,235,908

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, its incredible that even with those odds it happened!

I think assassin linked this. You should read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it is totally out of context, then why do you have it there? For your own comfort? You see, science uses the same systems of inquiry whether they uncover gravity, microorganisms or evolution. If you don't like one, then it puzzles me why you would accept any. They all use the same system. If you don't like science, suggest to me a better system for uncovering truth and gaining knowlege objectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a conclusion note to anyone who wants to casually say 'god is the answer' and just walk away from the questioning, suggest to all of us, not just myself, what is you suggestion for an alternative system for uncovering truth and gaining knowlege which is objective i.e. that any human being can participate in using a trait we are all born with or develop over an education (for example logic, critical thinking, deducement, observation etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not asking for an answer. Understand? I'm asking for a system which we can all use, together, to come to an answer.

[Parabola]

I'm asking for a system which we can all use, together, to come to an answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prayer?

[warri0r45]

 

I'm asking for a system which we can all use, together, to come to an answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prayer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know your not serious, but nice one wise guy. :P

 

 

 

I just wan't to be sure that others notice the line of writing above that one.