• Atheists' view of world creation?
    259 replies, posted
hi my name is maliyagh and fuck off bitich [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Noble;33139603]The christian bible is not full of theories (it is full of lectures and sermons), and again, this is showing how you're misrepresenting the word "theory". In common usage, people will use the word "theory" as if it means "to take a guess at something". In a scientific context, a theory is a well supported idea with mountains of evidence behind it.[/QUOTE] That's funny... because I've looked at two credible sources stating that a scientific theory is [I]exactly[/I] the opposite. Here's the definition according to thefreedictionary.com and apparently the first website that pops up when you type "scientific theory definition" in Google. A theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable". I quite frankly don't care what you "superior" athesists have to say about this. It's what the dictionary says and if you can't accept that, well, that's too bad.
[QUOTE=deaded38;33193718]That's funny... because I've looked at two credible sources stating that a scientific theory is [I]exactly[/I] the opposite. Here's the definition according to thefreedictionary.com and apparently the first website that pops up when you type "scientific theory definition" in Google. A theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable". I quite frankly don't care what you "superior" athesists have to say about this. It's what the dictionary says and if you can't accept that, well, that's too bad.[/QUOTE] Have you not taken 7th grade science? Sorry but a theory is something that has tested proof to back it up and there is nothing greater then a theory in science. The ability of being falsifiable does not make it any less proof based. It just means that new information can prove a theory wrong but at its current state a theory is the most logical explanation.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33193748]Have you not taken 7th grade science? Sorry but a theory is something that has tested proof to back it up and there is nothing greater then a theory in science. The ability of being falsifiable does not make it any less proof based. It just means that new information can prove a theory wrong but at its current state a theory is the most logical explanation.[/QUOTE] Uh huh... [url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsifiable[/url]
Just look at the scientific method if you think i'm wrong. [editline]8th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=deaded38;33193773]Uh huh... [url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsifiable[/url][/QUOTE]Yes and I already went over that. Your own link proved you wrong and said exactly what I said. Sorry but to anyone who is a fan of science you sound like an idiot. Every science fan knows how the scientific method works and what your doing is like going to a bunch of astronomers and telling the the sun revolves around the earth. Also you sounding like a dick is only adding to it how bad you look to anyone who has taken a course in science or is a fan of it.
[QUOTE=deaded38;33193773]Uh huh... [url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsifiable[/url][/QUOTE] Yes, falsifiable means it is "able to be proven false". If you come up with an idea that can't be proven true or false (like the existence of God), then it isn't a scientific theory. Evolution is falsifiable (able to be proven false), but creationists have failed to prove it false for over 150 years. Evolution would be proven false if you could prove that mutations do not occur, or if you could prove that mutations don't get passed down through generations, etc. However, creationists have tried to do this for 150 years and have not succeeded. The Heliocentric Theory (the theory that the Earth orbits the sun) is falsifiable because to prove it was false you would just have to demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit the sun. Again, no one has proven it false, but the theory itself is still "falsifiable". The Big Bang is falsifiable as well, though no one has proved it false. The examples can go on and on. The idea is that the theory is supposed to be strong enough to withstand attempts to prove it false through experiment and observation. Again, a scientific theory is not a guess or an opinion. It is a scientific explanation, with loads of evidence to back it up. They do not graduate to scientific laws. I don't know how else to possibly explain it besides saying that [b]there is nothing higher than a theory in science.[/b]
I'm pretty sure he's trolling... most people aren't that... Uhhhh... Not smart... xD
[QUOTE=squids_eye;33133395]It will probably never be proven but science can atleast make theories.[/QUOTE] Hypothesises are what we make, theories are already proven and treated as scientific fact.
I always imagined the thought of a world being spontaneously created was more likely than a self aware being being formed and creating a world himself. But even in the unlikely event of such a being...They would be focused on the universe in it's whole. It wouldn't give a fuck about the prayers of a individual insignificant creature on a single planet even if it could hear/interpret them.
Basically the Big Bang theory is the current theory, because the current evidence points to it being true. Theories are falsifiable, because new evidence may come forward which would require them to be revised, but that doesn't mean that they're a guess. Especially now with the work going on at the LHC, it's possible that new evidence about the creation of the universe will come to light that would disprove the Big Bang theory. But until something challenging [i]is[/i] discovered, the fact that other evidence "may be out there" isn't a reason to doubt it. If you [i]were[/i] to look at it that way, it's just as possible that we will never find anything that disproves the Big Bang theory. The scientific method only cares about what is provable. I blame the misunderstanding on the way the media portrays science. Science is seen as a large complicated thing that nobody but "boffins" can understand and thinks it knows the answer to everything. They jump at the chance to report Crazy Science, but can't be bothered to mention when not-very-exciting-sounding but very important discoveries are made. And of course, whenever a well known theory is challenged by something, the news outlets will all rush to report it as a failure of Science, or the originator of the theory. Their reporting method is what is technically known as bullshit. There's the truth, which is... the truth. Telling it like it is. There's a lie, which is deciding to tell something different to the truth for some reason. Then there's bullshit, which is not even caring what the truth is, but saying what you like to make yourself look interesting or superior.
[QUOTE=deaded38;33193718]That's funny... because I've looked at two credible sources stating that a scientific theory is [I]exactly[/I] the opposite. Here's the definition according to thefreedictionary.com and apparently the first website that pops up when you type "scientific theory definition" in Google. A theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable". I quite frankly don't care what you "superior" athesists have to say about this. It's what the dictionary says and if you can't accept that, well, that's too bad.[/QUOTE] You've completely missed the point. A theory must be falsifiable in that if the evidence observed was contrary to what the theory predicted, the theory can be discarded. Here's an example. Einstein's Theory of Relativity (I don't remember if it's special, general or both) predicted (among other things) that light would be bent in the vicinity of massive objects more than Newton's theory did. This wasn't tested for a while but eventually some scientists pointed a telescope at the Sun during a solar eclipse. Einstein's theory predicted that as a star got close to being obscured by the Sun, its position would be distorted by the Sun's gravitational field bending the incoming light. What the scientists saw matched exactly with what Einstein's equations predicted. Shit clipart diagram incoming: [img]http://astrobob.areavoices.com/astrobob/images/1919_light_bending_Jose_Wudka_1.jpg[/img] The point is that if the scientists had observed that light [b]didn't[/b] bend around the Sun like how Einstein predicted, then his Theory would be incorrect to some degree. This is what is meant by falsifiable - that empirical measurement could potentially blow the whole thing apart. This is in contrast to a great many religious beliefs. Carl Sagan said this a lot better than I can, so I'll just quote him for brevity: [quote]"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon. "Where's the dragon?" you ask. "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved." Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon. Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all. Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.[/quote] A theory that explains everything is a theory that explains nothing.
[QUOTE=deaded38;33193718][B] It's what the dictionary says and if you can't accept that, well, that's too bad.[/B][/QUOTE] That is such a fucking rubbish phrase my brain hurts is the entirety of all human knowledge contained in a dictionary? no, of course not, it's a few words designed to inform someone who hasn't the slightest fucking clue this is Mass Debate, not Mass Let-Me-Check-The-Dictionary-And-Avoid-Using-My-Brain
[QUOTE=Contag;33198732]That is such a fucking rubbish phrase my brain hurts is the entirety of all human knowledge contained in a dictionary? no, of course not, it's a few words designed to inform someone who hasn't the slightest fucking clue this is Mass Debate, not Mass Let-Me-Check-The-Dictionary-And-Avoid-Using-My-Brain[/QUOTE] The funny thing is that the dictionary definition he referenced actually proved him wrong, he just apparently didn't understand what "falsifiable" means.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33193786]Just look at the scientific method if you think i'm wrong. [editline]8th November 2011[/editline]Also you sounding like a dick is only adding to it how bad you look to anyone who has taken a course in science or is a fan of it.[/QUOTE] Who was the one who said "have you even passed seventh grade science"? Don't tell me I'm a dick when you are clearly being one as well. Also, if we're going to be on this note, have you ever passed seventh grade English? Falsified: 1. Capable of [B]being falsified[/B], counterfeited, or corrupted. Falsify: 1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be false. My own link did [I]not[/I] prove me wrong. You atheists just think you know everything and aren't open to correction or change. [editline]9th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;33198732]That is such a fucking rubbish phrase my brain hurts is the entirety of all human knowledge contained in a dictionary? no, of course not, it's a few words designed to inform someone who hasn't the slightest fucking clue this is Mass Debate, not Mass Let-Me-Check-The-Dictionary-And-Avoid-Using-My-Brain[/QUOTE] So let's bitch at the person who actually has the brain to USE the dictionary.
[QUOTE=deaded38;33203659]Who was the one who said "have you even passed seventh grade science"? Don't tell me I'm a dick when you are clearly being one as well. Also, if we're going to be on this note, have you ever passed seventh grade English? Falsified: 1. Capable of [B]being falsified[/B], counterfeited, or corrupted. Falsify: 1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be false. My own link did [I]not[/I] prove me wrong. You atheists just think you know everything and aren't open to correction or change. [editline]9th November 2011[/editline] So let's bitch at the person who actually has the brain to USE the dictionary.[/QUOTE] It just means that nothing is completely set in stone. New evidence could be discovered that would mean a rethink. A theory is something which isn't currently disproved by any hard evidence.
[QUOTE=deaded38;33203659]Who was the one who said "have you even passed seventh grade science"? Don't tell me I'm a dick when you are clearly being one as well. Also, if we're going to be on this note, have you ever passed seventh grade English? Falsified: 1. Capable of [B]being falsified[/B], counterfeited, or corrupted. Falsify: 1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be false. My own link did [I]not[/I] prove me wrong. You atheists just think you know everything and aren't open to correction or change.[/QUOTE] you are being a fucking moron, please read my post above yours [editline]9th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=deaded38;33203659]You atheists just think you know everything and aren't open to correction or change.[/QUOTE] I don't even know what to say, just wow.
[QUOTE=deaded38;33203659]Who was the one who said "have you even passed seventh grade science"? Don't tell me I'm a dick when you are clearly being one as well. Also, if we're going to be on this note, have you ever passed seventh grade English? Falsified: 1. Capable of [B]being falsified[/B], counterfeited, or corrupted. Falsify: 1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be false. My own link did [I]not[/I] prove me wrong. You atheists just think you know everything and aren't open to correction or change. [editline]9th November 2011[/editline] So let's bitch at the person who actually has the brain to USE the dictionary.[/QUOTE] jesus h christ your comments make me want to throw my own eyes out the window and douse myself in kerosene what kind of upbringing did you have
[QUOTE=deaded38;33203659]My own link did [I]not[/I] prove me wrong. You atheists just think you know everything and aren't open to correction or change.[/QUOTE] Bro, the entire point of science is to look at theories and challenge them, then find new ones and challenge them. [editline]9th November 2011[/editline] [video=youtube;T69TOuqaqXI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/video]
there was matter and anti matter, they hated each other so they had a gang war. Through bloody conflict only one of each remained, anti matter snuck up on matter and was about to pop one in his head, but matter backhanded that bitch and exploded him. The result of the explosion left matter to multiply in the explosion and thus the big booty bang came upon us. [editline]9th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Drsalvador;33203922]jesus h christ your comments make me want to throw my own eyes out the window and douse myself in kerosene what kind of upbringing did you have[/QUOTE] THERE'S NO FUCKING RATINGS
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;33204102]there was matter and anti matter, they hated each other so they had a gang war. Through bloody conflict only one of each remained, anti matter snuck up on matter and was about to pop one in his head, but matter backhanded that bitch and exploded him. The result of the explosion left matter to multiply in the explosion and thus the big booty bang came upon us. [editline]9th November 2011[/editline] THERE'S NO FUCKING RATINGS[/QUOTE] NO RATINGS CAN CONTAIN THE SHEER WTFAGE OF HIS STATEMENT
[QUOTE=deaded38;33203659]Who was the one who said "have you even passed seventh grade science"? Don't tell me I'm a dick when you are clearly being one as well. Also, if we're going to be on this note, have you ever passed seventh grade English? Falsified: 1. Capable of [B]being falsified[/B], counterfeited, or corrupted. Falsify: 1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be false. [/QUOTE] Ok, I don't know if there's any simpler way to get this point across.. An idea isn't scientific if it can't be falsified. The heliocentric theory can be falsified. To do it, all you have to do is prove that the Earth doesn't orbit the sun. Good luck with that. The theory of Evolution can be falsified, you just have to prove that mutations do not occur or get passed down through generations. Good luck with that. Cell Theory can be falsified, to do it, you just have to prove that every living thing is not made up of cells. Good luck with that. Atomic Theory can be falsified, you just need to prove that matter is not composed of atoms...etc [quote] My own link did [I]not[/I] prove me wrong. [/quote] It did prove that you don't understand what "falsifiable" means. [quote]You atheists just think you know everything and aren't open to correction or change.[/quote] [url]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominem[/url] [quote]So let's bitch at the person who actually has the brain to USE the dictionary.[/quote] You used the dictionary, then misinterpreted the meaning of a word, then tried to apply it to your argument, resulting in you owning yourself. Again, [b]there is nothing higher than a theory in science[/b]. I don't know how else to try to get this point across to you.
Gravity is a theory.
We will never understand the origin of the universe.
[QUOTE=GiantBollux;33205983]We will never understand the origin of the universe.[/QUOTE] This is also a falsifiable statement :v:
[QUOTE=deaded38;33203659]Who was the one who said "have you even passed seventh grade science"? [/quote] Don't use quote marks if you aren't going to really quote. I asked that because I was saying the basics of what a theory is is explained during 7th grade not because I wanted to make some lame insult. [quote]Falsified: 1. Capable of [B]being falsified[/B], counterfeited, or corrupted.[/quote] Falsifiable also means evidence can also prove it. We went over this. Even though a theory can be proven false doesn't mean its any less proven currently. [quote]My own link did not prove me wrong. You atheists just think you know everything and aren't open to correction or change.[/quote] I'm starting to think you are a troll.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33206158]This is also a falsifiable statement :v:[/QUOTE] That's not true, at least without a time machine. But then you get into a whole range of epistemological problems
[QUOTE=Contag;33207051]That's not true, at least without a time machine. But then you get into a whole range of epistemological problems[/QUOTE] No its possible to figure out how the universe was created without a time machine. Even though a time machine would make things easier.
[QUOTE=Contag;33207051]That's not true, at least without a time machine. But then you get into a whole range of epistemological problems[/QUOTE] We might one day see another Universe form, you never know.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33207068]No its possible to figure out how the universe was created without a time machine. Even though a time machine would make things easier.[/QUOTE] Well according to the big bang theory; time and space were created at the same time... so how far can you really go back with a time machine?
[B]IT[/B] [B]WAS THERE[/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.