i fucking loathe how she keeps pronouncing "creator".
I always regarded Dawkins as a brilliant man who sunk low to arguing with stupid people who will never change their ways, and sometimes being bigoted about it.
Regardless, the sheer stupidity of this woman astounds me. How can you even say that "there is no evidence"?
[QUOTE=J-Dude;35062747]
Then you go for the "Big Bang is only a theory" angle, another sign the speaker is scientifically clueless, because theories are the highest form a scientific idea can attain, as absolute certainty is always an intellectually dishonest thing to claim.[/QUOTE]
A theory is not the highest form a scientific idea can attain. A theory is simply a hypothesis that hasn't been disproven yet. This is very important when talking about the big bang. There are multiple theories on how the big bang started, people think it could have randomly happened(since quantum physics allows for particles to come into being seemingly randomly given enough time), or it could tie into a multiverse. Neither of these theories have been disproven, yet they contradict each other, both theories cannot be true.
A theory is not a fact.
[quote]Then you say, "That's what the LHC is for," which confuses me... The LHC isn't proving the Big Bang Theory, as most of astronomical physics already does that, starting with that telltale Cosmic Microwave background radiation leftover.
[/quote]
It is indeed proving and disproving the big bang theory. The goal of the LHC is to simulate the conditions that were present at the moment of the big bang. This refines the theory and could drastically change it, if we observe phenomena that contradicts the equations we have thought up.
I don't know how he resisted strangling her
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35071217]A theory is not the highest form a scientific idea can attain. A theory is simply a hypothesis that hasn't been disproven yet. This is very important when talking about the big bang. There are multiple theories on how the big bang started, people think it could have randomly happened(since quantum physics allows for particles to come into being seemingly randomly given enough time), or it could tie into a multiverse. Neither of these theories have been disproven, yet they contradict each other, both theories cannot be true.
A theory is not a fact.
It is indeed proving and disproving the big bang theory. The goal of the LHC is to simulate the conditions that were present at the moment of the big bang. This refines the theory and could drastically change it, if we observe phenomena that contradicts the equations we have thought up.[/QUOTE]
A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35071333]A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.[/QUOTE]
A theory is not necessarily verified. Like I said, there are multiple conflicting theories for how the big bang happened. These cannot all be verified, because only one can be true. They simply hold up when we test it against our current knowledge of physics. When we gain more knowledge, these theories may be disproven.
Like you said, a theory is basically an explanation of a phenomenon. It isn't necessarily true, but it makes sense. It isn't proven, it just hasn't been disproven yet.
This is precisely what bugs me about creationists who say evolution is a theory. It isn't a theory at all, it is a phenomena that we have observed. We have theories that explain how it happens, which are constantly debated, disproven, and revised. Creationists take this "controversy" as being controversy over whether evolution has actually happened or not, which isn't even [I]near[/I] the mark.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35071612]A theory is not necessarily verified. Like I said, there are multiple conflicting theories for how the big bang happened. These cannot all be verified, because only one can be true. They simply hold up when we test it against our current knowledge of physics. When we gain more knowledge, these theories may be disproven.
Like you said, a theory is basically an explanation of a phenomenon. It isn't necessarily true, but it makes sense. It isn't proven, it just hasn't been disproven yet.
This is precisely what bugs me about creationists who say evolution is a theory. It isn't a theory at all, it is a phenomena that we have observed. We have theories that explain how it happens, which are constantly debated, disproven, and revised. Creationists take this "controversy" as being controversy over whether evolution has actually happened or not, which isn't even [I]near[/I] the mark.[/QUOTE]
The Big Bang happened. This is a fact.
The process of the Big Bang occurring and it's effects are referred to as Big Bang Theory.
Evolution happens. This is a fact.
The process of evolution and how it functions is referred to as Evolutionary Theory.
Now can you please cut the semantic bullshit?
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35062117]He's being violently manipulative in his way of portraying it too. In some interviews he narrates over them spending a lot of energy essentially calling the "victim" stupid because "Christ".
I don't remember if he himself only stays with facts or if he's one of those Big Bang types... which itself is only a theory that can't be proven. That's what the LHC is for.
He is right. But he's being a fucking chimp. What with throwing his own feces in everyones necks. Kind of confirms Darwin though. He's a fundamentalistic anti-creationist that is only slightly better than Westboro.
[editline]9th March 2012[/editline]
Too much of a challenge. You see, if he does that they might actually touch on theories that are actually debatable and he might be proven to be narrow-minded. We can't have that.
With that i mean those theories bordering on religion such as Big Bang and multiple physical universes and parallel universes and whatnot. Or even the genesis of life on earth. All of that is just scientific theories, though the Genesis on earth is based on fossil finds and drawing lines to pin-point evolutionary differences.[/QUOTE]
Jesus H. Christ who the fuck are you talking about because that certainly isn't Dawkins at all mother of god my fucking eyes someone get this post away from me/
People would have a pretty difficult time debating evolution and many other scientific facts and principles, this is why Christians in this era need to find a way to allow science and their religion to work with each other. Religion does not have to be a limiting system, it should be another element of life. Science covers knowledge and the empirical, religion covers emotion and the spirit. Anyways, thats what I believe.
Ugh I can't stand listening to her. Side-stepping the questions she can't answer, being defensive constantly and calling it an "arguement" when Dawkins obviously wants to have an intelligent debate.
Wow she is a right bitch. Listen to her at like 4:00 in on the first one.
'[I]Excuse me[/I]'
Like she's his mother or something.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35071612]A theory is not necessarily verified. Like I said, there are multiple conflicting theories for how the big bang happened. These cannot all be verified, because only one can be true. They simply hold up when we test it against our current knowledge of physics. When we gain more knowledge, these theories may be disproven.
Like you said, a theory is basically an explanation of a phenomenon. It isn't necessarily true, but it makes sense. It isn't proven, it just hasn't been disproven yet.
This is precisely what bugs me about creationists who say evolution is a theory. It isn't a theory at all, it is a phenomena that we have observed. We have theories that explain how it happens, which are constantly debated, disproven, and revised. Creationists take this "controversy" as being controversy over whether evolution has actually happened or not, which isn't even [I]near[/I] the mark.[/QUOTE]
Big bang is a scientific theory because it happened. No question about it. Now we don't know what caused it. Those are all hypothesis that can't be tested at the time. If the explanation is not proven it's not a [I]scientific [/I]theory. It's a guess, a hypothesis.
And the "it's a hypothesis that hasn't been disproven" is bullshit. You can create infinite number of "theories" that can't be tested. Like that there is a civilization of eternal unicorns living on earth that can't be observed with tools that we currently have. Is that a scientific theory to you? It can't be disproven.
She has absolutely no idea about what she is talking about.
She makes me want to rip my hair out, especially when she laughs.
Late by 2 years and 1 month
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35074731]Big bang is a scientific theory because it happened. No question about it. Now we don't know what caused it. Those are all hypothesis that can't be tested at the time. If the explanation is not proven it's not a [I]scientific [/I]theory. It's a guess, a hypothesis.[/quote]
It isn't a guess, it's a theory. It's been tested against our knowledge of physics and it holds up. Multiple theories can explain the same phenomena due to a lack of knowledge in physics. The big bang is a theory just the same as the multiverse theory, the difference is that the big bang theory is a lot more likely because AFAIK it is the [I]only[/I] explanation that holds up when tested against our knowledge of physics.
[quote]And the "it's a hypothesis that hasn't been disproven" is bullshit. You can create infinite number of "theories" that can't be tested. Like that there is a civilization of eternal unicorns living on earth that can't be observed with tools that we currently have. Is that a scientific theory to you? It can't be disproven.[/QUOTE]
Ok then. How do these eternal unicorns exist? Why can't we observe them with our tools? What are they made of?
You aren't understanding what a theory is. A theory has to be an explanation that fits in with our current models of how the universe works. If it fits in with the model, then it's a theory. That does not make it fact, it doesn't even make it likely(in the event of multiple theories explaining the same phenomena). It just makes it a feasible answer. That's literally all a theory is, a feasible answer to how something works.
And I never said it can't be disproven, I'm saying it [I]hasn't[/I] been disproven. Scientists have a great many theories on how quantum particles work, and how the quantum world behaves. These theories are constantly disproven and re-evaluated each time we discover a new particle, or discover a new phenomenon. They are still theories, and they are perfectly viable ways of explaining how certain things work, [I]until[/I] someone finds a way to disprove them.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075387]It isn't a guess, it's a theory. It's been tested against our knowledge of physics and it holds up. Multiple theories can explain the same phenomena due to a lack of knowledge in physics. The big bang is a theory just the same as the multiverse theory, the difference is that the big bang theory is a lot more likely because AFAIK it is the [I]only[/I] explanation that holds up when tested against our knowledge of physics.[/QUOTE]
So if the multiverse theory has not been disproven it means it's been tested and it holds up against our knowledge of physics? But then big bang is the only one that holds up against our knowledge of physics? You contradict yourself.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075387]Ok then. How do these eternal unicorns exist? Why can't we observe them with our tools? What are they made of?[/QUOTE]
How do we know multiverse exists? Why can't we observer it with our tools? I can make a lot of shit up like that. Hypothesis that supposedly can't be disproven at the time, doesn't make it a theory.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075387]You aren't understanding what a theory is. A theory has to be an explanation that fits in with our current models of how the universe works. If it fits in with the model, then it's a theory. That does not make it fact, it doesn't even make it likely(in the event of multiple theories explaining the same phenomena). It just makes it a feasible answer. That's literally all a theory is, a feasible answer to how something works.[/QUOTE]
Second contradiction. "A theory has to be an explanation that fits in with our current models of how the universe works." yet you talk about multiverse theory that can't be tested because it's beyond our knowledge in physics. Possible, untested explanations are guesses, hypothesis. Where is the evidence supporting multiverse theory? Because without anything supporting it, it's just a hypothesis.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075387]And I never said it can't be disproven, I'm saying it [I]hasn't[/I] been disproven. Scientists have a great many theories on how quantum particles work, and how the quantum world behaves. These theories are constantly disproven and re-evaluated each time we discover a new particle, or discover a new phenomenon. They are still theories, and they are perfectly viable ways of explaining how certain things work, [I]until[/I] someone finds a way to disprove them.[/QUOTE]
A theory that can't be disproven, fucking [I]hasn't[/I] been disproven yet, durr. You're saying that a hypothesis that hasn't been disproven yet is a theory. Then every hypothesis that can't be disproven, either at all or at the time is a theory, according to you.
I mean fuck, lets say we go back in time. We see a lightning. There are no tools at the moment with which we can test or measure it. Now every explanation that anyone would come up with to describe how and why it occurs would be a theory according to you.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35075576]So if the multiverse theory has not been disproven it means it's been tested and it holds up against our knowledge of physics? But then big bang is the only one that holds up against our knowledge of physics? You contradict yourself.[/quote]
Not a contradiction. I was talking about the genesis of the universe. There are no competing theories on how the universe came to be, but there are competing theories on what caused the event that created the universe.
[quote]How do we know multiverse exists? Why can't we observer it with our tools? I can make a lot of shit up like that. Hypothesis that supposedly can't be disproven at the time, doesn't make it a theory.[/quote]
I never said they can't be disproven, I said they haven't yet. Why can't you understand this? We don't know a multiverse exists, but it fits in with our models of physics. It can be tested through equations and it is perfectly feasible.
[quote]Second contradiction. "A theory has to be an explanation that fits in with our current models of how the universe works." yet you talk about multiverse theory that can't be tested because it's beyond our knowledge in physics. Possible, untested explanations are guesses, hypothesis. Where is the evidence supporting multiverse theory? Because without anything supporting it, it's just a hypothesis.[/quote]
The multiverse theory can be tested, and it has been tested. A theory doesn't need any support, it just has to not have been disproven.
[quote]A theory that can't be disproven, fucking [I]hasn't[/I] been disproven yet, durr. You're saying that a hypothesis that hasn't been disproven yet is a theory. Then every hypothesis that can't be disproven, either at all or at the time is a theory, according to you. [/quote]
Yea, if it can be tested against our model of the universe, and it hasn't been disproven, it is a theory.
[quote]I mean fuck, lets say we go back in time. We see a lightning. There are no tools at the moment with which we can test or measure it. Now every explanation that anyone would come up with to describe how and why it occurs would be a theory according to you.[/QUOTE]
Yup, that's exactly how science works. You use the tools you have, and the understanding you have, to explain phenomena. Over time you gather new data and find new ways to quantify stuff. The beauty of science is that it is constantly adapting. A scientific theory today can be completely disrpoven tomorrow.
You seem to not grasp how science works at all. According to your definitions the theory of evolution would be merely the hypothesis of evolution.
The Multiverse Hypothesis isn't a theory because it currently has no predictive value.
IE: You can't use it to make a prediction that would prove it's accuracy, something that you [I]can[/I] do with Evolution and Big Bang Theory.
That's how a Hypothesis turns into a Theory. You make a prediction with it, and then prove it's reliability.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075752]Not a contradiction. I was talking about the genesis of the universe. There are no competing theories on how the universe came to be, but there are competing theories on what caused the event that created the universe.[/QUOTE]
What? Theory has to hold up. You said the big bang theory is the only one that holds up. Yet you still use "multiverse theory". So either multiverse isn't a theory or it holds up. Make up your mind.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075752]I never said they can't be disproven, I said they haven't yet. Why can't you understand this? We don't know a multiverse exists, but it fits in with our models of physics. It can be tested through equations and it is perfectly feasible.[/QUOTE]
Why can't you understand that a hypothesis that can't be disproven hasn't been disproven yet meaning it's a theory according to you. [B]So every hypothesis that can't be disproven at all or can't be disproven at the time is a scientific theory according to you.[/B] That's false.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075752]The multiverse theory can be tested, and it has been tested. A theory doesn't need any support, it just has to not have been disproven.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck. If a hypothesis has been tested and hasn't been disproven it means it has support. You make no sense.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075752]Yea, if it can be tested against our model of the universe, and it hasn't been disproven, it is a theory.[/QUOTE]
How did they test the multiverse theory then? Didn't you say that the multiverse theory doesn't hold up when tested against our knowledge of physics?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075752]Yup, that's exactly how science works. You use the tools you have, and the understanding you have, to explain phenomena. Over time you gather new data and find new ways to quantify stuff. The beauty of science is that it is constantly adapting. A scientific theory today can be completely disrpoven tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
That's not a theory if it can't be tested either at all or at the moment because of the tools. Yes that's how science works, great. But that's not what theory is.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35075752]You seem to not grasp how science works at all. According to your definitions the theory of evolution would be merely the hypothesis of evolution.[/QUOTE]
WHAT?!? According to my definitions evolution would be a hypothesis? What? I just said theory needs support to be called theory, if it doesn't have it, it's just a hypothesis. Why the fuck would evolution be a hypothesis according to me if there are tons of evidence supporting it? And I don't grasp something? What are you even talking about?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35076263]What? Theory has to hold up. You said the big bang theory is the only one that holds up. Yet you still use "multiverse theory". So either multiverse isn't a theory or it holds up. Make up your mind.[/quote]
The big bang theory and a multiverse theory don't compete with each other. Both hold up.
[quote]Why can't you understand that a hypothesis that can't be disproven hasn't been disproven yet meaning it's a theory according to you. [B]So every hypothesis that can't be disproven at all or can't be disproven at the time is a scientific theory according to you.[/B] That's false.[/quote]
Yea, if it can't be disproven yet, it is still a theory.
[quote]What the fuck. If a hypothesis has been tested and hasn't been disproven it means it has support. You make no sense.[/quote]
I mean, practical experiments don't have to be run to make it a theory. We didn't need to see a black hole for it to be a scientific theory, once we actually did see one(or more accurately, see the effects of a black hole) then it became more solidified.
[quote]How did they test the multiverse theory then? Didn't you say that the multiverse theory doesn't hold up when tested against our knowledge of physics?[/quote]
Well, it's a bunch of mathematics and quantum physics that I don't grasp, and you probably wouldn't, either.
[quote]That's not a theory if it can't be tested either at all or at the moment because of the tools. Yes that's how science works, great. But that's not what theory is.[/quote]
There are different types of tests. You can test something against the math. For example, this is how black holes were first thought of. The math supported them, and so it became a theory(or part of a theory). When we figured out the nature of a black hole we began learning how to track one down and we eventually did.
[quote]WHAT?!? According to my definitions evolution would be a hypothesis? What? I just said theory needs support to be called theory, if it doesn't have it, it's just a hypothesis. Why the fuck would evolution be a hypothesis according to me if there are tons of evidence supporting it? And I don't grasp something? What are you even talking about?[/QUOTE]
Well, you can't test evolution. At least not to the extent you would want to. In order for evolution to be a theory to you, you would seem to want to actually see an animal evolving first hand.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35083167]The big bang theory and a multiverse theory don't compete with each other. Both hold up.
Yea, if it can't be disproven yet, it is still a theory.
I mean, practical experiments don't have to be run to make it a theory. We didn't need to see a black hole for it to be a scientific theory, once we actually did see one(or more accurately, see the effects of a black hole) then it became more solidified.
Well, it's a bunch of mathematics and quantum physics that I don't grasp, and you probably wouldn't, either.
There are different types of tests. You can test something against the math. For example, this is how black holes were first thought of. The math supported them, and so it became a theory(or part of a theory). When we figured out the nature of a black hole we began learning how to track one down and we eventually did.
Well, you can't test evolution. At least not to the extent you would want to. In order for evolution to be a theory to you, you would seem to want to actually see an animal evolving first hand.[/QUOTE]
Okay. Where did I say you need to perform practical tests to call a hypothesis a theory? I said evidence, not practical tests. Stop putting words in my mouth. And just like you said, there are different types of tests. You can't make a practical test for big bang either. And still is plenty of evidence for big bang and evolution, that's why they are theories.
Invisible eternal unicorns living next to us that feed on trace amounts of sunlight is not a scientific theory. It is however according to you. Because it can't be tested at the moment, therefore it hasn't been disproven yet, therefore it's a scientific theory, derp. Without evidence it's just a hypothesis. And again, [I]doesn't have to be a practical test.[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
