close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

This is evidence of God

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Wake_jumper, Jan 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. juggy4711

    juggy4711 Nimrod Son

    3,060
    0
    Sep 20, 2006
    Galveston County, TX
    A string of what? Other than the hot/cool thing, what does global warming/cooling have to do with whether there was a bang or a chill? And what relevance does humans not being great have? Science isn't dependent on people's morality.

    I'm not sure how any of your post has anything to do with mine?
     
  2. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    If I understand correctly, the 'Big Chill' doesn't even invalidate the 'Big Bang'. So *if* they find experimental evidence that indicates this 'Big Chill' model is on to something, the result is a more complete model (i.e., a model that explains things that the big bang model does not), *not* a completely different model. The whole 'Big Chill' bit appears to be based on a water analogy where the critical point of the analogy is *fracturing*, not temperature. (which, likewise, the name 'Big Bang' often gives people the wrong impression, as it implies explosion into something, where it's really about space expanding).

    The scientists proposing the 'Big Chill' seem to be very careful in saying things like "in theory we should be able to detect these effects", and talking about what it would mean if their model were experimentally verified. So I think your presentation of this as some new thing where it completely throws out the old is inaccurate at best. If they do experimentally verify it, it sounds like it will be more along the lines of relativity replacing newtonian physics - all the old math still works for what it applies to, the new math explains more. Heck, in the articles I've seen the scientists proposing it describe it as being 'more complete' and not a complete toss-out of BBT.

    You should not be surprised at new explanations being proposed for areas where current thinking does not fully explain something. It's how science works.
     

    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013

  3. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    I never said it threw out the Big bang, it's just another possible explanation. When I was in grade school, we were going to have another ice age, a few years ago, the ice caps were going to melt and now maybe we are going to have another mini-ice age. Eggs have been good and or bad for you so many times I lost count.

    The point being, things that are generally accepted aren't necessarily correct, or only correct in certain circumstances. Trying to explain things that happened billions of years ago before the first humanoid walked upright on earth is an area of speculation that is not going to be exact or complete.
     
  4. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    It's the latest in a string of previously widely believed explanations about "what is", and how it got this way being reconsidered. It wasn't that long ago, questioning whether or not there was a big bang was scoffed at. Well, maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe there is another explanation other than a big bang or big chill for why the universe seems to be expanding.
     
  5. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    The point I was trying to make was that you appear to be kind of scoffing at science when the whole /point/ of science is that when you get better data, and/or a new model you can actually test, that is what you ought to do.

    The BBT is not accepted because some random bunch of dudes decided to accept it. It is accepted because there were testable predictions that could be made from it, and those predictions proved to be true.

    Putting the 'Big Chill' out there as something that is on par with the BBT is not currently valid, at all, whatsoever. If it explains everything the BBT explains (which is basically, why the universe appears to be smaller as you look backward in time), plus a little more, *and* has testable predictions that can differentiate it from BBT that are actually tested and affirmed to be true, the BBT *should* be thrown out - but things are not yet anywhere near that point (although that might change quickly depending on how fast they can test it, and whether or not their testing methodology stands up to scrutiny, etc).

    But until then treating 'Big Chill' as anything other than a promising idea that can (apparently, based on the statements in the articles I've found) be tested for is not valid. They might test and get results that falsify the 'Big Chill' (which will still be good scientific work, despite the fact that they probably won't get famous for it). They might test and get promising results, too.

    Every valid scientific theory will be 'another in a string'. That's how science works. If you're going to object on that basis, what would you propose we do instead? Guess and hope we get the right answer?
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
  6. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    The thing is that a whole lot of people are speculating, sometimes with very little actual data, and a lot of extrapolated (imagined) data from present observations. A lot of people, including scientists, seem to be unwilling to admit the things they don't know.

    I have a problem with speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus. It's just a bad way about going about discovering the universe.

    We have physical samples from how many celestial bodies that have been returned to earth for thorough examination? And yet, some pretend that they know for sure the chemical makeup of stars and planets millions of light years away. Maybe the exterior has a different makeup than the surface. Maybe light refracts, bends or otherwise changes properties over that kind of distance.


    There is no reason to claim more than we really know. That's a failing of humans, and it probably will continue.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
  7. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    13,366
    252
    Mar 22, 2004
    I believe the last time you brought this topic up you were asked to produce specific examples of this supposed scientific fraud, but failed to do so. With that in mind, why would you bring the same falsehoods up again?
     
  8. juggy4711

    juggy4711 Nimrod Son

    3,060
    0
    Sep 20, 2006
    Galveston County, TX
    I'm not sure how many times I have to explain it but those are language models attempting to "visualize" what the math indicates and are not to be taken literally. And in deed are not by anyone that actually understands. You're attempt to use them as examples of science being previously incorrect is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

    Even if we could prove bang over chill or vice versa it would not change anything. Things would still work the way they do.
    I realize this isn't an easy concept to get but jeez. Does it matter if we decide that one should be described/referenced as doober? One plus one is two. The same as doober plus doober is twober.

    The words can change but the math does not.
     
  9. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Not fraud, just an inability to state that some things are treated as fact when they are actually speculation based on extrapolation. When anyone says the debate is over on a scientific "fact" as flimsy as MMGW was, it's time to be skeptical. Considering the political motivations behind MMGW, it surely needed more looking into and debate.

    It happens.
     
  10. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    You have stated a simple truth, whether it not our imagined explanations for some things are correct or not have no bearing on the universe except in our own perception. It is what it is, like it or not. Math done correctly won't lie, but it can mislead when the results are not correctly analyzed.
     
  11. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Given that the scientists who are proposing the Big Chill have, as I noted, been very careful to say that they need to test and are obviously not treating their model as fact, and given that the BBT has in fact been tested before it was accepted, please explain *precisely* how there is anything at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus' with respect to either BBT or this new 'Big Chill' model.

    For instance, for BBT, you might explain *precisely* how saying something like 'Hey, it looks like the universe is getting smaller as we look back through time, maybe if we roll time back far enough there's just one quantum', doing some math and modeling to get some observable predictions, and then accepting the model based on the fact that the observable predictions (such as the existence background radiation) were in fact *verified* is anything at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus'.

    For the "Big Chill", you might explain *precisely* how it's anything at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus' when the scientists proposing the model are not treating it is as fact themselves but as something that needs further testing.

    It'll be a neat trick if you do. If you can't, you should probably consider stopping your 'oh, they're switching again' handwaving about every new possibility, especially when the scientists involved are not claiming fact and there is nothing at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus' going on.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2013
  12. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    The Big Chill is rather young, BBT was treated as decided fact by many. It's really hard to test that on a real world scale. Has anyone been able to do that? Ir did they have to extrapolate a bit? The point is the fact that the Big Chill is possible, means that the BBT should probably not have been treated as an absolute fact.

    Admitting that models are being used to suppose what happened is probably a better way to go, especially with events that happened without witnesses that we have interviewed billions of years ago.
     
  13. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,303
    1,258
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that they are mostly speculating (as opposed to testing theories empirically without bias)? If your answer is yes then are you sure that it is actual evidence and not just personal opinion?

    You are dealing in theoritical interpretations, not actual theories. Interpretations are just analogies we use to make the theories seem more sensical to us. The theories themselves are pure, dispassionate math that is either right or wrong. The math makes predictions about the nature of the universe that can either be confirmed or falsified through empirical testing. We perform these empirical tests to collect the data to see if the theory is valid. That is true evidence in its purest form.

    For instance, the Standard Model of elementary particle physics predicted a specific mass for the theorized Higgs Boson particle at a given energy level. We built CERN to carry out that actual measurement and sure enough, it was found right where the Standard Model predicted. That is actual evidence and that is how actual science works.

    That is not what you are doing. You are throwing around emmotion, opinion and speculation with the complete absence of any evidence. Which is all you have ever done in this forum. You don't think a specific theory is valid? Fine, let's see your data. Because I have actually looked at the data (evidence) in favor of the Lambda CDM model (aka Big Bang) and found it quite compelling.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2013
  14. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    You don't necessarily need to make a big bang happen to test it. You can gather data and confirm whether or not the data is consistent, or inconsistent, with the BBT.

    The BBT model predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background before the CMB had ever been measured. Since then, other experiments have gathered more data, it has been refined, etc. The core idea, though - the idea that as time goes on, the universe is expanding, and if you roll back time, the universe gets smaller until you eventually end at a single quantum - has been confirmed by observational evidence. The BBT is what it is not because a bunch of dudes randomly decided it was fact, but because a bunch of dudes thought a whole hell of a lot and tested a bunch of different things, and the results are all consistent with BBT.

    Any theory that replaces the BBT is going to have to explain why it looks like the universe gets smaller and smaller and smaller until it looks like a single quantum, just like the BBT does - and it will have to be /at least/ as well tested as the BBT, before it will replace the BBT.

    Yet you act as though nobody has ever tested anything about it? Be serious, for once.

    It's the best thing we have going right now. If we find something better that explains more and is *also* supported by experimental and observational evidence, it will be thrown out and the new, better model used instead. I asked this before: If you don't think that's acceptable, what do you suggest otherwise?

    Do you think people who lived at the same time as Newton should have scoffed at the people who accepted Newtonian physics, in the same way that you are treating the BBT? Or are you fine with the people who used Newtonian physics because they hadn't run into the data that showed there were issues with Newtonian physics, and kept using Newtonian physics because there wasn't yet a model more accurate once the data showing Newtonian physics *did* have problems was found, at least until someone came up with a better model? If you are fine with how Newtonian physics was accepted, even though it turned out to be slightly wrong, please explain how the BBT is currently different than Newtonian physics was then, other than you seem to like to pretend that there's no data supporting it and it's all extrapolation.

    The point being that you could make the same argument WRT to Newtonian physics and Einstein back in, say, 1920 that you are making now. 'First it was this Newtonian physics, then it was special relativity, now it's this general relativity ... it's just the latest in a string of previously widely believed explanations about "what is" ...' Well, duh, that's how science works. We knew more in 1916 than we knew in 1905 than we knew in 1880 or 1700. To act as though this is some reason you should get to say the equivalent of 'pfft, it's all just extrapolation' is basically ridiculous, imho.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2013
  15. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Geko,

    We all know your position. You are very strongly pro-atheism. You will promote that, because you believe our freedom depends on it.

    Me, I acknowledge what is not known. It's just that simple. I cannot pull pretend facts about evidence that proves no deity has existed out of my backside. You can continue to do that, but that question is still unanswered.

    It's OK. We (humanity) is not sure about that, and it's still OK.
     
  16. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    And, really, is that an extrapolation, or a direct experiment that shows a cause and effect relationship.

    When you make an assumption about an experiment done on the micro scale, and apply it to an unreproducible macro scale, it requires imagination.

    Imagination isn't as exact as some would hope.
     
  17. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,343
    698
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    I haven't seen Gecko do any of the bolded above. Perhaps I've missed it? Links?
     
  18. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,303
    1,258
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    See, you moved the goal posts again. I was responding to your point about Big Bang and/or/vs Big Chill and whether one or both were backed by evidence and you responded as if I was claiming evidence that no deity existed. That's called a strawman. Typical CavDoc style, if you don't like the question posed to you then respond to one you prefer and pretend as if it were the original.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2013
  19. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Have you not stated that science supports atheism?

    Show where it does, or state that science does not support atheism.

    Both are fine for me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2013
  20. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    I'm noticing that the site search function is not working as well as it probably should.

    Google "Geko45 glocktalk inductive".

    There will be a bit of reading, but it's illustrative.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.