Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: DieCommie]
    #20604008 -

DieCommie said:
Shroomin Capote said:
DieCommie said:
slowgrowloph said:
Creationism is a theory, and the big bang...is a theory. A theory is an unproven hypothesis.


No its not.  In science a theory is a broad collection of evidence that supports many hypothesis.

You don't technically "prove" things in science.  All proofs are dependent on the postulates or axioms they are derived under.  In science all postulates are tentative with respect to new evidence and thus no hypothesis is ever "proved".  A hypothesis can be supported by evidence.  With enough evidence and supported hypotheses a theory is developed.


yup.  at one point not too long ago science supported the idea that Caucasians are genetically superior to all other "races" and that blacks were subhuman, if human at all.  it was common sense back then.  that's why I try not to totally believe stuff I hear, even if science backs it up.  ill agree that something may be more likely or probable or whatever, but belief is a strong word, although I still use it lol

reality is stranger than we could possibly suppose  :tmckenna:



"Science" did nothing of the sort...  Scientific theories and conclusions can of course be incompatible with evidence and be updated at will to confirm with new evidence.  This is a strength of science, not a weakness.


Right, and to further that notion more. The theory of evolution has been around for over 200 years and we haven't found any evidence that says evolution is wrong. On the contrary we're finding more and more evidence that evolution is correct. It's the same thing with the big bang also.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: slowgrowloph]
    #20604012 -

slowgrowloph said:
MisterPervy said:
slowgrowloph said:
MisterPervy said:
Science hasn't proven the existence of God wrong, but they've proven evolution at this point (because it has been witnessed and manipulated, all of which has been recorded), and it's disproven nearly everything passed off as fact in the Bible, Korah, Toran, ancient apocrypha, whatever


Well sure, I said no one can argue the fact of evolution, its quite obvious everywhere we look. We can manipulate plants to produce only the best genes, that essentially is human induced evolution. I also said that im not religious, meaning I dont believe in any specific god or religion. Sure evolution is relatively proven, but where the fuck did all of the matter to create the universe come from???? Where did the first microbes that evolved into complex organism come from? Did the chicken or the egg come first? Im not arguing either way :smile: I just like stimulating a good argument. Personally I believe there is a god, but I cant prove it, and you cant disprove it lol


Who said there was matter?


Uhhhh everything is composed of matter lol


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Also important to note that matter is no longer actually defined as a legitimate part of physics.


--------------------

"I don't give two splats of an old negro junkie's vomit for your politico-philosophical treatises, kiddies. I like noise. I like big-ass vicious noise that makes my head spin. I wanna feel it whipping through me like a fucking jolt. We're so dilapidated and crushed by our pathetic existence we need it like a fix." -Steve Albini

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: slowgrowloph]
    #20604015 -

>Are you Religious or believe in God?
Yes.

>Is evolution fact or fiction?
fact.

>Did God create life or was it chemistry in the "Primordial Soup?"
The two are not mutually exclusive.

>Science or Creationism
Science, though it only tells a part of the story.


--------------------
date ; unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount ; sleep

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: DieCommie]
    #20604021 -

DieCommie said:
slowgrowloph said:
Uhhhh everything is composed of matter lol


Also incorrect.  You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

(Matter is ill defined in science and not a useful concept.)


HAHAHAHAHA ok, so what some stuff is composed of...nothing? Sounds like you dont know what YOUR talking about. Gases, liquids, or solids, its all a form of matter. I knew someone was going to get upset and say some shit like "oh you just dont know what your talkin about". But whatever :wink:


--------------------
:sunny:“Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run, but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant.” -Hunter S. Thompson

“One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly becoming the author of something beautiful even if it is only a floating ash.”  -Norman Maclean:sunny:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: slowgrowloph]
    #20604026 -

slowgrowloph said:
DieCommie said:
slowgrowloph said:
Uhhhh everything is composed of matter lol


Also incorrect.  You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

(Matter is ill defined in science and not a useful concept.)


HAHAHAHAHA ok, so what some stuff is composed of...nothing? Sounds like you dont know what YOUR talking about. Gases, liquids, or solids, its all a form of matter. I knew someone was going to get upset and say some shit like "oh you just dont know what your talkin about". But whatever :wink:


:noyoudidawet:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: slowgrowloph]
    #20604034 -

slowgrowloph said:
qman said:
slowgrowloph said:
Creationism is a theory, and the big bang...is a theory. A theory is an unproven hypothesis. There are some thing in the universe that I think humans will never fully understand. We cannot fathom infinity, the fact that time has always been, and will never end. We cannot fathom the fact that the universe has no beginning or ending. Everything we know and understand in this world has a beginning and an end. This world was created at some point, and eventually will end. One fact that is undeniable is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed into a different form of matter. So, if this is the case, where did all the matter in the universe come from to create what we know now as "the universe"? I think its important for people to keep an open mind. When you close your mind to certain ideas, you limit yourself. Some people refuse to even acknowledge the fact that a god or high power may exist. You are limiting yourself! I cannot prove that a higher power exists, and I am not a religious person. I do not go to any church. But after spending many nights looking at the sky and pondering the universe, I believe that there is no way that all this is just random and just came out of nowhere. Evolution? Sure, no one can intelligently argue natural selection. But heres what really gets me. No one can prove a God exists.....but no one can prove a God doesnt exist either :wink:


"no one can prove a God doesnt exist"

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. The claim is that a God exists, therefore proof must be provided for that claim.


Why do I have to prove to you a God exists? Can you prove to me that one doesnt exist? Neither of us are wrong IMO, because there is no proof either way :smile: I dont think people should be mocked for believing in a God when people who say no god exists cant prove that to anyone


"Can you prove to me that one doesnt exist?"

You can't prove a negative, can you prove to me that a invisible giant spaghetti monster isn't sitting on top of my head?  Do you see how ridiculous it's to switch the burden to me? My inability to disprove something that might not even exist makes no sense and gives no credibility to your original assertion.

If someone makes an assertion, it's their burden to prove, not mine to disprove.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: slowgrowloph]
    #20604035 -

slowgrowloph said:
DieCommie said:
slowgrowloph said:
Uhhhh everything is composed of matter lol


Also incorrect.  You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

(Matter is ill defined in science and not a useful concept.)


HAHAHAHAHA ok, so what some stuff is composed of...nothing? Sounds like you dont know what YOUR talking about. Gases, liquids, or solids, its all a form of matter. I knew someone was going to get upset and say some shit like "oh you just dont know what your talkin about". But whatever :wink:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

"Before the 20th century, the term matter included ordinary matter composed of atoms, and excluded other energy phenomena such as light or sound. This concept of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ill-defined because an object's mass can arise from its (possibly massless) constituents' motion and interaction energies. Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today"

nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today
nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today
nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today
nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today
nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today


--------------------

"I don't give two splats of an old negro junkie's vomit for your politico-philosophical treatises, kiddies. I like noise. I like big-ass vicious noise that makes my head spin. I wanna feel it whipping through me like a fucking jolt. We're so dilapidated and crushed by our pathetic existence we need it like a fix." -Steve Albini

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: slowgrowloph]
    #20604039 -

slowgrowloph said:
DieCommie said:
slowgrowloph said:
Uhhhh everything is composed of matter lol


Also incorrect.  You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

(Matter is ill defined in science and not a useful concept.)


HAHAHAHAHA ok, so what some stuff is composed of...nothing? Sounds like you dont know what YOUR talking about. Gases, liquids, or solids, its all a form of matter. I knew someone was going to get upset and say some shit like "oh you just dont know what your talkin about". But whatever :wink:


Uhh antimatter, energy (which can become matter per Einstein), and space... no matter in the space is there?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: qman]
    #20604048 -

qman said:
You can't prove a negative...


Why not?

You can prove a negative just as easily as you can prove a positive.  (A positive is just a negated negative anyway...)  Its "proof" in general that is hard to do.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MisterPervy]
    #20604051 -

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Also important to note that matter is no longer actually defined as a legitimate part of physics.



uhhhhhhh "In particle physics, antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge and other particle properties such as lepton and baryon number."

this thread was a :facepalm: fest before it even started


--------------------
:leaf::leaf:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: Shroomin Capote]
    #20604055 -

Mass is not matter.  Mass is well defined.  Matter is not.  Still, "everything" is not made of mass.  Photons are the easy counterexample.

And more to the point, the fact that the origin of matter (and mass) is in some fundamental way a mystery is not evidence of god.  We cannot even be sure that such a concept must have a "origin" in the sense of human's model of causality.

Edited by DieCommie (09/23/14 12:42 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: DieCommie]
    #20604065 -

DieCommie said:
Mass is not matter.  Mass is well defined.  Matter is not.  Still, "everything" is not made of mass.  Photons are the easy counterexample.

And more to the point, the fact that the origin of matter (and mass) is in some fundamental way a mystery is not evidence of god.  We cannot even be sure that such a concept must have a "origin" in the sense of human's model of causality.


Thanks for not being a bonehead

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604066 -

You guys can have fun with this thread. Ive got to go to bed. Ill read up on the antimatter though. Ill admit, that is a topic I have not studied much of. And seriously, why does everyone get so worked up about these topics? Its fun stirring shit up haha. Life is a mystery that I doubt any of us will ever fully understand. Enjoy it for what it is :smile:


--------------------
:sunny:“Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run, but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant.” -Hunter S. Thompson

“One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly becoming the author of something beautiful even if it is only a floating ash.”  -Norman Maclean:sunny:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: Shroomin Capote]
    #20604069 -

Shroomin Capote said:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Also important to note that matter is no longer actually defined as a legitimate part of physics.



uhhhhhhh "In particle physics, antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge and other particle properties such as lepton and baryon number."

this thread was a :facepalm: fest before it even started


You don't know what matter is.

Matter, which is not even a real foundation in physics, requires atoms.

Antimatter does not.


--------------------

"I don't give two splats of an old negro junkie's vomit for your politico-philosophical treatises, kiddies. I like noise. I like big-ass vicious noise that makes my head spin. I wanna feel it whipping through me like a fucking jolt. We're so dilapidated and crushed by our pathetic existence we need it like a fix." -Steve Albini

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: slowgrowloph]
    #20604074 -

slowgrowloph said:
You guys can have fun with this thread. Ive got to go to bed. Ill read up on the antimatter though. Ill admit, that is a topic I have not studied much of. And seriously, why does everyone get so worked up about these topics? Its fun stirring shit up haha. Life is a mystery that I doubt any of us will ever fully understand. Enjoy it for what it is :smile:


Very true and have a great night man. Thanks for contributing to the thread!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604085 -

mtlmike90 said:
slowgrowloph said:
You guys can have fun with this thread. Ive got to go to bed. Ill read up on the antimatter though. Ill admit, that is a topic I have not studied much of. And seriously, why does everyone get so worked up about these topics? Its fun stirring shit up haha. Life is a mystery that I doubt any of us will ever fully understand. Enjoy it for what it is :smile:


Very true and have a great night man. Thanks for contributing to the thread!


Thanks for your input. I actually really enjoyed this thread haha :thumbup:


--------------------
:sunny:“Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run, but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant.” -Hunter S. Thompson

“One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly becoming the author of something beautiful even if it is only a floating ash.”  -Norman Maclean:sunny:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MisterPervy]
    #20604090 -

sorry im not a physicist and don't keep up on all the semantics of science.  no one understands this whole reality thing anyway


--------------------
:leaf::leaf:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MisterPervy]
    #20604106 -

MisterPervy said:
You don't know what matter is.

Matter, which is not even a real foundation in physics, requires atoms.

Antimatter does not.



In his defense, it is confusing for sure.  Calling it anti-"matter" is a bit of a misnomer.  But language evolves organically and is not necessarily internally consistent.  The math on the other hand is, and that is why math is the language of physics and science.  Anti-"matter" was named as such by a human but the concept was found in the math and then observed in nature.  Mathematically and fundamentally its simply a particle with the same properties but opposite charge from the particles we observe regularly.  Enough of it could be considered "matter" in the colloquial sense, but a single positron is hard to justify as matter.  (Photons are their own anti particle and they dont have any mass.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: Shroomin Capote]
    #20604110 -

Shroomin Capote said:
sorry im not a physicist and don't keep up on all the semantics of science.  no one understands this whole reality thing anyway


Leave reality to the philosophers and mystics.  Physicists study observations.  :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: DieCommie]
    #20604128 -

:thisfuckinguy:

HAHAHAH!

idk how this thread ended up here


--------------------
:leaf::leaf:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Biblical Creation Museum MagicalMystery 1,048 5 10/16/05 05:56 PM
by chinacat72
* The debate of religion Nexus555 842 7 01/12/06 06:44 PM
by blissedout
* Penn and Tell - Bullshit! - Creationism freddurgan 1,335 13 03/01/05 09:23 PM
by SHiZNO
* America = Amaruka (not from Amerigo V.) kotik 10,356 10 03/10/06 10:08 AM
by Charles
* My First Casing, PICS!!!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Geordi_La_Forge 5,264 89 09/22/04 02:00 AM
by Randolph_Carter
* The "ultimate" high....
( 1 2 all )		 niteowl 2,096 31 03/16/05 07:28 PM
by hAGLUND
* 100 amazing science facts & factoids: which one amazes you most?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 AsanteM 8,675 71 02/07/10 03:51 PM
by Mr.Pink
* Dreams V.S. Reality and foolish choices, any help apreciated
( 1 2 all )		 ZippoZM 2,334 35 03/21/06 12:21 AM
by Krishna

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
2,866 topic views. 6 members, 147 guests and 162 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 18 queries.