Should we believe what scientists say? (Page 50)

zeffur
zeffur: Check above. I corrected my bad keyboard error.
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Once was quite enough, thanks.
3 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: God damn zeffur is fucking stupid
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: re: "theHating: God damn zeffur is fucking stupid"

Nothing I've typed is stupid...so, it's you who is stupid, apparently.
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: Well there you have it,, a fact is a false claim if a scientist finds it,, but it is a fact if a creationist finds it."

That's your false assertion not mine. Most statements made by believers are beliefs--if you are uncertain ask them if their words are beliefs or verified facts. Most times you'll realize they are beliefs. Occasionally, they'll show you proof that their statements are facts. Sometimes they'll just show you the evidence that they believe indicates their belief is true--then you can decide for yourself--just like everyone else does.

Evolutioners pretend their beliefs are 'scientific fact'--when pressed to show compelling/convincing evidence or proof & a cogent explanation for their purported 'fact'--they can only produce half-baked evidence that no sane, honest, rational, intelligent, & informed person would ever consider to be valid/true--you know--except for atheists & other nitwits--they don't require such information to believe & falsely promote their fact claim lies.
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: When all the people you hate are the same....
3 years ago Report
0
Enkidu2017 
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: re: "theHating: When all the people you hate are the same...."

focus on hating yourself until the problem is eliminated?
3 years ago Report
0
Enkidu2017 
Enkidu2017: sounds like a lot of work either way ..........
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: Indeed--but, the latter reduces the fallout that others would experience from thehatings misbehavior.
3 years ago Report
0
Enkidu2017 
Enkidu2017: meh
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: "Intelligent design theory can be logically defended , while scripture not so much. It is wise in a debate to focus on the weakest elements of your opponents argument , if your intention is to persuade your audience .
Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us ?

Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy.

Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process .
Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility .
Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process.

"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on Youtube. ••••

"This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design.
Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was.
Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist .
For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is." -- William Springer
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Are you aware that those special numbers you mentioned do change. At the end of the universe and for a few seconds in the beginning those values are different. This is what enables the final collapse into a giant singularity, and the subsequent eruption of that singularity into the next big bang... The 1st law still applies, matter/energy are one,,, and are neither created nor destroyed.
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: So your argument against Premise #2 is in error. If there are as many dimensions as Hawkings says, We just happened to be in the universe that works
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: Are you aware that those special numbers you mentioned do change. At the end of the universe and for a few seconds in the beginning those values are different. This is what enables the final collapse into a giant singularity, and the subsequent eruption of that singularity into the next big bang... The 1st law still applies, matter/energy are one,,, and are neither created nor destroyed.

kittybobo34: So your argument against Premise #2 is in error. If there are as many dimensions as Hawkings says, We just happened to be in the universe that works"

No. You err:
1. The singularity that you write about is an assumption--not a verified fact.
2. There is no evidence that there will ever be a "next big bang"--that too is an assumption by *some* people--hence, a belief--not a predictable inevitability.
3. Matter & energy are not 1. They are 2 forms of the same thing. One is material/tangible & the other is immaterial/intangible--in the end, if the believers in maximum disorder are right--there will be no concentrated energy left--all suns will have burned out all that will remain is dissipated heat that gradually cools into the infinity of space & no ability of energy to be transformed into matter. All energy from matter will also be dissipated as every atom of matter will also eventually decay into nothing concentrated in the final burn-out.
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
Enkidu2017 
3 years ago Report
1
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: 1) Already singularities of a billion suns has been spotted.
2) multiple big bangs is a theory, based on the physics of what has transpired so far.
3) 2 forms of the same thing is 1 thing so they are one. Matter/Energy changes back and forth, with no energy loss..... and the math for the decay rate of matter you mentioned would be in the quadrillions of years. So the odds of one or more of those gigantic singularities finding each other gets pretty high.
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: 1) Already singularities of a billion suns has been spotted."

Those ^^ singularities aren't even close to what the big bang singularity would need to contain in energy/matter.

re: "2) multiple big bangs is a theory, based on the physics of what has transpired so far."

Says who? THE BIG BANG THEORY--which most people refer to starts with only 1 singularity & 1 bang.

re: "3) 2 forms of the same thing is 1 thing so they are one. Matter/Energy changes back and forth, with no energy loss..... "

No.. they are 2 things what WE treat as 1 thing--because they can be transformed into 1 or the other. That transformation does NOT always occur. Most sunlight leaving the sun does not get converted into matter--it just scatters as it moves through empty space & is absorbed for a bit by things it collides with (most of of which do not convert it into matter as a plant does.)

re: "...and the math for the decay rate of matter you mentioned would be in the quadrillions of years. So the odds of one or more of those gigantic singularities finding each other gets pretty high."

Says who?? You don't know that ^^ is true. The observable universe is 90+ billion light years across it's largest dimension & continuously expanding outwards every moment. For all we know the universe is infinite--there is no guarantee those singularities will coalesce to equal the singularity of the original big bang (which by the way we really don't know ever actually happened--we just assume it happened).
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Evolution is crap!!! Squawk!!!
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: zeffur: re: "AchillesSinatra: Evolution is crap!!! Squawk!!!"

Proof ^^ advertising works!
It's almost as good as the babyback ribs jingle...
3 years ago Report
0
MJ59
MJ59:
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur:
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
Ravens Flight
Ravens Flight: It was a "scientifically proven fact" that humans evolved from apes or chimps until recently science proved that, in fact they didn't.

There are many other "scientific facts" we were taught in schools growing up which in the last few years have turned out to be totally false.

https://list25.com/25-science-facts-that-were-proven-wrong/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashaumer/science-facts-you-might-have-believed-in-the-90s

Science is a good thing, it isn't just some random stab in the dark or make believe, it's logically thought out, educated theories based on available proof, however it's important to remember that scientific proof is limited to only what we are then aware of. Things that we aren't aware of could later be discovered and change everything we thought we knew. Therefore "scientific fact" doesn't always = reality, by any means. It's up to reach individual what they choose to believe and what they don't, science tries to be pretty accurate... But the fact is, it will never been completely accurate or realistic because there is so much in the universe that is still unknown, and so much that can never be truely be witnessed or known for sure. Scientists have to do the best they can with what we've got. Naturally they'll occasionally be wrong.
3 years ago Report
1
zeffur
zeffur: re: ""scientific fact" doesn't always = reality, by any means"

Exactly--which is why they should never claim it is a 'scientific fact'--they should just show the actual evidence. Their interpretation (beliefs/opinions) should be clearly stated as such. A person cannot honestly claim something is a 'scientific fact" unless it has been scientifically proven to be true.
3 years ago Report
1
Ravens Flight
Ravens Flight: 💯 I agree
3 years ago Report
1