/sci/ - Science & Math

bupm

/sci/...?

It has been the Big Bang for a long time (even before WWII if I remember correctly). Since the idea was established we've been able to "see" closer and closer to the zero point where it happened. First seconds are something that I think scientists are working mostly but after that it's pretty much solved or at least we have a very good idea on how the universe formed after the first seconds. So in many ways modern science has taken us even further into the Big Bang.

In short: Your question is kind of silly, it's like is evolution still around or is there something else that came up? These ideas are profoundly solid and will probably stick around till the end of human kind. We'll probably adjust our theories but I think probably never entirely replace these "grand ideas".

>>4250037
Okay , I was speaking with some Creationist and he informed me that there was a new standard for how the Universe came to be, so I was mind boggled. Thank you!

The big bang is just a theory

>>4250043
>speaking with some Creationist

Well there's your problem. They are probably the least informed group of people living in modern society.

>>4250049
I agree with you, but I live in the Bible Belt so it's not really an option.

>>4250037

If light from the first moments of the big bang is only still getting to us, then how in the mother of fuck did matter travel faster than light?

>>4250026
The big bang.
The only info that could counter the big bang would come from out exploration of deep space.

So, until we explore deep space the big bang is word!

>>4250051
I live in the deep south and I am manage to stay away from those fucking retards. Don't talk or associate with creationists, it makes you look stupid by proxy.

It took more than 20 years for the hypothesis of the Big Bang to knock down all other parallel ideas about the universe. For a long time, there was no sort of clear notion in people's mind on how the universe worked on a big level, what I mean is that they didn't even know if it was somewhat static or moving arbitrarly, or if it had a beggining and a direction. We knew about the formation of Earth more or less like we know today before even knowing about the origin of the stars and galaxies. It was only when we were able to look at the movement of the galaxies with more precision and observe deep space with better telescopes that we were able to bring this notion up. Things are coming from somewhere. The farther you look, the older is the light coming through your lenses and you are able to perceive that there is a very solid idea of how these things were and are right now.

The big bang did not occur, it is happening right now and we are part of it just now. Since we confirmed the theory with extraordinary evidence, people began to search for what really happened back then, how was the universe at the moment of its birth. We have a preety clear idea now and it is explained in your picture, though I wouldn't advise you to trust magazine infographs at all. It is not an explosion, I think it's easy to see how it isn't.

Pic is Earth from the Moon

cont.

>>4250094

Anyway, it is a very solid theory, all the evidence matches, all of astronomy was changed by it and you can be sure that's what happends.

I think the biggest problem in creationists and other groups that deny science is that they don't understand what science really is. With little knowledge and information on the subject, all these theories seems to be just wild hypothesis that got a consensus among dumb scientists. And thinking like that validates an argument that we shouldn't be having (whether creationist ideas are more or less likely to be true). Coming up with something as in "oh, I know! I know what happened to the universe! Listen guys, what if..." is not really how science works. There is no mystic knowledge that only a special group of people is able to handle, there is no occultism. Anyone can study and understand it, not by accepting it, but by doubting it. If one is honest to self and doubts the big bang, it will only take a closer look and a good read to validate with enormous certainty. A theory is not a hunch, it needs to be well supported with evidence to be called a theory.

Pic is Earth again, but way farther...

>>4250049
>they stupid, we smart.

I disagree.
There are 4 options:

1) You understand a theory and you accept it.

2) You don't understand a theory and you accept it.

3) You understand a theory and you reject it.

4) You don't understand a theory and you reject it.
If someone rejects a theory, this doesn't automatically mean they don't understand the theory (4).

I think that scientific people that have difficulties accepting big bang/evolution do understand the theory and its complications and in their postion and understanding they reject the theory. But this doesn't mean:
They stupid, we smart.

Especially these 2 theories have a lot to explain to adequately convince people of their validity. In my opinion the theory hasn't done that properly, so it is perfectly acceptable to have a different view on these subjects.

>>4250334
>But this doesn't mean: They stupid, we smart.
But this definitively mean They intellectually dishonest, we not.

Big Bang Theory: First there was a singularity, then there was everything.
Genesis: First there was a singularity, then there was everything.

>>4250355


If they are not convinced by the (lack) of evidence, or that certain evidence contradicts with another, then how is that intellectually dishonest?

>>4250334
>they are stupid, we smart
He actually said:
>least informed group
Which would fall into the last two items you mentioned. Not informed, they don't understand.

Both theories have a consensus within the scientific community. That doesn't mean a scientist can't deny them, as long as he has a better hypothesis which matches with all the evidences gathered so far. Also, not understanding or accepting is different than taking on something else as true, specially something which is not a theory at all (creationism).

If one has all the data and a clear head, it is hard to not to see how these theories match with reality. And even so, they are not static or dogmatic, Lamarck also had the idea of evolution, but he was wrong in a lot of ways. Even now we are discussing the details of the Big Bang. To deny it would be extraordinary and that requires extraordinary evidence and a good deal of explanation to do.

>>4250377
>Both theories
I mean Big Bang and evolution, not creationism.

self fix'd

>>4250367
Yes, except no.

Big bang happened by itself, so no Creator involved.
It took billions of years as the whole age of the universe till now.
There is no purpose to it, the universe happens to be here and we are the result of a far away event.


Genesis explains that the creation (universe) was created by a Creator (God)
Also it took 6 days and not billions of years.
No chance or luck was involved in the creation, but God's design and purpose.

>>4250377
Not all who disagree with big bang/evolution are less informed.
That was my whole point.
You can be very informed and yet disagree with the theory, but agree with the facts and evidences.

Nobody disagrees with facts and evidences, but the interpretation of those evidences in the form of theories and hypotheses can be disagreed upon if they contradict with reality.

By this is what I mean that the evidence doesn't match the theory/hypothesis.

It's funny how people say BB or Evolution don't have enough evidence or there's evidence against them, but they never provide any information to back up their claims. If you demand evidence, they go all butt-hurt and blame scientists for being close-minded etc.

>>4250429

There is a lot of evidence that is contrary to evolution.
A good starting point is the book:

Jonathan Wells - Icons of Evolution

>>4250393
It's not about having or not having purpose. We shouldn't answer questions that don't make sense. Questions that involve meaning, purpose, "why"s are only relative to subjective values.

What is the purpose of having a dog? They are expensive, they are dirty, "objectively" they are a bad thing. "But I like the company of a puppy, dad". That is already a significant and sufficient answer for this. Subjective, but valid and powerful.

"What is the purpose of the universe?" "What is the meaning of life?" "Why are we here?" are meaningless questions. It doesn't mean the universe is meaningless, but that, in a sense a meaning is not something that computes with it. Religion imposes a mysterious meaning that engulfs everything, making it objective. However, the why question still doesn't work objectively, so there is the figure of God as a subject, as an entity with an answer. There is a reason why and that reason only God understands and it's not up to us to understand. It's quite a good trick in thought, but it's not real.

cont

>>4250475 cont.

At the same time, when you say the universe is meaningless, it kind of startles religious people who obviously don't want to live in a meaningless universe. It only inflames the discussion and does not open doors into scientific inquiry. Both sides of this issue should understand that science explains how it happends, it shows what is happening, it translate phenomenons into things we can grasp and understand (mathematics, verbal language, visual models, concepts, ideas). It never deals with purpose or meaning.

When you say there is no purpose to the universe you are ignoring the presence of a point of view, the logical instrument that we use to observe the universe. Meaning is something that only the subject in question can deal with. It can't come from a dogma, from God and it can't just not exist. This is a whole different question that has little to do with how things came to be.

>>4250425

No, really... They are less informed. If a phd biologist has something to say on it, I'll listen. The interpretation of the evidence is what differs Lamarck from Darwin from Neo-darwinists and all of them are evolutionists. It's what makes the difference between relativity and quantum physics, though they all understand the big bang is a real thing. I'm not saying this to mock creationists or to feel superior to them, nor am I saying this to close my mind to different theories. It just happends to be something that has so much extraordinary evidence, in geology, in taxonomy, archeology, and wow, when they discovered the DNA all possible doubts were completely obliterated. You can see it happening in laboratory, you can see it happening on your yard. Agriculture wouldn't be the same without it. Being knowledgeable about it is not just reading popular scientific magazines or links on wikipedia, but reading books in depth, studying it, seeing for yourself, checking for yourself. Scientific books are not dogmatic or even enigmatic, they are straight forward and up to test. The biggest claims like Big Bang and evolution were the ones that were doubted the most in the past and many, many have tried to prove them wrong, but the number of those people gradually shorten, not because they were oppressed, but because they more they discovered (themselves) about it, the more they were inclined to accept these theories as real.

An hypothesis is an idea, is a "what if" thing. A theory is supported by evidence, is not "just a theory".

>>4250472
From wikipedia:

"Icons of Evolution is a book by the intelligent design advocate and fellow of the Discovery Institute, Jonathan Wells, which also includes a 2002 video companion. In the book, Wells criticized the paradigm of evolution by attacking how it is taught.[1] In 2000, Wells summarized the book's contents in an article in the American Spectator.[2]
Several of the scientists whose work is sourced in the book have written rebuttals to Wells, stating that they were quoted out of context, that their work has been misrepresented, or that it does not imply Wells' conclusions.[3][4]
Many in the scientific community have strongly criticised the book and it has been widely regarded as pseudoscientific[5]. It was criticised for its claims that schoolchildren are deliberately misled, and its conclusions as to the evidential status of the theory of evolution, which is considered by biologists to be the central unifying paradigm of biology.[6] Kevin Padian and Alan D. Gishlick wrote a review in Quarterly Review of Biology which said: "In our view, regardless of Wells’s religious or philosophical background, his Icons of Evolution can scarcely be considered a work of scholarly integrity."[7] Gishlick wrote a more detailed critique for the National Center for Science Education in his article "Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong."[8] Nick Matzke reviewed Wells' work in the talk.origins article Icon of Obfuscation,[9] and Wells responded with A Response to Published Reviews (2002).[10]"

Seems legit.

>>4250429
This. If you don't have an alternative hypothesis, then you have no need to reject the current one.

>>4250472
As it was pointed, that book is full of shit. Anything else?

>>4250429
No, you get butthurt, when we give you counterevidence.
How did dirt evolve into life?
When you see a boat in a dessert, do you think it evolved from sand or that it was created? Humans are machines even more complex than anything a human can design.
Can you really look in the mirror and say that you're an ape, that you evolved from dirt and that your ancestors ate through their anus and pooped through their mouth? No shit, I actually heard an evolutionist tel me that.

>>4250545
Ok, end of thread right there.

>>4250475
They are meaningless questions on the precondition that the universe is created spontaneously, without a creator, but by natural laws and events.
The question becomes meaningful when it is understood that there (might) be a Creator and that he might have a purpose for his creation.
Also, in this context I want to make clear that the word 'meaningless' should not be interpreted as a negative thing, but as 'without a certain meaning or purpose'. So meaningless is neutral, not negative.
Where I agree upon is that religion makes it mystical and unreachable for man to come to a basic understanding. That's why I see religion as a burocratic institution rather than God's intention.

It's not true that you think that we are not allowed to know the purpose or meaning of God's creation. That is not correct. We are free to explore and understand the universe (creation) and discover all that is there to discover.

The reason why we feel uncomfortable with a Creator is because we don't like the fact that a Creator (God) is able to judge his creation (man).

Just like kids who don't like to be judged/punished by their parents. So what do they do? They start to rebel, go against the authority. This might be parents in the case of kids, or rebel against God in the case of man.
We feel much comfortabler with explanations that doesn't involve a Creator/God, because then we don't have to explain our actions or behaviour towards a God. Everything becomes relative, no absolutes, no judgment, no wrong or right, no God. This allows us to make ourselves the center of creation, instead of making the Creator the center.

>>4250563

continued:
When the kids dissobey the parents, they start to think of themselves as the source of power and authority. This is the attitude we have accepted for ourselves now. That we first reject God, and with it his judgment over his creation. And secondly, we make ourselves as the authority and center of life. We slowly become gods of our own universe, instead of the Creator.

>>4250482
Instead of reading the book yourself and form your own opinion about it, you rather find a summary from wiki and accept those one sentence statements as your viewpoint?

I bet you can do that with every book I would mention here, you go wiki it and throw it in this thread.

If I want to buy a book on amazon, there are reviews in favor of it, and there are reviews against it. But that doesn't prevent me to go buy the book and come to my own conclusions.

Your quote from wiki is biased and only shows one side of the spectrum of thinking.
I naturally expect for evolutionary biologists to dismiss these books and give bad reviews hoping their phd and expertise in the area will be sufficient for people to follow their thinking and not reading/listening to the opposite side of view.

>>4250566
The logical path for man is to become god.

That is, if he is not already god. Humans are the only animals capable of thinking, feeling, creating, building, speech and science. Lots of animals can have those traits, but all together? I think not.

>>4250545
That's not counterevidence, dipshit. You're pointing out coincidences which have no implications outside of your argument.
>>4250566
>>4250563
What's wrong with us being the center of our ideological
universe? If god doesn't like it, he shouldn't have given us the option.
>>4250588
I've read a few ID books before, and their only arguments are based on
-watchmaker theory (bullshit, nonscientific appeal)
-irreducible complexity (also bullshit)
-complaints that science doesn't have 100% all the answers (which, btw, if the POINT of science - if we had all the answers, we wouldn't be trying to find them)
I expect that this ID book is the same as the others.

>>4250026
tl;dr there are these massive things called "branes" that are all aligned and wave around like curtains, whenever 2 of them collide it creates a "big bang" that creates a new universe between them. Ours is probably just one of an incomprehensibly large amount.

>>4250545

You don't give us counterevidence, you give us a book that we have to buy to get it's contents. Thus giving our money to someone who is actively supporting the ID movement.

Now give us some real counterevidence, or a link to a scan of said book.

Otherwise you can fuck right off.

>>4250604
>>4250610

You'll probably hate me for it, but I'm going to quote the Bible on this one:

Genesis 3:5
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

If you don't believe in the bible, then let us see this verse metaphorically.
Satan promised Eve that she can be as God. Unfortunalety, that promise was a deception, Eve didn't become God after eating from the tree, but instead commited sin (by going against God - neglecting His warning).

The idea that man can be as god now or in the future, is not something new. We are very technologically advanced, but still that old age deceiving promise is still in our memory (you will be like God).

I don't think we are god or will ever be like God. That is a promise satan made to eve, so she might break God's law. And she did.

>>4250563
>>4250566
By meaningless I meant "does not compute". It's like asking "how does it feel to be an atom?" or "is your dog rational or empirical?".

I'm sure you have good intentions, but you have no idea how gnostic you sound about the existence of a God.

The precondition should not be there to begin with. No precondition, no assumptions. No possibility of a God and no possibility of no God, just plain "how"s and "what"s, data, facts, observable things. Leave the meaning questions for later, let's just see and read and forget about ideology or religion or cosmological point of views.

I said "leave the meaning for later" because it is an extremely bad habit to jump to conclusions, to put the hypothesis in front of the evidence, to look at the universe trying to match what you see to a prior notion. Instead, one should look at it naked and then, just when you have a good amount of the pieces of the puzzle in hand that you try to see what it says. And then, once you know more or less what is saying, you can interpret it with your own eyes and at the end of the process, find a meaning to it.

That meaning, as I said, will be subjective. It can't be a meaning for everything in an objective way, because that would be like seeing the universe from the outside, which is something no one can do. God, mythologically speaking is a projection of that objectivity, we put our hopes in that there is someone or something or whatever you call it... outside, outside of time, bigger than everything, all knowing, all powerful and that he certainly has a meaning, a sufficient answer for the "why" questions and that ease our moods.

cont.

>>4250671 cont.
No REAL atheist is denying God, that would be anti-scientific of their part because the premise that God exists has no back up for it at all, so it can't be denied. You and I don't deny Santa Claus, but for a kid we might be doing it so if we tell them there is no Santa. I'm not saying this to mock theists, but because the example suits here well, it puts things in perspective. If you strip yourself from the preconceived notions, from all sides, and then gradually learn about the universe by observation and reading, avoiding that part of our head that "cheers" for one side of the story and "cheers" for the other side to fail, things become a little more clear.

There is no uncomfortable relationship with any god, because that's in fact a very comfortable thing. In fact, that is the point of religion to be in the first place, there is a human tendency to believe in God, a strong one, a human one. It's a search for meaning, an instinct. When we grow up, we fight our parents in a few things and we have to stand up with independency and religion becomes a solace, it takes the responsibility of our lives out of our hands and into a mystic thing that has all figured out.

cont

>>4250672
I won't get to the theological argument. One thing is to defend religion, creationism, and outright myths that, as you said, are part of burocratic institutions, debates over power, reflections of our times. Another thing is to defend a theist point of view from a philosophical stance, but in order for that to be taken seriously, you have to match that personal argument with certain facts, the same ones that prove the Big Bang and evolution to be real. To discuss what God wants or does not want is to assume God exists, and assumptions are here just a plain wrong way to go, specially without any evidence to support the hypothesis. And specially when we have evidence that clashes with preconceived notions of God (the religious ones).

I hope you don't get my pictures as a sign of mockery. I understand where you are coming from, but there is much more to it that you are ignoring when you put the possibility of God on the same boat of the possibility of no God, when you put creationism as a valid stance over evolution, or when you judge atheism with such a shallow analogy of "dissobeying parents", which is hollow in itself for putting the conclusion in front of the hypothesis. The conclusion being why atheists "dissobey their parents", the hypothesis is that there is a parent to begin with and that hypothesis has no evidence to support it. Do you understand what I mean?

Not either of the two people going back and forth, but I'm just wondering - Is there any objective evidence for the existance of Jesus? for example, non-religious texts referencing him? I know most historians both religious and non-religious say he probably did exist and what's in question is his divinity, but is that based only on religious accounts?

>>4250641

Ok, here is a download link to the book.

Jonathan Wells - Icons of Evolution:

http://www.2shared.com/document/sroPUrsB/Jonathan_Wells_-_Icons_of_Evol.html
Another book I recommend:

The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Darwin-Evidence-Examined/dp/0966816013

>>4250648
I don't want to be a god. I don't want to lay down moral laws or be worshiped. I don't want chaste devout followers or burnt offerings of cattle thighs. I just want to know what the fuck is up with universe. I know enough about the Bible to know that god never said "don't learn about the universe". If god wants me, he can come and get me, and the first thing he should do to convince me is explain how a person cannot be saved by acts while the decision to believe in and follow jesus christ is per se an act.

>>4250044
basically everything we know about physic and so is just a theory

>>4250588
The book is hated by many scientists. Don't assume scientists are whiny enough to deny the book just because it goes against their ideas. That would be anti-scientific.

The difference in science is that there is no such a thing in its core, things fall if they don't fit. You can seek for the results yourself, it was never, ever about believing in books, about believing in Darwin or that Jonathan Wells or Dawkins or any other guy. It is about putting the knowledge into action and seeing how it goes. That book has such a bad reputation, you can't blame someone for not taking it too seriously.
>>4250610
>What's wrong with us being the center of our ideological
universe? If god doesn't like it, he shouldn't have given us the option.
There is nothing wrong to it. I'm just saying we should aknowledge that very fact. I don't believe there is a God.

>>4250648
What is the use of seeing a verse metaphorically if it's not real? Can I quote Goethe or Shakespeare or 1001 nights about the universe too? What makes the Bible special if you know (and you have said so yourself) you are aware of the institution of religion?

You see how it misses the point here?

>>4250693
>What is the use of seeing a verse metaphorically if it's not real? Can I quote Goethe or Shakespeare or 1001 nights about the universe too? What makes the Bible special if you know (and you have said so yourself) you are aware of the institution of religion?

Not that guy, but the Bible was written to be a metaphoric account of the history of the world for ancient peoples, since they didn't have the capacity to comprehend things on the scale we do today. The Bible has nothing to do with the universe, only with Earth.

Also just throwing this out there: Who knows, maybe other solar systems and planets have their own "gods."

>>4250682
in total, 100 billion people have ever lived on the earth (search it on google).

Only a 'handful' are objectively documented (George Washington, Newton, Alexander etc). Does that mean that the rest of the 100 billion are myths or didn't exist? No, of course not.
You and I will probably never be objectively documented over a 1000 years, but we still exist now.

>>4250051
>>4250049
>>4250043

Thread's TL;DR, so if I'm rehashing shit, oh well:

As a general rule, the creationist strategy against science is to claim that science changes its mind too often to be relied on. Which is, of course, ironic (hypocritical? whichever the word) considering how frequently any religious-backed "theories" (using the term loosely, of course) have to be entirely dismantled and re-cobbled together every few years in their attempts to maintain relevance.

>>4250701
I quoted those because they also have their own way to deal with the universe. 1001 Nights even has several.

The universe here means the cosmos, not really the stars and planets, but could be Earth or "existence".

Point is, none of them serve as a base for anything other than to understand their own creators, that is, how the arabian mythology was formed, how Shakespeare saw things, and the bible to how this western christian people thought throughout history.

well This thread didn't disappoint did it fell into a shitstorm of pseudoscience and ID trolling.

>>4250055
You think perhaps it was still emitting light several billion years after the event?

>>4250429

This, exactly.

>>4250693
First of all, I never said the bible or God is religion, I said religion per se is a burocratic institution.

>What is the use of seeing a verse metaphorically if >it's not real?
I didn't say it was not real, I said let us (for the sake of argument) read it metaphorically, for those in this thread that haven't read it before. I for instance don't read it metaphorically, but as an account of the creation (genenis).

What evolutionists use as argument is:
If evolution didn't happen, then show us a better theory, under the following precondition:
Don't mention

1) creation (expaining universe).
2) God (the Creator)
3) flood (which would explain the fossils and canyons).
4) etc..

Unfortunately for them, their preconditions are destructive for a different account. They insist a natural, slow, uniform development of life and structures in the world.

They detest any proposition that claims otherwise, because this can upset the current theory.

>>4250741
>flood geology

I'm all for ID, but please don't start with that bullshit.

>>4250749
because?

>>4250741
>thinks "magic" should be included as a valid scientific theory

LMFAO. You are the reason people hate christians.

>>4250741
/sci/ always delivers the laughs

>>4250753
Because unlike the existance of a supreme being, etc it can be scientifically and objectively proven false.

>>4250741
I use the fundamentals of evolution and molecular genetics in the lab every single day. I don't know what you ate for lunch today, but likely it was something manipulated with these principles. It's like saying electricity doesn't exist, and using a computer to say it.

Philosophically, do I think I know the truth? No, that's not science. But I do know what's likely, and I know it's likely to be the way our theory predicts because I have carried out literally billions of reactions that supported it.

>>4250763
can you give me some sources/links as how it has been proven false?

>>4250769
how do i get a job making frankenfood?

>>4250741
>the bible or God is religion, I said religion per se
The bible is part of religion, not the word of God. It was written by people and for people and this is something well known even by religious people. It has been edited several times, translated, it was written under the excuse of divine transcription, and things like that.

Reading the bible metaphorically is like reading any other things metaphorically. Red Hiding Hood is a tale about growing up and it is metaphorically real, but it certainly didn't happen.

>Don't mention: creation, god, flood, etc
The thing is, these are not better arguments, they are not even close to scientific arguments. Not because they go against evolution or because they represent a particular ideology, but because of two things: first: they are dogmatic, biased, falling under mystic explanations, second: they don't explain things correctly.

The flood, Adam and Eve and any of this does not match the facts. The floods does not explain fossils and canyons. I'll say it again: science is not a hunch. It's not just saying "a few years ago there was a flood that killed everything that created fossils". You have dates for the fossils and canyons and they were disputed by thousands, I repeat, thousands of scientists, with different methods, with different approaches, some religious, some not and in the end we begin seeing a pattern, a consensus is formed, things match without problem and entire fields agree on this. Not because they like to agree, believe me, there has been some gigantic fights in science, but no field of science remained out of sheer petty denial for the facts.

>They insist a natural, slow, uniform development of life and structures in the world.
You see, lack of understanding. Evolution is not uniform at all. At all.

>>4250741
Number 1 and 2 are unverifiable (as of now).

Number 3 has conclusively been proven to be absolute bullshit, and you know it.

>>4250775
Go to school, work a lab (volunteer f you have to), finish school, apply.

>>4250741
>no proof of magic whatsofucking ever
>proof of science literally fucking everywhere
>choose to believe in magic

ISHYGDDT

>>4250777
Please don't respond to people who believe in magic. They are trolls or fucking retards. Don't give them the time of day.

>>4250783
I really think working on a lab is of extreme importance, or else we get these guys...

I remember in highschool we had a day of the week with a biology, physics and chemistry classes on the lab. It was so fucking wonderful. I don't really blame religious nuts to doubt science, because a teacher in front of a class can be seen just like a preacher in front of the people. But I learned more in the lab than anywhere else, it is there that I was able to understand light, cells, chemical reactions, all sorts of things. And all of that in fucking highschool, with simple equipment and simple observation. I don't think most people know how easy it is to gather data...

>>4250799
It's an elaborate troll or someone who would really PROFIT from rechecking their ideas, I choose to think it's the second and give out my advice. What can I say, I'm a believer.

Also, I've got a 777 God get, which proves me right, automatically.

>>4250769

To say I completely disagree of the evolution theory is not correct. Evolution theory is not a formula, but rather multiple formulas woven together to make a nice web to cover the subject.

There are parts of the theory that work and are seen in action (natural selection, variation in species etc) but there are also different parts of evolution that don't hold together. I am not against natural selection, which is discussed in evolution theory, but other points.
The common ancestor is another point of the evolution theory, thus the tree of life.
These are unfortunately a big issue where people have different views on, because of the (lack) evidence.

As far as molecular genetics is concerned, it might use or prove certain aspects of the evolution theory, such as selection, variation, heredicy etc.
But it can't make any valid statements about any common ancestry etc. It might show similarities between different 'species', but that cannot be any evidence for common ancestor.

>>4250833
>To say I completely disagree of the evolution theory is not correct. Evolution theory is not a formula, but rather multiple formulas woven together to make a nice web to cover the subject.

See, I'm sure that's what they said at youth group, but it's one of those things that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. They do this a lot at church. You don't know what those words mean. Learn them.

>The common ancestor is another point of the evolution theory, thus the tree of life. These are unfortunately a big issue where people have different views on, because of the (lack) evidence.

There is no lack of evidence. We can use algorithms to map out SNPs and determine relatedness to the degree of strains! There is no question here. Because...

>As far as molecular genetics is concerned, it might use or prove certain aspects of the evolution theory, such as selection, variation, heredicy etc. But it can't make any valid statements about any common ancestry etc. It might show similarities between different 'species', but that cannot be any evidence for common ancestor.

...is complete bull shit. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, and it's a shame. The degree of certainty we have about this thing from experiment is extreme, and in my opinion, fascinating. You miss out on all the subtle elegance of how this system works by refusing to acknowledge it even exists. We know the details of regulation/replication/mechanical action/etc much better than you think we do. To suggest this can tell us that we do understand one cycle of replication but to look further even a single generation is impossible, is complete absurdity. Again, I can't really refute what you're saying, because you aren't saying anything. You don't know what those words mean. Do your mind a favor and learn what we're talking about, so we can have a conversation.

>>4250881

>>4250833
>As far as molecular genetics is concerned, it might use or prove certain aspects of the evolution theory, such as selection, variation, heredicy etc.
But it can't make any valid statements about any common ancestry etc. It might show similarities between different 'species', but that cannot be any evidence for common ancestor.

In other words, you think that DNA based tests shouldn't be accepted as evidence of paternity/crimes?

>>4250475
> What is the purpose of having a dog? They are expensive, they are dirty, "objectively" they are a bad thing. "But I like the company of a puppy, dad".
It's funny you mention this. I often find myself judging people on the basis of this decision... I don't want pets or children for exactly the reasons you give, and I consider myself more rational than 99.999% of the population for being able to make that (seemingly obvious) decision.

>>4250922
There is no purpose in having a dog. Cats FTW

As far as children, perpetuation of your genepool and there is a lot to be learned about life from raising a child.

>>4250922

People with pets are happier and live longer. If you don't like dogs, don't get one.

>>4250922
Nothing wrong with that, bro, as long as it is a personal thing. You don't see a reason for a dog, so you don't have one.

Point is, those who want one are not wrong and it's not like they don't see what you see, but they can see a meaning that you don't see in a dog. It's not the decision that is obvious, but your reasons are. Decisions not only pass from analyzing facts and data, but from personal values and ideology.

>>4250811

Hats off to your optimism. Seriously, I have a lot of respect for what you're doing right now.

>>4250881
>See, I'm sure that's what they said at youth group, but it's one of those things that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. They do this a lot at church. You don't know what those words mean. Learn them.

Probably you didn't like the word formula in this context and pressumed I used it in a mathematical sense of the word, which I didn't.

> There is no lack of evidence. We can use algorithms to map out SNPs and determine relatedness to the degree of strains! There is no question here. Because...

They are probably related when you are dealing within a certain 'specie' (dogs-wolves). But when the huge jump is taken to relate different kind of species (dogs-cats) then that is a different matter where we disagree on.

>You don't have any idea...

I do agree that there is a subtle elegance in the design of dna. And I don't deny that we know a lot about the processes which take place. The fact is that similarity between species, even at dna level, is not a proof for a common ancestor. It shows only a good design for the animal to survive in his environment.
I have put it simplistic, but the point remains that similarities are no proof of a common ancestor. Some argue, me included that it can be of a common designer. But this doesn't mean that there is no room for natural selection etc, a fact which I accept and see around me.

>>4250932

Nice dubs.

I'm fortunate enough to have 2 kids and 2 cats, be assured that both have taught me valuable lessons on an almost daily basis.

>>4250948
>They are probably related when you are dealing within a certain 'specie' (dogs-wolves). But when the huge jump is taken to relate different kind of species (dogs-cats) then that is a different matter where we disagree on.

I have to go back to work in my lab that doesn't understand the magic life God bestowed unto us to work on, but I'll leave you with a pro-tip: There are no dogs, cats, cat-dogs, frogs, or trees. These are human words with human meanings. There is no such thing as a species (barring our traditional interpretation) in reality. All are but DNA molecules, ensuring their survival using the means in the environment they find themselves in. These have gone through billions of years worth of competition, with other similar molecules, the progeny of one single molecule arranged in such a way that it replicated itself into another with precursory molecules found in it's substrate. There is no tree of life, only a continuum of replication.

>>4250948
The point is, those things you are talking about that "we know" is not really what we know, it's just what we say we know, they are not the actual things. Science is not guessing or assuming. Our knowledge on biology is not based on "hey, here is a bone, perhaps it's from an ancient animal that doesn't exist" "yeah, you are right, evolution is real". That's not how it happends.

Read a Brief History of Evolution by Dawkins. It's extremely entry level, it's made to give an idea of what people are talking about when talking about evolution. And that idea will too be shallow.

But no worries. It's not a sacred book, you are meant to doubt it. So you read more, find other recommendations, go to other books and read on scientific reports on first hand. Getting better now, it will make more sense. But still, it might be a big conspiracy of liars and charlatans.

Go to a laboratory, do experiments. Record. Now you're getting it... If even so, there is something to be refuted, I'm sure you'll have enough evidence to support your claims. Most books that go against evolution stopped too early on this process to make their claims and that is what most scientists criticize about them. Meanwhile, people all around the globe, from multiple universities, biologists travelling around the world, geologists analyzing rocks to the tiniest chemical details, geneticists in labs, teachers, archeologists in fields, everything with all the documentation anyone need to cross and clash and yet they got to a similar almost identical notion of how things came to be. When you go to the end and you present the world a new idea and it matches all that evidence, it will be taken seriously.

I think the easiest way to put it is,

name evidence against evolution, (outside of lack of evidence, as there is abundant evidence for evolution)

if you dont accept evolution you are uninformed, or you have been misinformed about some other theory to t ake its place, like ID

>>4250955
Creationists dont understand that labels are what we use to categorize things to be simpler to understand,
Good examples include hybridization in which sterile offspring are created, the two animals in question are far enough apart they are genetically different but have a close enough ancestry to reproduce.
Or ring species which can all breed with immediately close species but cannot breed with something 2 species in either direction (though it's not limited to what I specified.)
13.69.. billion years and finally an aspect of GOD HIMSELF decided to show up on earth to figure our sins an aspect of god CAME TO EARTH when there is undoubtedly so much more out there then this one blue speck. He came to the illiterate middle east of all places aswell instead of china.
ID is just the presupposition that everything is designed, it's not a mechanism it's magic and it's arguments are none existent the arguments are trying to pick holes in our current understanding of evolution..

>>4250980
*forgive our sins sorry.

>>4250955

I know that there are no 'species' (that's why I put the word between ' ' ).

But if you have a problem with the word 'species' , I would recommend on improving this one:

The origin of Species - Charles Darwin.

Unfortunately, he can't receive your pro-tip, because he past away..

>>4250991
I bet I could pray my correction to him. I'll leave on the note that I effectively reduced your argument to the following

>"Ok guys, pack up the LHC. It's over. Turns out Newton didn't understand modern particle physics, so we're wrong. Nothing to see here"

You don't have an excuse anymore. Learn, think, and be a part of the conversation. Or recognize that your opinion carries no weight because you are not familiar with the evidence and shut the fuck up. Life on Earth appreciates you cooperation.

>>4250980

You are using a lot of preassumptions to justify your point of view and to bring town the opposite.

You assume the universe is billions of years old. You continue with this line of logic and say that God waited billions of years to show himself.
But that is a preassumption that the universe is indeed billions of years old and thus God waited billions of years. Do you see your fault?

Another preassumption is that you think that ID don't believe in mechanisms. That is not true. I think there is natural selection and I accept it. And that is a mechanism that I don't deny. But natural selection is a mechanism that you think we don't accept? Preassumption..

>>4250948
>I have put it simplistic, but the point remains that similarities are no proof of a common ancestor. Some argue, me included that it can be of a common designer.

Firstly, you DO NOT 'prove' theories, that's not the way it works, you try to falsify them. Science is induction based.

Scientific theories are all about scope and parsimony. Similarities are not a proof of common ancestry, that is true, but it sure as hell does suggest that it is and we have yet to see anything suggesting otherwise. There is absolutely no reason to postulate design when evolution explains everything better.

Common ancestry also explains the origin of new species, a common designer does not, simply because we do not observe, nor do we have any evidence of, new species spontaneously coming into existence. All evidence points to the direction of common ancestry.

>Come in /sci/, has no idea of how science works.

>>4251009
>shut the fuck up

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

Charles Darwin

>>4251031

>nor do we have any evidence of, new species spontaneously coming into existence.

This statement denies evolution.

>>4250026
Big Bang, Inflation Theory, and if you want some hypothesis that look promising as to how the Big Bang occurred, check Lawrence Krauss' lecture "A Universe From Nothing"

>>4251074
Only to someone that doesn't understand what evolution is.

>Sunday service starts at 11

>>4250980
>literally believes in fucking magic
>LITERALLY BELIEVES IN FUCKING MAGIC
>/sci/ continues to argue with him

I don't know who is more retarded here.

>>4251059
>Evolution has 150 years of hundreds of thousands of people who vowed to put evidence before conclusions and got to the same conclusion, even when they tried to invest againt evolution, even when they mocked Darwin for it, the amount of certainty increasing every and each day as everything seems to work coherently

>Creationists have conservapedia, the bible belt, no evidence, no method, has been disproved by hundreds of scientists, and they are defending a conclusion before looking at any data

Yeah, bro, let's balance things out here...

>>4251074
You're being an idiot.

>spontaneously
In case your vocabulary isn't good, that means non-gradual.

Also, context.

>>4251085
it's your right to believe you came from primates millions of years ago.
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

>>4251113
Well, I also defend your right to say it, but I wish you could study it more and make better conclusions out of it. Not for me, but for yourself.

>>4251113
I'm confused why someone who doesn't accept the fact of evolution browses a /sci/ence board?

>>4251113
Here, we see the christian trying to make himself still feel admirable in the face of adversity, in his ever difficult quest of keeping the high ground in his own mind, without the intellectual effort that would challenge the preconceived notions learned through repetition in childhood.

>>4251118
>>4251113
>defend your right to say it

Fuck you both. Ya'll are all that is wrong with america.
(the only country with people dumb enough to believe in creationism)

BELIEVING IN BULLSHIT (Like creationism) IS FUCKING WRONG! People who believe in it are uneducated retards. These people should not be given a "pass" TO BE FUCKING STUPID. They should be educated and reprimanded IF THEY CONTINUE TO BELIEVE BULLSHIT!

Being stupid is a fucking bad thing, it hurts yourself, and your society. STOP ENCOURAGING STUPIDITY AMERICA. It is like you are trying to become a shit-hole! Fucking Hell! Get your shit together!

>>4251152
You probably believe that blacks are equal to whites and that poor people deserve to have more money. Fuck off queer.

>>4251122
because it is taught in schools and many people have a different viewpoint contrary to SOME points in the evolution theory.

I dont reject the whole evolution theory.
Natural selection (although that isnt the 'invention' of Darwin) is a working mechanism and nobody denies that.
The common ancestor is a major stumbling block for people to accept the theory. Now they have to accept that they are primates, related to animals and such. Some people don't accept, not because of their ignorance, but because of A) lack of confincing evidence (similarity is not a strong point for common ancestor) and B) because of the long term consequences. These consequences are what most people find unappealing about the evolution theory, such as change in morality and value of humans.

>>4251152
Check my image, bro >>4251118

>>4251152

>If you don't support evolution you should be get rid off. Atheists
>If you don't support communism you should be get rid off. Stalin

>>4251162
People like you are the reason why america fell

>>4251195
See >>4251031. Similarity IS STRONG evidence for common ancestry. It is the natural, most inclusive and parsimonious, consequence of evolution through natural selection.

You not liking to think yourself as an ape or what consequences it has is NOT a valid grounds for considering common ancestry an unattractive theory.

>>4251215
>If you don't support Jesus you should go to hell. Christians
>If you don't support Muhammad you should go to hell. Muslims

>>4251195
A) Lack of convincing evidence? See picture. There are fossils for every single one of these tree entries that directly show the evolution of a common primate ancestor.

B) Aruments from Consequence are a FALLACY. You cannot just ignore evidence because you don't want the world to become a sudden Darwinian madhouse overnight. PROTIP: It won't. We evolved social interaction to stop Darwinian lifestyle. It sucks for everyone and that's why we avoid it.

I also don't know what you mean by "you're taught this in school". Do you mean you're taught proper evolution or fractured evolution or creationism?

>>4251232

Your first statement:
similarity is no proof for common ancestor. we are no primates, sorry.

your second argument:
Evolution, especially in the beginning periods when it was first put together, even before Darwin, was a theory first and foremost to destroy the creation week of the bible. Charles Lyell and many others where very atheistic and very much marketed the evolution idea in their time. Also Karl Marx dedicated his communist ideas to the evolution theory, he was a big supporter of it.
To say that evolution is not an ideology in some of its perspectives is very naive. In USSR the evolution theory was widely taught in schools because the system was convinced that this theory was an excellent tool to destroy God in the minds of the children (communism is atheistic). Then when the western world realised the effects of evolution in the minds of children, they chose to adapt it and make more use of the theory in the biology book. Now the theory was thaught before, but not as extensively as in Russia. Evolution does have its effect on human mind, behaviour, values etc. These were noticed in ussr and later in America. Abortions went up after the teaching of evolution in schools, because we are nothing but animals, and the fetus is an unborn animal with no human rights or morals etc.
Do your research and find out.

>>4251311
>try to argue science WITH SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN MAGIC

10/10

>>4251339
I'm trying to educate someone. This dude seems on the fence anyway. If it was some creatard spamming up the thread, I would report and hide. Like I'm about to do to your spammy ass.

>>4251336

I never come to /sci/ either but the ekpyrotic model is the new standard, haven't read thread yet hoping someone here has said it.

>>4251344
>trying to educate a troll

>>4251347
>ekpyrotic model is the new standard

Nope

>>4251357

Really? Where have you been getting your journals from?

>>4251311
A) unfortunately, fossils don't show evolution. Let me say that again, fossils are no evidence for evolution.
What we see are different bones of animals in the ground and we use our imagination that a primate became a man through succesive events and millions of years. That 'tree of life' is based on the speculation of the people who created it.

As a matter of fact, the evolution of the horse is now disputed and debunked, because of the faulty assumptions and speculation of the evolutionists.
I won't be surprised if this is the case with the human tree of life too.

B) I didn't use consequences as an argument point, but to make a viewpoint clear, namely that evolution has a changing effect in the minds of people, and thus some choose to be cautious with this theory.
What I did use as an argument was the lack of evidence.

>>4251347
>>4251362
Cyclic models fail. Ekpyrotic is a philosophy not a science because it cannot be tested or falsified. Just because the math of some framework exists does not make it so.

Same with String Theory.

>>4251336
Did you even bother to read >>4251031?

>Karl Marx dedicated his communist ideas to the evolution theory, he was a big supporter of it.
>USSR
>atheistic
>abortion, morals

Red herring, completely off-topic. Those has absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution or common ancestry is true or not. Whether people decide to kill babies as a consequence of thinking of us being animals HAS ZERO SAY on the validity of scientific theories.

>>4251375
Okay NOW you're a troll. I refuse to believe someone this stupid exists.

>>4251376

Are you saying the String Theory is not the modern standard? Even if you don't agree with it yourself.

>>4251376

>string theory

M-Theory (the current revision of String Theory) can in fact be experimentally tested with particle accelerators, and they plan to do so within the next 5-8 years if I remember correctly. The idea is that gravitons consisted of open-loop strings, and therefore are not "connected" to our brane. By smashing particles together, if we can observe gravitons disappearing during the collision (because they are ascending into another dimension) then that would be a huge leap forward for M-Theory.

I'm not saying they WILL find this, just that this is their plan for testing the theory.

>>4251385
String Theory hasn't been respectable in 5 years.

>>4251389
We know what M-Theory is. It's still only one branch of fringe science.

>>4251392

why are you being so agressive? enlighten us don't mock us. I think the answer to OPs Q is the ekpyrotic model, what do you say?

Man there is just ALL KINDS of stupid in this thread. Evolution deniers, creationists, and string theory believers.

string theory is fanciful bullcrap. Unlike the rest of science where things are discovered and tested in controlled conditions, strings were imagined up and lots of math and dimensions were created to justify it.
there is absolutely no evidence for strings at all. It could be tiny unicorns for all we know. talk about faith, right?

>>4251397

I'm just letting >>4251376 know that it is in fact testable to some extent, that's all.

>>4251402
I said it here: >>4251077


Ekpyrotic is not a standard. It's a hypothesis. The Big Bang and Inflation are THEORIES. You need more than math to convince all of science that you are right.

>>4251409
This. String Theory is a Philosophy.

>The assumption that the forces of nature were united into one force

This is the basis of string theory, and where it all falls apart. Ask any non-bullshit physicist.

>mfw the biggest supporters of string theory are mathematicians and NOT physicists.

I'd also like to point out that people like Dawkins and Hitchens like to aggravate that science and religion are complete polar opposites and cannot be reconciled. That is hardly the truth. Dawkins likes to pair science with his atheism to justify it as being more rational and that there can't possibly be a rational or scientific way to believe in God. Bull. Lots of scientists are both atheists and religious. If a logical proof for God comes up I'm sure some militant atheists would stand by their beliefs and try their best to refute it. The real atheist (who lacks belief in God, not actively disbelieves) might accept it.

>>4251427

I does require a light bulb moment a certain amount of philosophical thought around "...but where does any force come from?" to accept M-Theory. Not saying it's right, just saying it is a huge jump.

>mfw popular science thinks a Theory of Everything unites all the forces and reconciles QM with relativity.

That is bullcrap physicalism/materialism and empirical reductionism. To be a true theory of everything it must explain subjective experience, consciousness, and it assumes there are no non-physical aspects of existence. A true Theory of Everything must have philosophical components that are internally valid logically.

>string theory

Brought to you by mathematicians, who would also argue that an orange can also be the size of the sun, once again, according to mathematics.

>string theory

Mental masturbation to the fullest extent.

>string theory: the movie

Now in 11D

Here is how string theory started. A bunch of physicists couldn't bullshit their way into unifying the forces so they got a bunch of mathematicians to do it, because the job of a mathematician is to bullshit around reality.

We get it, /sci/ doesn't like string theory.

>>4250684

And heres a handly link explaining why the book is a total load

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

>>4251449
>science and religion are complete polar opposites and cannot be reconciled. That is hardly the truth.

Science is only compatible with deism, or natural 'religion' ala Voltaire. Religions like the Abrahamic religions cannot be reconciled, their central doctrines are already falsified.

>Lots of scientists are both atheists and religious.

75% of the US Academy of Sciences are atheists, agnostics or non-religious. Outside the US and developing countries, religious scientists are very rare.

>a logical proof for God

A priori impossible. See Kant's rejection of the ontological argument. Also see demiurge.

>The real atheist (who lacks belief in God, not actively disbelieves) might accept it.

Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are actually agnostics. Militant atheism is a term invented by critics. Hitchens would also not choose to submit to a tyrannic being like Yahweh of the OT if it does exist.

michuo kaoku here guys

buy my new book "string theory is cool"

it's about how cool string theory is.
essentially i make lots of money talking about other peoples work using oversimplifications and analogies to communicate to the layman. u no longer need math to understand the universe just believe that i am right

michuo kaoku, out

>>4251537
lol show me such falsifications of doctrines... if Christianity was coherently refuted; logically and consistently with empirical evidence to back up this claim it wouldn't exist anymore

>>4251552
Some off the top of my head:
>Genesis account of creation
>Global flood
>Exodus
>Problem of evil
>Contradiction in scripture

>>4251552

Because religious people base their world-view on facts, right guise?

Oh wait, no they fucking don't.

>>4251552
>if astrology was coherently refuted; logically and consistently with empirical evidence to back up this claim it wouldn't exist anymore
>if homeopathy was coherently refuted; logically and consistently with empirical evidence to back up this claim it wouldn't exist anymore

the list goes on. People choose to believe in bullshit despite clear evidence showing otherwise.

>>4251552
>Christianity was coherently refuted; logically and consistently with empirical evidence to back up this claim it wouldn't exist anymore

Then why does it still exist?
Religion exists as a fantasy because people do not want to believe the truth. Most religions have been debunked already (including christianity) but people will still believe. Religion isn't about truth, facts, or evidence.

>>4251537
You mean "are actually agnostic-atheists"

They are not "agnostic" to the question "do you believe in a god?" because that would be like answering "what's your favorite flavor of ice cream" with "green"

They are atheists because they lack a belief in a god and agnostics because they do not claim knowledge in that god.

>>4251576
worst refutation ever, reading scripture actually answers these problems u have

>>4251633

this thread can stop now

>>4251600
>Then why does it still exist?
Because religious people simply disregard the evidence and continue believing.

This guy can't be a troll. Idk who would dedicate 8+ hours of thier Friday to trolling /sci/.