Kittenshere Continue thread

[Kyuuketsuki]

All we have is theory. You don't know how the universe began, all we can do is speculate.

And only idiots say things like, "All we have is a theory" when theories are the HIGHEST form of explanation known to science implying nothing of guesswork or a wizard wheeze.

If you're going to comment on people who do know some science then try learning some!

Kyu

[Darwinian]

All we have is theory. You don't know how the universe began, all we can do is speculate.

But we do know how the Universe began. The MBR proves that.

We may not know why it began or what caused it or what if anything came before but we're pretty knowledgeable right back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

And to say that all we have is a theory is really saying that all we have are vast amounts of study and evidence that all point to the same conclusion.

I suggest that you research the meaning of scientific theory. It certainly isn't speculative.

[Eilonnwy]

All we have is theory. You don't know how the universe began, all we can do is speculate.

And only idiots say things like, "All we have is a theory" when theories are the HIGHEST form of explanation known to science implying nothing of guesswork or a wizard wheeze.

If you're going to comment on people who do know some science then try learning some!

Kyu

Exactly. Pippy, learn the difference between a scientific theory and the layman's use of the term theory, they are drastically different.

Gravity is just a theory.

[Pippy]

theories are the HIGHEST form of explanation known to science

oh. What about theories that are so stout they grow into laws? A theory does imply guesswork, that is kind of the point, i thought...

we're pretty knowledgeable right back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang

In theory. We know nothing for certain about the silly "fraction of a second before or after the bang". It was (in theory) a few billion years ago. We can look back, and speculate. We can guess, make a few assumptions... Take what evidence we see, and interpret it as we will. Theory.

Gravity is just a theory.

Well, to be perfectly clear, 'gravity' (the word) is a symbolic descriptor of a very real thing. So gravity (the thing) is real, and has properties and function. But 'gravity' (the word) is our concept of gravity (the thing). And so the semantic 'gravity' is theory, but the real gravity we are trying to name is solid. We can, of course, test out theories about gravity, much less can we test our theories of the supposed beginning of the universe.

I feel a little put off when I remind you guys that no one was around to witness the beginning of the universe, and so we should be open minded about it's way of happening. And then, somehow, I am an idiot. OK, so you all know without a doubt how the world and universe was formed, up until the silly split second after the theoretical bang. And for me to say that that seems far fetched at best makes me an idiot. Interesting.

Thank you for clearing that up.
-Pip

[Eilonnwy]

theories are the HIGHEST form of explanation known to science

oh. What about theories that are so stout they grow into laws? A theory does imply guesswork, that is kind of the point, i thought...

This statement shows your complete ignorance on the subject. Theories never grow into laws. They are two seperate things.

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that always applies under the same conditions.

In the sciences generally, a scientific theory (the same as an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

Being open minded about how the universe was created means understanding and accepting the current consensus with a willingness to change the models and theory if substantial empirical evidence can disprove the theory. That is the heart of the scientific method. It doesn't mean "Well anything could have happened". Just because we didn't witness it doesn't mean we can't figure out what most likely happened with good science. "Witnessing" something doesn't mean we can't know anything about it. We can convict people of murders without "witnesses"; your logic is entirely flawed.

[Kyuuketsuki]

theories are the HIGHEST form of explanation known to science

oh. What about theories that are so stout they grow into laws? A theory does imply guesswork, that is kind of the point, i thought...

Then this applies as much to you as it does to the creationist/intelligent designist wingnuts:

IDC's frequently claim that the theory of evolution is "only a theory" implying that it is somewhat uncertain in the minds of both public and the science community but nothing could be further from the truth ... there is a very big difference between the word "theory" as it is used in common everyday language and the way in which it is used in science.

A scientific theory implies little in the way of doubt or uncertainty as the word "theory" does when used in common place, every day language ... in science a "theory" is "a system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the particular things to be explained (e.g. atomic theory or the theory of evolution); the exposition of the principles of a science etc.; a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject (e.g. probability theory or the theory of equations)." The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the vast diversity of life and how it has evolved from a single common ancestor and in fact (common use) evolution is the only explanation accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community as explaining the development of the diversity of life around us today. Science is concerned with fact but IDC's, when they use the word "fact", confuse the scientific use of the word with its common usage. A fact implies certainty in common use but in science a fact, except possibly in a mathematical sense, does not imply absolute certainty or absence of doubt … that would be bad science. Facts are those things that science understands to be so and in this sense it is a fact that evolution occurs i.e. evolution is defined as a "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

When IDC's claim "it's just a theory" WRT to major scientific theories they simply demonstrate themselves to be ignorant of science and all it represents!

Aren't you pleased to hold such fine company?

I feel a little put off when I remind you guys that no one was around to witness the beginning of the universe, and so we should be open minded about it's way of happening. And then, somehow, I am an idiot. OK, so you all know without a doubt how the world and universe was formed, up until the silly split second after the theoretical bang. And for me to say that that seems far fetched at best makes me an idiot. Interesting.

You weren't around at your birth ... do you deny that happened? There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out. Yes ... you are!

If you're going to debate with those who do know some science it might be a good idea to learn some!

Kyu

[Pippy]

You weren't around at your birth

That takes the cake, better than your claim that we invented species and music. That has to be the stupidest thing you have ever said. Right before telling me that you are someone who knows something about science. Tell me, scientifically, where I was at my birth? When did I arrive afterward? Who came out of my Mother? Fucking ridiculous. Oh, and no I don't deny that I was born, no.

I don't want to draw this out, this is another thread...

I don't think you guys can afford to be so sure about the origins of the universe. That is all.
-Pip

[Tiberius]

I love when Kyu posts the story of the begining of the universe.

All we have is theory. You don't know how the universe began, all we can do is speculate.

No, we can observe the evidence and make conclusions based on it. The red-shift and blue-shift of the stars tells us that they are moving away from us at extraordinary speeds; that the universe itself is expanding (and still accelerating). Cosmic microwave background radiation is the "echo" (to put it metaphorically) of the Big Bang, and is considered the evidence that convinced most scientists of the Big Bang in our history.

Oh, well if it's current. I see time not existing, as the fourth dimension over and above space, as hard to swallow. Unless, as you said the theoretical "big bang" event was specifically the creation of time, and space-time. The question is, for how long did time not exist?

That question is just simply idiotic. You cannot have such a question prefixed with "for how long" when it concerns the very nature of time. If time did not exist, there is no time to have been before "time". Further, by "time did not exist" I did not mean the dimension, but the actual "tick" of time. To put it metaphorically, the hand on a stopwatch exists before the stopwatch is started, but once the stopwatch starts, the hand starts to move. As I said, the current theory is that time/space existed in some form, but that at the Big Bang, space started expanding, as did time (which is what causes time to "tick").

If infinity is real, than the world and universe is a seemingly infinite chain of causes and effects.
If infinity is not real, something had to create, without itself being created. The unmoved mover.
The big bang is a interesting theory.

Or you think as most scientists do, that infinity is not real, and that the universe has always existed in some form. "Always" used here as an abstract because time did not exist (in ticking form) prior to the Big Bang.

oh. What about theories that are so stout they grow into laws? A theory does imply guesswork, that is kind of the point, i thought...

Laws are descriptions of facts that we observe. Theories are explanations of the facts we observe. In science, a "hypothesis" is the thing that implies guesswork, as a hypothesis is an idea about how something might work, but has not yet been tested. Once it is tested and can make accurate predictions (which are further tested), only then is a hypothesis elevated to the level of "theory". There is a massive difference between the word "theory" in general conversation and in science.

In theory. We know nothing for certain about the silly "fraction of a second before or after the bang". It was (in theory) a few billion years ago. We can look back, and speculate. We can guess, make a few assumptions... Take what evidence we see, and interpret it as we will. Theory.

The point is, we don't just guess and make a few assumptions. We observe, test, and predict.Theory is the testable and predictable explanation of the facts. We look back at our past all the time. Just because we live in the present doesn't mean we can't find out what happened in the past. Clues are left behind that give us an idea about how we evolved, how the Earth formed, even how our solar system developed.

Well, to be perfectly clear, 'gravity' (the word) is a symbolic descriptor of a very real thing. So gravity (the thing) is real, and has properties and function. But 'gravity' (the word) is our concept of gravity (the thing). And so the semantic 'gravity' is theory, but the real gravity we are trying to name is solid. We can, of course, test out theories about gravity, much less can we test our theories of the supposed beginning of the universe.

This is the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. Wikipedia has a nice page comparing evolution to gravity in this regard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_a...th_gravity

You say "much less can we test our theories about the beginning of the universe" and I suspect many physicists are very upset by that. The remnants of the Big Bang are still there, ready to be tested. In fact the only reason why the Big Bang theory is so universally accepted is because of the predictions and tests that have been carried out. One good test that NASA carried out resulted in the "Hubble Ultra Deep Field", where the Hubble Space Telescope took a picture of a region of space that looked completely empty. In doing so, they looked back 13 billion years (due to the expansion of the universe and the speed of light) and saw 10,000 galaxies as they looked when the universe was still young: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field

I feel a little put off when I remind you guys that no one was around to witness the beginning of the universe, and so we should be open minded about it's way of happening. And then, somehow, I am an idiot. OK, so you all know without a doubt how the world and universe was formed, up until the silly split second after the theoretical bang. And for me to say that that seems far fetched at best makes me an idiot. Interesting.

Being open-minded is exactly the opposite of what you are doing. You are not looking at the evidence and simply saying "well, that sounds too unbelievable for me". Being open-minded is all about being skeptical, but it is also about looking at the evidence presented and the ideas presented, rather than just rejecting them outright. You've shown you have no idea what a scientific theory constitutes, so to say you are "open minded" is ridiculous. We do not believe "without a doubt", but we accept that the scientific evidence is more than compelling, and the current explanations make perfect sense in light of that evidence. If anyone comes along with a better theory, we will accept that one (as would the scientific community in general), but that hasn't happened yet.

My honest suggestion to you Pippy, is to read about scientific jargon such as "fact" "law" "theory", and do some reading of your own on the Big Bang. There are plenty of books out there, written with the public in mind. Simon Singh's "Big Bang" is a recommended read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(book)

[Pippy]

I am not gonna read that.

I can only be assured the we can not be 100% certain about the origins of the universe, as we can't about god. I don't want to argue about it, especially if you're version of arguing is posting wiki links. I am tempted to modify a wiki page, and then talk about that subject, knowing you're guys only form of discussion would be to post the link to what I had already written...

Thank you, and please no hard feelings. I just am trying to cut off these long battles we have earlier. We have seen where they go.

Thanks,
-Pip

[Tiberius]

Excuse me?

If you don't want to read it, it's your problem, not mine. So don't you dare go on about things when you've refused to read what I've said to you.

especially if you're version of arguing is posting wiki links

FUCK...YOU! If you'd bothered to read my post instead of skimming over it as you evidently did, you would have seen that the wiki links I used were:

1) A *section* of the wiki page that showed a table to distinguish between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution in comparison to the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity.

2) A picture of the Hubble Ultra Deep field that I thought you might want to have a look at. You didn't have to read the whole article, but it didn't seem right to talk for a paragraph about the ultra deep field without at least linking to the picture of it.

3) The page for a book I suggested you read. I could have linked to the book website I supposed, but to be honest the wiki page was there and I didn't think you'd be such a moron to make a fuss out of a few links. I do apologise.

My "version of arguing" involved me spending a good 10 minutes writing responses to your points. These points were all thought up by myself, and only an arrogant cunt would spot 3 reference links and claim I was "arguing by posting wiki links".

So now that you've refused to read anything I've written, I'll expect nothing more from you in this entire thread. Unless of course, you want to be a hypocrite!