HOF44 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I am not interested in proving my math. All I want is for you to come up with the solution to a X 0 = somthing other than zero. Don't burn any circuits trying. :laugh: But again you have framed the argument. Your assumption is that there was nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I am not interested in proving my math. All I want is for you to come up with the solution to a X 0 = somthing other than zero. Don't burn any circuits trying. :laugh: Portisizzle, you obviously don't understand mathematics, or you would not be clinging so whole-heartedly to this argument. PokerPackers 'y=2x, how many possible values of y are there' proves infinity just as much as your 'a X 0 = 0' argument proves that nothing can come from nothing, or whatever it is you are arguing. You are using your conclusion to prove your conclusion...you are taking a basic mathematical equation, and saying it proves this monumental statement. It just isn't true. And if you swear it is true, than you have to accept the concept of infinity, based on pokerpacker's argument. How about these: what is x/0 = ? What is the largest value of 2^x? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally -- taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.------------------------ So let me get this straight. The Earth is orbited by the Sun was a theory. We have electricity as a "theoretical construct" based upon charged particles of mass that no one has ever seen. "Each of these theories is an explaination that has been confirmed to such a degree that knowledgeable expert accept them as fact." "An explanatory statement that fits the evidence........until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along." Henry, I think you are wrong about what a theory is and how to use the terminology. Theories are explainations that are to be confirmed. I'm not sure what your point is here. I said science is "This is the data. These are my conclusions based on that data. I will amend that conclusion as I gather more data." That's exactly what was said about scientific theories in the above article. Again "this theory of inheritance.....turned out to be dead wrong."So Henry, you were saying about the scientific method was that evidence abounds THEN a Theory is proposed to give conclusion? Look, I'm not a scientist. My rudimentary knowledge of science is that a Theory is basically a Fact that can be amended as more evidence comes to light. A Theory is developed through observation and testing. And continued observation and testing is conducted on an ongoing basis to support/amend said Theory. This 'theory of inheritance' was obviously proven false through discovery of further data. That's not an indictment of the process. Indeed, the fact that scientists can admit when they are wrong lends legitmacy to the integrity of the process. Find me a Theologian that is willing to edit a religious text and we'll talk. I say you are wrong when you say to me Creation has been declared to be true. It is no more declared to be true in the eyes of science then has the 10, or 12 multiple universes, brane theories, m-theories. In fact the problem is Creation is not even on the books as a viable proposition worthy of discussion let alone rigorous scientific testing.The hangup here is that creation, because it is linked to Religious dogma, shall be ignored. I say Henry, that Creation should be a theory that should be tested. I have NO idea why a Christian (or Jew) would WANT to put Creationism under this scrutiny, honestly. Do you want the non-provable parts removed and then replaced through scientific study? Do you want what remains of the bible amended every few years as new evidence comes to light? Or do you simply want to keep it as is and say its all very scientific? We are not looking for "God". We are looking for answers to the beginning. To leave out the most likely of possibilities because of a disdain for Religion, in this case, is not "careful scientific observation and careful thinking at its best."It is Religious dogma in and of itself. The Faith of KNOWING that their is no creator. What shall we call THAT church of ignorance. Where is the open mind that is the foundation of scientific method? Where does Science with a capital 'S' say there is no creator? It simply states it can't at this time prove the existence of one. Claiming you definatively don't know something isn't dogma. It really is disturbing to see Christians attempt to establish some bizarre 'equivalent legitimacy' through semantics. Science is not religion. It's not dogma. It is simply forming conclusions based on observable data. Period. And it is not about legitimizing pre-conceived notions for the convenience of the faithful. I guess Henry if it matters to you you can read further......... Quotes from an anti-evolution website don't matter to me. Sorry. All of that falls under the 'It just makes sense. Doesn't it folks?' arguement. It's been said many times: The inability of science to prove without a shadow of a doubt the nature of the birth of our universe does not automatically make an unprovable religious claim correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Here is another good, not to complicated explanation of M theory and where it stands at the moment. http://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml HOF44, from that article: "String theorists are careful to point out that this does not prove the final correctness of the theory. Not by any means." By the way, I'm yet to hear an alternative hypothesis to creation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 HOF44, from that article:"String theorists are careful to point out that this does not prove the final correctness of the theory. Not by any means." By the way, I'm yet to hear an alternative hypothesis to creation... This may be a reasonable time to point out that in your original post you didn't ask for proof. Suggesting that anyone has proof is being more than a little bit disingenuous. You asked for the most plausible explanation the scientific community (actually, atheist community I believe is the way you put it) has to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Either a concept has been developed through the use of the scientific method or it hasn't. Creationism hasn't. Period. That's a fact. Therefore, it isn't science. The Kalam cosmological argument was developed through logic and then supported by evidence and proven scientific theories. Have the multi-verse, Big Bang / Big Crunch, etc been developed through the use of the scientific method? No. Please present to me the hypothesis which you think is correct, lets see if it has been developed through the use of the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 This may be a reasonable time to point out that in your original post you didn't ask for proof. Suggesting that anyone has proof is being more than a little bit disingenuous. You asked for the most plausible explanation the scientific community (actually, atheist community I believe is the way you put it) has to offer. I asked for an alternative hypothesis to creation. Since you guys think creation is incorrect, lets see what hypothesis you think is correct. Where is it? And string theory, m-theory is NOT an alternative hypothesis to creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I asked for an alternative hypothesis to creation. Since you guys think creation is incorrect, lets see what hypothesis you think is correct.Where is it? And string theory, m-theory is NOT an alternative hypothesis to creation. I don't know enough about string theory or m-theory to know why they are not alternative hypotheses, or why they aren't acceptable in your eyes. Frankly, I was never really interested in the subject. Would you care to explain why they are unfit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Surely you don't believe that the notion that a god created the universe in six days and then rested to be the "most plausible, coherent hypothesis to creation" do you? I'm not a scientist so I'll leave the details to them. well actually most scholars and theologians do not believe that the 6 days refered to in the bible are literal, but rather they are a representation of periods of time. also from a theological aspect there is a pasage in both the new and old testimant of the christian bible that says, loosely mind you, "to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day" refering to the fact that God is not constrained to the limits of time. plus 80% of polled scintists don't necesarily believe in God, but they believe in inteligent design becuase the odds of the universe happening by chance AND supporting even one region that could hold any kind of life (not complex orginisms mind you, only bacteria) is so large that they still havent computed it. its somewhere like 10 times 10 to the 10000000000000 (13 zeros) power to one at this point... so believe what you want to believe, but science is not fact, merley theory most of the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 so believe what you want to believe, but science is not fact, merley theory most of the time Ah, but true science never purports to be fact, whereas I feel religion often does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 The Kalam cosmological argument was developed through logic and then supported by evidence and proven scientific theories.Have the multi-verse, Big Bang / Big Crunch, etc been developed through the use of the scientific method? No. With these two statements you have effectively eliminated yourself from any kind of rational debate, and proven yourself to be simply arguing to hear yourself talk, not to actually debate the issue. Are you really trying to imply that the Big-Bang theory was not developed through the use of the scientific method? If so, you've got a lot of studying to do, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I asked for an alternative hypothesis to creation. Since you guys think creation is incorrect, lets see what hypothesis you think is correct.Where is it? And string theory, m-theory is NOT an alternative hypothesis to creation. You refuse to accept the theories laid out as you are pre-disposed to shooting them down without even considering them, based on the outrageous Kalam theory you keep spitting out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 I don't know enough about string theory or m-theory to know why they are not alternative hypotheses, or why they aren't acceptable in your eyes. Frankly, I was never really interested in the subject. Would you care to explain why they are unfit? Sure. Think of string theory as you do geometry, algebra, calculus or statistics. It is a mathematical theory. It is incomplete and has not been proven yet, maybe never will. There is no evidence for it at all. It is NOT an alternative hypothesis for creation. An alternative hypothesis would be something that explains how the universe came to exist. There are many, many such ideas like a past-eternal universe, parallel universes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 You refuse to accept the theories laid out as you are pre-disposed to shooting them down without even considering them, based on the outrageous Kalam theory you keep spitting out. ok, I'll consider them now. Pleeeease post one. I'm begging you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 The Kalam cosmological argument was developed through logic and then supported by evidence and proven scientific theories.Have the multi-verse, Big Bang / Big Crunch, etc been developed through the use of the scientific method? No. Please present to me the hypothesis which you think is correct, lets see if it has been developed through the use of the scientific method. A Hypothesis, not as established as a Theory, is defined as a "proposed explanation for a phenomenon." I don't think of any hypotheses regarding the creation of the universe as correct or incorrect. I see them all as attempts to explain that which we can't yet explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Are you really trying to imply that the Big-Bang theory was not developed through the use of the scientific method? If so, you've got a lot of studying to do, my friend. No sir, you're misquoting. I said the Big Bang / Big Crunch cyclic scheme, not the Big Bang Theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 A Hypothesis, not as established as a Theory, is defined as a "proposed explanation for a phenomenon." I don't think of any hypotheses regarding the creation of the universe as correct or incorrect. I see them all as attempts to explain that which we can't yet explain. Ok. Which one do you think explains things best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Ah, but true science never purports to be fact, whereas I feel religion often does. newtons laws are science and laws are part of science, and science teaches us that laws are fact, therefore you are saying then that gravity is not true science?and i agree with you, RELIGION-( regligion in my definition amounts to traditions and dogma, true christianity is mostly a faith, more of a relationship with a loving God who cares about individuals) [religion] leaves no room for error, it is faith that drives good christians in what they believe, faith is just puting your trust in something higher than you that you can't explain (and never will) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 ok, I'll consider them now. Pleeeease post one. I'm begging you. :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: Dude...just forget about it. If you refuse to see the forest through the trees then there is no point arguing with you...:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 newtons laws are science and laws are part of science, and science teaches us that laws are fact, therefore you are saying then that gravity is not true science? This is not how science works at all. First of all, Newton's laws aren't always true, they're just called laws out of habit at this point. Secondly, there's a reason I specified 'true science' in my post and not science as (mis)understood by the population at large. True science advances hypotheses, and then using structured and repeatable experiments, collects data. If the data do not support the hypothesis, it is revised or discarded. Hypotheses do not become theories until they have been tested repeatedly in this manner and have not been refuted. By tested repeatedly, I mean by a number of individuals over the course of years. In true science there are no laws, only our theories which have not been refuted. These are our best explanations of the way the universe works according to the information available to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 newtons laws are science and laws are part of science, and science teaches us that laws are fact, therefore you are saying then that gravity is not true science?and i agree with you, RELIGION-( regligion in my definition amounts to traditions and dogma, true christianity is mostly a faith, more of a relationship with a loving God who cares about individuals) [religion] leaves no room for error, it is faith that drives good christians in what they believe, faith is just puting your trust in something higher than you that you can't explain (and never will) Ah-ha...but gravity is still a theory as well. Newton called it a Law...but gravity is still a highly important topic in scientific research. Calling Newton's law of gravity a fact is not 100% accurate, as it is not even the theory that is used for advanced physics...Einstein's theory of relativity is used in its stead. Gravity is a theoretical force that holds the universe together...we know there has to be something there, or else the planets and such would just move around chaotically, and not in the pattern they exhibit now. Gravity is just a theory to explain this, and while it is well accepted, it is not a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 while it is well accepted, it is not a fact. well all i know is that when i jump i fall down:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 well all i know is that when i jump i fall down:D Yep...and the theory behind that is gravity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 the important thing about this debate that we all need to understand is that no one can disprove the other, to be honest no one knows the answer and i gather no one ever will in this lifetime so theres no point for some of the personal atacks that i've seen in this thread, what ever happened to inteligent debate:rolleyes: (not that anyone has insulted me; the guys who have replied to me have been very good people:thumbsup: ) and to the christians out there who are atacking others verbally shame on you! you guys know thats not what our faith teaches us to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 ok, I'll consider them now. Pleeeease post one. I'm begging you. couple things, it looks like you don't really want to consider them, but you want to feel smart "shooting them down". also, most of us aren't arrogent enough to say we know completely what happened "at the beginning". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.