Not really trying to be cute. I just didn't get why there was a 30 paragraph reply on a specific line that wasn't even in dispute. Maybe I misunderstood the tone of the original post in the quote nest above...
Not really trying to be cute. I just didn't get why there was a 30 paragraph reply on a specific line that wasn't even in dispute. Maybe I misunderstood the tone of the original post in the quote nest above...
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
I think what the vid is relying heavily on is that the core samples taken from around the oceans indicate they are about a couple 100 million years younger than the continents themselves. So how can the author explain this as the current theory of a Pangaea doesn't seem to jive with that. The ocean floors would have been just as old as the massive continent.
It seems to be saying the earth was just a big waterless rock (save a few small lakes and seas) up until a few 100 million years ago and as it grew and expanded, immense depressions were formed in those voids so that when it rained, the water was able to drain down into them thus forming the oceans. I found the explanation about how the marsupials wound up where they currently reside pretty interesting.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Completely wrong. Continental drift theory relies absolutely on the fact that the ocean floors are many times younger than the continents.
Continents are granite and limestone, older and relatively lighter. Oceans floors are basalt, younger and heavier. Thus the continents "float" on top of the more active ocean floors.
Water is one of the most abundant substances in the universe. Whenever you put hydrogen and oxygen together, you get water (and energy), they are that reactive to each other.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of changeI dont get it either... Thinking the earth was round and orbited around the sun used to be outrageous too... Its specially disturbing coming from people interested in science - those should have the most open of minds
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
Are you saying there's a modicum of data to support the existence of gods? What are you even talking about??!!
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Don't blame me, I am just trying to answer the guys question as it pertains to the theory of the guy who made/narrated it. I was just trying to explain my take on how the author took that leap as he never really does explain some things if not totally leaving them out.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 73,546
- 35,251
- 136
Originally posted by: Eli
Is this a serious post?
Are you saying this theory has merit? lol
You have not truly experienced the internet until you have read the works of talk.origins icon Charles Cagle. He explains how the Earth's magnetic field converges at the core, producing a singularity from which neutrons are generated by the bajillion, thus continuously adding enormous mass to the earth. That headache and dizzy feeling you get while reading must be wisdom or something.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of change
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
Are you saying there's a modicum of data to support the existence of gods? What are you even talking about??!!
When did I say that? I said that scientists should be open minded. The spirit of science does not insist what is or is not unless it is proven by science. It's quite simple really. For instance you, at this moment, are being very unscientific by putting words in my mouth. Separate your emotions from science and you will be on the right track.
Typical ATOT. Bunch of arrogant teenagers who are too dumb to know what they don't know and think current theory is the end all. Well done.
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of change
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
Are you saying there's a modicum of data to support the existence of gods? What are you even talking about??!!
When did I say that? I said that scientists should be open minded. The spirit of science does not insist what is or is not unless it is proven by science. It's quite simple really. For instance you, at this moment, are being very unscientific by putting words in my mouth. Separate your emotions from science and you will be on the right track.
lol no wonder perry404 supports ron paul..he's a total nutjob.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of change
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
Are you saying there's a modicum of data to support the existence of gods? What are you even talking about??!!
When did I say that? I said that scientists should be open minded. The spirit of science does not insist what is or is not unless it is proven by science. It's quite simple really. For instance you, at this moment, are being very unscientific by putting words in my mouth. Separate your emotions from science and you will be on the right track.
You're being unscientific when you imply that scientists should consider the existence of gods. It's like saying that you're closed minded because you won't consider the possibility of the tooth fairy existing. You fail to see that the idea of gods or creators is completely outside of science, and completely unnatural (even though the reasons humans tend to believe in such things is natural) .
Duh millions of tons of cosmic dust captured by the Planet's gravity field each year. Planet building never :laugh: stopped.
never :laugh: stopped.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
"Swear by it?" Never heard that before, and I've heard a lot of very heated arguments between scientists. Participated in a few.Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of change
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
As for being opposed to a creator, if you have evidence for a creator, by all means, share it. I'm not aware of any.
Even "bad" egotistical or close minded scientists will get beaten down by proper data, I've seen it. One friend of mine specifically published his results in a journal that was edited by a guy who had a contrary viewpoint. He viewed it as an extra challenge because he knew his experiments and writing would would have to be very carefully and thoroughly done to get published there. And yes, he got published, despite the presence of his foil on the editorial board. Maybe a bit of an ego, but he had the data.
Finally, I don't look at bulletin boards for my science, they aren't peer reviewed and thus pretty much irrelevant.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Gibsons
"Swear by it?" Never heard that before, and I've heard a lot of very heated arguments between scientists. Participated in a few.Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of change
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
As for being opposed to a creator, if you have evidence for a creator, by all means, share it. I'm not aware of any.
Even "bad" egotistical or close minded scientists will get beaten down by proper data, I've seen it. One friend of mine specifically published his results in a journal that was edited by a guy who had a contrary viewpoint. He viewed it as an extra challenge because he knew his experiments and writing would would have to be very carefully and thoroughly done to get published there. And yes, he got published, despite the presence of his foil on the editorial board. Maybe a bit of an ego, but he had the data.
Finally, I don't look at bulletin boards for my science, they aren't peer reviewed and thus pretty much irrelevant.
I never said I can prove there is a creator.
I agree with you 100%. Scientists are beaten down all the time. Every time one states that we have found the "end of the universe" they are beaten down a couple years later. I was laughing at scientists who stated this as a fact when I was in highschool and I still do. They never learn.
My comments about God are very simple and shouldn't even need to be argued. All I am saying is that if you cannot prove or disprove something than you have no facts. If we had proven there is no God then we, as scientific minded people, could say unequivocally that there is no God. God has not been disproved nor has he been proved. Therefor it is an open question and should not disturb a healthy thinker in the slightest.
The argument has nothing to do with God but the principle.
True science only knows what is fact. You can prove the tooth ferry doesn't exist because there is zero evidence of a tooth ferry.
The idea of whether or not God exists however is open because the universe is in itself possibly evidence of a creator. You cannot, after all, get something from nothing.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Actually, no, you can't prove that something does not exist. Neither god, the tooth fairy, the invisible blue unicorn nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be proven to not exist. That's why the burden of proof lies on those that claim something does exist.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
"Swear by it?" Never heard that before, and I've heard a lot of very heated arguments between scientists. Participated in a few.Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of change
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
As for being opposed to a creator, if you have evidence for a creator, by all means, share it. I'm not aware of any.
Even "bad" egotistical or close minded scientists will get beaten down by proper data, I've seen it. One friend of mine specifically published his results in a journal that was edited by a guy who had a contrary viewpoint. He viewed it as an extra challenge because he knew his experiments and writing would would have to be very carefully and thoroughly done to get published there. And yes, he got published, despite the presence of his foil on the editorial board. Maybe a bit of an ego, but he had the data.
Finally, I don't look at bulletin boards for my science, they aren't peer reviewed and thus pretty much irrelevant.
I never said I can prove there is a creator.
I agree with you 100%. Scientists are beaten down all the time. Every time one states that we have found the "end of the universe" they are beaten down a couple years later. I was laughing at scientists who stated this as a fact when I was in highschool and I still do. They never learn.
My comments about God are very simple and shouldn't even need to be argued. All I am saying is that if you cannot prove or disprove something than you have no facts. If we had proven there is no God then we, as scientific minded people, could say unequivocally that there is no God. God has not been disproved nor has he been proved. Therefor it is an open question and should not disturb a healthy thinker in the slightest.
The argument has nothing to do with God but the principle.
True science only knows what is fact. You can prove the tooth ferry doesn't exist because there is zero evidence of a tooth ferry.
The idea of whether or not God exists however is open because the universe is in itself possibly evidence of a creator. You cannot, after all, get something from nothing.
How the hell do you know that? The fact that there is something rather than nothing is not fuckin' data. Stop mixing philosophy with science. There is just as much evidence of the tooth FAIRY (unless you were talking about some kind of mythical boat made out of molars... tard) as there is of God.
The "idea of whether God exists" is NOT an open question. It's a closed question. It assumes too much. It's a loaded question. It's a meaningless question.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
"Swear by it?" Never heard that before, and I've heard a lot of very heated arguments between scientists. Participated in a few.Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of change
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
As for being opposed to a creator, if you have evidence for a creator, by all means, share it. I'm not aware of any.
Even "bad" egotistical or close minded scientists will get beaten down by proper data, I've seen it. One friend of mine specifically published his results in a journal that was edited by a guy who had a contrary viewpoint. He viewed it as an extra challenge because he knew his experiments and writing would would have to be very carefully and thoroughly done to get published there. And yes, he got published, despite the presence of his foil on the editorial board. Maybe a bit of an ego, but he had the data.
Finally, I don't look at bulletin boards for my science, they aren't peer reviewed and thus pretty much irrelevant.
I never said I can prove there is a creator.
I agree with you 100%. Scientists are beaten down all the time. Every time one states that we have found the "end of the universe" they are beaten down a couple years later. I was laughing at scientists who stated this as a fact when I was in highschool and I still do. They never learn.
My comments about God are very simple and shouldn't even need to be argued. All I am saying is that if you cannot prove or disprove something than you have no facts. If we had proven there is no God then we, as scientific minded people, could say unequivocally that there is no God. God has not been disproved nor has he been proved. Therefor it is an open question and should not disturb a healthy thinker in the slightest.
The argument has nothing to do with God but the principle.
True science only knows what is fact. You can prove the tooth ferry doesn't exist because there is zero evidence of a tooth ferry.
The idea of whether or not God exists however is open because the universe is in itself possibly evidence of a creator. You cannot, after all, get something from nothing.
How the hell do you know that? The fact that there is something rather than nothing is not fuckin' data. Stop mixing philosophy with science. There is just as much evidence of the tooth FAIRY (unless you were talking about some kind of mythical boat made out of molars... tard) as there is of God.
The "idea of whether God exists" is NOT an open question. It's a closed question. It assumes too much. It's a loaded question. It's a meaningless question.
Well obviously if you have convinced yourself that God does not exist without conclusive proof that he does not exist then I'm not going to convince you that it might even be a remote possibility am I?.
Thanks for making my point.
Sorry...you cannot get something from nothing. This is not philosophical this is physics.
Now how about calm down and share some logic instead of your emotions.
It doesn't expand that much. Not even close. Even if it did, the overall volume wouldn't change, because everything that makes it to the surface and "expands" is exerting just as much force on the stuff below it as it was under at the time.
If you have so much contempt for science, stop using your computer you hypocrite.:roll:
However, those of us who have studied philosophy as well as science are aware that our cherished "first principles" are themselves items of faith, and that it is logically impossible to "prove" anything one way or the other. We are also aware that while science does a phenomenal job at answering "How" questions, it is incapable of answering "why" questions, or even to determine whether such questions are valid. Science only has two answers for "reasons" why things happen: (1)100% determinism--The laws of the universe make it impossible for things to proceed otherwise or (2)100% chance, no weighting--That's just the way it is, could have gone any other way whatsoever. Mind you, combining these two yields phenomenally powerful results, but science cannot ever explain everything...even if we had an infinite amount of time, funding, and equipment with which to do so.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
"Swear by it?" Never heard that before, and I've heard a lot of very heated arguments between scientists. Participated in a few.Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of change
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
As for being opposed to a creator, if you have evidence for a creator, by all means, share it. I'm not aware of any.
Even "bad" egotistical or close minded scientists will get beaten down by proper data, I've seen it. One friend of mine specifically published his results in a journal that was edited by a guy who had a contrary viewpoint. He viewed it as an extra challenge because he knew his experiments and writing would would have to be very carefully and thoroughly done to get published there. And yes, he got published, despite the presence of his foil on the editorial board. Maybe a bit of an ego, but he had the data.
Finally, I don't look at bulletin boards for my science, they aren't peer reviewed and thus pretty much irrelevant.
I never said I can prove there is a creator.
I agree with you 100%. Scientists are beaten down all the time. Every time one states that we have found the "end of the universe" they are beaten down a couple years later. I was laughing at scientists who stated this as a fact when I was in highschool and I still do. They never learn.
My comments about God are very simple and shouldn't even need to be argued. All I am saying is that if you cannot prove or disprove something than you have no facts. If we had proven there is no God then we, as scientific minded people, could say unequivocally that there is no God. God has not been disproved nor has he been proved. Therefor it is an open question and should not disturb a healthy thinker in the slightest.
The argument has nothing to do with God but the principle.
True science only knows what is fact. You can prove the tooth ferry doesn't exist because there is zero evidence of a tooth ferry.
The idea of whether or not God exists however is open because the universe is in itself possibly evidence of a creator. You cannot, after all, get something from nothing.
How the hell do you know that? The fact that there is something rather than nothing is not fuckin' data. Stop mixing philosophy with science. There is just as much evidence of the tooth FAIRY (unless you were talking about some kind of mythical boat made out of molars... tard) as there is of God.
The "idea of whether God exists" is NOT an open question. It's a closed question. It assumes too much. It's a loaded question. It's a meaningless question.
Well obviously if you have convinced yourself that God does not exist without conclusive proof that he does not exist then I'm not going to convince you that it might even be a remote possibility am I?.
Thanks for making my point.
Sorry...you cannot get something from nothing. This is not philosophical this is physics.
Now how about calm down and share some logic instead of your emotions.
If you read my post you'd see I never said God doesn't exist. What I said is that it's not real fuckin' likely. Do I have to make a fuckin' YouTube video out of it for you to understand? Or am I just part of the vast cabal of "mainstream science" out to discredit you free-thinkers?
And if you believe in God you already believe in something out of nothing. The reason you're mixing philosophy and science is that God is a philosophical and religious concept. God is meaningless is a scientific context.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
You say its an not an question of Gods existance.
Here is the Very first Words written in the scrptures.
In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. The EARTH was without form and void. and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit of God wasmoving over theface of the waters. and God said let their be light and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. and God seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness he called night. and there was evening and morning, one day.
and God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it seperate the waters from waters. And GOD made the firmanent and seperated the waters which were under the firmanent from the waters which were above the firmanent. And it was so. and God called the fermament Heaven . and their was evening and mourning . a second day.
And God said let the waters under the the heavens be gathered together into one place and let dry lans appear, And it was so. God called the dry land earth. And the waters that were gathered together were called the seas And GoD saw that it was good.
Now I don't care what you or anyone else believes. Even tho this discription of creation isn't scientific . The Part a Bolded Is rather accurate on how science would describe the formation of the star galaxies planets. It is also in the correct order of the way it was. Don't get hung up on the 6days of creation. As those days were put their only to show seperation in Time between events. Now man making up a story about God Would Have said . God Created everthing and Zap it was so . But days were used to show a seperation in the creation of the Universe in time periods. Pretty cleaver of Moses if its only a story. HOW did Moses know the earth was without form and void. Its very accurate discription of the way it happened. Without going into detail. I am 100% convinced. GOD is real I just don't know what GOD is . Could GOD be Dark matter and could the Spirit(GODs Power) be dark energy. I don't have a Clue but its a great possiability. But as I said I don't know. But Moses sold me and nothing will ever change that my belief in an order universe. NOTHING.
Here is the Very first Words written in the scrptures.
In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. The EARTH was without form and void. and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit of God wasmoving over theface of the waters. and God said let their be light and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. and God seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness he called night. and there was evening and morning, one day.
and God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it seperate the waters from waters. And GOD made the firmanent and seperated the waters which were under the firmanent from the waters which were above the firmanent. And it was so. and God called the fermament Heaven . and their was evening and mourning . a second day.
And God said let the waters under the the heavens be gathered together into one place and let dry lans appear, And it was so. God called the dry land earth. And the waters that were gathered together were called the seas And GoD saw that it was good.
Now I don't care what you or anyone else believes. Even tho this discription of creation isn't scientific . The Part a Bolded Is rather accurate on how science would describe the formation of the star galaxies planets. It is also in the correct order of the way it was. Don't get hung up on the 6days of creation. As those days were put their only to show seperation in Time between events. Now man making up a story about God Would Have said . God Created everthing and Zap it was so . But days were used to show a seperation in the creation of the Universe in time periods. Pretty cleaver of Moses if its only a story. HOW did Moses know the earth was without form and void. Its very accurate discription of the way it happened. Without going into detail. I am 100% convinced. GOD is real I just don't know what GOD is . Could GOD be Dark matter and could the Spirit(GODs Power) be dark energy. I don't have a Clue but its a great possiability. But as I said I don't know. But Moses sold me and nothing will ever change that my belief in an order universe. NOTHING.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
How is it possible that you are STILL drunk? You are my hero. Most people would have passed out by now.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
"Swear by it?" Never heard that before, and I've heard a lot of very heated arguments between scientists. Participated in a few.Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
People are afraid of change
I welcome any theory someone might have, while it may be far from the truth, theres always some bit that fits, and might be the key to a puzzle somewhere else
Actually, science is where it is right now because of people that came out with something no one thought before, and thats how we will keep evolving... If we just relied on the "closed mindedness" of ATOT we would still be in the stone age
Ego is heavily built into the scientific psyche especially in America. It is a part of what motivates individuals into discovering new things.
I prefer to learn and stay open minded and enjoy the wonder of whatever the truth may be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but large egos get trumped by data in the scientific community. Science is completely open to new ideas, but you've got to bring the data to support it.
Well ultimately yes but still. The scientific community still believes we are seeing the edge of the universe and they swear by it. Funny how every time we build a larger telescope the universe gets older. Much of the scientific community is totally closed and vehemently against the idea of a creator. Just a couple of examples. A good scientist is always open minded as even ridiculous ideas may present new questions and a new way of thinking about a problem. Yet much of science today is filled with emotional bias which is driven by ambition that staggers progress and clouds logical thinking. Egos prevail and quite often the goal is to prove how advanced ones brain is as apposed to making progress in the name of science. I grew up in the scientific community with an atheist father who studied physics and astronomy (as did I) and I have seen these attitudes repeatedly. One need not look further than a bulletin board to get a small taste.
As for being opposed to a creator, if you have evidence for a creator, by all means, share it. I'm not aware of any.
Even "bad" egotistical or close minded scientists will get beaten down by proper data, I've seen it. One friend of mine specifically published his results in a journal that was edited by a guy who had a contrary viewpoint. He viewed it as an extra challenge because he knew his experiments and writing would would have to be very carefully and thoroughly done to get published there. And yes, he got published, despite the presence of his foil on the editorial board. Maybe a bit of an ego, but he had the data.
Finally, I don't look at bulletin boards for my science, they aren't peer reviewed and thus pretty much irrelevant.
I never said I can prove there is a creator.
I agree with you 100%. Scientists are beaten down all the time. Every time one states that we have found the "end of the universe" they are beaten down a couple years later. I was laughing at scientists who stated this as a fact when I was in highschool and I still do. They never learn.
My comments about God are very simple and shouldn't even need to be argued. All I am saying is that if you cannot prove or disprove something than you have no facts. If we had proven there is no God then we, as scientific minded people, could say unequivocally that there is no God. God has not been disproved nor has he been proved. Therefor it is an open question and should not disturb a healthy thinker in the slightest.
The argument has nothing to do with God but the principle.
True science only knows what is fact. You can prove the tooth ferry doesn't exist because there is zero evidence of a tooth ferry.
The idea of whether or not God exists however is open because the universe is in itself possibly evidence of a creator. You cannot, after all, get something from nothing.
How the hell do you know that? The fact that there is something rather than nothing is not fuckin' data. Stop mixing philosophy with science. There is just as much evidence of the tooth FAIRY (unless you were talking about some kind of mythical boat made out of molars... tard) as there is of God.
The "idea of whether God exists" is NOT an open question. It's a closed question. It assumes too much. It's a loaded question. It's a meaningless question.
Well obviously if you have convinced yourself that God does not exist without conclusive proof that he does not exist then I'm not going to convince you that it might even be a remote possibility am I?.
Thanks for making my point.
Sorry...you cannot get something from nothing. This is not philosophical this is physics.
Now how about calm down and share some logic instead of your emotions.
If you read my post you'd see I never said God doesn't exist. What I said is that it's not real fuckin' likely. Do I have to make a fuckin' YouTube video out of it for you to understand? Or am I just part of the vast cabal of "mainstream science" out to discredit you free-thinkers?
And if you believe in God you already believe in something out of nothing. The reason you're mixing philosophy and science is that God is a philosophical and religious concept. God is meaningless is a scientific context.
It doesn't matter what I believe. I never said it did and I never brought my personal beliefs into the equation. You're making a big deal out of it and attempting to read into my beliefs and use it against me all the while straying further from the subject all because of your personal convictions.
In other words you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.
Preconceived notions & beliefs are poison to science.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
Do you have some kind of Firefox plug-in to automatically miss the point of my posts for you or do you do it manually?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter