Do you know.......

RPGonzo said:
This is where I always come to a brick wall in my head, how can one define something one has no absolute knowledge of? Therefore it was "created" when one scientist said his theory was correct, or his peers of the same science confirmed as correct.

You state your case fair and straight with the same facts as any other person in this day and age who argues the same points.

But my biggest question is this, you still base your experiments, math and measured data off something someone before has said is "right". You are comparing data from other peoples "best guesses" with answers you derive from your "best guess".

Who says it was right?

Again, please don't take this as a personal attack I am only trying to say there is holes in both sides of the stories. But its what you believe that should count for YOU ... and only you :)
Click to expand...



No worries, all good back n forth :)


I think the point i'll clarify is this...

You keep saying science is based off best guesses, that much is probally true..

HOWEVER, its based off best guesses regarding OBSERVATIONS in our enviroment,world,universe,galaxy,etc...


When the apple fell out of the tree and newton recieved a wonk on the head... ::cough:: even though it didnt really happen ::cough::

He didnt immediatly go, F=MA dear god!

he observed, considered, observed, tested, tested some more, obsereved, and then discovered calculus....


All science does is describe and understand the way the world appears to work... It does not define how it does though...

As our understanding improves, our models evolve, they become more precise, more exact, etc...

The models work, they are repeatable, and supportable by observable fact..



I think it would honestly be quite silly to try and argue, science as nothing more than a cute coincidence...
 
PAPA SNOW said:
I appologise SIXPACK577 ,, I just threw the question out there for some of the Cristians that 'might not' have a clue about it,,NOT to start a religious debate,,I don't feel the need to defend my Lord and Saviour against the masses,,I feel He is quite capable of that Himself,, :please:
Click to expand...

You must have missed my last response to you, I agree, and there is no need for an apology, but thank you.
Nothing said here by anyone has upset or offended me, it's all just been a conversation.
Much to some folks suprise, I am a very scientific minded person, I just also belive that GOD is the creator of all. Science is also ever evolving, and going back correcting itself as we as humans learn more. My veiw is that science proves GOD exhists, where as others feel the opposite.
We could all argue endlessly all day to no avail anyway. I have expressed my veiws and listened to others, so I will bow out of this conversation.
To everyone regardless of your belifes, I hope you have a great Christmas season.
 
And I agree science is not a coincidence, but it also, which is my main point, it is all based on faith in the people's analogy before you.

I believe the same though process is apparent in religion, something handed down through generations, and putting your faith in something before your time.

Your repeatable models is still based on something someone before you put together, without anyone truly knowing if their presumptions were correct.

In a nut shell if we "think" (and I use that word very loosely) that in a equation 'x' is of a certain value because someone before told us. But in reality "if" (again another loose relation lol) they were incorrect and 'x' is something completely different your calculations today could be completely wrong. But because someone before our time said it was the value you have to come to learn and have faith that it is correct to get your current answers.

Variables are a part of life, and no one side has completely solved the variables of faith, whether it be scientific or religious. No one has all the answers, all we can do is live life to a level that makes our mind and soul happy. Whether that be in the belief of a religion, which ever path of religion that may be, or a path of science, which can also almost be argued to be a form of religion being that it works, in my opinion, in the same philosophy of having faith in something or someone. Or like some come to accept facts of both parties and be able to shake hands at the end of the day knowing that we are all here for a common good!

My opinion anyways, and with that I will leave this thread alone with my responses lol. I do love a good debate though :)
 
VaBusa said:
Things are only offensive to someone if you care and let it get to you...

Why waste any energy on this? :laugh:

Sorry, just wondering when the ultra PC of America will finally peter out and everyone just stops finding stuff to be offended over...

I offend myself sometimes...imagine that? :laugh:

:moon:
Click to expand...

I am offended by this statement and the lack of consideration it shows to my personal feelings :poke:










:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
1.) Merry xmas ;) to you too sixpack

2.) Gonzo I think you are misinterpreting something here.

The definition of faith:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.


I think you are assuming that definition 1 is the same as definition 2. You will find plenty of the first definition in science, but what separates it from definition two, is that if you are so inclined, you can prove anything in science (that is held as fact). You can prove it by repeating the expirement that someone else has, or you can create your own expirement. Now granted, science doesn't have all the answers, nor does it claim to. There are also hypotheses, that are not supported with facts, but that is another matter.

Some examples:

Anyone can prove that the earth is round, it can be done with a relatively simple and ingenious expirement. Irregardless that we have pictures from space or have circumnavigated the globe. At the same time, the fact that we have launched satellites into space, and kept them there, has proven an innumerable amount of theories.

Einstein's "theory" of relativity - both special and general - were first purely based on mathematical proofs with no observations to back up his claims. However, this genius of a man is being proven time and time again that his "theories" are correct. His "theories" are facts. (There is a lot in his theories, but so far he has been right about A LOT).

Here is where people can become confused however:

Many people get caught up with some of the irregularities in science. It can become confusing - the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law.

For example, Einstein's theories proved Newton's laws wrong. Huh? Wah?

3.) Evolution - is considered a "theory," but what a horrible term. There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. Many believe that because evolution is considered a "theory" that is hasn't been proven, this is to a large extent, not true.

I am saying this because GSXRBots asked the question. Blah blah blah :laugh: why are monkeys still around.

First - we did not come from monkeys. Second, just because one species evolves and adapts, doesn't mean that it's ancestor is required to die off.... Does that make sense..??

For example:

The Founder Effect:

In population genetics, the founder effect is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. It was first fully outlined by Ernst Mayr in 1952,[1] using existing theoretical work by those such as Sewall Wright.[2] As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genetically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species.

- Stolen from Wiki. I'm lazy :thumbsup:
 
S4L said:
1.) Merry xmas ;) to you too sixpack

2.) Gonzo I think you are misinterpreting something here.

The definition of faith:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.


I think you are assuming that definition 1 is the same as definition 2. You will find plenty of the first definition in science, but what separates it from definition two, is that if you are so inclined, you can prove anything in science (that is held as fact). You can prove it by repeating the expirement that someone else has, or you can create your own expirement. Now granted, science doesn't have all the answers, nor does it claim to. There are also hypotheses, that are not supported with facts, but that is another matter.

Some examples:

Anyone can prove that the earth is round, it can be done with a relatively simple and ingenious expirement. Irregardless that we have pictures from space or have circumnavigated the globe. At the same time, the fact that we have launched satellites into space, and kept them there, has proven an innumerable amount of theories.

Einstein's "theory" of relativity - both special and general - were first purely based on mathematical proofs with no observations to back up his claims. However, this genius of a man is being proven time and time again that his "theories" are correct. His "theories" are facts. (There is a lot in his theories, but so far he has been right about A LOT).

Here is where people can become confused however:

Many people get caught up with some of the irregularities in science. It can become confusing - the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law.

For example, Einstein's theories proved Newton's laws wrong. Huh? Wah?

3.) Evolution - is considered a "theory," but what a horrible term. There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. Many believe that because evolution is considered a "theory" that is hasn't been proven, this is to a large extent, not true.

I am saying this because GSXRBots asked the question. Blah blah blah :laugh: why are monkeys still around.

First - we did not come from monkeys. Second, just because one species evolves and adapts, doesn't mean that it's ancestor is required to die off.... Does that make sense..??

For example:

The Founder Effect:

In population genetics, the founder effect is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. It was first fully outlined by Ernst Mayr in 1952,[1] using existing theoretical work by those such as Sewall Wright.[2] As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genetically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species.

- Stolen from Wiki. I'm lazy :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

And, do you know? Einstein belived in God :laugh: yes...he did.
 
I understand bro. I dislike that it's alright to believe in anything, but if you worship God it's some type of crime. Another thing that bugs me... In movies, how the person that believes in God is always the radical nutcase. That's not the case in real life.

But I've learned to live with life's double standards. Heck, I'm the most hated type of person in the world. I'm a middle aged white male that believes in God and lives in America. :rofl: :laugh:
 
S4L said:
1.) Merry xmas ;) to you too sixpack

2.) Gonzo I think you are misinterpreting something here.

The definition of faith:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.


I think you are assuming that definition 1 is the same as definition 2. You will find plenty of the first definition in science, but what separates it from definition two, is that if you are so inclined, you can prove anything in science (that is held as fact). You can prove it by repeating the expirement that someone else has, or you can create your own expirement. Now granted, science doesn't have all the answers, nor does it claim to. There are also hypotheses, that are not supported with facts, but that is another matter.

Some examples:
Click to expand...

I said I wasn't going to reply anymore but WTH I already hit the button :)

No misinterpretation at all, you are still bringing the exact argument that Goatkart brought up as well ...

Everything in science depends on the fathers of science getting it right. My argument is this, who says they were right?? Modern scientist are putting their faith into their founding fathers of science to have gotten it right.

I can make a 'complex' mathematical equation have the same result every time but it doesn't mean its right. Believe me I have, and almost had the teacher convinced she was wrong when she tried to correct me, because of the so many paths one could take to find the "answer". Which leads me to the bread and butter or my argument with this quote from you.

S4L said:
Many people get caught up with some of the irregularities in science. It can become confusing - the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law.
Click to expand...

The only irregularities of science are the ones who created it, MAN. Man observed, documented and derived "answers" from watching nature, well what if one interpretation that started it all was wrong? But because at the time he seemed like a genius no one thought to challenge the answer.

Man is not a all knowing being and on a daily basis can be found at fault for being WRONG.Now plug that x factor into the history of science and just think about something for a second.

What if someone who said this was the way to do it right, was actually wrong?!

What if all the hypotheses, theories and laws that were based off this one wrong event in the history of science, are all wrong now?

I'm not saying science is wrong, but I'm also not saying its all correct. I'm simply stating there are faults in both systems scientific and religious. So for one party to say the other is wrong, when they can't even be 100% on their philosophy or method is hypocritical.

Ok, I'm really not going to respond anymore, mainly because your lazy and C&P'd WiKi lol haha.

S4L said:
Anyone can prove that the earth is round, it can be done with a relatively simple and ingenious expirement. Irregardless that we have pictures from space or have circumnavigated the globe. At the same time, the fact that we have launched satellites into space, and kept them there, has proven an innumerable amount of theories.
Click to expand...

That and this statement of the earth being round was not even researched before stating it. :) Clicky Clicky On Me!
 
Grrr I just spent 45 minutes typing out a rediculously long response to you gonzo and i lost it. I'd love to have a conversational chat. Da.. it i can't believe that. ohh well......
 
Albert Einstein:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment - an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections.
- Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp

It is possible that Einstein believed in a God, but he did not believe in a personal God, that much seems clear. It appears he most closely fits with Deism, which I don't think is that much different from Atheism. He believed God is in the details, I see those details, but don't believe God is in them.

However, many people like to quote him on saying "My God does not play with dice." This is actually a fairly peculiar quote, because it stems from his troubles with quantum mechanics. The smallest particles, such as electrons, cannot be precisely located at any given time. In order to locate an electron, we have to resort to probability - Einstein didn't like this.


I just seen that you posted Gonzo. I don't think that you understand, or I am debating with someone that doesn't have an open mind. The great minds in science are generally the most scrutinized. Do you believe Einstein was invited with open arms into the ranks of the greats like Newton? There hypothesis are, at times, picked over with a fine-toothed comb and attacked from every angle imaginable. They stand the test of time. Your argument should be that humans are unable to accurately observe or measure the laws of the universe.

Nothing in science depends on the "founding fathers getting it right." This was true with the catholic church and Aristotle. This is NOT how science works.

I am sorry to say, but your conjecture makes no sense whatsoever. There is a piece to this puzzle that you are flat out ignoring, or you do not understand. Would you care to provide an example so that maybe I can better understand?

Your example with the math is easy - test it, then you will know if your answer is right. Unless, again, you believe that humans are incapable of making accurate observations, or accurate measurements.

BTW that "bread and butter" quote was not aimed at you. I was referring to GSXRBots and his question about evolution. The irregularity in science is simply with the nomenclature. It is confusing to the lay-person what is described as laws, theories, and hypotheses. The underyling principles held within are sound.

You keep talking about scientists taking previous theories for granted. Einstien's theories were published in the early 1900's and there are still scientists creating expirements to test his theories. Expirements are created to either prove, or disprove these theories. Expirements are not necessarily BASED on theories, often times, they are to TEST these theories. As technology advances, many of these previous theories that we hold as fact are retested to see if they still hold true.

You said you liked a debate, but now you don't want to debate anymore. Did I miss something ???
 
Fair enough on Einstein's belife not being in a personal God. However, Newton belived in Jesus Christ. :poke::he really did. I'm a slow typer and don't want to debate the topic, we have different belifes...I just wanted to stir the pot:laugh:
 
sixpack577 said:
Fair enough on Einstein's belife not being in a personal God. However, Newton belived in Jesus Christ. :poke::he really did. I'm a slow typer and don't want to debate the topic, we have different belifes...I just wanted to stir the pot:laugh:
Click to expand...

Stirring the pot was all i intended to do, as i told Goatkart earlier S4L please don't take any of this as a personal attack. Its just me getting a different mode of thinking out there ... these are MY opinions and nothing more.

I actually said a few posts ago i was going to stop posting in here mainly because no one or nothing will change my mind and i would hope your the same way, because again these are merely opinions!
 
sixpack577 said:
Fair enough on Einstein's belife not being in a personal God. However, Newton belived in Jesus Christ. :poke::he really did. I'm a slow typer and don't want to debate the topic, we have different belifes...I just wanted to stir the pot:laugh:
Click to expand...

:lol: Concurred sir :beerchug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blanca BusaLess
Do you know.......?
Replies
13
Views
790
Blanca BusaLess
Blanca BusaLess
gurrera
NOW YOU KNOW WHY!!!
Replies
1
Views
356
Bumblebee
Bumblebee
BUTTER2BOY
Do you guys know  ??
Replies
1
Views
477
BUTTER2BOY
BUTTER2BOY
B
Ikonboard - captain do you know it?
2
Replies
20
Views
1,589
mjn
mjn
Bumblebee
2024 Olympics
Replies
8
Views
456
Red05
Red05
Back
Top