backtop


Print 307 comment(s) - last by Fritzr.. on Jul 20 at 10:23 PM


The sun may be scooping up dark matter, changing the way it releases energy. This could have a profound effect on life on Earth.  (Source: Yohkoh satellite [Jaxa])
Sun may be acting as a scoop, picking up dark matter

Is life on Earth possible thanks to a bizarre solar effect of dark matter?

A mystery that has puzzled scientists for some time now is the solar composition problem.  The sun appears to have a much easier time transporting energy to the surface than standard models would predict based on traditional theories of its composition.  While the exact reason why this happens has been unclear, what has been clear is that it likely has profound implications on the radiation received by Earth and hence life on our planet.

Now physicists at the University of Oxford have come up with a wild new theory to explain what's going on and to better characterize our solar system's star.  Astroparticle physicist Subir Sarkar of the University of Oxford and his colleague Mads Frandsen claim in a new study that the sun acts as a vacuum cleaner, sucking up dark matter.  This dark matter could be to blame for the energy transfer effects.

Dark matter is thought to consist of WIMPs -- weakly interacting massive particles.  These particles are predicted to be 100 times more massive than a proton.  However, they're hard to observe as they only interact through the weak nuclear force and gravity.  Also, current theory states that when WIMPs come in contact with each other, they annihilate each other, spitting out particles like neutrinos.

Professor Sarkar believes in a slightly different theory.  He points out that if there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the original universe, they would have annihilated each other.  Rather, something seems to be favoring matter.  He believes that similarly that whatever is favoring the survival of matter could be favoring the survival of WIMPs.

He also believes that dark matter is much lighter than previously theorized -- a mere 5 times the mass of a proton.  He states, "If it were five times heavier, it would get five times the abundance. That’s what dark matter is.  That’s the simplest explanation for dark matter in my view."

If he's right, he's created a headache for the particle physics community; lighter particles are harder to detect.  Fortunately, he's also offered them a solution.  He suggests that the sun is sucking up dark matter and that by observing it, dark matter can be formally detected.  He states, "The sun has been whizzing around the galaxy for 5 billion years, sweeping up all the dark matter as it goes."

Indirect observation of the dark matter could come in the form of the unusual energy transfer to the solar surface.  While normal particles like photons would strongly interact with matter in the sun and have a much slower rate of energy transfer, dark matter mostly just interacts with itself (barring weak interactions), thus could transfer energy much faster to the surface.

According to Professor Sarkar, the numbers add up perfectly.  He states, "When we do the calculation, to our amazement, it turns out this is true.  They can transport enough heat to solve the solar composition problem."

The next step in verification will be to check the sun's neutrino output.  Two new detectors --Borexino and one in Canada called SNO+ -- will soon be fired up and Sarkar is requesting that they check to see if the solar emission rate is equivalent to what his theory predicted.

If he's right that could mean that life as we know it on Earth may be thanks in part to the solar effects of dark matter.

The study was published in the July 2 edition of the journal 
Physical Review Letters.

The work, while unproven, has already gained some high profile praise from academics in the field.  American physicist Dan Hooper of Fermilab in Illinois comments, "[The study is] not too much of a stretch, in my opinion.  I look at their numbers, and they’re very plausible to me.  There’s an increasingly compelling body of evidence accumulating [of less massive dark matter].  The jury is still out, but if this is really what’s going on, we should be able to know it with some confidence in the next year or so."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Vanity of Knowledge
By ResStellarum on 7/13/2010 11:17:23 PM , Rating: 5
The fact is we don't understand gravity, and it's quite probable that the generalisations we have made about it will turn out to be wrong. For why else would there be such a disconnect between the quantum and the macro?

The OP is correct in stating that scientists today try to plug the holes in their theories with dark matter/energy rather than questioning the bases of those theories. Manipulating the mathematics with arbitrary dark variables just to balance them does not make them correct, but instead makes the maths suit the theory, not the theory suit the maths.

I fear physics has for a long time been building bad theory atop of bad theory analogous to a house of cards, and eventually it will all unravel. Newton's theory of gravity was ultimately proven wrong, so what makes you think einstein's is right? He couldn't account for the different behaviours of the quantum and macro worlds, so why do we assume our model of gravitation is right? I mean we have yet to discover what exactly it is, where it comes from. Our mere observations are insufficient to determine the nature of the thing.

The human invented rules/generalisations of matter could be completely wrong, and scientists hate to admit that. They like to think they understand most things, but they ultimately deceive themselves with vanity.




RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By zmatt on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By B3an on 7/14/2010 12:22:03 AM , Rating: 5
You have such a ridiculously small and non-forward looking mind if you think the LHC is misplaced funding. And it's sole purpose is not to just search for the "god particle", far from it.


RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By zmatt on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By gamerk2 on 7/14/2010 8:54:31 AM , Rating: 5
I disagree; It was people like you who objected to NASA in the first place, and frankly, the computer you are typing on right now wouldn't exist without their advances in the field.

You would be shocked, but most of the technology you currently use is directly decended from experimentes by DARPA/NAPA, that a company figured out how to make money on. Aside from the Higgs Boson, the LHC (and other colliders) allow scientists to better understand the makeup of small particles, which has direct Genetic Engineering applications. [For instance: We already have a cure for cancer that involves genetically modifiying a virus, which is a direct result of decades of study which people like you would have called a waste of funding]


RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By HotFoot on 7/14/2010 10:13:36 AM , Rating: 1
I can't rate you up, but what you just said is worth reading over a few times.


RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By gamerk2 on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By zmatt on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By Myg on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By zmatt on 7/15/2010 7:43:18 AM , Rating: 1
I think it's funny how you guys make the fallacy of shoving me in with the religious types. I have a logical concern for the usage of our resources, not some ideological driven distaste for technology. Why would someone like that even post on DT?


RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By LordanSS on 7/16/2010 5:22:48 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By HotFoot on 7/13/2010 11:37:26 PM , Rating: 5
Newton's theory of gravity wasn't really proven wrong at all. It's merely incomplete. In a way, it's like the Bernouli equation versus Navier-Stokes.

In the same way, we do know our understanding is incomplete. Einstein knew this. Ever since the publication of his work, we've known it's not the absolute final model that encompasses everything at all scales.

I don't really like dark matter (or dark energy). To me, it feels like a fudge factor - and it seems like a fudge factor that constantly has to change to match observation. I don't think there are many physicists that will say that they are completely satisfied with dark matter as the explanation for what's observed. However, it's worth investigating. And it is something that can be investigated and observed. Even in the course of modern physics, we've only just begun to really study large-scale gravity. Every year there are more bizarre phenomena discovered.

So I think you've started off with the wrong assumption, and that is that scientists think they're really "right" about anything, or have the final solution to the big picture that will never be altered. It's just a progression of better and better pictures. That progression has enabled the massive technological wealth we've developed in recent history. But just because our best theories of the day aren't known to be absolutely true doesn't mean they're worthless. Certainly, we're well ahead of back when people though the Sun traversed the sky every day by the work of Ra.


RE: Vanity of Knowledge
By Myg on 7/15/2010 2:51:13 AM , Rating: 1
The universe has infinite unity and connectivity and if you try to pull it apart in too large chunks at a time for divisionary analysis you will suffer; thats what the LHC is trying to do and its insane: Even if we do pull it off, do we even have the proper equipment to properly study the anomoly? Its atleast a few hundred to a thousand years too early for that sort of research.


wait what?
By zmatt on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: wait what?
By gamerk2 on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: wait what?
By gamerk2 on 7/14/2010 9:07:56 AM , Rating: 2
Also:

quote:
A friend of mine who is a grad student told me that with most fields of science and especially physics, when you get to your tenure and if you have enough friends than you can pretty much theorize whatever you want and if you can get enough people to go along with it then it becomes a respected and serious theory. One that can suck up grant dollars and seemingly give you a purpose.


Congrats, you just explained Religion. :D


RE: wait what?
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 9:36:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Congrats, you just explained Religion.

Only you are forgetting that evolution and other wild theories are state funded ;)

Scoff all you want, but you are no better than anyone else.


RE: wait what?
By gamerk2 on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: wait what?
By Anoxanmore on 7/14/2010 10:24:26 AM , Rating: 3
The six fingered man!

You killed my father, prepare to die!


RE: wait what?
By gamerk2 on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: wait what?
By Anoxanmore on 7/14/2010 11:15:56 AM , Rating: 2
No!

My name is Anoxanmore, you killed my father, prepare to die.

=^-^=

It is my job to quote the best movie in the entire world.(And modify said quotes to fit any article on a tech blog website)


RE: wait what?
By PaterPelligrino on 7/14/2010 11:16:06 AM , Rating: 2
How can a rational person doubt evolution? the evidence is everywhere, whereas there isn't any evidence at all - not one shred - for the creationist theory of life.


RE: wait what?
By invidious on 7/14/2010 5:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Believing anything that scientists tell you is not much different from believing anything that priests tell you.

I think its important to make a distinction between god and religion as well as between science and the scientific community. Not believing in something doesn't change whether or not it exists, regardless of who convinced you of that belief or how many people share that belief.

TLDR: don't be so eager to pass judgement, you don't know any better than anyone else, it's all a crapshoot.


RE: wait what?
By zmatt on 7/14/2010 1:19:20 PM , Rating: 3
did I say I was religious? I'm actually an atheist. That doesn't automatically mean I drink the intellectual elites kool aide. I know enough and have dealt with academics enough to know that physicists aren't necessarily any smarter or more enlightened than anyone else. You should see how often they shoot their own mouths off. You shoudl rea dup on William Shockley, Phillip Lenard, and Brian Josephon. All nobel prize winning physicists who's heads got to big for their own good.


RE: wait what?
By zmatt on 7/14/2010 1:22:34 PM , Rating: 1
You are reading far too much into what I said. We observe a discrepancy with what we think the rate of the universe's spin is and what it actually is. Instead of thinking maybe we got gravity wrong we make up some unprovable substance to explain it. That isn't science, in fact its no better than religion. Much of modern quantum theories have little more than incomplete mathematical equations holding them up. there is very little if any empirical evidence to support it. You don't see this kind of thing flying in other fields, unless you count climatology.


Global Dark Matter
By fic2 on 7/13/2010 12:50:46 PM , Rating: 5
I am sure that somehow humans are responsible for all the dark matter. We should stop emitting dark matter now!




hurry up Obama, Al Gore, UK, etc
By muhahaaha on 7/13/2010 1:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hurry up and pass that legislation which will lessen the effects that we humans have in the formation of dark matter!

Go White!!!!!




Observations
By mikowave on 7/14/2010 2:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
All of our observations are made by observers and tools created by the observed, the universe. Along guidelines which we know will yield observable data, in ways our senses and instruments can comprehend and indeed manifest. We cannot operate outside of this apparent continuum. There is not objectivity is there, if we are made up of what we are observing? Isn't this just our lot though? The best we can do. We expect to find things in certain ways and often do find what we look for, as Einstein stated. Science is our way of continuing to imagine, so for me theories are everything and theoretical thinking is the most exciting.




Ouch
By Goty on 7/15/2010 1:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
The lack of physical understanding in these comment is mind boggling. Pretty much every single person who has commented here need to go take a few introductory physics and astronomy courses and THEN come back and comment. At least go read the Wikipedia entries for these subjects, for Pete's sake. You all feel qualified to pronounce judgement on physical concepts that you don't understand in the slightest and it's frankly annoying.




By Mitch101 on 7/13/2010 4:16:15 PM , Rating: 1
Album: Every Breath You Take

Lyrics to Invisible Sun

I don't want to spend the rest of my life
Looking at the barrel of an Armalite
I don't want to spend the rest of my days
Keeping out of trouble like the soldiers say
I don't want to spend my time in hell
Looking at the walls of a prison cell
I don't ever want to play the part
Of a statistic on a government chart

There has to be an invisible sun
It gives its heat to everyone
There has to be an invisible sun
That gives us hope when the whole day's done

It's dark all day, and it glows all night
Factory smoke and acetylene light
I face the day with me head caved in
Looking like something that the cat brought in

There has to be an invisible sun
It gives its heat to everyone
There has to be an invisible sun
That gives us hope when the whole day's done

And they're only going to change this place by
Killing everybody in the human race
And they would kill me for a cigarette
But I don't even wanna die just yet

There has to be an invisible sun
It gives its heat to everyone
There has to be an invisible sun
It gives us hope when the whole day's done




......................
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 10:21:27 PM , Rating: 1
Ok guys, I would like to start off by saying that I have actually enjoyed this messy debate, and I hope that everyone has at least one thing to take away from it. I have tried my best to reply to everyone while being respectful, although I'm sure we can all agree that it's very difficult to do at times. We can all continue to talk until we are blue in the face, but as mentioned before, I gave my honest opinions and many of you have given yours.

I also hope that most of you can realize that there are still Christians out there that will stand by their faith and still try to uphold the same values that they preach (by being respectful towards others for example). I apologize for any rude and uncalled for tones and words, but I will not Apologize for my faith. I still believe that many highly regarded scientific theories out there require a great leap of faith to believe them (please don't lecture me on the principals and fundamentals of the scientific method after having said that).

In summation, I really do appreciate the feedback and I pray that you will all turn out for the best in life.

p.s. You're welcome, Jason Mick, for the hit count on your article :P lol

-Quad (possibly the most articulate troll on DT)




MAGNETS
By SurreDeth on 7/14/2010 12:29:09 PM , Rating: 1
F*cking magnets, how do they work?
And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist
Y’all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed.




...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By SSDMaster on 7/13/2010 9:28:01 AM , Rating: 3
5 billion year old news!


RE: ...
By Smilin on 7/13/2010 9:30:21 AM , Rating: 4
No I don't think it's tangible science. It's an explanaition given to a journalist then passed on via tech blog. No sense flying off the handle just because you only get the dumbed down version.

There may or may not be tangible science or a theory behind the statement.


RE: ...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/13/2010 9:35:21 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Don't read too much into this post. I understand that science is best guess; but seriously, when do we draw the line between day dreaming and actual hard science fact?


Many likely would have said the same about when Copernicus theorized that the Earth revolved around the Sun. And many likely thought Newton was fantasizing when he theorized the force of gravity. And more still likely thought Einstein was off his rocker when he proposed the theory of relativity.

These researchers obviously have not *yet* proven themselves to be in such a lofty league, but the point is that dismissing some of the brightest minds in the physics community because their theories seem far-fetched by our current understanding is a poor idea.

If you want to contribute, go to school, get a physics Ph.D and offer a solid theory based on math that runs contrary to theirs. But to insult their theory in an online post hardly seems productive or useful, particularly when you provide no supporting evidence of why you believe their claims are wrong.


RE: ...
By SSDMaster on 7/13/2010 9:40:12 AM , Rating: 3
Yea, be productive or go home! This is the INTERNET; respect.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Redwin on 7/13/2010 10:02:53 AM , Rating: 3
Saying we can't know exactly what happened 5 billion years ago (what did bob have for lunch on tuesday 5 billion years ago?) does not preclude us having ANY knowledge of that period.

Certain things are pretty well-established. We know how old the sun is, because of its composition and burn rate. We know how old the earth is because of the uranium / lead ratios in the oldest rocks. We don't know anything EXACTLY, but to say that implies we can know nothing seems foolish.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Smilin on 7/13/2010 10:36:34 AM , Rating: 2
Here are some good uses of the word "know"...

I KNOW the difference between belief, hypothesis, weak and strong theories, and fact.

I know when those terms are being used interchangeably due to unrequired precision.

I know the difference between a tech blog and a scientific paper.

I know not to get bent out of shape over *entertainment* on the intarwebs.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 10:43:14 AM , Rating: 1
Who is getting bent out of shape? Is there no such thing as classic style debate anymore?


RE: ...
By jimhsu on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Iaiken on 7/13/2010 10:55:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm going to be very picky about semantics here. As I stated earlier, (and my whole point for posting in the first place) we seriously need to start replacing the word KNOW with guess when talking about something that is not observable! If we can not observe something, then a "this is fair tale time" should be rubber stamped in. What is wrong with that?


The problem is that history has proved time and again that things which are not unobservable today, may be observable tomorrow.

Cells, bacteria and viruses would have all at one time fallen into your fairy tail land of disbelief. Had people not given them credence, there would have been no impetus or resolve to find them.

Scientists were working with atoms and sub atomic particles to create nuclear weaponry based exclusively on theory. Based on your way of thinking, they didn't become real until they became observable several decades later.

quote:
Again, I am simply saying that we need to evaluate our semantics and the way we adopt guess as fact.


You make the mistake of mixing up the use of the word fact within the context of a theory. Gravity is still just a theory, but I know for a fact that if I let go of my cell phone, it will fall towards the earth regardless of the minute details of the forces at work.

I would instead suggest that you reexamine your preconception of the semantics as flawed.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Iaiken on 7/13/2010 11:39:57 AM , Rating: 5
Until we can prove the finest mechanics of gravity with regard to all matter and energies, gravity will remain a working theory.

This is the same reason why all universal science will remain as theories. In order for them to become fact, we need something that we are currently incapable of having: infinite knowledge.

This is where your argument of semantics falls flat because you are discarding the context in which a "fact" is being discussed.

Many working theories contain a substantial enough body of facts that they become the accepted explanation, but are still not facts in their own right because there are still many unknowns. Even within the theory of gravitation there are problems that it cannot explain (exceptions to the rule that don't disprove the rule). In a lot of cases, this is where the theory of general relativity comes in.

What I am trying to get at is:

Just because the theory these gentlemen came up with doesn't yet have a body of facts behind it (outside of their body of mathematical proofs) doesn't mean it should be discarded. So long as others verify that the math and the explanations are sound, it is worth investigating the facts regardless of them being for or against the theory.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By dark matter on 7/13/2010 12:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but that is YOUR opinion. You are aware because you "KNOW" this (because you say it) doesn't make it "FACT".

My opinion is;

God is a belief. Science is about repeatable experiments.

And by the way putting it in bold does not give it any more gravitas. I have read all your posts and you are now entering trolling territory due to several inconsistencies that say to me you lack integrity or you're not really sure what you are trying to say. Which is ok, I KNOW you're only human.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By eggman on 7/13/2010 4:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
God is a creation of man for a lot of people out there.


RE: ...
By Senju on 7/15/2010 5:41:25 AM , Rating: 1
It is interesting that you mention "GOD". I would guess that GOD is a theory as well which no one can proof or not proof.

I have a problem with the word "GOD" since it cannot be defined. If you ask a million people, you will get a million different answers.

One thing I do know, the more science can explain about the universe, the less we need to rely on GOD as the explanation of how things work.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 7:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
Science will never answer the most important questions of life. Why are we here, and where are we going. The bible has answers for that. Faith, is faith, is faith. You can scoff all you want to, but we all rely on faith. Yours is in science, mine is in God.

Yet you still think that you are betting than me. :) Good day.


RE: ...
By banthracis on 7/13/2010 11:18:43 AM , Rating: 4
I know about ton's of thing's that aren't observable.

I know electron's exist even though I've never seen one.

I know giant lizards once walked the earth even though that's not observable.

I know that information can be send in a digital form, even though I've never seen a book as a pure digital form.

I know I had a great great grandfather even though he's not observable.

Nothing wrong with using know if there's sufficient evidence to justify something existence, even if it's not observable.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/13/2010 7:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing wrong with using know if there's sufficient evidence to justify something existence, even if it's not observable. Now that we are on that note, I'll ask you this. Can we safely apply that same logic to the existence of God? Or did I just open up a whole can of worms?


Sure you can, but there is no evidence supporting the existence of God. And don't reference the Bible as evidence, that is like saying Star Wars is evidence for the existence of The Force.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 9:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is no evidence supporting the existence of God.

Sure there is, and plenty of it! It's been said a lot in the article but I'll say again: Evidence is evidence. Everyone sees it different ways. It all comes down to faith in what you believe.


RE: ...
By LRonaldHubbs on 7/14/2010 2:16:29 PM , Rating: 3
No. Evidence either supports or does not support an idea. Faith fills in where there is a lack of evidence.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 7:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
No, faith fills in where evidence is no longer needed. Some people are just so hell bent on their "faith" in science that they will believe anything to fit their established theories.

quote:
Faith fills in where there is a lack of evidence.

Completely your opinion.


RE: ...
By LRonaldHubbs on 7/15/2010 10:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Completely your opinion.

No, you are wrong, because what I said is indisputable fact. You only think it is disputable because you are ignoring the actual definition of the word 'faith' and substituting your own.

faith \'fath\
–noun
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Faith by definition is belief in the absence of proof. Therefore, exactly as I said, by matter of fact not opinion, faith fills in where there is a lack of evidence.

quote:
No, faith fills in where evidence is no longer needed.

That, sir, is an opinion, and one which I believe is horribly flawed. You're effectively saying that evidence can be deemed unnecessary on a personal basis even when it is overwhelmingly present. This is an extremely foolish viewpoint and one that is detrimental to not just the human race and but also to anything within our range of influence.

quote:
Some people are just so hell bent on their "faith" in science that they will believe anything to fit their established theories.

Science is not about faith, it is about evidence; fundamentally diametric ideals.


RE: ...
By geddarkstorm on 7/13/2010 2:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well to be fair...

-We have seen electrons, just using other methods of visualization besides light.

-We have observed giant lizards (actually, most dinosaurs were likely warm-blooded and -not- lizards at all) via their bones and tracks they left.

-You can see a book in purely digital form, all binary code, if you want. Not that it would make any sense eh?

-You have observed your great great grandfather's existence because you've observed yourself. But, in this case, it is true you cannot directly observe your great great grandfather unless there are documents/pictures of him left, or you want to dig up his bones assuming he was buried and do some DNA tests.

Empiricism, that is observation, is the foundation of all science. Mathematical models are used only to guide us to find those empirical observations. Anything that has not been empirically observed is only hypothetical, and if it's real or not is unknown; but science progresses purposefully to find the observations to answer those hypotheses.

Even if we individually have not seen all the observations yet, they are recorded and accessible to us if we wanted.


RE: ...
By nafhan on 7/13/2010 11:20:36 AM , Rating: 1
Observing something does not make it a fact. Observation is dependent upon your brain's interpretation of physical phenomenon. Different people can see the same thing and interpret it differently. A good example of this is 3D movies. Some people see the 3D effect and some don't; the same light is hitting both people's eyes, but their brains interpret it differently. Similar things can be said about your other senses.
In other words, everything you "know" is actually your best guess, and nobody really "knows" anything.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By dark matter on 7/13/2010 12:46:37 PM , Rating: 4
I found your posts quite interesting right up until this one. I actually could visualise where you were coming from with your arguments, again, right up until this post.

Earlier on you posted "can we not have a proper debate". Which I believe was a well reasoned response to an attack against you.

This gave you kudos in my opinion. And then you go and blow it completely by being an arsehole with this post and you have demonstrated right now you are a troll.

The original post of this comment was airing his opinions, like you, and yet you shot him down with a smug and arrogant attitude, something you were keen to point out to others not so many posts ago.

Go play with your toys little boy.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 12:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
If someone comes to a technology website to post common knowledge fact as if most of us (or me, the intended object of his post) are too stupid to already know, then I am well within my means to mock his attempt to scoff.

Furthermore, I have received the same exact thing from this person in previous discussions.

Kind of like saying, "the sky is blue". <-- Thanks man, we appreciate your contribution.

I don't really think it's fair to call me a troll for mocking someone who undermines our intelligence.


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/13/2010 1:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
Except the sky isn't blue, if you wish to get real technical and specific with semantics.

Your previous posts are pretty much trolls, I'd put you in the same category as FITCamaro. :)


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/13/2010 3:43:02 PM , Rating: 3
Your posts are proof in and of themselves.

If you don't want to get technical with semantics then don't get technical. Pretty simple really even for a fundie like yourself.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 6:39:25 PM , Rating: 1
This added absolutely nothing to the progress of the discussion, so I guess you are just being an asshat.


RE: ...
By geddarkstorm on 7/13/2010 2:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
This is not true.

Observing with your eyes takes interpretation of your brain, but what about observing with an instrument? There is no subjectivity, or bias in a mechanical, chemical, or electronic device. What the data it captures reproducibly then means to us, that's what's open to interpretation. But observation does necessitate reality, or it would never have been observable in a reproducible manner.

So no, not everything is our "best guess", and we really do "know" things. Let's not get flaky here.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 3:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
Everything , is best guess sir. Unless you claim to be an all knowing God. And that would be very arrogant wouldn't it?


RE: ...
By geddarkstorm on 7/13/2010 4:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
God is rational, obviously. The rules, the -laws- by which the universe is founded, relates to itself, stays coherent to allow our existence, must be solid, observable, and testable. That is, anything within this universe should be able to elucidate anything else within this universe as it's all related together by the fundamental laws God laid down.

So no, everything isn't a best guess. We -can- learn about the environment we live in. We can't know everything, and if God wanted to change anything, being outside the universe He could at any time (aka, miracle). But in and of itself, the universe is concrete. How He built it, planned it, and laid it out, isn't discovering that what science is about and all part of the fun?


RE: ...
By geddarkstorm on 7/13/2010 4:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
Well, let me put it another way. We know what we observe, but how we then -interpret- that observation, and what it means in the larger scheme of things, what we can then predict from it--that is our best guess, yes. We call our best guess a hypothesis, indeed. But we know our observations. Just have to remember to keep observations and interpretations as two separate, distinguished things.


RE: ...
By Cardboardtoast on 7/13/2010 3:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
And yet, every generation of new scientist finds something the previous did wrong...and they all used "instruments" of some kind, no matter how low-tech.

I agree with his main point, that science is just "theories", so there is no problem with the above happening.

The issue I see is that we don't have the "instruments" needed to see these things. ANYTHING said about these is speculation. Someone here pointed out how we now know of bacteria etc... Well, before that, how accurate were the theories about sickness etc (a result of bacteria or viruses)? (I don't know, so its an actual question) Take that as a basis for the likely accuracy of this one about particles we can't see.

An example: do we really "know" what electrons are, or how they work? Seems to me we've been through quite a few theories about them (Rutherford's, Bohr's, etc)...I would expect more revisions (even small ones) to come. (which would be cool)... But all the experiments are repeatable, which is your requirement. But, the issue remains. So I repeat my stance that when it comes to science, "know" shouldn't be in the vocab.


RE: ...
By geddarkstorm on 7/13/2010 4:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
We find something is "wrong" by simply finding what -wasn't- detected before. It isn't that what was detected before was wrong, that's not the case, accept in very, very rare cases where the instruments themselves were totally not what people thought they were. And I'm not sure if that's even happened, though it's possible.

No no no, don't misunderstand. When something is "wrong" in science and later "corrected" they are talking about the theoretical models surrounding the observations.

We make a set of observations, then make a model, a theory, to explains how these observations relate to eachother. How on variable affects another variable. From this theory, we can then predict what new observations we'll make when we modify a variable or bring in a new one. It's when we then do this, finally aquiring the instrument for, or just finally getting around to it, that we might find something is wrong with the -theory-. That is, that the observations don't relate like we thought they did because we -didn't have the full story-.

That's what it means when something was "wrong". All the observations ever made still stand. Stuff from the 1800s are still used today no less than stuff coming out right at this moment. It's all built upon what came before.

Electrons are a perfect example of what I mean. All the observations about electrons we've made are real and true and stand. We build a -model-, a -theory-, based ON THESE OBSERVATIONS, to not only say how they relate to what an electron is, but predict what it will do if say we suddenly accelerate one at a phosphorous screen. Then, when we do that new experiment, maybe the electron didn't do what we thought it would. Now we've made a NEW observation, and now our model for electrons has to incorporate this NEW observation. Thus the model MUST change.

That's how science works. It saddens me how people get confused on this fundamental so easily.


RE: ...
By Cardboardtoast on 7/13/2010 4:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
"That's how science works. It saddens me how people get confused on this fundamental so easily. "

No no, you just stated my opinion (albeit in a clearer way). If that's not what you got then it's my bad (as I said, all the experiments are repeatable, thus they still stand).

I never said observations were invalid, but that what matters is the theories that they are used to back up. The electron example is perfect, as it holds that scientists can misinterpret data, as they don't have the whole picture. They cannot claim to have this "big picture", as in the future, THEIR theories can be turned upside-down with new evidence, and a new way of looking at things.

Science: to me, is the observation and understanding of the the universe around you.
To go back to the initial topic I replied to was the idea we can really "know" something from this data. We can theorize all we want, and may even get things right...but a wrong assumption can easily overturn a right one if all you have is the "small picture."

And, I'm sure you can find an occasion where an instrument did not perform as theoretically intended, producing wrong results, that we might still accept today.

Yes, this is an overly-negative view of science...but the idea still stands, you can't PROVE that your machines are correctly measuring things (after all, many instruments take measurements of things that humans couldn't otherwise make), or that your theory is correct.

However, we use these theories and search to correct them and make new ones because, quite frankly, learning can be fun. If chemistry and the like was horribly tedious to the point it would take 10 years for even the simplest experiment...I don't think it would have taken off...


RE: ...
By Etsp on 7/13/2010 12:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
The reason this is so is because
quote:
Mr. Smarty Macsmartypants scientist
publishes his findings, and other Mr. Smarty Macsmartypants scientists review it against their own findings. They have critics, and there are people who watch these "claims" closely.

I would agree that when you find evidence in one field of study that indicates the earth is more than 4000 years old, that certainly isn't conclusive.

However, when you find that evidence in various different areas of study using a wide range of methods, and they ALL point to the earth being older than that, then you are faced with two possibilities: The Mr. Smarty Macsmartypants scientists are in a conspiracy against your beliefs, or the earth is older than 4000 years.

Okay, one other possibility, and that is the world builders from Hitchhiker's Guide really did make the earth and plant evidence that it is older than it really is.

Even in this third case, it would make little sense to disregard scientific findings and evidence of past events simply because we weren't able to observe and record it.

If we followed your logic in the justice system, just about anyone could get away with murder. All you would need to do is kill someone without witnesses. After all, we don't KNOW that the guy killed the other guy, even though there is no one else around and the "suspect" is holding a bloody knife and the dead guy has a number of knife-shaped holes in him. We didn't OBSERVE it, so there is no way of being certain.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 12:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even in this third case, it would make little sense to disregard scientific findings and evidence of past events simply because we weren't able to observe and record it.

How is something like this regarded as tangible science? I think anyone with a good imagination and a knack for writing fiction can be a "scientist" nowadays. In no way, shape, or form can things like this be observed.

Don't read too much into this post. I understand that science is best guess; but seriously, when do we draw the line between day dreaming and actual hard science fact?


If you are going to jump in the middle of a discussion, then please have the respect to know what has actually been said before throwing in your two cents. I NEVER said anything about totally disregarding a theory. I guess I will have to keep repeating myself over, and over, and over, and over, and over.


RE: ...
By Jellodyne on 7/13/2010 2:17:46 PM , Rating: 1
Respect.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

And hey, let's also apply it to anything biblical. Deep in your heart, do you feel you really guess God?


RE: ...
By HotFoot on 7/13/2010 2:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
Philosophically speaking, if you rigidly define "knowledge" as a justified true belief, then ultimately the conclusion is we don't truly know anything at all. It can be shown that things are not always as they seem, ie. a straight straw will appear bent in a glass of water. This is a simple example, but it can be expanded to virtually all observation. Just as nothing can ever be 100% safe, neither can anything be 100% known with ultimate justification.

Can you truly prove that we are not just within some kind of simulation, similar to the concept behind The Matrix? You can't - though I would argue that Occam's Razor would say we are justified enough in believing that what we observe is real, until there is evidence to the contrary.

And it is just so with science about the ancient past. I don't know that there were dinosaurs on this Earth, or that they existed tens to hundreds of millions of years ago. However, I also don't know that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow. I feel I'm justified in believing both, however, and I'm going to keep making my decisions accordingly. That's good enough for me.


RE: ...
By Donkeyshins on 7/13/2010 3:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm going to be very picky about semantics here. As I stated earlier, (and my whole point for posting in the first place) we seriously need to start replacing the word KNOW with guess when talking about something that is not observable! If we can not observe something, then a "this is fair tale time" should be rubber stamped in. What is wrong with that?


Replace 'guess' with theorize and you're closer. And fairy tale time is for when we're talking about giant invisible all-powerful beings.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By camylarde on 7/14/2010 4:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
... and you sir are a product of my imagination. I know it because I feel it that way! THis whole universe is here just for my own and personal entertainment, the stuff around me just things to play with.

Disprove that. Oh you can't you're in my mind only.


RE: ...
By thejerk on 7/19/2010 11:41:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My intent is to question why Mr. Smarty Macsmartypants scientist (ref. all of the great minds) can say absolutely anything, and it is instantly given the "oooooo ahhhh" factor and placed into the realm of science fact. Don't say it doesn't happen either! Otherwise the global warming nuts wouldn't have any devout followers.


Jesus Christ said a whole bunch of controversial stuff that really, really pissed off the Romans... and his own Jews. Of course, what the writers of the Gospels say (one or two levels removed from ole JC himself, I might add), is taken as fact, when it's merely a recount of what one good guy said and did. It's received 2000 years of oohs and ahhhhs, and is placed in to a the same realm of historical fact. Don't say that hearsay doesn't happen, either! Otherwise, Creationism wouldn't have any devout followers.

See what I did there?


RE: ...
By Iaiken on 7/13/2010 10:34:37 AM , Rating: 2
Silly Mick,

This is the Internet, you don't need facts to be right. If you'd been paying attention in O'Reilly 101, you'd know that all you need is volume and repetition.

But seriously, these gents did their homework on the subject, proved it out mathematically, offered a hypothesis along with a series of experiments that will either support or disprove their ideas.

Had Quadrillity even looked another step further into it, he'd have seen that this wasn't just something that was "dreamed up". Instead, he'd have found that they've put a monumental amount of work into making sense of the idea through mathematical proofs.

While I don't have the math to follow their work directly, there is an entire community of scientists who will confirm or deny it for me. This idea is no more far fetched from today's thinking than atomic theory was at the time of it's inception.

"What we need is not the will to believe but the will to find out." - Bertrand Russell


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/13/2010 11:26:50 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Take evolution for example. There is plenty of evidence to say that there is a God, and he created the earth and universe no more than 10,000 years ago... But you will never see the big names in science claim this as fact. They will be really quick to proclaim the "facts" of evolution however because that's where the money is. There is simply no money in creation theories, otherwise it would be just as popular in terms of credibility from sources like Nat Geo, Discovery, Smithsonian, etc.


Really?

Are you serious? You're turning a convo on an astrophysics theory into a debate about evolution? I mean c'mon man it's not like I don't give you numerous chances to debate evolution in my regular pieces on paleontology/evolutionary biology. Can you at least *try* to keep that debate to those pieces and stay on topic here?

This article was about dark matter, not evolution.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By theArchMichael on 7/13/2010 1:50:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Please show me how I am not on topic. Go back to the very first post and re-read to figure how how we got to this part of the discussion.


Not to be mean..
But I think the discussion got here based on your clandestine attempt to undermine the credibility of a theory that suggests that... the entire Universe ... is more than 10,000 years old.

I think people have a right to be surprised because you characterized theories such as this one as 'fairy tales'. Now, I think the aim of your "discussion" is to prevent people from laughing at you... even harder, when you tell them your 'fairy tale' of how the universe was created.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 2:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Your opinion. You are entitled to it. But I am not even close to ashamed of what I believe in. I would be more ashamed at the belief in nothing.

Maybe you replace God with science; where as you believe in science, and I believe in God. This does not, however, discredit me from sharing good science with the rest of the world. Just to be clear, my aim is to speak out against science that violates academic integrity.

quote:
Now, I think the aim of your "discussion" is to prevent people from laughing at you... even harder, when you tell them your 'fairy tale' of how the universe was created.


I believe that we were created, and have a purpose other than this short life here on earth; and yet you believe that soupy rain somehow spawned impossibly complex life from non-living matter (which has never been observed or recreated mind you)

We all put faith in something. You poking fun at mine does not help your credibility.


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/13/2010 3:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe that we were created, and have a purpose other than this short life here on earth; and yet you believe that soupy rain somehow spawned impossibly complex life from non-living matter (which has never been observed or recreated mind you)


Creation of life is a totally different field then evolution. Theres a great many people which, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence, don't bother to argue against evolution, but have norrowed their vision to a creator creating teh FIRST life, then letting evolution take its course.

That being said, to argue the entire universe is only 10,000 years old is just silly, especially since Egypt has records going back a good 15,000...or were those all falsified by the scientific community in an attempt to "prove" evolution somehow?


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 6:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Creation of life is a totally different field then evolution.

Completely wrong. Which type of evolution are you talking about here? Chemical, Cosmic, Macro, or Micro?
quote:
but have norrowed their vision to a creator creating teh FIRST life, then letting evolution take its course.

You mean the hypocritical Christians that bend and change what the bible says in order to fit the theory of evolution?
quote:
since Egypt has records going back a good 15,000

We don't have reliable recorded history as far as 4,000 years back, much less 15,000.
quote:
or were those all falsified by the scientific community in an attempt to "prove" evolution somehow?

I would have to actually say that, yes, there are plenty of people out there that view evidence "to fit the theory". And that is not true science. I'm not saying they all do that, or on even on purpose for that matter. But to say all of science is infallible is ridiculous.


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/14/2010 8:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
You my friend, have gone off the rocker.

quote:
quote:
Creation of life is a totally different field then evolution.

Completely wrong. Which type of evolution are you talking about here? Chemical, Cosmic, Macro, or Micro?


There is a seperate field of Science dedicated to understanding how life was first formed (It starts with an "A", I just can't remember the name right now...). Evolution seeks to explain how life has changed over time, nothing more. As such, its independent of any creation theory.

quote:

quote:
but have norrowed their vision to a creator creating teh FIRST life, then letting evolution take its course.

You mean the hypocritical Christians that bend and change what the bible says in order to fit the theory of evolution?


Define "The Bible" for me; the Church, after all, has added/removed entire books quite liberally over the years...

quote:

quote:
since Egypt has records going back a good 15,000

We don't have reliable recorded history as far as 4,000 years back, much less 15,000.


Really? So, written records from Egypt, Mesoptomia, Sumeria, China, and other places should all be disregarded because they do not fit into your theory?


RE: ...
By CSagan83 on 7/13/2010 5:56:58 PM , Rating: 4
Quadrillity is a troll. The only question is whether to hate him/her for it (read: evil person who knows what he/she is doing) or to pity him/her for it (read: passionate ignorant person who has lost a lot of gray matter to indoctrination by <insert relevant organized religion here>). I'd love to know the answer to that mystery, and I'd hypothesize that it's the former, but I'm not willing to put in the lab hours to confirm or deny. =p


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/13/2010 7:21:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
by CSagan83 on July 13, 2010 at 5:56 PM Quadrillity is a troll. The only question is whether to hate him/her for it (read: evil person who knows what he/she is doing) or to pity him/her for it (read: passionate ignorant person who has lost a lot of gray matter to indoctrination by <insert relevant organized religion here>). I'd love to know the answer to that mystery, and I'd hypothesize that it's the former, but I'm not willing to put in the lab hours to confirm or deny. =p


It's funny, as soon as I saw the type of posts Quadrillity was making, I knew it was just a matter of time before his/her posts would fall into some religious babble about how evolution is wrong and the Earth is only 10,000 years old. I'm surprised it took so long to get there.

I still find it stunning that in this day and age, there are people that still feverishly stick to stories written thousands of years ago(and heavily edited and re-written btw), and believe them over observable evidence provided by the brightest minds and greatest technologies. It's really unbelievable.


RE: ...
By AssBall on 7/13/2010 11:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
You can sit around and nit-pick about truth, fact, knowledge, and proper word definitions all day while others use theories and scientific method to learn more about the universe.


RE: ...
By BarkHumbug on 7/13/2010 11:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is plenty of evidence to say that there is a God, and he created the earth and universe no more than 10,000 years ago...


Lol! This made me laugh so hard, thank you for that... ;)


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 12:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
To say that there is no credible theories out there that support my statement is downright dishonest and willingly ignorant.


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/13/2010 1:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
There are no credible theories that support your statement. :)


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 2:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
Take a look at the "canopy theory". Most immediate links will take you to christian based sites, so be aware of that.

Who says that the theory isn't credible? A scientist that believes in Evolution? LoL. Back to another catch 22. It's only credible if you say it's credible?

Come on man, be fair. There are serious parts of the scientific community that support this.


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/13/2010 3:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
No there are not.

There are no credible scientists that state the earth is 10,000 yrs old. The only ones that do won't let the scientific community peer review their work, that makes them not credible. Which is one of the many flaws of your argument.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 7:53:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are no credible scientists that state the earth is 10,000 yrs old.

Either you are lying, or ignorant of the truth, because yes there are plenty.
quote:
The only ones that do won't let the scientific community peer review their work, that makes them not credible.

Again, completely false. Where is your source of this? If they follow the scientific method to the letter, what makes them not credible? Explain that to me please. They go through the entire process just like everyone else, but somehow they are inherently wrong huh?


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/14/2010 9:07:26 AM , Rating: 2
No there aren't.

They don't follow the scientific method that is to release their work to their peers so it can be reviewed and double checked.

Which is why a lot of religious sites refuse to publish any sort of actual data, for fear it will be torn apart by the actual scientific community.

You my good sir, live in a very wonderful fantasy world, and I wish you the best with it. Some day I do hope you join the rest of us.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 9:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which is why a lot of religious sites refuse to publish any sort of actual data, for fear it will be torn apart by the actual scientific community.

I asked for proof of this, and you offered none.

Learn how a traditional debate works before we start saying, "yeah huh! Nuh uh!".


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/14/2010 10:16:53 AM , Rating: 4
I can't give proof of a scientific site that refuses to have its work peer reviewed, they don't exist. :)


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/14/2010 9:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
How does he give proof that no credible scientists support a theory? You are claiming that many credible scientists do support the canopy theory, so post links to scientists supporting it.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 7:46:50 AM , Rating: 2
First lets define what deems someone/something as "credible" in your world. I bet nothing can live up to it (for this particular situation anyway).


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/15/2010 6:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Published, peer reviewed by other scientists that are considered experts in the same field.


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/13/2010 3:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_theory#Vapor_c...

Some points debunkthing the theory:

quote:
The flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly


quote:
Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is at least 4.5 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.


quote:
If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[68]

In addition, carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.[69]


quote:
Proponents of Flood Geology also have a difficult time explaining the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[71]


Just a few areas where the "theory" falls flat on its face.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 7:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just a few areas where the "theory" falls flat on its face.

First off, you cite with Wikipedia, which is laughable at best when talking about any sensitive subject. Second, maybe you see evidence in a different light. If so, then we can agree to disagree. Otherwise, when we get down the far in a rooted discussion we tent to hit the mark where faith in what you believe takes over and no-one is going to break. I thank you for the reply though.


RE: ...
By Lugaidster on 7/14/2010 1:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
Wikipedia by itself might be considered laughable as a source for information, but to it's merit, there are many good articles with proper sources. The one quoted, if you actually did read it, had credible sources. You just had to scroll down and read the links that were pointed by the little numbers.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 8:00:03 AM , Rating: 1
I understand the concept of Wikipedia, thanks anyway. Also, thanks again for once again being another person in this discussion to assume something about me. I read the links. If you had read MY post, then you would see that I was agreeing to disagree. I didn't find any game changer in anything that was presented to me. We both saw evidence in a completely different manner, and no one was going to budge.

You can't go around assuming that I didn't read just because I did not flip flop and change my mind about the whole subject.


RE: ...
By Iaiken on 7/13/2010 12:44:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
There is plenty of evidence to say that there is a God, and he created the earth and universe no more than 10,000 years ago


Just to keep this on the topic of the universe and time spans.

Based your assertion of the 10,000 year old earth basically discards the radioactive decay of elements that we find in nature, but take longer than 10,000 years. Yet we find the radioactive decay of these elements to be both observable, constant and predictable.

There are several decaying element chains that are both found in nature and can be manufactured by man in a research reactor. Chief amongst these is Thorium-234.

Thorium-234 is good natured enough to decay into protactinium-234 after a few weeks and shortly from there into uranium-234. This gives us an exact picture of what uranium-234 looks like in it's virgin state (prior to decay). This allows us, through calculation and comparison of naturally occurring uranium-234 to determine that the earth is either at least 240 thousand years old, or that a creator had the wherewithal to create uranium in all of its various states of decay for us to find.

Personally, I am more inclined to Occam's notion that the simplest solution is the correct one.

That the uranium-234 is the observed great great grand daughter atom of U-238 (with a decay life of 4.5 billion years). Most interestingly, the decay of U-238 sourced from the earth falls in line with the decay of U-238 sourced from space.

When you start looking at the body of evidence of all the various types of radioactive decay you run into the creator problem. Either they are what science has said through calculation and observation, or they are a "test of faith" put there by god. Thus it becomes an un-winnable argument of where people chose to put their faith.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 1:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
The entire concept of radio metric dating is based on the the following assumptions:

1. Decay is always the same in every testable material.
2. There has always been a consistent amount of comparable atmospheric or cosmic samples and derivatives.

Just those two assumptions put a big dent in the validity of the method in my humble opinion because none of that can be observable. In essence, the method to see how old something is; is not in itself testable. (i hope that made sense)

quote:
Thus it becomes an un-winnable argument of where people chose to put their faith.

I agree 100%. But I am tired of not getting equal treatment when it comes to my opinion vs others opinions. They are all opinions, however mine usually gets tossed out of the door and deemed, "unscientific".

This whole debate started when I questioned the valididty of calling the topic of this article "scientific"


RE: ...
By ClownPuncher on 7/13/2010 1:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
All opinions are not created equal. You seem to think dinosaurs walked the earth with humans, despite no evidence supporting your opinion.


RE: ...
By geddarkstorm on 7/13/2010 2:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Dragons! ...Wait, what were we talking about again?


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 2:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
There is plenty of credible evidence out there that supports dino's living with humans. Evidence is in the eye of the beholder, you can deny what's presented all you want. It seems like you wont give the evidence any value because it doesn't fit your deeply entrenched theory, so you dismiss it without any consideration.

Dragons, loch ness, etc. There are countless stories about what we now know as "dinosaurs". I refuse to believe that "cave man" saw bones in the ground and drew fully detailed figures on walls(some of which accurately include feathers). All around the world. Some dated around the same time.
They must have phoned their other cave buddies on the other side of the world and told them about their new painting, only to have their friend copy their work. Really elementary scenario, but it still does the job of showing another way of looking at things.


RE: ...
By HotFoot on 7/13/2010 3:50:07 PM , Rating: 4
Flintstones was a cartoon.


RE: ...
By ClownPuncher on 7/13/2010 3:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
Nessie is your evidence? I like manticores.


RE: ...
By theArchMichael on 7/13/2010 4:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
"dino's" in your response is a practical word that people use to encompass the idea of large extinct reptilian creatures.
What I find disconcerting is that are using that wordplay to lend credibility to a baseless argument founded in religious beliefs.

The "dino's" the cave men lived amongst were comparable to the Komodo Dragon today or the turtle or crocodile. They are just survivors of other "dino" extinction periods that have more recently become extinct. The brontosaurus which I think is the "dino" in question has been extinct for some millions of years...

Also, unlike your tone through many of these posts suggests, I don't have a problem with someone having a different opinion, or even changing my opinion if I find someone else's argument more convincing. It is your inability to do this because of your belief which is so alarming.

Btw, I don't have a god of any kind with which to "replace" with science, nor do I want you to make me a slave of yours.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 7:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "dino's" the cave men lived amongst were comparable to the Komodo Dragon today or the turtle or crocodile.

I like how you just throw that out there as fact based. I guess you were there to film such things...
quote:
The brontosaurus which I think is the "dino" in question has been extinct for some millions of years...

Says who? People dig up bones. One of the few things you can conclude is that something was once living, but now is dead.

Let me ask you something. Do you really, in your most honest of being, believe that a bone (calcified or not) can last in tact for millions of years. ENTIRE MOUNTAINS have changed or disappeared in less than a thousand. Do you really believe this? Or do you just go with it?

quote:
Btw, I don't have a god of any kind with which to "replace" with science, nor do I want you to make me a slave of yours.

Sorry to hear this. I am not a slave though. I'm not the God of my universe, so I have no problem following the rules of a higher power.


RE: ...
By ClownPuncher on 7/13/2010 7:45:53 PM , Rating: 4
How do you explain fossil fuels? Do you think that the plant/animal life that decayed to make it was able to complete the process in under 10,000 years? Or did God put it there?

Serious question, not being rude.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 10:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific experiments have been conducted that showed how a world wide flood could have been directly responsible for various and huge deposits of oil around the world.

When a collection of plants/animals get compacted under many layers of sediment, one result will be crude oil(fact). Have you ever had that toy as a child that is two panes of glass with water and different sediments inside. If you shake it up, they all fall according to mass. The same thing is very possible with a world flood.

According to the Bible, the flood happened in several different stages: Rain 40 days and 40 nights (canopy theory), fountains of the deep broke forth(which is a pretty good explanation for polar ice caps), earth quakes (plate tectonics).

The water most likely didn't "rush" the entire planet all of a sudden. I'm sure animals keep moving to higher ground until they just flat out ran out of room and all died together. The plants just floated around and collected in deposits also.

You also have to take into account, (if the Bible is correct) the canopy theory. The bible directly states that there were waters in the heaven, I can site sources if you would like. If there was a thick layer of water that completely surrounded the planet, then all of the harmful x-rays, gama, beta, etc would not permeate the canopy. It would essentially be a giant earth-wide hyperbaric chamber. Therefor you can safely conclude that things lived a VERY long time and got VERY big (reptiles never stop growing their entire lives).

So if you were asking a serious question, does that answer it somewhat? I'm certainly no scientific expert in the matter, but I can try.

I am being completely sincere by the way. It makes perfect sense to me, and can be backed up by honest science. I hope to have a respectful rebuttal.


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/13/2010 11:52:21 PM , Rating: 4
If you remember in the gospel according to Lucas, episode 4, Obi-Wan Kenobi states "The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." If Star Wars is correct, this shows that The Force is ubiquitous, and it flows through us. The force is created by all living things, and can be controlled.

Referencing Star Wars as proof of the force is as sound of an argument as referencing the bible for your scientific evidence. Both are just stories. Even if the stories in the bible were written to depict actual events as they happened, you have to understand that they were written by people with little understanding for things they were witnessing, and people all too eager to attribute things they didn't understand as a work of god.

Most of the stories probably have very logical explanations that were beyond the grasps of the people at the time. The bible makes claims of a global flood, but how would anyone in that time actually know a flood was global? The more logical explanation is that there was a fairly bad local flood which was reported in the bible as a global flood because it seemed so bad to those witnessing it, and they really had no idea how big the world really was. And how could one man possibly gather the millions of different species on the planet, located in all the different regions of the world, in order to save them?

The truth is, you are not backing up your stance by honest science. The scientific method is making a hypothesis based on observation, testing that hypothesis by experiment and attempting to reach a conclusion. What you are doing is starting with a conclusion that has been indoctrinated in you since a young age, and attempting to cherry pick and bend observable evidence to back the stories you have had pounded into you for so long. I don't really blame you, as having people tell you everything you have been told is a lie is probably a tough pill to swallow.

Look around at all of the great advancements in technology that humans have accomplished over the years. From the computer you are sitting at, the internet you are communicating over, to the medicine that has/will no doubt kept you and I alive longer than we probably would have lived naturally. All of these advancements have come by the way of science. Religion is responsible for little, if any advancement in modern history, and in most cases has impeded our advancement as a species. Scientists must waste time explaining and defending their discoveries and theories to people that have no inclination to understand and no desire to let go of their bronze age stories that they believe to be fact. All of these advancements have come from people that were unwilling to accept the answer of "God dunnit", people who were compelled to look deeper, investigate what they were observing, experiment, and make conclusions based on their observations. They aren't always right, and have mis-stepped along the way, but there is no denying that we as a species are where we are today because of these people. And that is why it pains me so much to see people dismissing what scientists find because it disagrees with an old book they have.

I mean no disrespect, that was my respectful rebuttal.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 8:31:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Referencing Star Wars as proof of the force is as sound of an argument as referencing the bible for your scientific evidence.

quote:
I mean no disrespect, that was my respectful rebuttal.

You blatantly insult my intelligence and faith, then turn around and say that it was your respectful rebuttal? The bigot doesn't know that he's a bigot...
quote:
you have to understand that they were written by people with little understanding for things they were witnessing,

So you back then, people were retarded? I don't think so; If you knew ANYTHING about history, then you would know that most people were VERY intelligent. "magical science" didn't come and save the pitiful humans like you think.
quote:
Most of the stories probably have very logical explanations that were beyond the grasps of the people at the time.

Again, you based this off of not one single fact. Before the harnessing of electricity, people were mixing chemicals, inventing technological tools, and hypothesizing JUST like we do today. Just because we have progressive knowledge (which I am seriously doubting that we are getting smarter as a whole) does NOT discredit people from being intelligent back then. I think it just doesn't fit your theory of "retard grunting cave man", so you just guess that they were all stupid ~6,000 years ago.
quote:
The more logical explanation is that there was a fairly bad local flood

Then why would EVERY SINGLE civilization have the same flood legend?
quote:
And how could one man possibly gather the millions of different species on the planet, located in all the different regions of the world, in order to save them?

One of each kind. Do you know how small baby animals are? They certainly wouldn't have been able to fit adult elephants in with the rest of them lol. Fish could already swim, so that wasn't a problem. It does take faith to believe that God commanded the animals to gather at the boat, but we already admit that. It can make sense, you just don't want to leave the little parts up to faith. You aren't satisfied without having "scientific" explanations (which I find VERY self centered and NARROW MINDED).
quote:
The scientific method is making a hypothesis based on observation, testing that hypothesis by experiment and attempting to reach a conclusion. What you are doing is starting with a conclusion that has been indoctrinated in you since a young age, and attempting to cherry pick and bend observable evidence to back the stories you have had pounded into you for so long.

I can say the exact same thing about your faith in evolution. Yet again, someone else that ASSUMES something about me without asking. You have faith just like I do; the only difference is that I am proud to announce mine.
quote:
Look around at all of the great advancements in technology that humans have accomplished over the years. From the computer you are sitting at, the internet you are communicating over, to the medicine that has/will no doubt kept you and I alive longer than we probably would have lived naturally. All of these advancements have come by the way of science.

Science seems like your religion instead of just a tool to advance our civilization. It's your faith against mine, but your is better huh? I love science, but it offers nothing in terms of what happens after we done with this life.
quote:
And that is why it pains me so much to see people dismissing what scientists find because it disagrees with an old book they have.

You come across of a very bitter person that has nothing at all to live for. If there is no God, then we are all just running around on a really f'ed up planet that isn't worth the trouble.

You and I evidently see the world in complete opposite ways, the only difference is: I admit to the things that I put my faith in. You do not. You will not sit there high and mighty and pretend like your religion is better than mine. I respect opinions; but that ends when you pass off the "I am better than you, and you are a retard" kind of attitude.

You belittled me, and my faith throughout this entire post, but you can bet everything for all that it's worth that I am neither unashamed of my beliefs nor am I faltered in them. If it helps you sleep at night to put others down because they believe something different than you, then I guess you have some growing up to do.


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/14/2010 9:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You blatantly insult my intelligence and faith, then turn around and say that it was your respectful rebuttal? The bigot doesn't know that he's a bigot...

If you feel someone is insulting your intelligence by countering your viewpoint, then debating is not for you, and you should not start debates to begin with. You also completely missed the point I was making, or at least completely avoided commenting on it. How is referencing the bible any more relevant than referencing Star Wars, or Harry Potter, or The Lord of the Rings? What is the difference between referencing the two? If The Lord of the Rings was 2,000 years old, would you believe that one cannot simply walk into Mordor?

quote:
So you back then, people were retarded? I don't think so; If you knew ANYTHING about history, then you would know that most people were VERY intelligent. "magical science" didn't come and save the pitiful humans like you think.

quote:
Again, you based this off of not one single fact. Before the harnessing of electricity, people were mixing chemicals, inventing technological tools, and hypothesizing JUST like we do today. Just because we have progressive knowledge (which I am seriously doubting that we are getting smarter as a whole) does NOT discredit people from being intelligent back then. I think it just doesn't fit your theory of "retard grunting cave man", so you just guess that they were all stupid ~6,000 years ago.

You are confusing the concepts of intelligence and knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to learn, reason, and use logic. Knowledge is the wealth of data, experience, and skills we gain through the use of our intelligence. The key to knowledge and it's progression is that it is not only discovered, but that it is spread and passed on to the new generations. New generations are tasked with confirming knowledge passed onto them, discovering more, and passing that knowledge on as well. This concept is easily seen in adolescent children who, when born, know next to nothing. But through education, which is the attempt at teaching our wealth of documented knowledge, children are not only able to learn things already discovered in the past much quicker than discovering them on their own, they are able to build off that knowledge to discover new things. People of the ancient times did not lack intelligence, they lacked knowledge. The human brain has most likely changed little in it's capability for intelligence since the times of the bible. At that point in time, humans did not have a whole lot of time to discover many things. Things that were discovered were often lost due to poor communication channels, and the poor ability to document and spread prior discoveries.

And there is one of the fundamental flaws in using the bible and religion as a basis for your information in a scientific world. You are using extremely old and out dated knowledge, and dismissing knowledge acquired since this knowledge because it does not agree with your older knowledge. To compare, that would be like someone dismissing the modern atomic model because it does not agree with their 1800's plum pudding model.

So while today we have the knowledge through human exploration and technology, that the Earth is a pretty big place(relative to our size and living area), an ancient person may have no idea.

quote:
Then why would EVERY SINGLE civilization have the same flood legend?

Why does the majority of civilizations have a Big Foot/Sasquatch legend? Does that mean Sasquatch is real?


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/14/2010 9:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of each kind. Do you know how small baby animals are? They certainly wouldn't have been able to fit adult elephants in with the rest of them lol. Fish could already swim, so that wasn't a problem. It does take faith to believe that God commanded the animals to gather at the boat, but we already admit that. It can make sense, you just don't want to leave the little parts up to faith. You aren't satisfied without having "scientific" explanations (which I find VERY self centered and NARROW MINDED).


You are telling me that god told the Three-Toed Sloth to go to Noah, and the sloth got out of the trees of South America, and swam across the entire Atlantic Ocean to reach Noah's Ark so that the sloth wouldn't drown? Hmmm... Seems to me that any animal that can swim across an ocean has no need to worry about drowning.

It doesn't even matter if they are baby animals. The sheer number of terrestrial species that live on this earth is remarkable. You must consider every species of reptile, insect, amphibian, bird, and mammal, not to mention all of the land dwelling invertebrates that live on every continent. You are telling me that not only did every species not located adjacent to Noah swim across entire oceans to reach a boat(to save them from drowning), but Noah built a boat big enough to fit them all? What about all of the different terrestrial plant species? They can't move. How did Noah save them? How did Noah feed all of these different animals, some of which have extremely specific diets?

The story of a global flood makes absolutely no sense by any stretch of the imagination. The far more realistic and logical explanation was that it was a local flood that was depicted as global because the viewer didn't know better.

Believing that takes more than a little faith, that takes a lot of faith. I find this hypocritical of someone who was criticizing scientists for using a little "faith" in Dark Matter, which is an idea which has some observed evidence but isn't fully understood yet.

quote:
Science seems like your religion instead of just a tool to advance our civilization. It's your faith against mine, but your is better huh? I love science, but it offers nothing in terms of what happens after we done with this life.


"Science is your religion" is a ridiculous claim often made by those with a stake in religion that have run out of ways to defend it. It's almost a cop-out to try and drag the logical side down to their level.

quote:
You come across of a very bitter person that has nothing at all to live for.


For someone that has on numerous occasions complained about people assuming things about you, why do the same for me? I'm not bitter at all, and I have tons to live for.

quote:
If there is no God, then we are all just running around on a really f'ed up planet that isn't worth the trouble.


On the contrary, it seems like more of a reason to live life to the fullest. What's the point of living if an eternity of bliss awaits you in heaven on the other side of death? What's the motivation to accomplish anything in your mortal life if it is minuscule and meaningless compared to your immortal afterlife? A godless universe(which I never said I necessarily believe) gives meaning to each persons mortal life, and drives them to do, see, and accomplish everything they can, while they can, before their time is up.

quote:
You belittled me, and my faith throughout this entire post, but you can bet everything for all that it's worth that I am neither unashamed of my beliefs nor am I faltered in them. If it helps you sleep at night to put others down because they believe something different than you, then I guess you have some growing up to do.


Beyond whining and taking everything on a personal level for me simply countering your viewpoint in a debate you pretty much started, this is exactly what separates religion from science. A religious person will hold steady with the same beliefs and faiths, even when presented with evidence and observations that directly contradict their views. A scientist on the other hand, when presented with evidence and observations that directly contradict(NOTE: Contradict, not evidence that can't be explained. Big difference) their theory, will re-work the theory to fit the new evidence. Science isn't faith, it's a mechanism for discovering the universe around us. We hold no loyalty to any theory, and a theory being proven wrong is just as much a discovery as affirming prior discoveries is.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 7:58:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The sheer number of terrestrial species that live on this earth is remarkable.

Proof that you absolutely can not think for yourself. After each KIND. And I already explained that belief in Noah's Flood requires faith that God is powerful enough to make it happen, even though we can not fully comprehend how. I find it difficult to debate anyone who can't understand the concept of faith.

quote:
"Science is your religion" is a ridiculous claim often made by those with a stake in religion that have run out of ways to defend it. It's almost a cop-out to try and drag the logical side down to their level.

BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FAITH. YOU HAVE ALL OF YOUR FAITH IN THE SCIENCE OF MAN, I HAVE IT IN GOD. There is no other way I can say it, and we reach a certain point where we are just wasting our time talking about it.

I, however, am not the one going around accusing someone of coping out.

I am not going to waste my time replying to the rest of your erroneous laden post because you refuse to agree to disagree. You would rather just call me names, act like a child, and call it a day. You should learn how to conduct yourself during a respectful debate.


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/15/2010 6:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Proof that you absolutely can not think for yourself.
LOL. I get this from the person spouting Bible verses as fact?

quote:
After each KIND.

Would that not imply that evolution is real then? If he simply collected a pair of each KIND of animal, then clearly those remaining animals must have evolved into all of the different species that each KIND exists in today right?

quote:
BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FAITH.

I understand the concept of faith quite well. It takes faith to look beyond the tangible evidence that contradicts the beliefs indoctrinated into you since birth. It takes faith to disregard scientific findings and evidence if it doesn't agree with an old book. Faith is an easy way out of a corner in an argument. You can't have a legitimate debate if "it takes faith" is a legitimate excuse for one of the sides. You are falling back onto faith so strongly yet refuse to allow scientists to rely on theories that aren't complete yet. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.

quote:
You should learn how to conduct yourself during a respectful debate.
I think you have more of an issue with what I'm saying than how I'm saying it. I am not meaning to come off as mean, condescending, etc. Conversing solely in text makes it hard to depict the attitude of those on the other side of the monitor. I can see you calling me a bigot a few times, among other things, yet I cannot see where I am calling you names or "acting like a child" at all. Like I said, I think you have more of an issue with what I'm saying than how I'm saying it, and are turning defensive because you have no defense. You are the one that brought this "debate" to the table. If you cannot handle other people's viewpoints disagreeing with your own, or take personal offense when someone disagrees with you, then I suggest you not try and start debates.


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/14/2010 8:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
As has already been explained to you several times, "Canopy Theory" does exactly what you accuse other sciences of doing: Being made specifically to prove a "theory" [The Bible]. And Canopy Theory has sooooooo many flaws in its design its been universally rejected.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 9:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
And now we have hit the point where your faith in Evolution has revealed that it is purely a cult. If anyone can not understand, in common sense thinking, your beliefs, then you are definitely in a cult. I have offered simple, and common sense theories and explanations for everything that has been asked.

Reject them or not, it's your choice. It all comes down to faith in what you believe in the end. I am a good enough person to respect your faith, but try to convince you otherwise at the same time. You just keep spewing the same things over and over: "You're wrong. You don't understand. You're stupid." See how that works? You say that I am incapable of understanding, but I'll NEVER say that about the things that I believe. EVERYONE has the capacity to understand God and his instructions.


RE: ...
By ClownPuncher on 7/14/2010 12:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Care to link any of those scientific studies which state crude oil, even kerogen can be created in less than 10,000 years?


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 8:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
crude oil can be formed in a lab using heat and compression. Look it up yourself since you seem to be so versed in scientific research.


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/13/2010 7:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder, you can deny what's presented all you want. It seems like you wont give the evidence any value because it doesn't fit your deeply entrenched theory, so you dismiss it without any consideration.


The irony is killing me...


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 9:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The irony is killing me...

Yeah me too. I study evolutionary theories. I don't believe in them, but I do learn about it. You are definitely implying that I dismiss every idea without question. You would be wrong on that one.


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/14/2010 12:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
Which part of evolutionary theory do you not "believe" in? Keep in mind evolutionary theory and creationism are completely unrelated. Evolutionary theory makes no claims to where life originated, only the mechanisms through which genes and traits are passed. Also keep in mind that macro evolution is just many steps of micro evolution.(I had to throw those out there so you didn't fall onto false arguments)


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 8:37:38 AM , Rating: 2
The types of Evolution (in order):

Cosmic.
Chemical.
Stellar/Planetary.
Organic.
Macro.
Micro.

The only one to EVER be observed is micro, but it's somehow good enough to support the other ones.
quote:
Keep in mind evolutionary theory and creationism are completely unrelated.

They are related, because they both offer answers to how we got here. I think what you meant is that they are complete opposites.
quote:
Also keep in mind that macro evolution is just many steps of micro evolution.

No, I wont keep that in mind because that is a wild assumption of yours that isn't backed by good, honest science.


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/14/2010 6:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The types of Evolution (in order): Cosmic. Chemical. Stellar/Planetary. Organic. Macro. Micro.


No. Another common false claim among the religious crowd. Those are not types of evolutions. While characteristics may be similar(change over time), they are completely different and unrelated.

quote:
The only one to EVER be observed is micro, but it's somehow good enough to support the other ones.


quote:
No, I wont keep that in mind because that is a wild assumption of yours that isn't backed by good, honest science.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the mathematical ideas of integration and extrapolation. Go look them up, and you will understand this idea better.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 7:33:38 PM , Rating: 1
You are probably the 9th person to try and tell me that I don't understand when clearly I do.

Without Cosmic evolution you can not have micro. It's a necessary hierarchy, and you just don't care to defend it.


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/14/2010 9:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
If I'm the 9th person telling you that you don't understand something, maybe you should take the hint. You don't understand it.

Sure, without an object to exist on, animals can't evolve. But that is where the relationship ends.

And cosmic evolution can be observed. Not necessarily all at once, but lucky for us there are billions of star systems that are all in different stages of life. We have witnessed stars exploding, and we can see the different stages of stars forming.

The biggest problem with trying to hold a "debate" between a creationist and a scientist is that the scientist has to spend the majority of the time correcting the creationist on the fundamental theories that they don't understand, which they misuse as "evidence" for their argument.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 8:14:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We have witnessed stars exploding, and we can see the different stages of stars forming.

Not once single person has "seen" a start forming. The whole idea of the oort cloud is fantasy land since it CAN NOT be observed.

quote:
the scientist has to spend the majority of the time correcting the creationist on the fundamental theories that they don't understand

That makes you a complete bigot. I guess you don't care.

I'm so tired of the, "my brain is better than yours, you feeble pathetic human!". <--- that's exactly how you sound.


RE: ...
By 91TTZ on 7/13/2010 1:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
I've been following this argument, and it appears that you're just a fundie trying to justify ridiculous religious beliefs.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 1:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Is this your implication that religious people are feeble humans that have mental deficits? If so, then take your trolling elsewhere please.


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/13/2010 1:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Not all religious people, just fundamentalists, like yourself.

quote:

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life


RE: ...
By 91TTZ on 7/13/2010 3:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
The act of believing in religion itself is not an indication of a mental deficit, but the act of throwing away all evidence to the contrary is.

It seems that you've chosen to throw away the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, citing minor measurement errors, yet you believe a far-fetched story that the Bible promotes even though there is no evidence at all.

How old do you think the Earth is?


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 3:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'll quote from earlier:
quote:
I believe that we were created, and have a purpose other than this short life here on earth; and yet you believe that soupy rain somehow spawned impossibly complex life from non-living matter (which has never been observed or recreated mind you)


Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. I see fossils of clams at the top of Mt. Everest, and see evidence for a worldwide flood. I see massive grouping of plants and animals buried deep underground in the form of oil and I see evidence for a world wide flood. I see world wide stratification in layers of rock and I see evidence for a world wide flood. I could go on forever with examples.

Many people believe one theory, and many believe another. Just because mine doesn't agree with yours doesn't give you the right to condemn.


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/13/2010 3:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Except the erosion patterns would be identical during said world wide flood, and that isn't the case, therefore with a single evidence your entire theory of a world wide flood is shot in the foot.

Isn't science wonderful?


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 7:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except the erosion patterns would be identical during said world wide flood

What? That makes absolutely no sense, especially when you offer not a single bit of explanation.
quote:
Isn't good science wonderful?

There, fixed that for ya.


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/14/2010 9:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
Which proves my point that you have no clue what a world wide flood would do with actual geologic evidence.

Let me know when you are more versed in even basic physical science that is taught at the elementary school level, even in the southern US. ;) (IE 2nd grade)


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 9:46:37 AM , Rating: 1
Again, yet another example of someone calling me intellectually challenged because I refuse to yield to a ridiculous theory.


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/14/2010 10:18:41 AM , Rating: 2
If you understood how erosion works, you wouldn't question what I said to begin with.

I'm not going to take the blame for your intellectually shallow understanding of basic sciences.

It is ok to admit you don't know, we won't hold it against you.


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/13/2010 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see fossils of clams at the top of Mt. Everest, and see evidence for a worldwide flood.


Plate Tectonics

quote:
I see massive grouping of plants and animals buried deep underground in the form of oil and I see evidence for a world wide flood.


Plate Tectonics and time

quote:
I see world wide stratification in layers of rock and I see evidence for a world wide flood.


Plate Tectonics and time


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By bhougha10 on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 7:30:46 PM , Rating: 1
I am the salt of the earth. I am here to preserve and irritate. :)


RE: ...
By Helbore on 7/13/2010 1:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is plenty of evidence to say that there is a God, and he created the earth and universe no more than 10,000 years ago


After reading the comment about how we don't really know anything further back than about 4000 years ago, I was waiting to see how long it took for us to get past the pretence of scientific discussion and onto what was really meant.

ie. the whole basis of the article is being attacked because it claims the sun was here 5 billion years ago, instead of only being created 6000 years ago.


RE: ...
By sviola on 7/13/2010 3:39:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We have about 4,000 years of (somewhat) reliable history. ANYTHING past that is purely speculative (and I want that to be pointed out more often).


quote:

Take evolution for example. There is plenty of evidence to say that there is a God, and he created the earth and universe no more than 10,000 years ago...


Your argument is invalid because it contradicts itself...


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 7:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your argument is invalid because it contradicts itself...

lol, where? I believe the earth was created ~6,000 years ago. There was a worldwide flood that destroyed and reshaped it ~4,000 years ago. Saying 10,000 was a reference point, sorry. I say ~6,000 because the lineage can be traced in the Bible.


RE: ...
By amagriva on 7/13/2010 4:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
Please leave us alone...Go out and burn a pair of witches or shoot some abortist doctor.
People like you and reborn in christ wackos have made become America a cradle for fundamentalists.
Home schooling+NRA=KKK or Columbine
America was a beacon of freedom in the world, all this is so sad


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 7:43:02 PM , Rating: 1
Hitler was an atheist that believed in evolution. I glad I'm not a jew, otherwise I guess you would murder me...

See how that works from the other side?

quote:
America was a beacon of freedom in the world, all this is so sad

America was founded mainly by Christan, conservative valued people that infused christian doctrine into our establishment articles. Go read materials, including but not limited to, the declaration of independence, Constitution, etc to see what I mean. If you don't like it, you can happily move elsewhere.


RE: ...
By Newegg2010 on 7/14/2010 3:49:35 AM , Rating: 2
Cool...Fyi, Hitler's policies were based off of American Constitution. Our "doctrine" that is good (according to you I assume) was responsible for a holocaust 10 times larger then what Hitler did (aka native americans)


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 7:45:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cool...Fyi, Hitler's policies were based off of American Constitution.

That's so ignorant that it's comical! Obviously if he based his tyranny off of our documents then he would have seen the part about a free nation, life, liberty, etc.
quote:
Our "doctrine" that is good (according to you I assume) was responsible for a holocaust 10 times larger then what Hitler did (aka native americans)

Somehow I missed the part where it said, "go murder people". It happened, and our nation as a whole is not proud of it. Are you going to blame me for slavery next? I am white, after all. That must mean that my family were slave owners if I'm white, correct?

You are very un-American, and If you really feel the way you do, then by all means leave my great nation and go somewhere else. We aren't holding you captive here. I am sick and tired of people like you who bad mouth this country night and day, but live here and enjoy all the freedoms of it. What a hypocrite.


RE: ...
By Newegg2010 on 7/15/2010 4:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
You're right. I apologize, using the Constitution was incorrect. But, go look up our own history, and you will see that lots of policies upheld by our government more or less mandated the killing of Native Americans. I don't hate America like you say I do, I just am not a drone who believes we are, or ever were perfect. Look it up, read some of the literature. Try looking at American Holocaust

You will see exactly where the founding fathers ordered the extermination of Native Americans, it was institutionalize and that is exactly where Hitler got his ideas from:

"The Furher…expressed admiration for the ‘efficiency’ of the American genocide campaign against the Indians…a forerunner for his own plans and programs”


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 8:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just am not a drone who believes we are, or ever were perfect.

So quote me where I said anything close to "we are perfect". Just what are you arguing against here?

quote:
You will see exactly where the founding fathers ordered the extermination of Native Americans, it was institutionalize and that is exactly where Hitler got his ideas from:

Sorry, but I won't allow you to contort your own ideas on the FACTS of history. Yes, there were some people out there that advocated (and carried out) orders to murder Native Americans, but that ideology was NOT in any way, shape, or from ingrained into our founding principals.

Correlation does not equal causation. If so, all the evolution believing atheists would be murderers like the kids from Columbine.


RE: ...
By JonB on 7/14/2010 7:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
Conservative? The U.S. Constitution? You are referring to the most radical (i.e., Liberal) document of its time! Conservative thinking would still have us saddled with a Monarchy.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 7:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
If you think that the founding fathers of this nation were considered by today's standard as liberal, then I really don't know what to say to you other than you are flat out wrong. Go read the documents, and then come back. Obviously you haven't seen them.

quote:
Conservative thinking would still have us saddled with a Monarchy.

Conservatism has absolutely nothing to do with hierarchy. You have no clue what you are talking about.


RE: ...
By HotFoot on 7/14/2010 10:05:32 AM , Rating: 2
Right. I wouldn't have called them conservatives at the time, but by today's standards they'd be very conservative.

On the other hand, society and our politics continue to evolve. Now, not all change is for the better, but how do you decide at what point you get off the wagon and stop changing - ie. become conservative?

America has had some (in my opinion) great changes since the start. Things like abolishment of slavery and women's rights. It seems to me that the conservatives during those changes argued against them. They came up with justifications for their opinions, but at the end of the day, they lost the argument. Was it just by popular vote, or was it simply wrong to be opposed to equality?

I guess my point is that fundamentalism, either on the conservative or on the liberal side of things, seems to be a great negative force in the history I know.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 4:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Things like abolishment of slavery and women's rights. It seems to me that the conservatives during those changes argued against them.

There were definitely some conservative people supporting these ideas way back when. But they can not truthfully call themselves Christian, as slavery and unfair treatment is preached about all throughout the Bible.
quote:
I guess my point is that fundamentalism, either on the conservative or on the liberal side of things, seems to be a great negative force in the history I know.

You can be a uphold fundamental values AND adapt to a changing world at the same time. Everything needs moderation.


RE: ...
By Calindar on 7/14/2010 9:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There were definitely some conservative people supporting these ideas way back when. But they can not truthfully call themselves Christian, as slavery and unfair treatment is preached about all throughout the Bible.

LOL you have to be kidding right? Have you read the bible you claim to believe in so much? It clearly states, on a number of occasions, that slavery is perfectly acceptable.

Read Leviticus 25:44, Exodus 21:2, Exodus 21:7, Luke 12:47 for starters.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/15/2010 9:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
Leviticus 25:44
Lets read the CONTEXT of the chapter in order to understand your erroneous claims.
quote:

38) I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
39) And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40) But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

Exodus 21
The entire chapter of Exodus 21 is about the retribution and treatment of servitude. We can all agree that it's common knowledge that the meanings of words can change over time. This is exactly what we can observe from this chapter (I'll explain the slavery part of it next). In the bible, slavery is not defined by a single definition, but several different. Three being: Forced slavery, paid "slavery"(aka butler/maid/farmhand), and retribution slavery.

The "slavery" that you accused the Bible of advocating in Exodus 21 is retribution slavery. Notice how laws and ways of life were a little different back then? When someone committed a crime, their sentence was often servitude under the victim. Today, we know this concept as jail. See how easy that was?

Luke 12
Again, we can go back into the context of the chapter to realize that the Bible is explaining how disobedient servants (refer to our earlier explanation of the term servant) will be punished for the blunderings of which are described [throughout the chapter]. The Bible does not "advocate" for beatings or mistreatment, it merely gives you a cause and effect scenario. In plain and simple words, if you don't obey your superior, expect to be punished.

You can read the Bible with ill intent, and receive a ill message. Or you can read with honest interpretation and get the true message. The choice is up to you, but I doubt you will ever get anything by doing a google search for "The Bible teaches that slavery is ok", and reading out of context, then coming to DT and posting about it.


RE: ...
By Helbore on 7/14/2010 9:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
For invoking Godwin's Law, you automatically lose the debate. Better luck next time.


RE: ...
By General Disturbance on 7/13/2010 3:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'll do you one better Mick:

I have a PhD in ASTROphysics, and I study stars for a living.

Quadrillity's comment is extremely insightful and thoughtful for someone who doesn't apparently have such a degree.
You see, Mick, you DO NOT need a degree in science to be able to understand weather someone's logic is valid or not.

I will contrast the above reality to your statement which is inherently illogical:

quote:
If you want to contribute, go to school, get a physics Ph.D and offer a solid theory based on math that runs contrary to theirs. But to insult their theory in an online post hardly seems productive or useful, particularly when you provide no supporting evidence of why you believe their claims are wrong.


Where is YOUR PhD, where is YOUR supporting evidence, what is YOUR qualification in believing their claims? Let me guess, because you're qualified enough to know when someone is smarter than you and so believe whatever such people tell you? Just like how you've been able to determine that warmists are the smart ones and the realists are the crooked ones?

I seriously can not believe you're a science writer, on the one hand. But on the other I find it completely understandable, given what's happened to the education standards and your sophomoric understanding of the scientific method.

In regards to the article, Quadrillity is perfectly correct. Such a statement about dark matter is a cover-all blanket statement you can make about anything. Do you recall the solar neutrino problem? Someone could have also said that was due to dark matter. Thankfully no one did and we learned something very important about nuclear physics. We will also learn something very important about solar structure when we solve the energy transfer problem.

But saying the problem could be due to dark matter is NOT a scientific statement. There's no evidence for that idea, AT ALL. It is fanciful speculation at best, nothing more.

But I can understand how YOU would think that it is science, given you can't tell a greenhouse from a planetary atmosphere.


RE: ...
By theArchMichael on 7/13/2010 5:05:43 PM , Rating: 3
I think Jason Mick was responding to the original poster's referencing the scientist's work as "day dreaming". Even at this stage of the argument the OP was absolutely dismissive of a theory with which he has no familiarity besides for what is posted in the article.
Understandably, there are going to be a lot of off the cuff comments because this is a tech blog... it's amateur hour in the comments section, with I among them. But so definitively diminishing someone's brand new unreviewed paper to "day dreaming" without any credentials...

I can see where Jason Mick is coming from, even though I admit his statement at first glance may seem hypocritical. But personally I prefer a stance of not tolerating intolerance. So I think chastising a religious fanatic forum troll in the comments section , is acceptable.

Some may not agree and it is a slippery slope but if we lived in the OPs world (I suspect he is a religious zealot), your first Post Doc paper title would probably have read something like :
"Space travel impossible because of dizziness caused by Universe revolving around us."


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 7:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Space travel impossible because of dizziness caused by Universe revolving around us."

It's such a shame that you don't understand how this statement makes you a complete bigot. There are way too many of you in this comment section that pass off your own "assumptions" of me as fact.


RE: ...
By Lugaidster on 7/14/2010 1:00:16 AM , Rating: 3
I'm going to take a chance here but... If you have a PhD on Astrophysics then one of four things happened: You found it on the street and took it, you got it through mail and payed a lot for it, your smart twin brother died and you are taking his place, God with his infinite power sent you one or, you are some creepy dude sitting in a chair scratching his balls inventing whatever comes through his mind.

I've only met two PhDs in my life and both were so meticulous that with the sloppiness you wrote, you'd hardly have a university degree (from a prestigious institution anyway), let alone a contribution to society via an accepted PhD investigation.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 8:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
That's a pretty good stereotype you painted there. Nice job insulting the man without any merit whatsoever to do so. You think maybe he is a very busy man that could only take the time to write, but not thoroughly proofread his material? He made a few spelling/grammatical errors, but if that's enough to dismiss someone as unintelligent in your book, then by all means your greatness: please save us from our blunders.

You can either believe that he has a PhD or not (this is the internet, afterall). He came across to me as an intelligent man in my opinion.


RE: ...
By Anoxanmore on 7/14/2010 9:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
Which proves you have a very low standard of intelligence. :)


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 9:31:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I forgot.

*salutes to Anoxanmore


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/13/2010 3:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And more still likely thought Einstein was off his rocker when he proposed the theory of relativity.


And even then, he wanted a static universe, so he created a Universal Constant [his "Greatest Mistake"] out of his ass. And eventually, through science, his constant was rejected.

Scientists fill in holes in thoerys all the time. Gravity is a great example, well understood, except for, well...what CAUSES it. Hence, the yet to be discovered Graviton, Higgs Boson, etc. Heck, gravity is the one outsider preventing a Unified Field Thoery from working out!

Of course, no one is going to seriously argue gravity doesn't exist...


RE: ...
By alanore on 7/13/2010 6:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many likely would have said the same about when Copernicus theorized that the Earth revolved around the Sun. And many likely thought Newton was fantasizing when he theorized the force of gravity. And more still likely thought Einstein was off his rocker when he proposed the theory of relativity.


...Or accused scientists of being corrupt and part of a conspiracy because they stated burning carbon was causing the earth to heat up.


RE: ...
By zmatt on 7/13/2010 11:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
You need to make a correction. Having a PHD does not imply you are smart. It does however state that you are a hard worker and were able to spend several more years of your like studying and eating ramen than the rest of us for a nicer piece of paper. Many of the greatest minds in human history had little to know education. Education doesn't make you smart, it only gives you information. You are born with intelligence, it cannot be taught and it cannot be granted to you with some piece of paper.


RE: ...
By jeff834 on 7/14/2010 5:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
While generally having a PhD doesn't necessarily require you to be "smart", usually a physics PhD is a pretty good indicator. I'm not going to argue whether or not the person in question here is intelligent or not, but I was a physics major in college before I left to start my business, and I can assure you myself and everyone I knew in the department were both hard workers and naturally intelligent. Hard work can get you a doctorate in many fields that require more memorization and less critical thinking. Even becoming a medical doctor can be put in that category. In my opinion physics is different, but nothing is really absolute so in this particular case the poster in question may be of average intelligence and still have a PhD in physics.


RE: ...
By zmatt on 7/14/2010 8:11:05 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't attacking this particular researcher's intelligence. I was just pointing out that PHD =/= smart, and that is a fallacy that many people make.


RE: ...
By Enoch2001 on 7/14/2010 10:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
to insult their theory in an online post hardly seems productive or useful, particularly when you provide no supporting evidence of why you believe their claims are wrong.


Bravo!


RE: ...
By Fritzr on 7/20/2010 10:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
There was a Physicist in the early 20th century who came up with a wierd idea ... he said that there was a whole new undiscovered family of particles and went on to describe the reasons they would probably not be observed.

Some years later experimental proof of anti-matter was found, anti-particles were seen and studied. Paul Dirac is now one of the famous names of physics

In the 17th and 18th centuries there was a theory that said there was a component of air required by life and for combustion that was termed phlogiston. When a fire was burned in a sealed container, animals died and the air pressure dropped. The phlogiston theory is now used as an example of crackpot science and the portion of air that was termed phlogiston is now called oxygen.

The oxygen theory today enjoys widespread support by virtually all who believe the phlogiston theory is worthless :P

Early in the 20th century two well known scientists held the opinion that the speed of light in a vacuum is *not* constant. They designed an experiment to prove the truth of their theory. The Michaelson-Morley experiment that proved that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, is taught as a true success of scientific research, although in reality it was a spectacular failure :D

Scientists study for years to learn the known rules, then they spend years thinking up new rules and ways to test them. Some of the ideas are breakthroughs in discovering the way things work, others are very important breakthroughs for showing how things *don't* work :D

That is the nature of taking an exam where the material is taught *after* the test is given. That is why research into the unknown often proves ideas to be incorrect :) They are after all proposing an explanation for observed effects that have an unknown cause.


RE: ...
By Goty on 7/13/2010 10:09:41 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming dark matter exists, this is exactly what would happen (as far as the Sun capturing DM, that is). Dark matter particles that aren't energetic enough would easily be captured by the gravitational field of the Sun, or any massive object for that matter.

As for the "Solar composition problem", I personally think it's much more likely that we just don't quite have the right model for the solar interior, just yet. Unfortunately, since there is no way to test such models, if something like this gives the correct result then we'll have to give it some credence. I have little doubt, however, that even if the numbers do work out that this will not be heralded as direct detection of dark matter.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 10:19:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Unfortunately, since there is no way to test such models, if something like this gives the correct result then we'll have to give it some credence. I have little doubt, however, that even if the numbers do work out that this will not be heralded as direct detection of dark matter.

Thank you; at least someone understands the point I'm trying to make.


RE: ...
By Connoisseur on 7/13/2010 10:58:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well your post points that irk me are:

quote:
If we can not observe something, then a "this is fair tale time" should be rubber stamped in.


quote:
We have about 4,000 years of (somewhat) reliable history. ANYTHING past that is purely speculative (and I want that to be pointed out more often).


To say scientists are "making things up" just because it happened before human history is a bit silly. The tone of your post makes it sound like a futile and wasted attempt to try and understand the history and nature of the universe although it often leads to real and tangible benefits. Not to mention the sheer satisfaction of KNOWING. Science does start with conjecture. However, the part you're missing is that it has to be supported with observation and evidence. There's nothing "fairy tale" about it.

Incidentally, this is the same line of logic used by many devout creationists. I'm obviously not claiming that you are one but it's interesting to see an argument akin to "any speculation before recorded history is hogwash and should be treated with extreme skepticism." Fortunately for you, science does exactly that and puts every "fairy tale" theory through the wringer.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 11:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To say scientists are "making things up" just because it happened before human history is a bit silly.

F****** DAMNIT! I usually keep a level head but you folks really need to work on those reading comprehension skills and STOP ASSUMING THINGS. Point out the me the place where I said, "they are making things up".

I truly believe that they are doing what they think is best guess science. I, however, keep repeating the same thing over and over which is
quote:
In no way, shape, or form can things like this be observed.


Having pointed this out, I can respectfully say that it's getting absolutely ridiculous to see the amount of people that read a study like this and start printing it out in school textbooks as FACT.

quote:
However, the part you're missing is that it has to be supported with observation and evidence. There's nothing "fairy tale" about it.

So who was it that recorded the event of the big bang? No-one. Hence why it is some peoples best guess (not mine). Even though the big bang theory is an unobservable and untestable theory, you will still see it in text books AS ACCEPTED FACT. And I can prove that.


RE: ...
By AssBall on 7/13/2010 11:42:23 AM , Rating: 2
You don't know that the big bang is unobservable and untestable. You completely made that up and assumed it is a fact. Got caught in your own cage, you did.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 12:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't know that the big bang is unobservable and untestable.

Are you serious? You think any one person on this planet today has observed "the big bang"? If you honestly believe this, then I have nothing to say.


RE: ...
By nafhan on 7/13/2010 12:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, what he's saying is we don't know if it's unobservable or untestable, that's just our best guess because there is no published or observed evidence of someone actually doing so.
I will give you that it seems a bit unlikely. Although that might be what the last guy who did it said... we may never know.


RE: ...
By raddude9 on 7/13/2010 1:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'll put this simply, the Big Bang was so big that the radiation (or light) from the Big Bang is still there and is directly observable by man made instruments like NASA's COBE or ESA's Planck. So, yes, people are observing the big bang today.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 1:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
So we can see things that took place billions of light years away? Do you know how ridiculous it is to look in a telescope and say that (insert object/phenomenon) took place at a certain time period? It is ALL based off of radical ASSUMPTIONS. If you assume already that the universe is billions of years old, then you will more than likely conclude everything else based off of that. That is bad science if the aforementioned assumption is unobservable. Saying that we can observe something outside of our very limited populated history is stupid, plain and simple.

That is why I say fairy tale crap like that belongs in something other than educational materials.


RE: ...
By AssBall on 7/13/2010 2:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
"radical assumptions"?

Your grasp of simple physics and astronomy is poor indeed.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 3:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your grasp of simple physics and astronomy is poor indeed.

Because I refuse to believe some of the total speculative nonsense out there that is passed off as fact? I don't think so.

I'm sick of the whole, "You don't agree with me, so I'll try to discredit you with not understanding the concepts" tactic.

How about you build a ship, travel to the center of the universe, and take a picture. Bring it back to me, and then I'll believe without a doubt that you can say you know exactly how far it is. Until then, using earth based equipment to look for something that is beyond us will always be speculative guess. Stop passing off guess as undisputed fact.

I bet you don't even know that the speed of light HAS BEEN ALMOST PROVEN TO NOT BE A CONSTANT, UNCHANGING MEASUREMENT.

Having said that, wouldn't more than a few holes be poked in cosmic theory?


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/13/2010 3:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet you don't even know that the speed of light HAS BEEN ALMOST PROVEN TO NOT BE A CONSTANT, UNCHANGING MEASUREMENT.


So...you argue science you don't belive in with science that hasn't yet been proven?

Nvermind your statement itself is uninformed at best. As I understand it, in a controled environement, scientists were able to essentially make a photon move through another substance at a speed greater then the speed of light, but I'm not entirly up on the specifics right now. Then again, FTL isn't prohibited under String Theory and some branches of Quantum Mechanics...

Also, Don't go to a blog debating a scientific theory when you don't even believe in science.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 7:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So...you argue science you don't belive in with science that hasn't yet been proven?

Scientists slowed a photon in a lab. It was observed. Where do you get, "science you don't believe in" from. I'm sick of people thinking this is a science vs religion debate when it is clearly a religion vs good/ethical science.

quote:
Also, Don't go to a blog debating a scientific theory when you don't even believe in science.

He doesn't agree with certain theories, therefore he doesn't believe in science! Brilliant!


RE: ...
By raddude9 on 7/13/2010 4:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet you don't even know that the speed of light HAS BEEN ALMOST PROVEN TO NOT BE A CONSTANT, UNCHANGING MEASUREMENT.


Just saw this post, and I did know this, well, I know that there has been speculation on the idea of late.

But more importantly though do you know why scientists are entertaining this idea. It is to explain observations of the big bang, so in order to even entertain this idea, you first have to assume that there was a big bang. Which is a very reasonable thing to assume because lots of varied evidence supports it.

quote:
How about you build a ship, travel to the center of the universe, and take a picture. Bring it back to me, and then I'll believe without a doubt that you can say you know exactly how far it is.


You mean you don't already know where the center of the universe is? I suggest you look it up, it's well known, but I have a feeling that you already know. There is in fact no center, the universe started from a small point and expanded in all directions.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 7:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the universe started from a small point and expanded in all directions.

And you believe this to be fact? That's the most preposterous thing I have ever heard. Everything, everywhere was concentrated in an infinitesimal region smaller than this dot at the end of the sentence correct? And we can observe this correct? Absolutely Ludicrous.

By the way, if it all came from a infinitely massive dot that was spinning at an incalculable speed, then how do we get backward spinning galaxies? It is, after all, fundamental science that objects spin in the same direction when separated.


RE: ...
By raddude9 on 7/14/2010 4:05:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everything, everywhere was concentrated in an infinitesimal region smaller than this dot at the end of the sentence correct?


Nope, I didn't say an infinitesimally small region, I just said small, and relative to the current size of the universe, lots of things are small.

quote:
By the way, if it all came from a infinitely massive dot that was spinning at an incalculable speed,


LOL. Now it's an infinitely massive dot! Please make up you mind about which incorrect assumption you jump to from what I posted.

quote:
Absolutely Ludicrous.

Interesting. Despite the fact that the big bang theory gives us a number of observable and testable implications, I would be delighted to hear your non-ludicrous explanation for why the universe is the way it is.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 8:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
Direct quote from you.
quote:
the universe started from a small point

quote:
Nope, I didn't say an infinitesimally small region,

Which science books have you been studying from? The ones that I have seen talk about dots the size of a period.
quote:
I would be delighted to hear your non-ludicrous explanation for why the universe is the way it is.

In the beginning, God.... :)


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 9:33:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for observing, we can directly measure its after effects (background radiation, temperature fluctuations), which were an expected outcome of a big bang event, lending credience to the theory.

I think you have a really bad chicken and egg problem.


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By theArchMichael on 7/13/2010 3:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ohhh I think I have a good one...

Well, based on your use of the term "light years" I assume that you accept that light travels at certain somewhat constant speed.
If the stars and galaxies were only created or placed or... whatever the god people 10,000 years ago how would we be able to view light resonating from these stellar objects?

I think the only plausible answer to a question like this would be that either stars and galaxies are actually MUCH closer to earth than all scientific evidence suggests
OR
the universe is older than 10,000 years old.


RE: ...
By gamerk2 on 7/13/2010 4:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see an answer to this as well; never even thought of that point...


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 7/13/2010 8:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how would we be able to view light resonating from these stellar objects?