MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Diehard, do you honestly think I care what you say about me? You have proven time and time again to be the most overall ignorant person on this board. You are an old kook and your opinions have no bearing on myself or the rest of society. Also, I love the content filled comment there bub. Way to add to the topic. I know it is hard for you to add an intelligent viewpoint, but try. Really, what evidence do you have to support your creationist ideals DieHard? Do you simply have "faith", or do you have anything more tangible? Add to the "debate" man. Go ahead. I can't wait to hear your brilliance... amuse me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Diehard, do you honestly think I care what you say about me? You have proven time and time again to be the most overall ignorant person on this board. You are an old kook and your opinions have no bearing on myself or the rest of society. Also, I love the content filled comment there bub. Way to add to the topic. I know it is hard for you to add an intelligent viewpoint, but try. Really, what evidence do you have to support your creationist ideals DieHard? Do you simply have "faith", or do you have anything more tangible? Add to the "debate" man. Go ahead. I can't wait to hear your brilliance... amuse me You don't know how old I'am Peckerhead. You guess. You are stupid with no common sense as I stated previously. I think you're a spoiled punk. And I'm not alone in that. You are afraid of believing in god. Probably because you got butt fucked by your boy scout leader. Not my problem. You're still a fucking idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Hahahahaha... yeah I am afraid of believing in god. You got me. I mean, no need to support your side when you can just claim I am too afraid to believe you side... Support your beliefs. Do you have anything in that regard? Or do you just believe "just because".... Also, never was in scouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 You don't know how old I'am Peckerhead. You guess. You are stupid with no common sense as I stated previously. I think you're a spoiled punk. And I'm not alone in that. You are afraid of believing in god. Probably because you got butt fucked by your boy scout leader. Not my problem. You're still a fucking idiot. The scout leader just has to ask for forgiveness and he can go to heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 This whole thread had me speechless for a while (and knowing me, I usually have something to say, that's quite an achievement). Needless to say, I'm coming down on the side of the science. And no, the big bang theory isn't a ridiculously illogical as the bearded man in the sky argument. There's no point listing all the arguments for the big bang, it's summed up quite well by Woody's video. Nobody is claiming that the big bang theory fits everything. There are still a couple of not insignificant details that it cant explain. For example, we can explain what happened as far back in time as the first picosecond, but we can't explain what happened before that in the explosion. It doesn't explain what happens before the explosion. Was there just a great mass of nothing? Perhaps a pre-existing universe had expanded until it started collapsing in on itself and then at the point where everything had collapsed in on itself completely, our big bang happened. However, the evidence supports the theory as it stands now, as far back as the tiniest fraction of a second after the big bang. Probably, nobody's going to throw out the big bang theory; it'll most likely be tweaked to fit new data. There's a chance it'll be completely scrapped in favour of a new theory. One thing I'm confident about is that the subsequent theories are not going to involve the bearded man. I like the comparison he makes with Kepler; he proposed a heliocentric universe, with planets rotating around the sun in perfect circles. It was pretty much right, but needed a little fine tuning to the point where we can now tack the planets with as much accuracy than we can track a bouncing ball. Big bang theory is most likely going that way; not the way of the geocentric universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Well its settled then......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Well its settled then......... It actually is settled. Science doesn't care what you think, what I think, what woody thinks. Science doesn't care if you've spent your whole life researching something that turns out to be wrong. Science doesn't care that you've spent your whole life believing one thing and it proves it to be false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I think you are very wrong there Chris. I believe scientists, which actually are science just because of its very makeup, care very much about their theories and guesses. Its natural to work very hard to pursue a theory that you've come up with, much like the prosecution in a criminal case. It's not a question for the truth its a quest to prove their own assertions up until a certain point. To me, a lay person, The Big Bang Theory sounds silly. Why? because it starts with a silly premise. Okay there's a big bunch of shit here and then it blows up it becomes all this other shit. Thank you sir where did the original big bunch of shit come from? Shut up and sit down. You see you can't just tell me that there's a bunch of shit that came out of nowhere. Its not within the realm of human Sensibility to understand eternity. You can't do it we can't do it and scientists can't do it. But they can wrap up this series and ideas in a great deal of scientific mumbo jumbo. Of course a lot of people think that's really cool, and neat and Nifty! But, and it's not like I'm a creationist, but just don't waste my time with theories that go beyond what you could possibly know. Hey don't hand me anything that deals with something beyond a certain point like well here's where the universe ends. Ok great what's on the other side of that? Or here's where time begins. Wonderful what was before that? Answer either of those with any kind of rational answer and I might think you have something. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Kind of like the Steve Martin joke that goes like this... How to have a million dollars and never pay taxes... First,,,,, get a million dollars... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 It actually is settled. Science doesn't care what you think, what I think, what woody thinks. Science doesn't care if you've spent your whole life researching something that turns out to be wrong. Science doesn't care that you've spent your whole life believing one thing and it proves it to be false. No. Just because you say so, don't make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I believe scientists, which actually are science just because of its very makeup, care very much about their theories and guesses. There's a distinction between science and scientists, like there's a distinction between doctors and medicine. Scientists get very invested an an idea, sure, but actual science does not. For example. you want to believe that the earth is flat? Great, don't care, it's wrong. You want to believe the earth is the centre of the universe? Nope, wrong again. (not saying you believe those things, just an example of the harshness of science). Its natural to work very hard to pursue a theory that you've come up with, much like the prosecution in a criminal case. It's not a question for the truth its a quest to prove their own assertions up until a certain point. No, I disagree. Most scientists that are researching this kind of thing are doing so for the love of the subject. They want to be the first guy to prove a theory, and they might want their theory to be true, but wanting to be true a theory doesn't make it so. The science is what it is, no amount of wishing will change it. And when I say science, I don't mean our current understanding of the universe, I mean the actual physics of the universe. To me, a lay person, The Big Bang Theory sounds silly. Why? because it starts with a silly premise. Okay there's a big bunch of shit here and then it blows up it becomes all this other shit. Thank you sir where did the original big bunch of shit come from? Shut up and sit down. This is what I said - big bang theory can't explain that yet. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means that we're missing a piece of the puzzle. You see you can't just tell me that there's a bunch of shit that came out of nowhere. Its not within the realm of human Sensibility to understand eternity. You can't do it we can't do it and scientists can't do it. But they can wrap up this series and ideas in a great deal of scientific mumbo jumbo. And this is why one can't understand it intuitively, nobody's asking you to. You don't try to understand chaos theory just to make sense of the weather report, just just trust that the scientists know what they're doing. Similarly, you don't go and get a degree in aerophysics before taking a flight. If you want to get a fundamental understanding of the big bang theory then I suggest starting with a degree in astrophysics. Of course a lot of people think that's really cool, and neat and Nifty! But, and it's not like I'm a creationist, but just don't waste my time with theories that go beyond what you could possibly know. Hey don't hand me anything that deals with something beyond a certain point like well here's where the universe ends. Ok great what's on the other side of that? Or here's where time begins. Wonderful what was before that? Answer either of those with any kind of rational answer and I might think you have something. WSS Steve, I completely get what you're saying, believe me. It's what drives every scientist that's working on this stuff. Big Bang is a great start, but what about X, Y and Z? Can't explain that yet, so let's keep going. If scientists thought they had all the answers, there'd be no more scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Maybe. But perhaps its semantics. I think science is the sum of the opinions of the majority of scientists and I believe they get on bandwagons like everyone else. The flat earth scientists fought that to the bitter end. And for a time that was the accepted scientific reality. Just like man made global warming is today. I'm sure you I have read the doomsday scenarios all taken from sound scientific research. Let's say in 15 years we are still alive and the earth is not a floating Cinder. At that point the majority of scientist who predicted disaster are just forgotten. But today its accepted scientific fact. Lovers of science are more excited about berating the naysayers that actually finding the answer. But back to trying to explain what happens on the other side of the end of the universe or before the beginning of time... As far as anyone can prove it may as well be God as anything. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Neil Degrasse Tyson makes a lot of good points in that video. Two of which are important here 1) The Big Bang Theory may not be able to explain everything now, but it is part of the solution. Theories that are as universally accepted as this most likely will not be scrapped. More than likely it will become part of a larger overlaying theory like the examples he mentioned 2) This kind of stuff doesn't intuitively have to make sense to not astrophysicists and the like. It is supported by the math and science behind it. It. Is supported by the remaining evidence around us. It is supported by experiments. These are ideas and theories not common to our senses and the experiences we grow up with. It is not going to be intuitive. But that doesn't make it any less valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 And just as in what you suggest, that scientists actually are only searching for truth... Why wouldn't that apply to those searching for spiritual truth? Our problem with spirituality is that our minds can't comprehend what the next level of intelligence might be. Much in the same way that I speak to my cats (and I do) they understand a few things, usually when I shake the bag that contains their cat smacks or when I climb the steps that it's bedtime. Actually bedtime is also snack time. But that's about it. I can sit down and ask haiku if the vocal line I just recorded sounds a little sharp to her. I can bitch to rusty about the weather. Not much response. Why then shouldn't there be and evolutionary state that I can't comprehend? Except, like my cats, how to procure snacks. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 As far as anyone can prove it may as well be God as anything. Too much of that thinking leads us to this. But I understand what you're saying - until we can say with any certainty, we just don't know. But to go from that to it must be God is the ridiculous leap imo. As for the whole global warming thing we've done that thing to death in other threads and I don't want to derail this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 That type of thinking was also addressed in an earlier post. The "Arguments from Ignorance" part. The scientific method can not be applied to the search for spiritual truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth Myth of the Flat Earth Steve, when exactly was there a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat? I feel like you bring this up a lot, I am also pretty sure I have posted this wiki article before.... "The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1]" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 That type of thinking was also addressed in an earlier post. The "Arguments from Ignorance" part. The scientific method can not be applied to the search for spiritual truth. No it can't. Because only in that can we hope to explain things that we are unable to comprehend as in infinity. I think it is both vain and ignorant to believe that the height of enlightenment is here and now on the planet Earth. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Well it really depends on what you mean by spiritual truth and enlightenment. it may be that there's no great creator, no supreme being, no beardy man in the clouds, and that our lives are just the 80 or so years we spend on this planet, nothing before, nothing afterwards, that's just it. So what's the spiritual truth then? In that case I'd say enlightenment can only be achieved in relation to this planet. There may well be other life out there, and that life may well be going through the same thing as us. Or more likely, went through it already or will go through it in billions of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I don't think the concept of spiritual enlightenment is all that confusing, but for this conversation my definition would be understanding things beyond which we can understand now. Die, go to heaven or wherever, or even be Bill Murray in Caddyshack and receive spiritual enlightenment. Cross over to the next step and understand. That's all. Like the difference between insects birds cats apes and humans every group has their shit together a little bit better. Who thinks we're the top of the list for the end of the line? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 No it can't. Because only in that can we hope to explain things that we are unable to comprehend as in infinity. I think it is both vain and ignorant to believe that the height of enlightenment is here and now on the planet Earth. WSS I never said that. Plus I'm not sure what you mean by enlightenment. Also, read that wiki article about the myth of the flat earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 No, clearly we are not at the max of what we know now. We will continue to further our understanding of science, further our experimental abilities. We will be able to fill in these gaps with sound science and remove the spiritual world from them. Just like we have been doing for hundreds of years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 And for the record the ancient Greeks believed the earth was round well before the birth of Jesus. Also around Earth is mentioned in Isaiah. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 So when exactly was a flat earth an accepted scientific reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today. WSS Yes, because we have proven what causes those diseases isn't bad blood. We're not guessing at what causes cholera, we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today. WSS Alright, so thousands of years ago, before the concept of science and the scientific method, back when we fought for survival and believed in sun gods, thats when there was a flat earth consensus. After that point, when science and scientists were a thing, we scrapped the idea. I wasnt bithcing and whining about your example, it was just wrong. No one is saying we are right now at the pinnacle of scientific enticement... but we are not going to throw out everything we know now. Instead, it will be added on to, and fit into our larer understanding of the world around us. What point are you trying to make here? That it is ok to dismiss scientific consensuses now because the overall idea may change in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 In a way. Mostly that it's just as ignorant to blatherr on about something you don't know for sure and don't really understand than to call it intelligent design. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 It is ignorant to equate the big bang theory to a man in the sky because it doesnt have 100% of the answers. It is ignorant to completely dismiss science as some popularity contest between money hungry scientists because you A) Dont understand what they are doing or Disagree with their result. In the first video i posted where the writer/producer of Cosmos was interviewed, she said we were coming out of a period of great antagonism towards science. This board is a great example of that. The big bang theory will eventually become part of a larger theory that encompasses more and gives us more answers. At no point do I see us throwing it all away for a magic man in the clouds. (DieHard, still waiting for the defense of your position) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 if it doesn't say where the shit that blew up came from then it is just as ignorant as the man in the sky or The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.