We can know for sure with a lot more "sure" of the right type than the idiotic incorrectable certainty that gave us drivel like genesis.

Nothing is sure, but every is more or less sure. With science we are more sure about things we have good grounds to be more sure about. With religion we are absolutely sure about things which as as unsure as anything can get.

(September 11, 2014 at 10:19 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: "Results" in science imply correlation, not causation. Often causation is assumed with these results which is not accurate unless all other variables are controlled for. Unknown variables could very well be involved with causation of our perceived correlations. We cannot know for sure.

No. Results can imply causation. And what percent confindence would you justify "know for sure"? I meantion earlier. 100% is impossible.

(September 11, 2014 at 3:38 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Ok, I appreciate your clarification. It is not claimed that it started as nothing, from what you posted I now understand it is believed to have started as something extremely small that existed in it's smallness for all the time prior to the bang and then just "banged" with no cause. Am I correct now?

Still no. What did your university physics professor tell you about the properties and origin of "time?"

(September 11, 2014 at 10:24 pm)Chuck Wrote: We can know for sure with a lot more "sure" of the right type than the idiotic incorrectable certainty that gave us drivel like genesis.

Nothing is sure, but every is more or less sure. With science we are more sure about things we have good grounds to be more sure about. With religion we are absolutely sure about things which as as unsure as anything can get.

I agree. I am not arguing a religious perspective.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 10:26 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 10:19 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: "Results" in science imply correlation, not causation. Often causation is assumed with these results which is not accurate unless all other variables are controlled for. Unknown variables could very well be involved with causation of our perceived correlations. We cannot know for sure.

No. Results can imply causation. And what percent confindence would you justify "know for sure"? I meantion earlier. 100% is impossible.

Most scientists would disagree with you. That's why their assertions are called "theories".
http://www.stats.org/faq_vs.htm

---

(September 11, 2014 at 10:29 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 3:38 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Ok, I appreciate your clarification. It is not claimed that it started as nothing, from what you posted I now understand it is believed to have started as something extremely small that existed in it's smallness for all the time prior to the bang and then just "banged" with no cause. Am I correct now?

Still no. What did your university physics professor tell you about the properties and origin of "time?"

Here's a really good documentary that a physics mentor actually sent to me a few months ago. Reputable source. Nicely done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BjGWLJNPcA

(September 11, 2014 at 8:43 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 7:07 pm)bennyboy Wrote: @OP

Fuck off. How dare you come into the science section and put forth these ideas as though they are equal candidates? You are so clearly a Christian (or maybe muslim) poe, that I'm forced to ask-- don't you know that lies make baby Jesus cry?

I'll explain the difference in process: it's not that creationism or the Big Bang Theory are right or wrong. It's how people arrive at an interest in, or a belief in, either idea. The Big Bang was arrived at by seeing how the universe expands, and projecting that motion in reverse through time-- "Wait a minute, if everything's moving apart, it must have once been together." The idea of Creationism was arrived at by reading the Bible, already believing in God, and then making special pleas, unsupported assertions, and other obvious logical mistakes to arrive at the answer you wanted. If you did that to your taxes, you'd risk a healthy jail term. Luckily for you, you do it with ideas about the mythological figure of your choice, and you risk only mockery.

So here is me, mocking you.

Most astrophysicists admit that they are humbly ignorant with regard to the truth about our universe. Specifically, very recently they had to completely revise their opinions regarding the expansion of the universe and in doing so had to add in that 96% of reality is now stuff called "dark matter" and "dark energy" that we know nothing about other than than it now makes sense what we're observing.

God of the gaps = fail.

I explicitly stated that this wasn't about the ultimate rightness of theories-- it's about the quality of the process arriving at those theories. In science, theories are made which explain what is OBSERVED, with the theory hopefully explaining all the observations. In religions, observations are combed selectively for data, with the observations hopefully justifying, or at least not completely excluding, the religious idea. The problem, however, is that the Sky Daddy myth is completely irreconcilable either with what can be observed, or with logic.

If you say you started first with physical observation, and then arrived at the conclusion that a massive invisible being must be behind what you've observed, you're a liar. You see, Creationism is not science. It's an insult to science-- a complete inversion of the right way of forming ideas about the world.

(September 11, 2014 at 10:37 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 10:26 pm)Surgenator Wrote: No. Results can imply causation. And what percent confindence would you justify "know for sure"? I meantion earlier. 100% is impossible.

Most scientists would disagree with you. That's why their assertions are called "theories".
http://www.stats.org/faq_vs.htm

That article is addressing "public health professionals and pharmaceutical companies." Soft science it is much harder to prove causation. In hard science, like physics and chemistry, it is the expectation.

Now your really starting to sound like an ID troll when your going to use the non-science definition of theory.

If you say you started first with physical observation, and then arrived at the conclusion that a massive invisible being must be behind what you've observed, you're a liar. You see, Creationism is not science. It's an insult to science-- a complete inversion of the right way of forming ideas about the world.
[/quote]

I never said anything of the sort. I get that most people who want to debate you are theists, but I am not. I am not a Creationist. I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of religion and I'm skeptical of many of the claims of science, not because I think their inherently wrong, but because I think those making the claims may be missing some very important variables when making claims about reality.

You keep wanting to present me as a religious fundamentalist, theist, creationist, which is not true. I find it interesting that when I made assumptions about atheist perspective, everyone wanted to hang me, but you're clearly claiming I have an opinion that I do not have and that's acceptable? Double standard anyone?

---

(September 11, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 10:37 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Most scientists would disagree with you. That's why their assertions are called "theories".
http://www.stats.org/faq_vs.htm

That article is addressing "public health professionals and pharmaceutical companies." Soft science it is much harder to prove causation. In hard science, like physics and chemistry, it is the expectation.

Now your really starting to sound like an ID troll when your going to use the non-science definition of theory.

It was a stat example that discussed how in order to claim causation, you have to be really sure you've controlled for all the possible variables.

My argument is that things like "dark matter" and "dark energy" (if we are to assume they are "things") are possible variables that would have to be considered before confirming causation with regard to many of the claims being made about our reality, how we experience it, and how it came to be.

(September 11, 2014 at 11:24 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Surgenator Wrote: That article is addressing "public health professionals and pharmaceutical companies." Soft science it is much harder to prove causation. In hard science, like physics and chemistry, it is the expectation.

Now your really starting to sound like an ID troll when your going to use the non-science definition of theory.

It was a stat example that discussed how in order to claim causation, you have to be really sure you've controlled for all the possible variables.

Yes you have to be sure. Do you know when statiticians claim to be sure, at 95% confidence. Scientist make claims of discovery at 95% confidence.

Quote:My argument is that things like "dark matter" and "dark energy" (if we are to assume they are "things") are possible variables that would have to be considered before confirming causation with regard to many of the claims being made about our reality, how we experience it, and how it came to be.

You don't seem to understand scales. DM interactions are noticible on GALACTIC SCALES. They are not noticable on smaller scales like Earth, because they so rarely interact. You need a galaxies worth to notice them.

Dark Energy is on the galaxy cluster scale. You don't notice the weak effect until you have a galaxy cluster worth.

(September 11, 2014 at 10:37 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Most scientists would disagree with you. That's why their assertions are called "theories".
http://www.stats.org/faq_vs.htm

So, two things: One, for the information of anyone reading, when I clicked on that link it caused my antivirus program to recognize a harmful element and block it. Take from that what you will.

Two, and this is for the quote in question, you aren't seriously going to go with "it's just a theory!" after spending the better part of a day telling us how into science you are, are you?

Quote:I feel like I should start getting all worked up about this poster assuming to know my perspective on "god" and that I'm trying to argue in favor of "god".

Erm, I'm standing right here...

Coming from the person who just spent an entire thread gleefully making up nonsense about what atheists, or scientists supposedly think 100%. But fine, "this poster" wouldn't want you to get worked up

How silly of me to think that you are arguing the theist perspective! Of course you are just asking questions ™.