Kittenshere Continue thread

[Minimalist]

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.

Oh, these morons hate it when you put it that way. The definition of "theory" that they prefer is "wild-assed guess."

[Edwardo Piet]

Did you change your name Evie? I certainly don't like the new one, makes you sound much less respectful.

Less? How could I be less? I've always been disrespectful to religion since I came here.

And religious people on the other hand...I'm not specifically to them and more than to anyone else...this isn't an ad-hom thing. As I've said before...beliefs aren't something to respect.

I changed my name because I think it covers a bigger issue than the whole EvidenceVsfaith thing. Faith may be the opposite of evidence, but all beliefs should be checked for evidence...and any belief without evidence is delusional...so being clear about that helps stop people evade things by saying ""well it's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of faith" - as if the two that are battling (evidence and faith) are even matched...the thing here is basically that...any belief not based on evidence is a delusion.

EvD

[Kyuuketsuki]

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.

No, it's a valid point you idiot!

The evidence you have for your birth, outside of the fact that you exist, is indirect. YOU DO NOT POSSESS ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE EVER BORN ... YOU DON'T EVEN REMEMBER IT!

Kyu

[Pippy]

YOU DO NOT POSSESS ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE EVER BORN ... YOU DON'T EVEN REMEMBER IT!

Can there only be "direct evidence" of things we remember? I am not the one saying I have direct evidence of the beginning of the universe.

My only point is that the big bang theory is theory. Apparently in science theory means "not a doubt in the world", whereas I thought it meant an idea based on available evidence that is either not provable, or not disprovable.

Adrian, I mean it when I say I don't want these things to turn personal. I know you wrote the parts between wiki links, but you also know how much I dislike them. I am almost assured to have read any wiki link you post, that is why.

I know there is evidence that we fit to the theory of the big bang, but if the common theory changed, the evidence would too. They had evidence heat was a liquid, but when it turned out not to be, the evidence was seen in a different light.

I maintain, my only point is that there is a possibility the universe started in a different way than proposed in the big bang theory. Not that it did, but only that it could have.

Thank you.
-Pip

[Tiberius]

Evidently Pippy has decided to be a hypocrite and respond to my post without reading it. I'll respond so people who actually want to learn can see where he goes wrong.

Can there only be "direct evidence" of things we remember? I am not the one saying I have direct evidence of the beginning of the universe.

We do have evidence; the red/blue shifts of light from starts caused by the expansion of the universe, plus the cosmic microwave background radiation.

My only point is that the big bang theory is theory. Apparently in science theory means "not a doubt in the world", whereas I thought it meant an idea based on available evidence that is either not provable, or not disprovable.

You have not been listening (surprise surprise). In science, a theory is an explanation of the facts, of the evidence. It does not mean "not a doubt in the world", and likewise does not mean "either not provable or not disprovable". Theories make predictions that are repeatedly tested, and if the results are as predicted, the theory is considered as far as "proved" as we can get it.

Adrian, I mean it when I say I don't want these things to turn personal. I know you wrote the parts between wiki links, but you also know how much I dislike them. I am almost assured to have read any wiki link you post, that is why.

Apologies, I did not realize you disliked reading, learning, and debating. Perhaps you should review your evidently poor choice of being a member of a forum where these 3 things are done on a daily (no, make that minutely) basis.

As I stated in my response (did you refuse to read that as well???), the three articles I linked to were (1) a section of an article, (2) an image, and (3) the wiki page for a book I suggested. They were references to help support my point (and the latter to give you a suggestion of a book), nothing more.

I know there is evidence that we fit to the theory of the big bang, but if the common theory changed, the evidence would too. They had evidence heat was a liquid, but when it turned out not to be, the evidence was seen in a different light.

I beg to differ. The only time the evidence changes is when the evidence was poorly collected in the first place. Evidence rarely changes, but the theories do. For instance, Newton's theory of gravity worked fine 99% of the time, but it took Einstein to correct the error in the theory. The evidence of Newton's theory didn't change, but instead new evidence was added that showed Einstein's theory to be correct. I suggest a BBC docu-drama called "Einstein & Eddington" if you want to learn how that happened; I would post a link but you don't seem to like them very much.

I maintain, my only point is that there is a possibility the universe started in a different way than proposed in the big bang theory. Not that it did, but only that it could have.

Course it could have, but until you present evidence that (a) shows this, and (b) also explains the evidence for the Big Bang (as a new theory must also explain the evidence of the old) then you are not making any valid point. Heck, our understanding of gravity could be (and probably is) off, but nobody goes around saying it unless they have a new theory to explain it.

So, it's a case of "put up or shut up". Please present your evidence.

[Kyuuketsuki]

YOU DO NOT POSSESS ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE EVER BORN ... YOU DON'T EVEN REMEMBER IT!

Can there only be "direct evidence" of things we remember?

The point remain s that you rely on the testimony of others and other indirect evidence that you were actually born.

I am not the one saying I have direct evidence of the beginning of the universe. My only point is that the big bang theory is theory.

I don't think anyone is claiming we have direct evidence of the big bang but there is an awful lot of good evidence to support the theory that the universe was once incredibly small, hot & dense and subsequently expanded rapidly to form the universe we observe today.

Apparently in science theory means "not a doubt in the world", whereas I thought it meant an idea based on available evidence that is either not provable, or not disprovable.

Where did I (or anyone say) that a scientific theory was beyond doubt? Nothing in science is ever held to be absolute therefore nothing is held to be beyond challenge.

Scientific laws BTW are not higher forms of explanation than theories, they are statements about the behaviour of the universe under idealised, small scale and isolated (as far as I know), conditions and just because they are laws in no way puts them beyond challenge.

I maintain, my only point is that there is a possibility the universe started in a different way than proposed in the big bang theory. Not that it did, but only that it could have.

There is always the possibility of change but the big bang is held to be the explanation for the beginnings of the universe and is supported by an awful lot of rather significant evidence, what's more the big bang model has successfully predicted a large number of things which turned out to be correct. If evidence were uncovered to change the theory my money would be on it being a change in fine rather than gross and the new theory would be somewhat similar to the old even if it were given a different name.

Kyu

[Pippy]

these 3 things are done on a daily (no, make that minutely) basis.

Yeah, it seems pretty minute here... No, I'm kidding.

It is not that i dislike learning, not at all. The way you post wiki links, especially in the past, has been as proof of some point. Like the wiki makes it true. That is the only thing I dislike about it. It was very rude of me to say that I didn't read your post (I lied, I did) (oh, and yes, for the record, I did lie I guess). I sincerely apologize for that.

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.

I agree, I feel that I am being open minded about the beginning of the universe, precisely because I am being skeptical. I know of the evidence, whether or not you believe me I have told you before that I am actually better read than you seem to assume. I am not furthering another theory, I feel I have nothing to prove. I am only saying that it makes me cringe when people talk about the beginning of the universe as if they are 100% sure. Same as the god thing...

My sole point is that we are not sure how the universe formed. I did learn that I seem to misunderstand the "scientific" definition of the word theory. I will try to figure it out.

The point remain s that you rely on the testimony of others and other indirect evidence that you were actually born.

But I think that is fallacious. The evidence and testimony about the happening and details of my birth are much, much, much stronger than any evidence about the theoretical beginning of the universe. Especially the testimony part.

If I may repeat for clarity, I don't know how the universe was formed, and I kind of doubt you guys do either. I may be wrong though. Thank you.
-Pip

[Tiberius]

I am only saying that it makes me cringe when people talk about the beginning of the universe as if they are 100% sure. Same as the god thing...

I wouldn't say people talk as if they are 100% sure, but they do talk as if the theory behind the evidence is true, which is how science progresses. If we do not accept the theories that support the evidence, we cannot use them to further determine what else is true, or even if there is new evidence the theory does not explain.

There is far more empirical evidence for the Big Bang than there is a God though (well, that's because there is no empirical evidence for God, but I think you get my point.)

[Pippy]

I do, yes.

[Kyuuketsuki]

The point remain s that you rely on the testimony of others and other indirect evidence that you were actually born.

But I think that is fallacious. The evidence and testimony about the happening and details of my birth are much, much, much stronger than any evidence about the theoretical beginning of the universe. Especially the testimony part.

I don't agree ... virtually all the information we have past a certain point is indirect and that was my point. You rely on the word of others, photos/videos and comparative material for evidence of your natural birth ... most (if not all of that) could be faked (I accept it is highly unlikely).

If I may repeat for clarity, I don't know how the universe was formed, and I kind of doubt you guys do either. I may be wrong though.

I think there are some people out there, some scientists, who have a very good idea of how the universe formed ... they may not know the reason why or what happened at the precise moment of it's birth but most of the stuff after that yeah sure ... I think it safe to say they have a fair idea.

Kyu