Reply With Quote
Being an adult and not understanding the difference between a theory and scientific theory is embarrassing
honestly, if this is the level of discourse, i'm done here. this is a talking point from like, high school level "evolution is just a theory" nonsense debates. its boring. theories dont graduate to become laws. at least in the hard sciences, laws are typically things that can be expressed as mathematical expressions, whereas a theory is a proposed explanation for "why" something happens. they are fundamentally different.
but to humor me, please, point me in the direction of the proposed alternatives to the general big bang concept that can actually be found in published academic literature by phsyicists/astrophysicists?
as for it only taking one point of evidence to disprove a theory... yes and no. it may be enough to disprove one very specific model/interpretation. if you wanted to disprove the entire concept of the big bang theory, you'd need something completely incompatible with the overarching concept. a distant galaxy shown to be moving toward us rather than away from us (blue shift as opposed to red shift). that would turn the theory over its head or at the very least require a completely new understanding of how it works. many theories can be tweaked and reworked and still be reconciled, depending on the nature of the new evidence. some simply cannot survive the new evidence. the lithium problem is not considered to be the latter, at least in the actual scientific community. again, the theory of gravity had to be reworked over time. doesnt mean we stopped believing that separate bodies of mass interact with and attract one another. but the very specific newtonian model had to be tweaked.
Last edited by spurraider21; 08-14-2025 at 06:21 PM.
Being an adult and not understanding the difference between a theory and scientific theory is embarrassing
there being a good historical track record of him existing as a person is very different from there being a historical account of him being born of a virgin. these two claims dont have to be taken as a package deal. having a fair amount of do entation from historians around that time is good evidence of him having existed. there being two anonymous authoris, claiming 70 years after his birth, that he was born of a virgin, is not compelling evidence. what can be corroborated from the gospels of matthew and luke are that jesus existed. the other parts cannot.
but i also dont know by what metric you claim that its "as strong of a case as any notable historical figure, if not more." what is this being measured by?
contrary to your claim that there is no such thing as weak evidence or strong evidence, i dont think thats a reasonable position. if i wanted to prove that somebody robbed a bank in new york, having a do ent that shows he flew into new york on the morning of the robbery is evidence. its just weak. it doesnt carry too much weight other than establishing he seemed to be in the general vicinity near the time of the incident. but having video footage of him sprinting out of the bank minutes after the alarm goes off, with him carrying a bag apparently full of something, would be more compelling evidence.You're more than welcome to just say.."nah.. I don't believe the evidence." That's fine. That's okay. It still exists. People can choose to not believe in the evidence for gravity, that's fine. It still exists.
given the limitations that we are dealing with ancient tales, there is only a limited amount of certainty we have with respect to history. however, given that we can point to multiple historical accounts of him existing, i think there is, to the best degree we can hope for, fairly compelling evidence of him having existed. i dont think the gospels carry nearly as much weight as historical accounts. so is there any degree of evidence of the virgin birth? sure, two anonymous authors claiming so. but alas, it was written decades later, anonymously, by people who dont claim to have been witnessed. i dont assign much weight at all to them as a basis of belief
"virgin birth of a universe" is very cute, but im not here to play semantics. the evidence does not necesarily "prove" the big bang. its just that the evidence we have, the observations we've made, are consistent with an expanding universe from a singularity. the question of exactly how much lithium is out there, is not one that contradicts the broader conclusion that the universe began with a singularity or not. rather, it just means the previously proposed mathematical expression of that model was flawed and needs refinement or a better understanding.It's odd to see people use evidence for an argument and say "this evidence proves a virgin birth of a universe but don't pay attention to the evidence against it. It doesn't have merit. "
And turn around and say, "this evidence doesn't prove a virgin birth of Jesus but pay attention to the evidence that doesnt exist that is wasn't. It has merit. "
its on a scale of reliability. evidence in the form of recordable observations which can be repeated is quite reliable. evidence based on anonymous accounts decades after a purportive incident by people who were not witnesses, is not very reliable.Evidence is either a reliable thing or not. If you get to personally choose which ones you believe, stop acting like your argument is holier than thou. It's just another opinion based on what you choose to have faith in.
Last edited by spurraider21; 08-14-2025 at 06:12 PM.
reminder that plate tectonics is just a theory, as is the germ theory of disease
Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh
That wouldn't be wrong...Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh
Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh
Hahahaha
He can read any thread on this forum and know the fanbase is insane.Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh
Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh
This is misrepresentation. Certainty can be compared.
There is a whole bunch of physical evidence right now for the Big Bang. It is categorized and written, checked and rechecked (analyze experiments). The physical explanations for the Big Bang work right now and do a pretty good job of predicting physical occurrence right now and in predicting the future at specific moments in the future. But as far as the how the universe “ends”, that’s difficult because we don’t even really know what we mean by ends. Lots to still figure out... Definitions to be made clear.
“Before” the Big Bang, the proper thing to say is, “we don’t know.” Religion says we do know. That’s a HUGE difference. Science is merely a primate’s method of understanding the things that go on around him. But in a very specific way. A way that uses a logical, more rigorous and more believable tools for understanding . Science. You can’t just say belief, and leave it at that. You have to ask why you believe the way you do and weigh your feelings of how certain you are. Ex. Why did that bean bag you threw up on the shelf “suddenly” fall after a week? It’s a ghost? Or go through shifting center of mass and gravity? Which belief do you have more faith in? Or, if it is beyond our capabilities right now, “we don’t know.” Then physicists would say, “if we could just measure this amount of energy in this very small distance (space) we might be able to….” But we can’t, and it might never be possible to do so (look up Planck length and associated energies). So Science says “ WE DONT KNOW” This does not mean we give up. It may also mean some people (primates) then switch to the supernatural explanations and are no longer doing science.
Science is a way we use to struggle to understand, and I do mean struggle. So is religion. Religion is based on the supernatural. So people pretend they are using science to bolster or refute religious beliefs without realizing these struggles are used to answer entirely different questions. Because religion has been used to answer questions we know to be unlikely (even bizarre) using science, at this moment in our struggles, well, religion has been crapped on.
I see it as a stay in your lane thing.
Also your perfection of nature misrepresentations, especially about the unlikelyhood of events (atoms being perfect) and the idea of what “perfection” means are old and worn out. SR hit on one idea with the miracle of basically picking up a certain grain of sand on the beach and calling it miraculous (with cards and math) therefore some sort of miracle of perfection. . There is so much more to tear apart here. Especially gaps in our knowledge of how life might have begun. Enough. Apologies to the board for coffee at lunch.
On point.
Thanks to so many posters for their opinions on players and the economic realities of running an NBA team.
This forum is so much better than the national press on the Spurs as it should be.
right, things are only amazing if you suppose that one outcome HAD to happen. like shaking a jar of jellybeans and having 10 blues at the top, then 10 greens below that, and 10 reds below that might seem amazing. but its no more amazing than getting 1 green, 2 reds, 2 greens, 3 blues, 1 green, etc etc
This is one of those things where you attempt to define religion by your own terms and preference but also not allowing the opposition to do the same in regards. It just doesn't work that way. You can't decide that everything that benefits your argument is substantial and everything that doesn't is not.
Carbon is known as a God element. It's not old or worn out? That isn't how science works. Science literally never stops questioning. It doesnt say we don't know, it makes a leap of faith based on evidence and goes through repeatable steps to support that faith. Science is absolutely a belief system. You believe that the science you never conducted yourself is solidified simply because you heard or witness other people say so. Literally.. eye witness accounts, which is the back bone foundation of what supports all religions.
You haven't conducted any of those experiments and have not seen or experienced the evidence yourself in any case. You simply trusted someone and had faith that the process was pure and immune to corruption because it's run by...men? As if scientists throughout the ages haven't used science as a political tool to push agendas on a consistent basis. Science is a leap of faith in what they believe to be true based on what they've heard from others.
Outside of laws, all theories are constantly being proven wrong and evolving. This is how science works. Yet somehow people will believe and fight for a theory whole heartedly based on faith of eye witness testimony while attempting to ridicule a religion based on eye witness testimony.
Facts don't change because of how much faith you have in man's perfect and incorruptible testimony of what science is and isn't. Until you do every experiment yourself, you're still walking in faith that the system works and is being held to the standards it should be over hundreds of years without anyone editing or corrupting it for personal gain.
Sounds like a familiar tale.
There's nothing wrong with science. It's not what people are attempting to portray it as. Science is the absolute displine of being humble and self aware. It is filled with holes and errors. That's why it's exciting and never slows down gets old, contrary to what youre attempting to argue.
That's not at all what the premise is. You simply don't know anything about carbon and I'm sure you've never taken an organic chemistry class to even have a rudimentary understanding of it. That isn't an insult or a derogatory comment, it's literal in the sense that your ignorance does not allow you to understand the complexity and absolute brilliance of Carbon and the vast possibilities this one single element birthed. Until we catch up to the point of understanding how it could be possibly exist, it is truly a miracle of existence. Outside of a diety working their magic, it's hard to phantom a situation where all of these perfect instances came together for reality to function the way it does.
Your brain only comprehends the jellybean analogy because you haven't been exposed to the intricate details of the topic. A basic entry level org. Chem class would leave no room for such an analogy in your mind.
carbon = neat
All humans have managed to create are systems of greed. But at least we have the Spurs.
I studied biochemistry in undergrad at ucla. I tutored AP Chem for money during college.
I’m not a physicist or scientist by trade but i have a reasonable understanding of the fundamentals needed for this discussion. Carbon is fascinating. There are more compounds with carbon than all other elements combined. My favorite part of AP Chem was the rudimentary o-chem section learning about hydrocarbons, balancing combustion reactions, etc
its weird to randomly make that flex.
do you think we had to scrap the theory of gravity altogether because Newtonian physics couldn’t account for the orbit of mercury?
edit: f it. I just remembered someone from my class posted this to YouTube. This is me freshman year
Last edited by spurraider21; 08-16-2025 at 01:53 AM.
Therefore creationism
I'm late in praising this as quite possibly the funniest comment I've read here in my many yrs on ST. Well done, LeBowen!
Carbon is known as the God element…? Just like some physics calls the discovery of the Higgs boson thus the Higgs field “a god particle”
This is POPULAR way of selling books and discoveries. It’s a POPULAR way of “dusting the hands” off and saying WE are finished here, the primate has figured out God’s plan. Which is utter bull . Science has figured out God and it’s so incredibly perfect!
Many people love this nonsense because it’s comforting, implies perfection AND, YOU, yes you….were lucky enough to live in the age where everything top notch happened! If anything, Science has taught us that the questions of how the universe and everything else in it has raised more questions and might even indicate we will never understand everything because we are primates that have evolved for life suited for describing the universe using ranges of measurement that don’t come close to describing a universe that needs to be studied at the PHYSICAL EXTREMES which we cannot measure because it involves distances that are way too tiny and energies that are way too large. We are so far removed from these extremes by the biology that rules our ability to sense everything ( constrained by evolution and the biochemistry of living things) and therefore have no analogies, metaphors that can describe the extremes.
This is where we are NOW. In fact I would say science becomes religion when we say, we know god’s plan, and damn, it’s perfect.
Please tell me your definition of religion because if science has allowed us to explain the supernatural, science makes absolutely no sense. Science tries to explain what can be explained via experiment and observation. Only certain questions can be answered using the method of science. So please expand on all of this and explain how I am misunderstanding religion and science. Carbon is perfect…
If we are supposed to back all of this up with credentials, I can give mine. But I believe if you really understand what science and religion are, what I have stated will be very reasonable. Btw I don’t dislike or think religious people are stupid. It makes sense to me that religion exists and will continue it’s interesting branching, extinction of some sects, and fighting amongst each other. And science will continue to be self critical if it is to remain science. Fewer will die arguing the method of science thankfully.
Btw, people that “know” quantum mechanics often say if you really think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.
And it’s clearly because it does not make physical, mechanistic sense. But the math involved in doing quantum mechanics works well for right now for the tiniest of phenomena we try to understand.
If anyone wants what I consider to be outstanding understandable reading, I have some suggestions with specific chapters or pages.
On what should not be in a basketball forum. Apologies.
Last edited by pgardn; 08-16-2025 at 04:25 PM.
Your flex in my mind is understandable. Organic was a favorite of mine. I had very good professors though. That helped.
Extremely satisfying class for some reason.
I'm interested. PM me, please.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions