Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Science rocks (and is not a religion).
#31
(08-14-2017, 07:23 PM)sparks Wrote:  Di says:  ""Who are we to say that we have a complete (picture) of the universe??" "

You imply that I said the opposite of the above or that I at least implied it.  Please produce the evidence or get the fuck off putting words in my mouth.

Thanks.


No Sparks.  Wrong in the very first sentence!   Your method of scientific review isn't working.

Read it again to see who said it.

... here 'tis.   I've boldened the bits of 'evidence' you have overlooked.


Quote:"Who are we to say that we have a complete (picture) of the universe??"

..no no, Sparky, that wasn't me.  That was Neil De Grasse Tyson saying it on an episode of that Brian Cox series about the universe that I've just been half watching again

Get over yourself mate, you're taking things way too personal.
Reply
#32
Don't give a shit who said it. You used it (the quote) to imply I had said or implied the opposite. I have not. Plain and simple.

"Get over yourself mate, you're taking things way too personal. "

Thanks for the opinion piece. Pardon me if I don't agree. Smile
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#33
Of course Sparks, consider yourself pardoned.
Reply
#34
(08-14-2017, 04:23 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  They weren't saying that's how it works TA.  They were discussing how our current knowledge of science would be viewed by people in a few billion years when the evidence our science is based upon is no longer detectable.

No, it's still bullshit, unless at some stage in the future 2 + 2 = 5. The laws of physics of will still work, so the point about evidence is both nonsense and blind. Carbon atoms will still bond together to make both coal & diamonds, and water will still be H2O.

(08-14-2017, 04:23 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Would they take our word that the evidence was around?  If so then they would be placing 'faith' in our scientists to have been right.  They would have to take the findings of the Big Bang residual background reading "on faith".

That is not saying that science IS religion... it's pointing out that the FAITH in it's truth would by then be all that is left.  The evidence is gone.

Still bullshit. Where does the evidence go? It will still exist.

If that's the actual argument they made, it is truly ridiculous.

(08-14-2017, 04:23 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  If you are too hard headed to see the difference then this apples and oranges argument should be good for another year or two.

It's not apples & oranges, it's just a silly statement allegedly made by two celebrity scientists. Without definitive proof of who said what I'm not going to hang them for it. They may have just made a terrible analogy - they're not English professors.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#35
Well I'm using it to affirm the life of a zombie baby. I might dedicate an avatar to the occasion.

Oh, wait .........
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#36
My inclination (or personality defect) is to make peace and find common ground.

I'm not sure how to do that in this case,other than self flagellation.

I wonder if a 'cat-o-nine-tails'would be the proper implement?
Does anyone still make those?

(You don't hear much about them anymore.)

Off to put on my burlap pajamas, and think about my sins.
Reply
#37
(08-14-2017, 08:47 PM)The Atheist Wrote:  
(08-14-2017, 04:23 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  They weren't saying that's how it works TA.  They were discussing how our current knowledge of science would be viewed by people in a few billion years when the evidence our science is based upon is no longer detectable.

No, it's still bullshit, unless at some stage in the future 2 + 2 = 5. The laws of physics of will still work, so the point about evidence is both nonsense and blind. Carbon atoms will still bond together to make both coal & diamonds, and water will still be H2O.

But they weren't talking about basic physics that form coal and water TA ... they were talking about the residual evidence of the Big Bang which is discernible due to the pattern of disruption it leaves in the overall background. The 'ripple' pattern is dissipating.  That sounds pretty legit physics wise to me. Ripples in a pond or in the universe follow the same rules. Don't they?

You're over reaching and using unrelated examples for the sake of argument.



(08-14-2017, 04:23 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Would they take our word that the evidence was around?  If so then they would be placing 'faith' in our scientists to have been right.  They would have to take the findings of the Big Bang residual background reading "on faith".

That is not saying that science IS religion... it's pointing out that the FAITH in it's truth would by then be all that is left.  The evidence is gone.

Still bullshit. Where does the evidence go? It will still exist.

If you say so.  Tyson and Cox disagree.  The patterns discernible now would have been much clearer billions of years ago, in another few billion they will have blended into the overall background 'energy' or whatever.
They weren't saying the evidence would disappear, just that the tell tale pattern would.


If that's the actual argument they made, it is truly ridiculous.

Tell them, not me.  I'm too dumb to know better than to take as 'gospel' the word of scientists that the media and general population seem to hold up as infallible.    I'll believe 'em until they find something new that changes their minds.   ... you'd better write me out a list of which scientists I'm supposed to believe implicitly, and which ones are just plain dodgy.  I get confused about that a tad, especially with climate scientists.


(08-14-2017, 04:23 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  If you are too hard headed to see the difference then this apples and oranges argument should be good for another year or two.

It's not apples & oranges, it's just a silly statement allegedly made by two celebrity scientists. Without definitive proof of who said what I'm not going to hang them for it. They may have just made a terrible analogy - they're not English professors.

Nup. sorry, but you're still missing the point. They were not talking hard evidence science, they were talking about .. gasssp .. "what ifs".

  Like with Cox talking about multiple universes.  He wasn't stating that  there were any.

 He was explaining that our universe has only been around for 13+ billion years so we can't see/discern/prove the existence of anything further away than 13 billion light years.

But that just because we can't see other universes doesn't prove that they aren't there.
..NOTE  he didn't say they WERE there either,  just that we will never know if they are or not.

Some other guru was waffling about similar to what we'd whimsied about here. 
That an old spent universe would no longer register on a level we would be able to discern.  Therefore, again, like Schroder's cat.  It's existence cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific tools we currently have.

You can rest assured that there was no hint that this musing applied in any way to religious beliefs.  It's a totally different thing, there is just a parallel form of thought proceses involvled.  "Processes" not conclusions.

Jeeeezuz is it really that hard to suss out? 
Reply
#38
So, let me see if I've got this right: In a few million years, scientists will have to take our musings about the big bang on faith, because the evidence for same (distortions in the microwave background radiation) will have 'smoothed out' to the point to where they can't see it?

That's a leap of faith right there.

In a few million years, if we should be so blessed to survive that long, our descendants will have either proved or disproved or modified the big bang deal way beyond our meager capabilities today.

No, they won't have to take anything on faith. They will simply look back at us and conclude that we did a pretty good job with the limited information and evidence we had at the time.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#39
No again, they said billion not million. But whatever eh?
Reply
#40
OK, billion then. I think my point still stands, does it not?
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)