bah, typos.
i haven't been able to spell anything today. if firefox didn't have a spell check i wouldn't be coherent at all.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I also said that they are not scientifically distinct. However, the point is that we can never scientifically know how the universe's initial state was defined because all physical manifestations present now could have arisen from infinitely many initial conditions. On this, I think, we can agree.Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have not agreed that they are scientifically distinct from each other. in fact, i disagree that they are scientifically distinct from each other. THE big bang theory is scientific because it can be falsified using the rules of the system from within the system. THE creationist argument is not because it cannot be falsified using the rules of the system from within the system. THAT is the distinction.
Thank you Fenix... That was a very articulate way of explaining where most of us have been coming from! seriously, thank you!Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The point is that you cannot scientifically discern between the two hypotheses as stated. Therefore, the question of which is correct is not in the realm of science and is purely philosophical in nature. The reason I brought it up was because, while I am not a Creationist, I'm tired of people pretending to ride the high horse of scientific thought in deriding Creationists. This simply demonstrates the ignorance of those trying to claim that their idea is scientific while the other is not, since it is clear (as we have agreed) that neither of them is scientifically distinct from the other.
i have not agreed that they are scientifically distinct from each other. in fact, i disagree that they are scientifically distinct from each other. THE big bang theory is scientific because it can be falsified using the rules of the system from within the system. THE creationist argument is not because it cannot be falsified using the rules of the system from within the system. THAT is the distinction.
I already demonstrated in one of my responses to ElFenix that the cases are mathematically consistent, with #2 being a subset of the solutions of #1. All of the evidence you cite applies equally to both.Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Well it is falsifiable via math. If the math, which is the language of our universe, isn't making any sense then the theory is likely to be false.
The difference between your scenarios is that there is evidence for one (red shift, simpler stars on the outskirts of the unvierse, etc.) while the other has no scientific evidence whatsoever.
Actually, the only thing we can agree upon is that each of them was very clearly mocking you.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You're right - you just put forth another hypothesis that is completely consistent with both of mine in a scientific sense. Then, you are starting to see that this is a purely philosophical question rather than one of science, and I applaud you for reaching that point.Originally posted by: sirjonk
3. The universe was created 10 minutes ago, with all objects and persons springing instantly into being with everyone's memories programed to know what they know at this instant, and all objects manipulated such that an appearence of advanced age (billions of years) is entirely artificial, i.e. same as #2.
Vic and senseamp have put forth similar hypotheses. Hopefully we can all agree, then, that this question is philosophical and not scientific and that we should not deride those as ignorant who subscribe to one philosophy while we believe in another because we consider ours "scientific," when it clearly is not.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I actually find big bang a bit stupid. Creationism generally coincides with religions that don't base everything on reason or evidence, so the suspension of reason and adherence to faith is part of the thing. Big bang claims to be scientific but really isn't because it never answers what happened BEFORE the big bang. Where did this mass come from? Science understands nothing at all besides cause and effect. What caused the big bang? What triggered it? Where did the mass come from? Simply, the human mind has no concept in the context of science to comprehend something that simply came out of nothing, which is why in this way it makes more sense to believe that something simply "always has been", and from that creationism is perfectly reasonable. The big bang is really just science's answer to God and creationism without realizing that it's doing the same thing--putting faith ahead of reason. Except religiou makes no apologies for such a thing and science pretends to eschew that.
Big Bang says that a long time ago everything was in a relatively small volume that had a very high energy state. This high energy state something exploded or expanded and everything we see around us comes from that event. There is evidence to support this. And scientists are working to reproduce this event.
Lets not forget that science is the search for the best solution to explain observed phenomena.
What existed before the expansion is another question. I would like to hear solutions to this question and insist that these solutions describe observed phenomena and predict associated questions and answers.
...maybe it happened when another intelligent society reproduced their own big bang event?
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You're right - you just put forth another hypothesis that is completely consistent with both of mine in a scientific sense. Then, you are starting to see that this is a purely philosophical question rather than one of science, and I applaud you for reaching that point.Originally posted by: sirjonk
3. The universe was created 10 minutes ago, with all objects and persons springing instantly into being with everyone's memories programed to know what they know at this instant, and all objects manipulated such that an appearence of advanced age (billions of years) is entirely artificial, i.e. same as #2.
Vic and senseamp have put forth similar hypotheses. Hopefully we can all agree, then, that this question is philosophical and not scientific and that we should not deride those as ignorant who subscribe to one philosophy while we believe in another because we consider ours "scientific," when it clearly is not.
First, my handle is not "Cyclone," though this tells me a lot about why you're having such a hard time in this thread: you're struggling to read what has been written.Originally posted by: palehorse74
Cyclone >
Leaving your abstract mathematical systems behind for a moment, please answer this simple question: Which of your two "theories" is currently supported by the most scientific evidence? (And by "scientific evidence," I am referring to that collected and documented using the proper scientific method).
Funny, because what you call mockery is simply additional proof of my concept and refutation of your claim that a theory can be proven correct. All of the hypotheses that we have suggested for arriving at the initial state of the universe are equally valid on a scientific level, leaving only philosophy to discern between them.Actually, the only thing we can agree upon is that each of them was very clearly mocking you.
Because going through the discussion itself is instructive. If I had simply called you an idiot because you deride Creationists, you would have simply called me an idiot back. Instead, I demonstrated why you're an idiot for deriding Creationists, which is much more powerful in steering you away from such idiocy in the future.Originally posted by: sirjonk
If you just wanted to say "no one knows anything and absolutely nothing can be proven" why didn't you?
I base my decisions on an assumption that reality is, you know, real. If it isn't real it makes no difference since I experience it as real. Thus, having a discussion and including as part of the parameters of the discussion the possibility that nothing is real, and constantly flocking back to that point, makes any discussion about anything and everything, not just creation, totally and completely useless.
What did you have for breakfast?
Eggs. Unless this isn't real and I popped into existence 2 minutes ago. In which case I had pancakes.
How are you feeling?
Happy, unless I'm actually an AI living in a computer simulated world and am being programmed to feel happy.
What are you doing later.
Watch the game, have a bud. Unless the universe has already ceased to exist and I am but a memory or a figment of a dreamy glint in god's eye.
useful stuff, assuming reality is fake. makes discussion really interesting. Borat, if you please?
NOT.
Originally posted by: Vic
All of you repeat after me: TIME IS RELATIVE. And that's just Einstein (edit: who rejected the Big Bang theory for most of this life, FYI /edit). You start getting into quantum theory and time doesn't really exist at all except as changing states of matter-emergy within space.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I already demonstrated in one of my responses to ElFenix that the cases are mathematically consistent, with #2 being a subset of the solutions of #1. All of the evidence you cite applies equally to both.Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Well it is falsifiable via math. If the math, which is the language of our universe, isn't making any sense then the theory is likely to be false.
The difference between your scenarios is that there is evidence for one (red shift, simpler stars on the outskirts of the unvierse, etc.) while the other has no scientific evidence whatsoever.
Hopefully my PhD dissertation will contain something scientific. In it, I attempt to discern between two theories that describe observable physical parameters and how they change in response to certain observable stimuli. The realm of science is the observable: force, mass, energy, velocity, temperature. The realm of philosophy is the unobservable, such as deciding between two scientific theories that describe scientific data equally well. For example, if I have two theories A and B, and both theories state that f (where f is some observable phenomenon) is caused by x (some other observable parameter), and neither A nor B makes any other claims, then whether A or B is more correct can only be decided philosophically. Mathematically,Originally posted by: sirjonk
Cyclo,
What, if anything, do you consider to be "scientific" and not "philosophical"?
Looks like you got it. :thumbsup:Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Theory #4: A herd of invisible, undetectable, nomadic, undead unicorns created our universe sixty trillion years ago, with all matter within the universe cleverly arraigned to make it look as though the universe was really much younger than it is. These invisible, undetectable, nomadic, undead unicorns still inhabit our universe.
When you fall, it's because the unicorns are pulling you down. They just conveniently created created two separate explanations - relativity and quantum theory. When we think, the unicorns' children are moving the electrons (which they created) around our head. The unicorns govern everything we do, in a completely undetectable way.
The point of the above is that we can create an infinite number of stories about the universe, about the 'forces' that compose it, and about how it got here. Most of those, however, are nothing more than stories. Science sticks to the facts and those are pretty convincing - that the universe is several billion years old, that it was created in a massive expansion from one infinitely small, infinitely dense point which contained everything that currently exists in our known universe.
Why did this expansion happen? They don't know. Has it happened before? They don't know. All we know is what we can observe. Everything else, be it String Theory, God, or undead unicorns is an effort to explain beyond science's grasp. Everything else is ideas, fairy tales, and legends - not science.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Looks like you got it. :thumbsup:Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Theory #4: A herd of invisible, undetectable, nomadic, undead unicorns created our universe sixty trillion years ago, with all matter within the universe cleverly arraigned to make it look as though the universe was really much younger than it is. These invisible, undetectable, nomadic, undead unicorns still inhabit our universe.
When you fall, it's because the unicorns are pulling you down. They just conveniently created created two separate explanations - relativity and quantum theory. When we think, the unicorns' children are moving the electrons (which they created) around our head. The unicorns govern everything we do, in a completely undetectable way.
The point of the above is that we can create an infinite number of stories about the universe, about the 'forces' that compose it, and about how it got here. Most of those, however, are nothing more than stories. Science sticks to the facts and those are pretty convincing - that the universe is several billion years old, that it was created in a massive expansion from one infinitely small, infinitely dense point which contained everything that currently exists in our known universe.
Why did this expansion happen? They don't know. Has it happened before? They don't know. All we know is what we can observe. Everything else, be it String Theory, God, or undead unicorns is an effort to explain beyond science's grasp. Everything else is ideas, fairy tales, and legends - not science.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Topic Title: Big Bang vs Creationism
Topic Summary: Are either scientific?
I'll pose a question here that all of you know the answer to, but I'll pose it just to make you think about it a little.
Consider the following two hypotheses:
1. The universe was formed from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Life formed spontaneously and evolved to what we know today.
2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.
Can anyone suggest a scientific method to disprove either hypothesis?
-------------------------
Somewhere, in a parallel universe near you, people read books, scientists are treated like rock stars, and beer is not sold in 30 can value packs.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " --Eleanor Roosevelt
My ignore list:
dmcowen, dahunan, Tab, Bowfinger, Todd33, DVK916, Darkhawk28, Steeplerot, BBond, NanoStuff
Oops, thought you had it, but you missed the points that you yourself made. We may propose infinitely many models to fit any data. Discerning between those models, then, becomes a purely philosophical exercise rather than a scientific one because no observables are predicted to be different by the various models.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Then what's the argument? The Big Bang is science, creationism is not.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Hopefully my PhD dissertation will contain something scientific. In it, I attempt to discern between two theories that describe observable physical parameters and how they change in response to certain observable stimuli. The realm of science is the observable: force, mass, energy, velocity, temperature. The realm of philosophy is the unobservable, such as deciding between two scientific theories that describe scientific data equally well. For example, if I have two theories A and B, and both theories state that f (where f is some observable phenomenon) is caused by x (some other observable parameter), and neither A nor B makes any other claims, then whether A or B is more correct can only be decided philosophically. Mathematically,Originally posted by: sirjonk
Cyclo,
What, if anything, do you consider to be "scientific" and not "philosophical"?
A predicts that f(x)=1-x will have a value of zero for x=0, which is the only physically realistic x.
B predicts that f(x)=0 for all x, whether or not the values of x are physically observable.
From a scientific viewpoint, the two theories are equivalent. Only philosophy allows us to discern between the two.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Oops, thought you had it, but you missed the points that you yourself made. We may propose infinitely many models to fit any data. Discerning between those models, then, becomes a purely philosophical exercise rather than a scientific one because no observables are predicted to be different by the various models.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Then what's the argument? The Big Bang is science, creationism is not.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Topic Title: Big Bang vs Creationism
Topic Summary: Are either scientific?
I'll pose a question here that all of you know the answer to, but I'll pose it just to make you think about it a little.
Consider the following two hypotheses:
1. The universe was formed from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Life formed spontaneously and evolved to what we know today.
2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.
Can anyone suggest a scientific method to disprove either hypothesis?
-------------------------
Somewhere, in a parallel universe near you, people read books, scientists are treated like rock stars, and beer is not sold in 30 can value packs.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " --Eleanor Roosevelt
My ignore list:
dmcowen, dahunan, Tab, Bowfinger, Todd33, DVK916, Darkhawk28, Steeplerot, BBond, NanoStuff
It doesn't matter whether it is "scientific" or not when you have a leadership in control of the country that doesn't believe in science as the U.S. has had now since 2001.
The effects of having this situation is clear as the U.S. has fallen so far behind the rest of the world it's sickening.
Democrats have a lot of flaws but at least not believing in science is not one of them.
Originally posted by: Vic
Hmm... well, on the subject of gravity, I for one am a proponent of the hypothesis that empty space pushes against matter as opposed to the traditional Newtonian view that matter attracts.
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Oops, thought you had it, but you missed the points that you yourself made. We may propose infinitely many models to fit any data. Discerning between those models, then, becomes a purely philosophical exercise rather than a scientific one because no observables are predicted to be different by the various models.Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Then what's the argument? The Big Bang is science, creationism is not.
...It seems almost as if you've already made up your mind, and that you're not actually asking everyone a question, here.
I have demonstrated both verbally and mathematically situations that give rise to multiple models that are scientifically indistinguishable, thereby proving the premise that I set out to demonstrate in the OP. That you choose to reject certain models on philosophical grounds is absolutely fine by me. However, I do take issue with those who feign superiority based on their belief being grounded in science when it is, in reality, a philosophical choice that they have made. What you have not yet realized is that the Creationist thinks you are just as dumb as you think he is, while both of you have simply made a philosophical decision to choose one theory over the other. Science has nothing to do with it.Originally posted by: sirjonk
Not having a phd I was looking for something along the lines of "gravity." To which I would ask how can you prove it's not god's finger holding you down? Or maybe you accept that a chemical that in clinical trials produces a result 100% of the time, to which I'd ask, how do you know god didn't just change the results in this trial? I don't find injecting the unknowable into the repeatable, observable, provable to have any utility. I stand by laughing at the undead unicorn followers.
I'm a scientist. My job is to call it how I see it based on my observations.Oh, and by calling me an idiot you only insult yourself since I am your clone sent back in time to annoy you.
That's because there is no question. I'm simply demonstrating the fundamental difference between philosophy and science in an effort to stop people from confusing the two when they condemn others.Originally posted by: manowar821
...It seems almost as if you've already made up your mind, and that you're not actually asking everyone a question, here.