The Big Bang Theory: Half of Americans 'Doubtful' it Happened
236 replies, posted
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;44629117]To be entirely fair (and sorry if this was posted earlier, I really don't wanna go through 6 pages to double check), but the concept of just all sorts of shit being made out of no-where is pretty nutso to think about. I don't blame anyone who doesn't totally believe. I mean it's silly to totally ignore the idea, but it's definitely not something that a lot of people should cave in to because 'science said so'. [b]You need to remember that the sciences are ever changing, and nothing is constant. Maybe tomorrow it's 'proven' that the Big Bang never happened, who knows.[/b]
I just don't like how the thread was made with the idea of "lmfao look at these uneducated american pigs xD" when it really is something to think about.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Falubii;44627467][b]That said, people misunderstand and abuse this all the time. "Science could all be wrong tomorrow, the Big Bang is just going to be replaced in 100 years!!!" etc.[/b] Once we have a good groundwork in a certain field, like classical mechanics, we are only going to modify existing theories or introduce new theories that deviate from the earlier theory on much more extreme scales (be it energy, size, mass, velocity, etc.) Did the universe start from a singularity? Who knows? Is it 6000 years old? lolno[/quote]
It's cool if you don't want to read the whole thread but you could at least read the last page.
That was in reaction to the first page, read through that before typing.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44629231]
Did the universe start from a singularity? Who knows? Is it 6000 years old? lolno
It's cool if you don't want to read the whole thread but you could at least read the last page.[/QUOTE]
See, I believe that you should not just completely dismiss the proposition that the Earth is 6000 years old by saying 'lolno'. Albeit that the religious theory is less reasonable and logical than what is proposed by the scientific community, this however does not warrant a absolute dismissal. We can never be absolutely sure whether a phenomenon is undeniably true or undeniably false. So you see, neither the scientific explanation nor the religious explanation is true, nor is it false. Every proposition, every idea and every belief is a product of calculated assumption.
eg.
I think cats are furry, therefore cats are furry.
I think toast has a better texture when a little burnt, therefore toast has a better texture when a little burnt.
I think the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe appeal most to me, therefore the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe appeal most to me.
I think the religious explanation of the origins of the universe appeal most to me, therefore the religious explanation of the origins of the universe appeal most to me.
Are any of these more right than the other? That is dependent on how you define right. Are the perimeters of 'right' set by logically estimation? Or are they set by subjective experience and personality?
The decision is yours.
The Earth is not 6,000 years old, no amount of "feelings" will make that true.
We dismiss the idea based on a variety of factors (Human history pre-dating the supposed start date being one), along with radiometric dating, knowledge of planetary formation, etc.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44630531]See, I believe that you should not just completely dismiss the proposition that the Earth is 6000 years old by saying 'lolno'. Albeit that the religious theory is less reasonable and logical than what is proposed by the scientific community, this however does not warrant a absolute dismissal. We can never be absolutely sure whether a phenomenon is undeniably true or undeniably false. So you see, neither the scientific explanation nor the religious explanation is true, nor is it false. Every proposition, every idea and every belief is a product of calculated assumption.
eg.
I think cats are furry, therefore cats are furry.
I think toast has a better texture when a little burnt, therefore toast has a better texture when a little burnt.
I think the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe appeal most to me, therefore the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe appeal most to me.
I think the religious explanation of the origins of the universe appeal most to me, therefore the religious explanation of the origins of the universe appeal most to me.
Are any of these more right than the other? That is dependent on how you define right. Are the perimeters of 'right' set by logically estimation? Or are they set by subjective experience and personality?
The decision is yours.[/QUOTE]
i'll go with the side of the argument that's building space ships and grafting cybernetic limbs onto people
y'all have fun believing all sides are equal
[QUOTE=SexualShark;44622095]zimbabwe[/QUOTE]
I AND I WILL LIBERATE
on topic:
What if the universe WAS created like 6000 years ago, and the where the cosmic background radiation is coming from (and showing shit like the big bang) is actually backwards in time :v:
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;44630542]The Earth is not 6,000 years old, no amount of "feelings" will make that true.
We dismiss the idea based on a variety of factors (Human history pre-dating the supposed start date being one), along with radiometric dating, knowledge of planetary formation, etc.[/QUOTE]
He's right that you can't assert anything to be an absolute certainty, even things like the age of the universe. That doesn't mean we can't have an arbitrarily high level of certainty, as long as it never reaches exactly 100%.
For example, I would bet my life on the Earth being more than 6000 years old, but would't say it is certain.
[editline]24th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=KD007;44630679]I AND I WILL LIBERATE
on topic:
What if the universe WAS created like 6000 years ago, and the where the cosmic background radiation is coming from (and showing shit like the big bang) is actually backwards in time :v:[/QUOTE]
So like Last Thursdayism? Impossible to disprove, but invokes too much complexity to be probable.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44609172]Doesn't matter what you think, science is true. That's what's great about it.[/QUOTE]
Exept some things I have learned as a kid that were scientificly prooven back then turned out to be wrong 15 years later.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44630885]He's right that you can't assert anything to be an absolute certainty, even things like the age of the universe. That doesn't mean we can't have an arbitrarily high level of certainty, as long as it never reaches exactly 100%.
For example, I would bet my life on the Earth being more than 6000 years old, but would't say it is certain.
...[/QUOTE]
See, I would say it's certain because we've traced human history back further (We started developing agriculture 12,000 years ago, over twice the supposed age of the earth, etc.), we have tools older than 6,000 years.
I don't buy into the idea that every viewpoint is equally as valid or every that idea has the possibility of being right, some things are just plain wrong. And if you need to start bringing supernatural beings like a god into the mix to explain why everything pointing towards your argument being wrong doesn't matter (The devil planted the dinosaur fossils!) then that's a sign that the argument is fundamentally faulty.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;44630542]The Earth is not 6,000 years old, no amount of "feelings" will make that true.
We dismiss the idea based on a variety of factors (Human history pre-dating the supposed start date being one), along with radiometric dating, knowledge of planetary formation, etc.[/QUOTE]
That's cool and all man, but all I am merely stating is that one should never completely dismiss a belief even when it does not entirely align with reason or logic. You may choose to believe the scientific explanation of the origins of Earth (aka Big Bang), yet you do not understand that within every belief lies an assumption, that may be an calculated and educated assumption, but still an assumption.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44630545]i'll go with the side of the argument that's building space ships and grafting cybernetic limbs onto people
y'all have fun believing all sides are equal[/QUOTE]
Go ahead, I will not stop you nor criticize you. What you are unable to realized is that by choosing a 'side' it results in segregation. You create a system of hierarchy saying one is better than the other. Ofcourse the scientific community allows for the technological advancements of society, yet why does that mean that you must dismiss the religious community? By choosing a side you place more worth, more value onto one thing, and less on the other. That results in a bias perspective of reality.
Also I would appreciate it if you did not use a condescending tone when referring to people promoting the idea of equality of beliefs. Ya dick. And yes, I will have fun.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;44630909]Exept some things I have learned as a kid that were scientificly prooven back then turned out to be wrong 15 years later.[/QUOTE]
What might that have been?
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;44630924]See, I would say it's certain because we've traced human history back further (We started developing agriculture 12,000 years ago, over twice the supposed age of the earth, etc.), we have tools older than 6,000 years.
I don't buy into the idea that every viewpoint is equally as valid or every that idea has the possibility of being right, some things are just plain wrong. And if you need to start bringing supernatural beings like a god into the mix to explain why everything pointing towards your argument being wrong doesn't matter (The devil planted the dinosaur fossils!) then that's a sign that the argument is fundamentally faulty.[/QUOTE]
You are correct that all viewpoints shouldn't be considered equally valid, but again you can never assert certainty of anything. To do so is to assert that your ability to reason is absolutely perfect, your awareness of every single component of reality is absolutely perfect, and you have perfectly evaluated absolutely all possibilities.
Surely to claim certainty is to claim to be a god?
[QUOTE=Ziks;44630985]You are correct that all viewpoints shouldn't be considered equally valid, but again you can never assert certainty of anything. To do so is to assert that your ability to reason is absolutely perfect, your awareness of every single component of reality is absolutely perfect, and you have perfectly evaluated absolutely all possibilities.
Surely to claim certainty is to claim to be a god?[/QUOTE]
Sure, and it would certainly be a noble cause to investigate all claims and viewpoints from an equal stance, but in reality it would just be a pointless exercise in philosophical righteousness. We don't have time nor money to scientifically evaluate all claims, so we apply logic reasoning to test wether an idea is worth pursuing or not.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;44631039]Sure, and it would certainly be a noble cause to investigate all claims and viewpoints from an equal stance, but in reality it would just be a pointless exercise in philosophical righteousness. We don't have time nor money to scientifically evaluate all claims, so we apply logic reasoning to test wether an idea is worth pursuing or not.[/QUOTE]
It's a sad and repressive reality we as human beings live in.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;44631039]Sure, and it would certainly be a noble cause to investigate all claims and viewpoints from an equal stance, but in reality it would just be a pointless exercise in philosophical righteousness. We don't have time nor money to scientifically evaluate all claims, so we apply logic reasoning to test wether an idea is worth pursuing or not.[/QUOTE]
Yep, so we can arrive at conclusions that we may as well treat as being certain for efficiency, but we should be aware that assumed certainty is not the same as objective certainty.
[editline]24th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44631052]It's a sad and repressive reality we as human beings live in.[/QUOTE]
I propose we reject this reality and construct our own.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44631052]It's a sad and repressive reality we as human beings live in.[/QUOTE]
Repressive because religious belief is not held in the same regard as science? There is a simple reason for it: science cures diseases, puts people in space and does a lot of other really cool things like furthering the knowlege of the world around us.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;44631088]Repressive because religious belief is not held in the same regard as science? There is a simple reason for it: science cures diseases, puts people in space and does a lot of other really cool things like furthering the knowlege of the world around us.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but religion influences pretty works of art, science is just ugly numbers and test tubes.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44631057]Yep, so we can arrive at conclusions that we may as well treat as being certain for efficiency, but we should be aware that assumed certainty is not the same as objective certainty.
[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, but there are certainties that are far more tangible than others, like treating cancer with radiotherapy versus praying for God to cure it.
I'm not very good at playing devil's advocate.
[editline]24th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=demoguy08;44631104]Well yeah, but there are certainties that are far more tangible than others, like treating cancer with radiotherapy versus praying for God to cure it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, so they approximate certainty but aren't actual certainties.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;44630909]Exept some things I have learned as a kid that were scientificly prooven back then turned out to be wrong 15 years later.[/QUOTE]
Science is about looking at all of the available facts and coming to a conclusion. New facts or facts changing can help get us closer to a better explanation.
Saying "Look, it changed, so it must not be true!" is not how things are done. Keeping one answer as [I]the[/I] answer, especially when new information comes in, is wrong.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44631101]Yeah but religion influences pretty works of art, science is just ugly numbers and test tubes.[/QUOTE]
Science can be beautiful too.
[IMG]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/160192/CARINA-NEBULA-PHOTO.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;44631350]Science can be beautiful too.
[IMG]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/160192/CARINA-NEBULA-PHOTO.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The specific god I prefer totally made that so science is plagiarising religion.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44631361]The specific god I prefer totally made that so science is plagiarising religion.[/QUOTE]
:v:
Didn't certain variations of Muslim religion at one point punish people if they made art that wasn't abstract? If you painted a picture of a real-life object or being, you were accused of plagiarizing Allah himself.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44630928]
Go ahead, I will not stop you nor criticize you. What you are unable to realized is that by choosing a 'side' it results in segregation. You create a system of hierarchy saying one is better than the other. Ofcourse the scientific community allows for the technological advancements of society, yet why does that mean that you must dismiss the religious community? By choosing a side you place more worth, more value onto one thing, and less on the other. That results in a bias perspective of reality.
Also I would appreciate it if you did not use a condescending tone when referring to people promoting the idea of equality of beliefs. Ya dick. And yes, I will have fun.[/QUOTE]
That's because one side is better than the other. And I think condescension is pretty apt for people promoting the equality of ideas that are not equal.
How about this. For every delta that represents a nonzero change in the amount of evidence that the Earth is not 6000 years old, there is a nonzero epsilon such that:
0<abs(Evidence-All Possible Evidence)<delta
abs(My belief-100%)<epsilon
Are we done playing these semantics games?
[editline]24th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=DMGaina;44630909]Exept some things I have learned as a kid that were scientificly prooven back then turned out to be wrong 15 years later.[/QUOTE]
The Big Bang isn't going anywhere.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44631793]How about this. For every delta that represents a nonzero change in the amount of evidence that the Earth is not 6000 years old, there is a nonzero epsilon such that:
0<abs(Evidence-All Possible Evidence)<delta
abs(My belief-100%)<epsilon
Are we done playing these semantics games?
[/QUOTE]
What
[QUOTE=Falubii;44631793]
[editline]24th April 2014[/editline]
The Big Bang isn't going anywhere.[/QUOTE]
I agree :D
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.