Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/28/18 in all areas

  1. We ARE there to witness the Big Bang. It is happening at this very moment. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Big Bang describes how the universe began. It does not. It explains the large scale evolution of the universe over time. While some may offer theories of the 'beginning' of the universe, no scientists claim to 'know' how it began.
    3 points
  2. 3 points
  3. Is the Bible the source of your faith? If so then you must believe these things are also true. I know this is just a meme but all of things are asserted as true or real in the Bible and it was easier to just post the meme. I know that is intellectually lazy but then so is an argument from ignorance which so far is all you have...
    2 points
  4. And again, a small difference is still a difference. I can get my Nitrogen for free, so there is no added expense or effort on my part. The TPMS sensors in the valve stems came out once I started running Continental run flats. And the comment about you getting over yourself ( for which I should apologize, but won't ) is certainly not related to your knowledge/intelligence, but rather your condescending arrogance. In the time that I've been a member here, you've managed to nit-pick fights/arguments with quite a few of the members I consider most reasonable and level headed. Maybe telling others that they should not be posting on a science site is the wrong approach for passing on your knowledge.
    2 points
  5. TBH most of the members here don't really care if there's a God or your faith in it, but they will push back if you start a topic, on a discussion (science) site that basically states "I don't care what you say, I believe in magic." (that's fine for your blog); which begs the question, what's the point?
    2 points
  6. Here's some more "cavemen"style music from a long ago era......
    1 point
  7. I've gotten in the bad habit of ignoring the incessant interjections of your bizarre pet quasi-religi-science into everyone else's threads, but occasionally feel the need to ask you to please stop. All the trains can't run on your track, so please stop trying to switch them over.
    1 point
  8. PaulP, can I suggest that before responding you think about what you say so do not repeat (again) things that you have already been told are not true. For example: Science is never 100% certain about anything. Science doesn't deal in "truth". We don't need to be at the scene of a crime to work out what happened. We don't need to reproduce something in a lab to test it. We don't need faith to compare mathematical predictions with observations. Science doesn't say the universe was created. Science doesn't say the universe was created from nothing. Science doesn't say anything happens by "pure chance". And so on. I hope you are here to learn, rather than just preach at us. I will be very disappointed if you turn out to be yet another Creationist who lies for their religion and refuses to accept corrections to their mistaken ideas. I mean, honestly, is their god proud of them for deliberately lying?
    1 point
  9. What I mean is that if your mind is made up and you are not willing to consider what others have to say, then it is a waste of time talking about it. I do?!?! Holy shit! When did I come to that conclusion? I have to start paying more attention to what I believe. I can't believe that a supreme god is in full control because Thor has not yet defeated Aditi, and until he does, it seems as if control is divided. Well, a singularity is a point at which a function takes on an infinite value, and a god is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. What is the difference between a singularity and god to YOU? And when you say "you people", do mean us backpackers, or us handsome young men?
    1 point
  10. There is zero evidence it came from nothing. (It is a popular hypothesis but there is no evidence for it.) There is zero evidence the universe was created at all. No one believes that. One is a mathematical result that says we don't know what happened. The other is a guess about what happened.
    1 point
  11. The difference is that nobody beliefs in the former. Neither does anyone belief that it came from nothingness. I have no clue where you got the pure chance thing from. I don't think anyone beliefs in that either. None of your assertions about what scientists say are actually what scientists say. Perhaps you should listen more to scientists.
    1 point
  12. Just to highlight how silly this claim is: if you combine sodium and chlorine, they will always combine in equal quantities to form salt. You will never "by pure chance" get sugar or a potato. The universe behaves deterministically. If you want to believe that deterministic and consistent behaviour is because of a god, then go ahead. It can't be disproved (because it isn't science; it's faith). That is a reasonable application of faith. But don't try and pretend that your faith trumps reality. (I did read once about a US preacher or politician who said that "if the Bible and Reality disagree then it must be Reality that is wrong." But that is not faith; it is pure insanity.)
    1 point
  13. Behold: The vapour pressure of water at room temperature is 0,02 bar, so if you inflated your car tires inside with 100% humidity, and then it all freezes, that would be your pressure drop. On the other hand, a decrease in temperature from 293 K to 248 K , with a tire pressure of about 2 bar, will result in a pressure drop of over 0,3 bar (ignoring shrinkage of the tire) I don't think humidity is your problem.
    1 point
  14. Wait a minute, isn't your title basically appalling to an argumentum ad ignorantiam? I think it is. Just because we can't explain the origin of the universe or that there isn't an answer yet that it makes your position and more valid or, my position any less. You are appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. "We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must or he there is good chance he does or that this claim is just as likely as any other theories." Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence. Your title: are like these common phrases : This is basically what you are saying? If so: that's called the argument from ignorance fallacy. Ignorance here being not knowing or not understanding how this or that could be explained, therefore god must exist. (is kinda saying: I don't know how the universe started, therefore Magic or therefor magic is on equal footing with any other competing). Well, science honestly doesn't know whether the universe had a beginning or not! In fact, a major new hypothesis gaining ground right now is that the universe is in fact eternal. But that is beside the point. Science doesn't know, but that is okay. We don't need answers for everything, and just because we don't have an answer doesn't mean God makes sense as one. This is known as an argument from ignorance. A simple example: What if I put a die into a bag (6 sided), but you didn't know how many faces it had on it. Then I asked you, "Can I roll an 8 on the die in this bag?". Would the fact that you don't know what type of die is in the bag actually make it possible to roll an 8? Of course not. A standard six sided die cannot physically roll an 8. ever. Many people argue for God saying, "Well we don't really know, and if the universe is infinite, then mus'nt that mean it is likely there is a God?". This is fallacious, as shown by my example above. Just because we don't know another explanation for sure doesn't actually mean God is a legitimate explanation, or even possible. And indeed, very little evidence supports the idea that our universe had to have been created by a supreme being. There are a million other possibilities as to what created the universe, all as equally likely as if not more so than God. I mean people say, "But the universe looks designed!", or, "It had to have a creator!". But none of that actually is solid evidence for God. I mean, by those standards magical unicorns or tap-dancing creator-leprechauns are also possible explanations. Without some substantial evidence to support the assertion "God did it", and to show that God is the only plausible explanation, we don't actually have a convincing argument. Just because you don't understand something or don't know yet or something is too complex does not mean a supernatural deity is behind. We just do not know yet. Simple. No more assumptions should be made than necessary. Scientific ignorance. Moving the goal posts. Cowardly stance to retain an unreasoned position. This is not rational and therefore does not make sense, i'm sorry to say. No, no I wouldn't. What males you think it's a whom?
    1 point
  15. Before I write anything (and before I take a shower as I have to get ready for some drinks with the lads), I am going to give 3 links of my argument to a person who said some of the things you are saying here, although his own focuses more on the origin of life instead of the origin of the universe but since you mention both here they are. Link 1: http://docdro.id/6r5nwvo Link 2: http://docdro.id/34pMf7b Link 3: http://docdro.id/WYtI3Gv Take from these what you will. I might be back later to focus on what you have said but for now, I hope this will have to answer a few of your questions and claims you have made PaulP, especially the claim that it takes faith to believe in certain scientific theories and hypotheses in comparison to your faith in a supernatural creator. Equating these and putting them on a 50/50 footing is ludicrous indeed. Nobody can say for sure whether or not a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, but that doesn't mean the probability is midway. First of all, science is a organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It goes through regiments of falsifiable tests. So no, I don't have faith in it. You seem to be ignorant of this while dishonest theists like to conflate what you call "faith" (belief in something without evidence) with "reasonable expectation" that is based in either pattern of behaviour or evidence-backed assumptions. There is a reasonable explanation of the big bang and the universe existing without the need to posit supernatural deity to them. There is no need for that hypothesis. Perhaps a little introduction of the definitions and differences of theories, hypotheses facts and law's might be a good way to start. As it does seem you are conflating abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection. Evolution makes no claims about how life began. This is your first mistake PaulP. And if anybody else wants to have a look at my links, please be my guest. If you have any corrections again I welcome them.
    1 point
  16. Maybe 'liquid' was the wrong choice of words, but look up a table of the dew point of water ( or more accurately the frost point ) at -25 deg C and 32 psi. You'll find that the maximum concentration of water vapor that it can hold is extremely small. And unless the air is extremely dry, moisture will precipitate out ( and freeze at said temperature ). That's why I would post it on a science site; Get over yourself.
    1 point
  17. Ancient man, in his/her ignorance and the absence of science, saw magical deities and gods in rivers, mountains, the Sun, Moon etc etc. Do yo still accept that? Of course you don,t! Because science has shown you, and given you logical explanations, models and theories as to how rivers came to be, how the Moon and Sun came to be, and how the Earth came to be. Science has in fact pushed the need for any supernatural/paranormal explanation of the universe back into near oblivion. And of course if you are genuine in your belief in some magical spaghetti monster/god or whatever as an explanation to have created the universe, please tell me who created that magical being? and who created him or her? and who created........ Let me add also that the evidence is so strong for the theory of evolution and the BB, that even the Catholic church have recognised it, although then they again move to their mythical deity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU Good for you...You are entitled to accept, or reject anything you like and accept whatever myth you like to give you that deep, warm inner glow and good feeling. So why did you came here to share it with us? I prefer science, logic and reason.
    1 point
  18. Listen, please. This is a bit silly. You've shown that the above statement is far from true. You don't need to be defensive about ignorance in a particular topic, you just need to do everything in your power to banish it. Pretending to already have the knowledge teaches you nothing. This is a place for questions about science, and discussions shouldn't reinforce bad habits. Science is perfectly fine saying "We don't know", but NOT about things we do know quite a lot about. The fact that YOU don't know it shouldn't be a sign that nobody does.
    1 point
  19. https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-dna-computer-program-puzzle-solution-20180427/
    1 point
  20. Aah c'mon, there's nothing like a stroll through verbal treacle to keep your patience in tip-top condition. As the SAS say: train hard, fight easy.
    1 point
  21. I would never have thought to make a tank out of ply, but it makes sense upon seeing it
    1 point
  22. Well, at least in the Buddhist system of thought, what I imprecisely referred to as "morally negative" is intended as actions, words and/or thoughts that cause harm to sentient beings (including to the agent himself/herself) or in other words anything that is motivated by "avidyā" (ignorance, i.e. the lack of clear understanding of the true nature of things). In such system of thought, an action motivated by anger, for example, generates bad karma, because anger is an emotion that stems from ignorance.
    1 point
  23. Yes, you must distinguish between truth1 and truth2... Just kidding. To be honest, I do not like the substantive 'truth', even less when written as 'Truth'. I think the first thing is to look on which 'objects' the adjective 'true' applies: these are propositions, or complete systems of propositions, where I think about e.g. scientific theories. What it means is that they fit to what they describe. If they do not, they are false. (Or they are meaningless ('colourless green ideas sleep furiously'), or they do not describe a situation unambiguously ('One cannot see light' )) So simply said, one can define 'truth' as the correspondence between a description and reality. So it characterises a relationship between propositions and facts. Which e.g. means the 'Truth' is not out there. We find out if a proposition is true, if we find out that the description corresponds to reality. It is an attribute of propositions ('in there') and reality ('out there'.) I think this meaning of 'true' is simple. But that does not mean that it is easy to find out which propositions (or theories) are true. The two topics should not be confused: what 'true' means on side, and how we find out on the other. I think that some of the examples given are wrong: e.g that about simultaneity in relativity. Are two events simultaneous or not? Well, we know exactly how this depends on from which inertial frame you are observing these events. So we have to amend it to 'for observer A the events are simultaneous, for observer B they are not'. If we know how the perspective has influence on what people observe, then we know that there is nothing to quarrel about. It is as if two people are facing each other, and quarrel about the question if the chair stands at the right or at the left. If you take the perspective in account, the whole problem has vanished. Same with what is true today is false tomorrow. If it was an 'eternal truth' (something like F = mv, like Aristotle thought), and today we know it is false, then it was false all the time. We erroneously took it for true. But truth hasn't changed, because reality did not change. Same with the opposite: reality changes. It is drizzling. It is really true! I see it when I look out of the window! But of course this event is local: where I live, and am now, it is drizzling. It makes no sense to quarrel about the truth of 'it is drizzling', if I do not take the context in account. When I am going somewhere else tomorrow, then it is still true that 'in Switzerland at 17.03.2018 16:30 local time, it is drizzling'. Even if it is beautiful weather at the place where I am tomorrow. Personally, I would prefer to separate some concept pairs: For factual knowledge, 'true' or 'false' apply, because there can be a kind of correspondence between factual propositions and reality For morality, I would use 'right' or 'wrong'. There is no way that science can find out what is morally right or wrong. It can help if facts play a role in a moral decision ('if you do this some people might be killed, if you do that, the risk is negligible'). But this already presupposes that both agree on the norm that killing people is wrong. For aesthetics it becomes more difficult: beauty, interesting, fascinating or ugly, boring, ...The difference with morality is that it has a very strong personal factor. The compulsion to come to an agreement is less than in morality, but do not underestimate the intersubjective character of these aesthetical norms. If these is a discussion on how to renovate the old city centre, it can become very important that people agree. Well, then they are wrong. Truth is not subjective. Beauty has a strong subjective side, morality less, but truth is definitely not subjective.
    1 point
  24. The best we can do is measure separately and see if our results agree. That's why I said it's an intersubjective consensus. We can use the word 'measure' meaning ''to observe'.
    1 point
  25. I don't think that is the reason why lying doesn't work in science. After all, people do lie about other things that have serious consequences. The reason that lying doesn't work in science is that, sooner or later, you will be found out because science is evidence based. So if you lie about vaccinations causing autism and fake the evidence, then you will be found out and struck off when others look at the evidence. But, sadly, the negative consequences continue despite the individual being punished.
    1 point
  26. Funny, I was having a long conversation with myself yesterday on this while watching some insignificant movie. I agree with all the premises you layed out in your above post, I would add that however un-empathetic it sounds, the truth is also impractical in many life situations. It is the main reason that I get in trouble when I do when I should have lied or at least keep the truth to myself. I don’t know how somebody can say that the truth is subjective, that is a dead end logic in my opinion, I can agree that it is unreliable though. There is also so many shades of lying and tellig the truth, you can blatantly lie without remorse which is the sociopathic end of the scale or you can empathetically lie about something which saves someone pain which is at the other end of the scale - same with the truth. I think that this is one of those subjects which is so diversly subjective that its impossible to reach any decent consensus when trying to find objectivity which everyone can agree on. The never ending quest of not being an a**hole is on for everybody.
    1 point
  27. Actually I could think of a scenario where such an effect may be seen and misunderstood. I would assume that most children have more interaction with their mothers. Thus, it is possible that the type of interaction can affect things like IQ scores. Under these circumstances it is possible to see a higher correlation of children IQ (or other measures) with their mother than with that of the father. However, this is entirely speculative and may well be wrong.
    1 point
  28. I eat prime and choice beef from a local butcher that was there when I went to high school. These guys are a legend in the area for all the reasons you list above. And I'd appreciate it if you stopped labeling us meat-eaters all as bingers. I'm pretty responsible in that area, because I'm old and want to get older. I'll tell you what. If they'd let me, I'd slaughter my own cow for steaks (once at least, for the experience), and I'd make sure that cow knew how much I appreciated the sacrifice. I've held animals I loved for non-food reasons as they died in my arms, and I respected them all for what they gave up to live according to my whim. I don't take the relationship lightly, and I don't assume an animal is any less deserving of respect. You need to understand. Domesticating animals so we don't have to hunt them is an intelligent thing to do, and nothing you can say changes that. We're omnivores, and we're already having big problems changing from a hunter/gatherer diet of meats and greens (for hundreds of thousands of years) to mostly grains (for the last ten to fifteen thousand). We're evolved to eat meat, and we've evolved a respectful and efficient way to get it. What you're arguing has no end. First you disrespect the spirituality of eating meat, then it will be no killing bugs, and pretty soon you'll wonder why all the plants have to suffer to feed us nasty humans.
    1 point
  29. I think what we are seeing through the hubble telescope are not in fact galaxies or stars. I tend to think that without evidence we cannot assume that we are seeing Suns like our own. The concave sphere surrounding our planet is most likely the firmament.
    -1 points
  30. I am always appraising new evidence. I suggest you take a look at my thread Time to Rethink Earth's Motion.
    -1 points
  31. It seems somewhat hypocritical that your reply includes these sentences: " However we checked and what we found suggests that they are stars more or less like the Sun. " "We can form an hypothesis that they are stars, and we can test that hypothesis. Thus far, for the mots part, that hypothesis holds". "Not for the planets, and not for the dark matter, but that doesn't meet this description" I suggest you read this study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885
    -1 points
  32. All you did here is flip around what I said. It has everything to do with the holographic principle. It is how they got the idea in the first place.
    -1 points
  33. Yes, this: "The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected." That is the point I was making. I did indeed mean entropy. The universe may appear as a simulated reality since it is projected.
    -1 points
  34. You are demonstrating a logical fallacy. It would be nice if you could actually read my arguments before jumping to conclusions.
    -1 points
  35. You are putting words in my mouth. I can't see why you struggling with black holes. They are no more relevant than any other astronomical feature. A projection in line with the holographic principle can explain what we see.
    -1 points
  36. Whose profession? Sakharov's? Those who are worthy of nomination for the Sakharov prize for freedom of thought? Or the profession of those who persecuted Sakharov, those who are not worthy? Agreed and that's easy to work out. That takes a lot of working out and there are many modelling assumptions and simplifications on the way but that's the figure I worked out for the total compression load on member 11 at stage D, when the bridge was on the piers but before P.T bar destressing had taken place, sure. I acknowledge your calculation but it was not a calculation that I found useful. It is not appropriate to use your calculation to deduce that concrete of a compressive strength of only "4,000 psi" would be allowable or acceptable for an engineer to design such a size of member to sustain such a load. There are, as you allude to, many "factors" to include in the recommended engineering design methods, equations and codes. For my concrete column calculations, I adapted the method described in this pdf file http://faculty.arch.tamu.edu/media/cms_page_media/4198/NS22-1cncrtdesign_3.pdf See "Criteria for Column Design", page 14 / 43 of the pdf, labelled "Page 372" of the Texas A&M book / document which the pdf is an extract from. See also "Example 19", page 36 / 43 of the pdf labelled "Page 394". The equations there specify factors multiplying together to increase the minimum acceptable concrete strength for a "concrete only" design by a combined factor of about 2.26 = (1 / (0.65 x 0.8 x 0.85),. So more like 2.26 x1,927,000/485.2 = 8985 psi would be required to design a concrete-only column of those dimensions to carry that load. I have just today included the factor for the rebar compressive strength and rearranged the design equation to solve for f'c "concrete design compressive strength" and calculated 8,289 psi - see the attached image files.
    -1 points
  37. The "right page"? If you are doing your own calculation, then is it not for you to decide what is the "right page"? I have given page numbers on many of images which are snapshots from that 110 page pdf. There is a page index on page 2, however the sheet numbers don't correspond to the pdf document numbers, the pages are not in the correct order and there is no way to search for text, so finding your way around that document is a pain, sorry. I didn't even use that pdf, which was only released recently, to build a model for my truss calculations, but the 2015 MCM Design build proposal pdf, which contains the proposal documentation, which is here if you are interested. http://facilities.fiu.edu/projects/BT_904/MCM_FIGG_Proposal_for_FIU_Pedestrian_Bridge_9-30-2015.pdf That document is at least searchable by text, which is something, though it lacks any information on the P.T. bars for member 11 which were an after thought. (continues later) Hmm but the concrete column design equation variable fy is the yield strength, not "ultimate" and example 13 says "Grade 60 (fy = 60 ksi)." The engineering plans (on page 3 of the pdf, sheet B-2), specify "All reinforcing steel shall be ASTM A615 Grade 60", so I think I am right to use 60,000 psi for my calculations, but I stand to be corrected if you know better? Your equation which I acknowledged calculates an average stress, which is not the same as the "actual" stress, which is too complicated to be so easily calculated. It is an appropriate consideration in my failure investigation. Oh, all my adult life, I have investigated the UK which is one big failure in oh so many different ways. Well speak for yourself. I, "inevitably", have determined that Pate's design is dangerously, recklessly and culpably out of code as regards the critical component member 11 which failed - and that's all a jury needs to know to convict of involuntary manslaughter. I haven't withdrawn my figures, no. Understood. The post tensioning force however - in this case 560 kip - contributes to the service load, as does the force from the rest of the truss - the dead weight of bridge - 1367 kip (as does the pedestrian live load but I am ignoring that for now). The service load requires to be factored and the factored load must be less that the Maximum Allowable Design Factored Load. What makes it technically "under-reinforced" is the calculation of Maximum Allowable Design Factored Load, which is pitifully too little to cope with a service load of anything like 1,927 kip. If it had been a higher percent, the relevant technical difference it would make would be to the calculation of Maximum Allowable Design Factored Load, not to the percentage per se. You misunderstand if you have, or you think I should have, a bee in my bonnet about reinforcement percentages. I am interested in performance.
    -1 points
  38. They mean there is a singularity. This worth no more, than you would say, that there is an allmighty god with infinite energy and matter without spacetime.... Really? What about evolution? Or that only applies after time...?
    -1 points
  39. Sooner or later science will arrive to be able to explain (mathematically too) the first moment of existence. Science is a process... it takes time to know... believe is not enough evidence is a necessity. My fate is fact based. Crazy, that Everything what I can perceive, is an observable, measurable evidence...
    -1 points
  40. We've actually tested the Big Bang?? They've created galaxies and nebulae inside of science laboratories? Has science allowed us to witness the creation of a star before our eyes? Has science allowed us to watch the formation of another galaxy? You're trying to claim absolute truth on something that occurred so far in the past. No one observed it, no one recorded it - so even if you conduct millions of experiments and attempt to try to figure it out - you have to admit we'll never know. We cannot know 100% - it requires a degree of "faith" to believe in that part of science.
    -1 points
  41. What do you mean? I can't bring myself to believe it came from nothing by pure chance. It's you who believes it came about by pure chance. Why would you believe everything came from a singularity that existed in a "nothingness" yet you can't believe that a supreme God was in full control and created all? What is the difference between the singularity and God to you people?
    -2 points
  42. I know all about your Big Bang theories, your evolutionary concepts, your philosophies how a God couldn't possibly exist, your statistics showing how everything came to be by pure chance, etc. And if the universe did not come about by pure chance - what did happen? Perhaps a better question would be 'who' did it? *********** I just choose to refuse to accept this information. I NEED FAITH. Faith is the only way I can believe it to be true. Nothing can change my worldview and my faith I have in Jesus Christ. The faith you possess to believe how processes like evolution and the Big Bang actually occurred matches the faith I have that my God created everything in existence. The faith you have to believe in the occurrence of the Big Bang and transpeciation is the same faith you have that the chair you're sitting in will hold you, that the building you're in will not collapse on you, that the planet you're on will not disintegrate. ********** Unless you can construct a time machine and go back to the "very beginning", your faith in scientific explanations will be no different from my faith in Biblical interpretations. So explain to me how you'll be 100% confident in the formation of the universe once you board a time machine and travel back to the beginning.
    -2 points
  43. I think the easiest to understand "who" did it is to understand that the universe is developing from the lowest possible state to eternity. From Nothing (0) to Everything(1) we have today. What is important to understand I think that if the first moment of existence, a simple information, (the application of the laws of nature, basic consciousness, will of existence) will be everything in proporion to Nothing. Everything we have today has some informational connection(evolution) to that moment through space time. I.e. we are part of God as an atom is part of our body...I think God evolving with the system. We are simply too primitive to have more connection, what we have through the physical reality today. I believe in God (higher intelligence naturally connected to the first moment of existence)
    -3 points
  44. Secular scientists need faith to believe how it began. Us creationists need faith to believe how it began. No one was there, so whether you believe in the Bible or the "Big Bang", it is impossible to know or prove. Both require faith - one is scientific faith and the other is spiritual faith. ********** Whether I believe in God or I believe in science, what's the difference? Both require FAITH - science helps to explain what COULD HAVE happened, but no one was around to witness such events. The Bible helps to explain what happened (to me, not to you of course) - but it also requires FAITH. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove. I cannot prove to you God is real just as you cannot prove to me the actual processes that led to the formation of the observable universe.
    -3 points
  45. Before I go because I have had enough with this. Let me ask you - did you witness the singularity become the observable universe? No one was around to witness such events. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove. **** Even a court of law, decisions are made based on evidence - but even with whatever evidence - unless the crime was observed can you say with 100% certainty and no doubt whatsoever that it did in fact (or not) happen? Can you claim something to be completely true even if you have no way of going back in time to see it happen? What does this require? - Faith. You have to possess faith to believe what you do about the universe - you cannot tell me with 100% certainty. Can you prove to me this is how everything began with 100% confidence? And I'd be interested in seeing this evidence you speak of. AND TO YOU JAMEST, Of course, science claims that star formation takes longer than human lifetimes. But even though we are still observing them in different "phases" of formation, we haven't observed it directly from start to finish - again, faith and inferences being made. Mitosis has many different phases, yet we have fully observed the entire process from start to finish. Star formation, not really.
    -4 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.