# Try and comprehend these sentences



## CubezUBR (Nov 1, 2013)

*The "existence, proven and evolution" thread (debate)*

i have thought a lot about these sentences and still cant think of an answer

1#. something is 100% going to happen, and it dosent happen, how?
2#. is the physical state of "nothing" possible? (is nothing impossible?) 
3#. we cant prove infinite exists because we havent reached the end to find out.

these sentences were given to me by a friend.

im confused
feel free to add some of your own below

this thread has turned into a new topic discussion and i hope to keep it alive, 
if anyone has a better title please tell me

btw the egg came first


----------



## rj (Nov 1, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> i have thought a lot about these sentences and still cant think of an answer
> 
> 1#. something is 100% going to happen, and it dosent happen, how?
> 2#. is the physical state of "nothing" possible? (is nothing impossible?)
> ...




"This sentence is false"


----------



## TDM (Nov 1, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> 1#. something is 100% going to happen, and it dosent happen, how?


Whoever said there was a 100% chance of it happening was lying.


> 2#. is the physical state of "nothing" possible? (is nothing impossible?)


idk, probably not


> 3#. we cant prove infinite exists because we havent reached the end to find out.


sqrt(2)
count the decimal places
They're infinite.
Also there is no end to reach.

And what rj said is a better example.


----------



## CubezUBR (Nov 1, 2013)

*not my sentences
trying to prove me wrong is not the point


----------



## ThomasJE (Nov 1, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> 1#. something is 100% going to happen, and it dosent happen, how?



Impossible; can't happen.



CubezUBR said:


> 2#. is the physical state of "nothing" possible? (is nothing impossible?)



Again; cannot happen.



CubezUBR said:


> 3#. we cant prove infinite exists because we havent reached the end to find out.



Infinity doesn't exist.


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 1, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> i have thought a lot about these sentences and still cant think of an answer
> 
> 1#. something is 100% going to happen, and it dosent happen, how?
> 2#. is the physical state of "nothing" possible? (is nothing impossible?)
> ...



1. the thing is "nothing"
2. no
3. thats not a question


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 1, 2013)

About inf not existing, you can observe stuff as it gets there and take a "limit" as it reaches, if it reaches.
Aka you can reach a "closed" kind of infinity if there is some sorta convergence...


----------



## Lchu613 (Nov 1, 2013)

Infinity isn't something that exists or doesn't exist. Infinity is a concept.
Case closed.


----------



## kcl (Nov 1, 2013)

If a tree falls in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 2, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> If a tree falls in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?



yeb csch there are still particles around it witch vibrate witch is wot sound is


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 2, 2013)

This one has always puzzled me. Yes, of course it does! Soundwaves are created. Just because there is nobody to hear it, this doesn't have any impact on the existence of the sound. 

How about this: "I'm looking for my mother to kill her. (I should have thought of that a bit earlier, before being born.)" 

Fun! 

Edit: btw, this post has gravitated away from sentences which are difficult to comprehend. Most of the posts so far are just questions: some semantic, some just straightforward logic questions. This sentence is just fun, similar to the assertion that prenatal matricide is counterproductive.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 2, 2013)

Reminds me of the bootstrap paradox
Weird stuff


----------



## kcl (Nov 2, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> This one has always puzzled me. Yes, of course it does! Soundwaves are created. Just because there is nobody to hear it, this doesn't have any impact on the existence of the sound.
> 
> How about this: "I'm looking for my mother to kill her. (I should have thought of that a bit earlier, before being born.)"
> 
> ...



But how would we have any way to prove it?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 2, 2013)

Which came 1st the chicken or the egg?

It's the egg, unless of course you don't believe in evolution.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 2, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Which came 1st the chicken or the egg?
> 
> It's the egg, unless of course you don't believe in evolution.



Yeah, it's the egg. The thing that laid the egg that hatched into the first chicken was a pre-chicken!


----------



## TDM (Nov 2, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Yeah, it's the egg. The thing that laid the egg that hatched into the first chicken was a pre-chicken!


But other things were laying eggs long before the first chicken. Unless we're talking about chicken eggs. Also, when do stop calling something a pre-chicken and start calling it a chicken? Are the chickens that were alive 100 years ago pre-chickens, as they're less evolved than the chickens that are alive today?


----------



## brian724080 (Nov 2, 2013)

1#. something is 100% going to happen, and it dosent happen, how?
Just because it has an 100% chance doesn't mean it has to happen right away. It can happen in a billion years.

2#. is the physical state of "nothing" possible? (is nothing impossible?) 
3#. we cant prove infinite exists because we havent reached the end to find out.
These are not scientifically answerable questions, the question can not be tested.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 2, 2013)

TDM said:


> But other things were laying eggs long before the first chicken. Unless we're talking about chicken eggs. Also, when do stop calling something a pre-chicken and start calling it a chicken? Are the chickens that were alive 100 years ago pre-chickens, as they're less evolved than the chickens that are alive today?



I think the age old saying is referring to chicken eggs, rather than eggs in general.

I guess a geneticist could answer better, but somewhere down the line there's a fundamental change/mutation. It's exactly the same as homo erectus giving birth to homo sapiens. 

Something that wasn't recognisably a chicken laid an egg containing something that was!

I don't think there's a great deal of evolution going on with farmed chickens, but I get your point.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 2, 2013)

infinity is a concept, it does not exist
but like alex said we can take limits and boom you have calculus
but to prove two infinity are equal to each other they need to be surjective and injective
but if it dont exist how do we prove that they are equal?
solution is mathematics i guess, where we can calculate with i and multi dimensional objects

as to the chicken egg thing
if it was a pre chicken that laid the egg, surely the egg isnt an chicken egg? so the chicken much have came first, then there will be such a thing as an chicken egg? so its the chicken before the egg.


----------



## TDM (Nov 2, 2013)

KongShou said:


> as to the chicken egg thing
> if it was a pre chicken that laid the egg, surely the egg isnt an chicken egg? so the chicken much have came first, then there will be such a thing as an chicken egg? so its the chicken before the egg.


But for the chicken that laid the chicken egg must have come from a chicken egg.
When you say "chicken egg", do mean an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg that will become a chicken?


----------



## KongShou (Nov 2, 2013)

TDM said:


> But for the chicken that laid the chicken egg must have come from a chicken egg.
> When you say "chicken egg", do mean an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg that will become a chicken?



an egg laid by the chicken

because if there is no such thing as a chicken, there wont be such thing as an chicken egg, so there much first be a chicken, then a chicken egg


----------



## TDM (Nov 2, 2013)

KongShou said:


> an egg laid by the chicken
> 
> because if there is no such thing as a chicken, there wont be such thing as an chicken egg, so there much first be a chicken, then a chicken egg


Well if you mean an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first. But when I said chicken egg, I meant an egg that would become a chicken, so for me the egg would've come first.

So the answer to which came first is decided by what your definition of "chicken egg" is.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 2, 2013)

TDM said:


> Well if you mean an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first. But when I said chicken egg, I meant an egg that would become a chicken, so for me the egg would've come first.
> 
> So the answer to which came first is decided by what your definition of "chicken egg" is.



yeah but you wont usually call an egg a chicken egg if there is no such thing as a chicken

point taken tho


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 2, 2013)

KongShou said:


> yeah but you wont usually call an egg a chicken egg if there is no such thing as a chicken
> 
> point taken tho



Lol! It's all to do with gaining chromosomes. The thing that differentiates two species is the chromosome count. Although the evolution of DNA takes millions of years, theoretically speaking, there was once something that was almost a chicken, but possessing one less/more chromosome. It laid an egg which contained an embryonic chicken, whose DNA was infinitesimally different from it's parent, but this infinitesimal difference resulted in an extra chromosome. If we tested the DNA of the parent, it would be a different species to the chicken we know and love (yum). If we tested the child, it would be a perfect match.


----------



## rj (Nov 5, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Which came 1st the chicken or the egg?
> 
> It's the egg, unless of course you don't believe in evolution.



I don't, and that still puzzles me. From evolution's point of view, where do these pre-chickens become chickens, exactly?


----------



## TDM (Nov 5, 2013)

rj said:


> I don't, and that still puzzles me. From evolution's point of view, where do these pre-chickens become chickens, exactly?


When they have the DNA of chickens:


pipkiksass said:


> The thing that differentiates two species is the chromosome count. Although the evolution of DNA takes millions of years, theoretically speaking, there was once something that was almost a chicken, but possessing one less/more chromosome. It laid an egg which contained an embryonic chicken, whose DNA was infinitesimally different from it's parent, but this infinitesimal difference resulted in an extra chromosome. If we tested the DNA of the parent, it would be a different species to the chicken we know and love (yum). If we tested the child, it would be a perfect match.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 5, 2013)

rj said:


> I don't



Disturbing. But that's your prerogative! 



rj said:


> From evolution's point of view, where do these pre-chickens become chickens, exactly?



Gradually. Over thousands/millions of years, DNA changes gradually as living things adapt to their environment. There is a theoretical 'tipping point' where a crucial change happens, such as an extra chromosome is gained. In actuality, what laid the egg was 99.99999% chicken; what hatched was 100.000000% chicken, effectively. But if you were to sample the DNA of the parent, it would have been a different species than the child. In theory. 

RJ, I assume you're a Creationist?


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 6, 2013)

Right, so the egg came first. The very first chicken egg was laid by a pre-chicken. Thank you for clearing that up, I had often pondered that conundrum


----------



## rj (Nov 6, 2013)

TDM said:


> When they have the DNA of chickens:



Well, there's silkies and rhode island reds. They have different DNA.



pipkiksass said:


> RJ, I assume you're a Creationist?



Very much so.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 6, 2013)

rj said:


> Very much so.



All I can say is you haven't done enough research on the subject.

Evolution doesn't have to interfere with your faith before you consider using that as 'evidence'.



rj said:


> From evolution's point of view, where do these pre-chickens become chickens, exactly?



There isn't any one point. It is a gradually process.


There is one particular study that I am thinking of that 100% proves evolution exists.
E. coli were left in IIRC critic acid which they can't use as sustenance and barely enough 'food' (*insert more appropriate word here) to survive.
If they manage to mutate to the point where they can start using the citric acid then they will thrive.

Fast forward to decades and 100s of thousands of generations later and with the use of 3 separate mutations the E. coli evolved to use the citric acid.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Sowwie about the mobile link. Hopefully it still works.


----------



## TDM (Nov 6, 2013)

rj said:


> Well, there's silkies and rhode island reds. They have different DNA.


Well, I know nothing about chickens. Or evolution.
I don't even know why I'm in this conversation.


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 6, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> All I can say is you haven't done enough research on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think a single thing to prove evolution is necessary. It's pretty much undeniable at this point. I'm not a scientist but I do know that if evolution wasn't reality, our medicine wouldn't be at the stage it is now, since use evolution to our benefit.
It's an issue of education and accepting, without preset beliefs standing in the way.
It's one of the biggest and most understood scientific facts we have.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 6, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> I don't think a single thing to prove evolution is necessary. It's pretty much undeniable at this point. I'm not a scientist but I do know that if evolution wasn't reality, our medicine wouldn't be at the stage it is now, since use evolution to our benefit.
> It's an issue of education and accepting, without preset beliefs standing in the way.
> It's one of the biggest and most understood scientific facts we have.



However one of the most common questions creationists ask of people who believe in evolution is 'show me the one piece of evidence which proves evolution?'
We can't do that but we can point them in the direction of the next best thing.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Nov 6, 2013)

rj said:


> I don't, and that still puzzles me. From evolution's point of view, where do these pre-chickens become chickens, exactly?



Evolution is an ongoing process. It doesn't have a point of view. It doesn't have to classify things as chicken or non-chicken.

The point of view and classification business is a human endeavor driven by human needs to communicate and sort things into categories. It's important to the study of evolution and to communicating about it - but names and POV's don't drive biological evolution. Variation and selection do that.

Biologically speciation happens when two separated groups who were once the same species currently refuse to or can not successfully reproduce with each-other. In your example if silkies and rhode island reds won't or can't produce fertile offspring that is a speciation event. It does not matter what you call them (or if you call them both chickens) but people are going to invent new names for the different species if they want to communicate about them.

As far as the OP's first sentence if something is 100% going to happen and doesn't happen perhaps it has not happened yet?


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 6, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> However one of the most common questions creationists ask of people who believe in evolution is 'show me the one piece of evidence which proves evolution?'
> We can't do that but we can point them in the direction of the next best thing.



Well that is true. I think the question is intenitionally "designed" so that it can not be answered how they would want it to be answered.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 6, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> Well that is true. I think the question is intenitionally "designed" so that it can not be answered how they would want it to be answered.



They don't want the question answered.
The trouble is people intrinsically link their faith to creation. At which point they force themselves into the notion of believing in evolution would cause their faith to be wrong as well.

Religion and science need to be kept separate IMO.

*note to mods, sorry for the off topic discussion but could you please separate the threads out instead of deleting posts if you feel something needs to be done?


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 6, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> Well that is true. I think the question is intenitionally "designed" so that it can not be answered how they would want it to be answered.



There's a certain delicious irony to people with unquestioning, blind faith in a superior being asking for definitive proof of something!

That said, I have no problem whatsoever with creationists, there are far worse things you could believe in!

Just to summarise: the egg came first. Unless you're a creationist, in which case the chicken came first, because God created chickens, not eggs, in much the same way as he created Adam and Eve, but not Cain, Abel, or Seth.

Therefore, anyone who says the chicken came first must be a creationist, right? ;-)


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 6, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Therefore, anyone who says the chicken came first must be a creationist, right? ;-)



Not entirely true. KongShou put forward the idea that a 'chicken egg' must be laid by a chicken but I think he was maybe trolling a little =)


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 6, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Not entirely true. KongShou put forward the idea that a 'chicken egg' must be laid by a chicken but I think he was maybe trolling a little =)



:fp

I was joking.

Anyhow, the word 'chicken' changes the equation:

"Which came first: the chicken or the CHICKEN egg" = the chicken. Even to a Darwinist.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 6, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Even to a *Darwinist*.



Lol. I love that phrase. I'm also a Newtonist since I believe in gravity.


----------



## ThomasJE (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm an R. Kellyist because I believe I can fly.

Sorry.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 6, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Lol. I love that phrase. I'm also a Newtonist since I believe in gravity.



and im a Riemannist because i believe in the Riemann hypothesis.


----------



## rj (Nov 6, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Lol. I love that phrase. I'm also a Newtonist since I believe in gravity.



I'm a Rubikist, since I believe in the cube.


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 6, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> They don't want the question answered.
> The trouble is people intrinsically link their faith to creation. At which point they force themselves into the notion of believing in evolution would cause their faith to be wrong as well.
> 
> Religion and science need to be kept separate IMO.
> ...



That's what I meant, and that's the reason they phrase the question like this.
But even I would agree that evolution is troubling for the christian faith when you look at the doctrine.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 7, 2013)

Yes, mods please don't delete this - I'm really enjoying this thread!



Nilsibert said:


> evolution is troubling for the christian faith when you look at the doctrine.



Evolution isn't troubling for the Christian faith, it's troubling for anyone who adopts a literal approach to any of the Abrahamic/Judaic faiths. And it's not really a problem with doctrine, only with a single verse of a single book of the old testament, i.e the statement in the book of Genesis that "God created man in his own image". 

The thing is, Creationists are a minority in the global Christian church. Evolution might not be 100% compatible with the literal words in the Old Testament, but it doesn't throw any spanners in the works for your run-of-the-mill Christian (or Jew). Darwin himself was a devout Christian - if he didn't think his theories precluded belief in God, why should we?! 

(N.B. I'm an atheist)


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 7, 2013)

Well, look at it this way: no adam and eve means no original sin means no requirement for forgivness, which makes jesus "unnecessary". Sure there are a lot of christians that accept evolution and Jesus is more of a good pal, but if you go by the doctrine, he's not needed to get into heaven or something like that.

P.s. I enjoy these discussions too, I hope we don't get "cencored"


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 7, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> Well, look at it this way: no adam and eve means no original sin means no requirement for forgivness, which makes jesus "unnecessary". Sure there are a lot of christians that accept evolution and Jesus is more of a good pal, but if you go by the doctrine, he's not needed to get into heaven or something like that.
> 
> P.s. I enjoy these discussions too, I hope we don't get "cencored"



Technically, the concept of 'original' sin relies on the fact that Adam & Eve were created in God's image, i.e. free from sin, but then they lapsed onto sin after Eve was tempted by the serpent.

So no Adam & Eve means no original sin, but doesn't mean no requirement for forgiveness, as mankind still lives in sin. We just bypass the stage at which mankind lives free from sin.

Unfortunately, this invalidates the rest of your argument re: the necessity of Jesus, etc..


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 7, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Technically, the concept of 'original' sin relies on the fact that Adam & Eve were created in God's image, i.e. free from sin



Is the belief in that concept true?
I'm sure murder is a sin and God caused the Earth to flood and kill everyone except Mr Arthurs and his family, or is the implication that God hasn't sinned until after creating everything?


----------



## rj (Nov 7, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Yes, mods please don't delete this - I'm really enjoying this thread!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most christians are creationist. At least Orthodox Christians. 



Nilsibert said:


> Well, look at it this way: no adam and eve means no original sin means no requirement for forgivness, which makes jesus "unnecessary". Sure there are a lot of christians that accept evolution and Jesus is more of a good pal, but if you go by the doctrine, he's not needed to get into heaven or something like that.



Not quite. Many of the evolutionist Christians are theistic evolutionists, which means that God guided evolution, and Adam and Eve were the first "Human" humans.



cube-o-holic said:


> Is the belief in that concept true?
> I'm sure murder is a sin and God caused the Earth to flood and kill everyone except Mr Arthurs and his family, or is the implication that God hasn't sinned until after creating everything?



Original sin is catholic. I don't believe in original sin.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> Most christians are creationist. At least Orthodox Christians.



That may be true for America but I don't think that's true in Western Europe.

Did you look at the link I provided about E. coli in citric acid?


----------



## rj (Nov 7, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> That may be true for America but I don't think that's true in Western Europe.
> 
> Did you look at the link I provided about E. coli in citric acid?



Try the middle east, Greece, and Russia.



cube-o-holic said:


> Fast forward to decades and 100s of thousands of generations later and with the use of 3 separate mutations the E. coli evolved to use the citric acid.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> 
> Sowwie about the mobile link. Hopefully it still works.



E. Coli are designed to adapt. Otherwise, the good E. Coli would be dead


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 7, 2013)

Adaptation is evolution on a shorter scale.


----------



## rj (Nov 7, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Adaptation is evolution on a shorter scale.



Uhh...no. That's microevolution, which is changes in a species. That is the only kind of evolution that has ever been observed. Dog breeding, e.g. Go research the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> Uhh...no. That's microevolution, which is changes in a species. That is the only kind of evolution that has ever been observed. Dog breeding, e.g. Go research the second law of thermodynamics.



-where is the cutoff point where you call it a different species then?
-the second law of thermodynamics is to do with entropy; however although you could say chaos is why mutations happen I suppose natural selection plays _some_ small part in it perhaps
-dog breeding, ehhh. I wonder whether you could call that "adaptation". But yeah.


----------



## rj (Nov 7, 2013)

5BLD said:


> -where is the cutoff point where you call it a different species then?
> -the second law of thermodynamics is to do with entropy; however although you could say chaos is why mutations happen I suppose natural selection plays _some_ small part in it perhaps



A small part, but not enough to justify the addition of genetic material.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> research the second law of thermodynamics.



Perfectly familiar with it thank you.
It's quaint how you try to justify your anti-scientific POV with science.


----------



## rj (Nov 7, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Perfectly familiar with it thank you.
> It's quaint how you try to justify your anti-scientific POV with science.



Um, I have scientific proof for almost all of my beliefs, just like you. Where did matter come from originally?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> Um, I have scientific proof for almost all of my beliefs, just like you. Where did matter come from originally?



The net amount of energy in the universe is zero and the point is completely irrelevant to evolution.


----------



## rj (Nov 7, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> The net amount of energy in the universe is zero and the point is completely irrelevant to evolution.



I asked about matter. IMO, evolution is a belief system, not "science."


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> I asked about matter. IMO, evolution is a belief system, not "science."



Unfortunately, your opinion about wether or not evolution is science or a belief system doesn't matter. Not trying to be harsh, but that's the way it is. Is gravity a belief system?


----------



## KongShou (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> Um, I have scientific proof for almost all of my beliefs, just like you. Where did matter come from originally?



where is god
why he no show himself
epicurean dilemma
scientific proof for the existence of God and creation please, preferably published in a scientific journal
adaptation == evolution
FSMism


----------



## rj (Nov 7, 2013)

KongShou said:


> where is god
> why he no show himself
> epicurean dilemma
> scientific proof for the existence of God and creation please, preferably published in a *scientific journal*
> ...



lol. Discovery magazine said that the universe evolved out of nothing.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> I asked about matter



E = MC^2

Matter is energy.
The total amount of energy in the universe is ZERO.
It doesn't need to be created.
None of which has anything to do with evolution which just shows you are regurgitating points made by creationists and you haven't looked into the 'science' behind their points.

From a scientific POV evolution is science.
The only people who don't think it is are not scientists.


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> lol. Discovery magazine said that the universe evolved out of nothing.



Why don't you reply to his post at all? What does the discovery magazine have to do with anything?


----------



## KongShou (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> lol. Discovery magazine said that the universe evolved out of nothing.



Yes, it did
If you have a vacuum there will be a big bang and matter and antimatter will appear. overall energy level is zero like adam said. this is the most accepted theory for how the big bang happened(more complicated than that of course). if we have a vacuum now it is not a true vacuum merely an absence of visible matter for a limited space. The vacuum we are talking about is true vacuum in a universe.
What does this have to do with anything we are talking about?



KongShou said:


> where is god
> why he no show himself
> epicurean dilemma
> scientific proof for the existence of God and creation please, preferably published in a scientific journal
> ...


address these points


----------



## rj (Nov 7, 2013)

KongShou said:


> Yes, it did
> If you have a vacuum there will be a big bang and matter and antimatter will appear. overall energy level is zero like adam said. this is the most accepted theory for how the big bang happened(more complicated than that of course). if we have a vacuum now it is not a true vacuum merely an absence of visible matter for a limited space. The vacuum we are talking about is true vacuum in a universe.
> What does this have to do with anything we are talking about?
> 
> ...



God is not in one place. He is outside our human perception. That is why we can't see him. 
A person needs hardship to be mature. 
If evolution was true, than the moon would have been touching the earth 10,000 years ago, and we would be inside the sun. Not to mention the fossil record and the flood.
Adaptation is micro-evolution. 
Where does the flying spaghetti monster come into this?


----------



## KongShou (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> God is not in one place. He is outside our human perception. That is why we can't see him.
> A person needs hardship to be mature.
> If evolution was true, than the moon would have been touching the earth 10,000 years ago, and we would be inside the sun. Not to mention the fossil record and the flood.
> Adaptation is micro-evolution.
> Where does the flying spaghetti monster come into this?





rj said:


> God is not in one place. He is outside our human perception. That is why we can't see him.



So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is not in one place. It is outside human perception. That is why we can't see it.



rj said:


> A person needs hardship to be mature.



So? Why does he not show himself? If he exist and created us surely it is reasonal to show himself to us. To convince us of his existence more than anything.



rj said:


> If evolution was true, than the moon would have been touching the earth 10,000 years ago, and we would be inside the sun. Not to mention the fossil record and the flood.



Absolutely absurd. How does evolution have anything to do with the moon? We be inside the sun because we descended from apes? The fossil record only help to prove evolution, it is a piece of evidence that support my view. It is solid fact. 



rj said:


> Adaptation is micro-evolution.



Hence it is evolution on a small scale, hence evolution is proved.



rj said:


> Where does the flying spaghetti monster come into this?



Replace the word God with FSM. according to you everything still make sense. The argument for the existence of God can be used for a FSM as well. Hence according to your logic a FSM must exist and we should worship it.

You said your belief was based on scientific proof, show me that proof. Why did you ignore this point?

Also show me a good theodicy for the Epicurean Dilemma. One that completely solve the problem. You have also ignored this point.

Also i support Richard Dawkins.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> God is not in one place. He is outside our human perception. That is why we can't see him.



Just to be clear I don't want to try and test anyone's faith.
I think science and religion should be kept separate so I'm not touching that.



rj said:


> If evolution was true, than the moon would have been touching the earth 10,000 years ago, and we would be inside the sun.



Massively outdated belief in no way supported by science.



rj said:


> Not to mention the fossil record and the flood.



If you are seriously bringing up carbon dating is dependant upon contact with water you can design an experiment to disprove it in 30 seconds.



rj said:


> Adaptation is micro-evolution.



And 100,000s of generations of 'micro-evolution' is evolution.




rj said:


> Where does the flying spaghetti monster come into this?



It's satire. Look it up.


----------



## rj (Nov 7, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Just to be clear I don't want to try and test anyone's faith.
> I think science and religion should be kept separate so I'm not touching that.
> 
> 
> ...




Wtf. Not what I said. One part of a frozen mammoth was 16,000 years older than the other part. Here.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> Wtf. Not what I said. One part of a frozen mammoth was 16,000 years older than the other part. Here.



I'm so sorry I'm not aware of every piece of creationist propaganda.
So this one questionable case from 1975 is the evidence you put forward to defend creationism? Really?


----------



## KongShou (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> Wtf. Not what I said. One part of a frozen mammoth was 16,000 years older than the other part. Here.



In order:
there is a mammoth from 1975 that has two part of its body proven to be from different period
that completely disprove carbon dating
all of chemistry is wrong
all of science is wrong
evolution did not happen 
There is no other plausible explanation
Oh wait there is a little book that's 2000 years old
Let put all of our faith in there
It says in there:
God must exist
God has created the universe and humans
We should start worshipping him
He is the ultimate lord
Jesus Christ is our saviour
He was nailed to a cross like all other prisoners at the time
So therefore he must have did it to make god forgive us
Even tho he is god
But god is omnibenevolent
Lets ignore that, he still nail his son to the cross in order to forgive us
For a sin set by two person he created in his image
Oh well it all make sense lets go to church now


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 8, 2013)

KongShou said:


> all of science is wrong
> evolution did not happen... Oh well it all make sense lets go to church now



OK. Race you to church!

In all seriousness though, when did a civilised discussion descend into this?

RJ - you are a creationist. I am not, I'm a Darwinist, but I respect your views. However, I would encourage you not to attempt to use science to disprove evolution, as there is _far_ more scientific evidence to support it than to refute it. 

If you read the mammoth article, it's actually a rebuttal of a creationist argument. The counter arguments, again, are stronger than the initial statements. Also, this is VERY early carbon dating. Accuracy has improved tenfold over the past four decades. 

I'm not sure, regardless, how disproving carbon dating would disprove evolutionary theory as a whole. Even if carbon dating didn't exist, DNA does, and it provides a clear chronology of our history. 

I'd encourage all involved to bear in mind that the internet is a global and public place, and that once you state your views you cannot rescind them. This is why you see so many apology posts on this forum, as well as others, Twitter, and the internet in general. Even if you delete your post, the words you type are indelibly 'out there', and will still appear on searches of cached webpages. Try not to say anything you might potentially regret at some point in the future. 

You might consider creationism to be a load of nonsense; you might think that the lord Brahma cracked a giant egg, or built the universe out of wood; you might consider organised religion to be a mere control mechanism, designed to exercise political power; you might think a flying spaghetti monster created the universe... All of these beliefs are valid, no matter how potentially ludicrous. In a global community, we need to respect others' points of view, and argue against them in a calm, collected, and reasoned manner. If your opponent resorts to name-calling, sarcasm, and facetious comments, this only serves to weaken their argument. If you maintain a reasoned, sensible approach, despite your opponent's underhand tactics, your stance is strengthened. 

So play nice, and try tolerating each others' completely incompatible points of view. It's one thing to criticise creationism; a different thing entirely to ridicule Christianity. Suggesting that the belief structure of 1/4 of the world's population is not sound is unwise, at best!

Far more intelligent people than we have debated the evidence for and against evolution for decades, and Creationists still refuse to be swayed. And I wholly support their right to freedom of opinion and thought, even if I completely disagree with their thoughts and opinions!

I suggest we steer this thread away from science vs. religion. It's a pointless argument anyway.


----------



## JasonK (Nov 8, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> I'd encourage all involved to bear in mind that the internet is a global and public place, and that once you state your views you You might consider creationism to be a load of nonsense; you might think that the lord Brahma cracked a giant egg, or built the universe out of wood; you might consider organised religion to be a mere control mechanism, designed to exercise political power; you might think a flying spaghetti monster created the universe... *All of these beliefs are valid*, no matter how potentially ludicrous. In a global community, we need to respect others' points of view, and argue against them in a calm, collected, and reasoned manner. If your opponent resorts to name-calling, sarcasm, and facetious comments, this only serves to weaken their argument. If you maintain a reasoned, sensible approach, despite your opponent's underhand tactics, your stance is strengthened.


What exactly do you mean by 'valid'? It seems to me that a belief that contradicts the evidence (young-earth, no evolution etc.) is definitely not valid.

Tolerating opposing points of view is great, but there are some things that are just objectively and demonstrably false.


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 8, 2013)

I'd also like to say that Rj, i respect you like any other person on this forum.
But I think it's not right to say that every viewpoint must be respected. Creationism, to be honest, is ridiculous. 
I'm from europe. Creationism is mostly an american phenomenon. Not exclusevly, but mostly. You can't imagine what you guys look like to us. Being a moderate cultural christian is one thing, but creationism is so far away from reality, it's unbelievable that it still exists. Although there is also the flat earth society, so it's no surprise.


----------



## kcl (Nov 8, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> I'd also like to say that Rj, i respect you like any other person on this forum.
> But I think it's not right to say that every viewpoint must be respected. Creationism, to be honest, is ridiculous.
> I'm from europe. Creationism is mostly an american phenomenon. Not exclusevly, but mostly. You can't imagine what you guys look like to us. Being a moderate cultural christian is one thing, but creationism is so far away from reality, it's unbelievable that it still exists. Although there is also the flat earth society, so it's no surprise.



Alright, come on guys. Let's not let this get out of hand. This thread has gone completely haywire. The funny thing of it all is that my beliefs lie right in the middle. I am Christian, but I also believe in evolution and etc. However, it doesn't really have anything to so with this thread. How did we even get to this point? Something about a chicken and an egg. Let's just steer this back on track now.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 8, 2013)

JasonK said:


> What exactly do you mean by 'valid'?


I mean exactly that - they deserve to exist as belief structures. N.B. they are beliefs, not truths. They don't have to be right in order for someone to believe in them!


JasonK said:


> It seems to me that a belief that contradicts the evidence (young-earth, no evolution etc.) is definitely not valid.


Wrong. These beliefs are entirely valid. Is belief in Santa Claus not 'valid'? How about the Tooth Fairy? Note I included the flying spaghetti monster in my list. This is because all belief structures are valid. People are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe, without their beliefs being openly ridiculed. You may not agree, but try biting your tongue?


JasonK said:


> Tolerating opposing points of view is great, but there are some things that are just objectively and demonstrably false.


True, but it's not your place to tell people that what they believe is wrong.


Nilsibert said:


> Creationism, to be honest, is ridiculous.


See my previous comment.


Nilsibert said:


> I'm from europe. Creationism is mostly an american phenomenon.


Utter codswallop. The term Creationism was coined as a counter-argument to Darwinism, but literal belief in the Judeo-Christian creation story has existed for over 5000 years. It's also a dominant belief within orthodox Christianity, i.e. Russian (European) Orthodox, Greek (European) Orthodox, and the Roman (European) Catholic church. Not to mention the thousands of millions of Taoists, Hindus, Muslims, etc., who literally believe in their own creation stories.


Nilsibert said:


> You can't imagine what you guys look like to *us*


Really? I'm a European, and I'm not intolerant, please don't generalise. If you want to state your own point of view then feel free, but please don't pretend that all of a continent share it. 


kclejeune said:


> Alright, come on guys. Let's not let this get out of hand. This thread has gone completely haywire... Let's just steer this back on track now.


THANKYOU, at least someone is listening to me!!!


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 8, 2013)

Creationism isn't really an issue here. I also statet that it exists, but when it comes to schools etc. Evolution isn't a problem. I also never generalised any continent. I was talking about creationists, not americans. I also never said we europeans are all intolerant. In fact I didn't even say anybody is intolerant. Please stop putting words in my mouth.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 8, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> Creationism isn't really an issue here


Agreed, however Nilsibert disagrees:



Nilsibert said:


> Creationism, to be honest, is ridiculous


thereby making it an issue.

Next:


Nilsibert said:


> I also never generalised about any continent


Yes, you did:


Nilsibert said:


> I'm from Europe. Creationism is mostly an american phenomenon... *You can't imagine what you guys look like to us*


A nice pair of generalisations there. You seem to have completely ignored the part of my post where I assert that Creationism is a European phenomenon, and that not all of Europe agrees with you. But it's your prerogative to ignore any rebuttals, it just makes you look a bit silly.

Next:


Nilsibert said:


> I was talking about creationists, not americans


 That's nice, I never suggested anything else. But thanks for clarifying, I guess!



Nilsibert said:


> I never said we europeans are all intolerant


Er, yes you did. I'll quote it a third time, for clarity's sake:



Nilsibert said:


> I'm from Europe.... *You can't imagine what you guys look like to us*


You may not be aware of your intolerance, but this is intolerant. You are telling someone that their point of view is ridiculous. The fact that you are projecting your intolerance to make it appear to be the point of view of the whole continent illustrates how naive you are in assuming that your perspective is shared by everyone else.

Just because you think you're right (and, quite frankly, I agree), doesn't mean that the opposite perspective should be ridiculed. Would you not agree that expressing prejudice against a social group based on their beliefs is intolerant? Surely that's almost the dictionary definition of the word!



Nilsibert said:


> "please stop putting words in my mouth


I'm not. You are. All of the above quotes are from your earlier posts.

How about please start being more careful about the words you post, and how you voice your opinions, before making accusations against others?


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 8, 2013)

I'll reply later this day when I have the time. I may have misread one thing. But quote mining isn't necessary, thank you.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 8, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Religion and science need to be kept separate IMO.



This is why I have this point of view.
To avoid controversy like this.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 8, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> quote mining isn't necessary, thank you.


It's not quote-mining, it's examining a single one of your posts in light of an accusation you levelled at me re: putting words in your mouth.


cube-o-holic said:


> This is why I have this point of view.
> To avoid controversy like this.


This isn't a question of science vs. religion, it's a general question of courtesy and tolerance.

I agree with Nilsibert's point of view, I just find the way in which he has expressed it objectionable.


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 8, 2013)

Apparently you didn't understand what I meant when I said that it's not an issue in europe. Also, generalizing isn't bad by default. If I say the US is a religious nation, I'm not saying every citizen is a religious extremist(for example)


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 8, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> Apparently you didn't understand what I meant when I said that it's not an issue in europe. Also, generalizing isn't bad by default. If I say the US is a religious nation, I'm not saying every citizen is a religious extremist(for example)



Seriously?!

1 - You can't accuse someone of not understanding something you never said. You never said "it's not an issue in Europe". You said, and I'll quote it for the fourth time:


Nilsibert said:


> I'm from europe. Creationism is mostly an american phenomenon. Not exclusevly, but mostly. You can't imagine what you guys look like to us.


Therefore, you can't accuse me of not understanding what you meant. Because you didn't say what you meant! The error is not in my understanding, but in your writing. Accept responsibility for the words that you wrote, don't try to to blame others. If what you said wasn't what you meant, acknowledge your error and revise your argument.

2 - Where do I say, by _any_ stretch of the imagination, that generalising is bad? My only reference to generalising is when I state that you are projecting your opinion of Creationists onto the whole of Europe. I'm not saying that generalising is bad, and only an utter idiot who fails to read 80% of my post would think that. I'm saying that intolerance is bad. In fact I state this belief very clearly on a number of occasions. 

I'm afraid this makes a total nonsense of the rest of your "argument" (and I use this term in the loosest possible sense, because it's just a statement of an incredibly facile fact). Clearly saying the US is religious doesn't make every US citizen a religious extremist. What you're attempting is a rhetorical trick called reductio ad absurdum. Unfortunately this device relies on two things: firstly, you need to have an argument; secondly, you need to understand your opponent's argument!

Perhaps your earlier post was ill-written, or maybe just ill-advised. I respect your right to hold the view that Creationism is cooky non-science, just as I respect RJ's right to hold the view that the bible is the literal truth. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. If I want to express my opinion, I will do so; however I will not attempt to ridicule someone else's opinion, or to suggest that my opinion is widely accepted by a group of people for whom I'm not entitled to speak. 

Personally, if I were you, I'd apologise to RJ for suggesting that his belief system is ridiculous. You're entitled to hold that opinion, just be careful how you express it!


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 8, 2013)

Wow! I did indeed say that, and you even quoted it in an earlier post! Now I know for certain that you didn't get it.
All I was trying to say is that creationism isn't really an issue in europe. There may be people that believe it, but there's not really a debate on what we teach to our kids in school because it doesn't relly influence politics too much afaik.

You may have the opinion that I'm an utter idiot, and you have the right to express that. Just like I have to right to hold and express the opinion that creationism is ridiculous. And as I said before, I respect Rj as a person(or user in this context) but I'm not obligated to respect everybodys beliefs just because they're beliefs.
Yes I may have ilformed some posts, I still have trouble with english and I'm typing and reading this all on my phone because I'm in the military right now(against my will to be clear), so there may be misunderstandings.
Do you also think Rj should apologize to me, or rather to all the scientists that spent their lives researching evolution, just because he said it's a belief and not science? No, that's the way he sees it. It may be factually wrong, and we can try to show him how things really are, but if he wants to look at it this way, that's his right. Just like it's my right to say that a belief that basically contradicts reality is ridiculous to hold.
I've met one person in my life who was a creationist(not too confident with it, but still) and we got along during that time, because I respected him as a person, but I also made it clear to him that I can't respect his belief. I could tolerate it, which is a different thing.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 8, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> Now I know for certain that you didn't get it.


:fp - see my previous post re: what you *meant* and what you *said*.


Nilsibert said:


> All I was *trying to say* is that creationism isn't really an issue in europe. There may be people that believe it, but there's not really a debate on what we teach to our kids in school because it doesn't relly influence politics too much afaik.


I did get it. I'm just making the point that although it may have (as you now acknowledge) been what you were *trying* to say, it isn't what you said. At all. You need to say what you're thinking in order for people to understand what you want to say. You're now making a far more reasoned point re: the socio-political position of the Creationist debate in the education system. If this was all implicit in your earlier post, you were asking the reader to infer a great deal!


Nilsibert said:


> You may have the opinion that I'm an utter idiot


Not at all. Perhaps you skimmed my previous post? What I said is that only an utter idiot would think that the purpose of my argument was to state that generalisation, per se, is wrong. I only think you're an utter idiot if that's your interpretation of my argument!


Nilsibert said:


> Do you also think Rj should apologize to me, or rather to all the scientists that spent their lives researching evolution, just because he said it's a belief and not science?


No, because he didn't attempt to casually undermine anyone's personal belief system. In the same way as I wouldn't ask you to apologise if you'd provided a reasoned argument against Creationism, rather than just telling RJ that his beliefs are "ridiculous". 


Nilsibert said:


> we can try to show him how things really are


I agree wholeheartedly, but this will be achieved through sound reasoning, not ridicule.

Also I didn't ask you to apologise, I merely suggested that this would be the thing that a decent human being would do in this situation.


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 8, 2013)

I said that creationism isn't really an issue in europe. What I meant by that is, however many people believe it, it's not an issue in the sense that I explained later, I assumed that was clear and I apologize if it wasn't.

Well to me it's not a problem, but it may be seen as offensive for him to say that years and years on a subject by people basically dedicating their lives to it, changing the world for the better(medicine) would be just a belief system and not science, which he himself might depend on in the future(which of course I hope won't be the case)

I wasn't really trying to ridicule him, also creationism would need evidence for it. What I mean is that if someone sould suggest that, say, santa claus is real, it wouldn't be my job to argue against it, other than pointing out everything we know through science which contradicts it or at least just doesn't imply that his assertion is true. It would be his job to prove it.

I really didn't want to ridicule him, but can't help the way I feel about creationism. If this is offensive, I DO apologize. I am a decent and tolerant human being if I do say so myself, and I pointed out multiple times that I respect him as much as I respect you or any other user here "by default".

I really shouldn't engage in such discussions if I don't have a computer or enough time to better think things through, I see that now and apologize, I hope you now understand where I'm coming from and that we can settle this issue.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 8, 2013)

I justify trying to argue against creationist in the following way:
They come to our doorsteps and try to convert us to Christianity, try to spread their teachings and generally try to convert the whole humanity to Christianity( which I must admit they are failing)
So we have the right to do the same back to them. So we are allowed to convince them otherwise

As for ridiculing Christianity, I say that I only do it in order to strengthen me point. If Christianity start looking ridiculous to them too, I would have won the argument. If it simply offend them, I say that the fact that they don't admit the validity of science offends me too, a great deal. And using science to prove Christianity is just about most hypocritical thing possible. 

I do not believe you can believe in both science and religion at once, as one is observation and conclusion based on empirical evidence through organised research, the other being stuff taken literally from a little book. Even if you are a liberal Christian and say that I don't take the bible literally, you still believe in the existence of god which through all of human history we have no empirical evidence of. 

I am aware that the above might offend a lot of people, and I will apologies in advance. But after all it is my point of view and I have a right to express them(I hope).


----------



## CubezUBR (Nov 8, 2013)

i couldnt agree more. perfect.


----------



## applemobile (Nov 8, 2013)

I would just like to pipe up to say, I have only met one person in my whole life who believes in creationism. True dat.

Carry on.


----------



## rj (Nov 8, 2013)

KongShou said:


> I justify trying to argue against creationist in the following way:
> They come to our doorsteps and try to convert us to Christianity, try to spread their teachings and generally try to convert the whole humanity to Christianity( which I must admit they are failing)
> So we have the right to do the same back to them. So we are allowed to convince them otherwise
> 
> ...




I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm not an evangelical Christian at all. Nor am I an evangelical creationist. If a controversial issue comes up, I will debate it. I wish you'd be a little more considerate, and use your brain a little more.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 8, 2013)

rj said:


> I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm not an evangelical Christian at all. Nor am I an evangelical creationist. If a controversial issue comes up, I will debate it. I wish you'd be a little more considerate, and use your brain a little more.



sorry i want talking about you, i have nothing against you. I do not agree with you, but that hasnt changed how i view you as a person. i am merely justifying our debate


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 8, 2013)

Honestly Kong, I agree with your argument, but your logic is drivel!


KongShou said:


> *They* come to our doorsteps and try to convert us to Christianity, try to spread their teachings and generally try to convert the whole humanity to Christianity( which I must admit they are failing)


Who are this 'they'? Are you talking about Jehova's Witnesses? The occasional passive visitor asking if you'd like to hear about Jesus is hardly an attempt to convert you. They even thank you when you tell them to sod off! We don't have missionaries in this country, and haven't for a hundred years. Nobody's trying to convert the whole of humanity to Christianity. To say that you want to 'do the same to them' is a bit bizarre? Are you going to visit a lot of Christians with a copy of New Scientist, and ask if they'd like to hear about Einstein?!


KongShou said:


> As for ridiculing Christianity, I say that I only do it in order to strengthen me point.


NONONONONONONO! Ridiculing someone else's point of view just makes you look like a muppet. Dismissing their point of view with a well constructed argument, perhaps combining some humour as you dismantle someone's argument and expose the gaping flaws, THAT is how you strengthen your point. A good arguer should never have to resort to ridiculing their opponent. 


KongShou said:


> I do not believe you can believe in both science and religion at once, as one is observation and conclusion based on empirical evidence through organised research, the other being stuff taken literally from a little book.


A list of famous scientists who were also religious:
Galileo Galilei (Roman Catholic)
Sir Isaac Newton (Non-Trinitarian Anglican)
Charles Darwin (Church of England)
I could go on: Einstein, Descartes, Planck...

Albert Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". So Einstein also disagrees with you. 

As ever, I completely respect your point of view, and share most of your opinions. Try to give science a good name by sustaining a logical argument!


----------



## KongShou (Nov 8, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Honestly Kong, I agree with your argument, but your logic is drivel!
> 
> Who are this 'they'? Are you talking about Jehova's Witnesses? The occasional passive visitor asking if you'd like to hear about Jesus is hardly an attempt to convert you. They even thank you when you tell them to sod off! We don't have missionaries in this country, and haven't for a hundred years. Nobody's trying to convert the whole of humanity to Christianity. To say that you want to 'do the same to them' is a bit bizarre? Are you going to visit a lot of Christians with a copy of New Scientist, and ask if they'd like to hear about Einstein?!
> 
> ...



hey i don't wanna argue with you here, but i think you completely misunderstood me.

first of all spreading teachings about Jesus is definitely spreading Christianity. most, if not all Christians ive met have tried to convert me. they tried to pray with me or just talk about god. Christians are definitely trying to spread Christianity. If you cant accept that then i have nothing else to say.
all i am saying is that if they try to convert us, why is it wrong for us to try and convert them?

next. by ridiculing them i don't mean just stand there and laugh at them, or just make fun of them for the sake of it. I mean expose the flaws in their religion in a sarcastic way. Much like what you said above. I think we completely agree with each other but maybe you misinterpreted me, or more likely, I didnt express myself clearly.

just because some old scientist were "religious" does not mean science and religion fit each other. a priest is homosexual does not mean the catholic church accept homosexuality. back in the old days you were charged for heresy if you're not Christian, so most of the old scientists were "religious". just like to point out that Galileo was arrested for proposing that the earth orbited the sun. He eventually submitted and "converted" to Christianity. Einstein kind of went mad in his old ages, and started believing in god.


----------



## kcl (Nov 8, 2013)

KongShou said:


> hey i don't wanna argue with you here, but i think you completely misunderstood me.
> 
> first of all spreading teachings about Jesus is definitely spreading Christianity. most, if not all Christians ive met have tried to convert me. they tried to pray with me or just talk about god. Christians are definitely trying to spread Christianity. If you cant accept that then i have nothing else to say.
> all i am saying is that if they try to convert us, why is it wrong for us to try and convert them?
> ...



Look. Saying that makes it seem like anyone who isn't atheist is crazy. I know that's not what you mean, but just think here. I honestly keep my religion closely tied with science. Whether you believe it or not, I do. Also I'd like to point out, Christians do not go door to door. That's Jehovah's witnesses. They like to think they're Christian, but they're seriously completely different. Now if we could please get this thread back on topic before people start taking offense, that would be great.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 8, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> I'd like to point out, Christians do not go door to door. That's Jehovah's witnesses. They like to think they're Christian, but they're seriously completely different. Now if we could please get this thread back on topic before people start taking offense, that would be great.



No. The original topic is dead. Let's keep evolving it.

Door to door cubing!!!

Everyone takes an hour out of their week and goes door to door.

When door opens great them casually and ask if they would like to see a cube solved in under X amount of time.

Finish solve if they want you too, pass over a business card with links to SS and a good puzzle shop then move onto the next door.


----------



## TDM (Nov 8, 2013)

pipkiksass, stop taking all the good arguments and explaining them really well, there's nearly nothing for anyone else to say


----------



## CubezUBR (Nov 8, 2013)

ummmmm, should i just make this thread " THE RELIGION DEBATE"?


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 9, 2013)

TDM said:


> pipkiksass, stop taking all the good arguments and explaining them really well, there's nearly nothing for anyone else to say







CubezUBR said:


> ummmmm, should i just make this thread " THE RELIGION DEBATE"?



How about 'the debate just for the motherloving sake of debate debate (which sometimes and variously touches on religion, rhetoric, creation, etc..) thread'?

I love the fact that I completely agree with all the people I'm arguing with, I'm just arguing about their way of arguing. It's great arguing with people you agree with - far less stressful than arguing with people you disagree with!

And I'm totally up for the door-to-door cubing. Although if I offer to solve in sub-x, and they say "how's about sub-15", I'd be like... "you got time for an Ao50, coz I might fluke a sub-15 in that. Definitely a few 15.xx, does that count? No? Balls. Like juggling? No, I can't juggle, just curious. How about cats? Are you kidding, I thought EVERYONE likes cats?! Ok, er... wanna hear about Jesus? No? For Christ's sake, there's no pleasing some people!! How about non-Euclidian geometry? You don't believe in it? Who the hell are you, and why did you even bother answering the door?"

Next house...


----------



## rj (Nov 9, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Honestly Kong, I agree with your argument, but your logic is drivel!
> 
> Who are this 'they'? Are you talking about Jehova's Witnesses? The occasional passive visitor asking if you'd like to hear about Jesus is hardly an attempt to convert you. They even thank you when you tell them to sod off! We don't have missionaries in this country, and haven't for a hundred years. Nobody's trying to convert the whole of humanity to Christianity. To say that you want to 'do the same to them' is a bit bizarre? Are you going to visit a lot of Christians with a copy of New Scientist, and ask if they'd like to hear about Einstein?!
> 
> ...



Not to mention Tchaikovsky, Tolstoi, and all those Russians.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 9, 2013)

Kong, you're making this far too easy for me. BTW, I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, not because I disagree with you. More that I love picking holes in your arguments! 



KongShou said:


> just because some old scientist were "religious" does not mean science and religion fit each other. a priest is homosexual does not mean the catholic church accept homosexuality.


Even you must see that this is a fallacious statement? The priest's sexuality, and its acceptance (or not) by the establishment is by no means a parallel to the former example of the incompatibility of science and religion. In mathematical terms, that's like saying A+B=C; what conclusions can we therefore draw about X?


KongShou said:


> back in the old days you were charged for heresy if you're not Christian, so most of the old scientists were "religious"


Please note only one of the scientists I named was Catholic (you can only be charged with heresy by the Catholic church), and only one lived in the "old days" when heresy was a crime. 


KongShou said:


> just like to point out that Galileo was arrested for proposing that the earth orbited the sun.


True


KongShou said:


> He eventually submitted and "converted" to Christianity.


False. He was born a Catholic. 


KongShou said:


> Einstein kind of went mad in his old ages, and started believing in god.


Also false. Einstein was also born religious, and maintained that there was intelligent design behind the creation of the universe throughout his life.


----------



## rj (Nov 9, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Kong, you're making this far too easy for me. BTW, I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, not because I disagree with you. More that I love picking holes in your arguments!
> 
> 
> Even you must see that this is a fallacious statement? The priest's sexuality, and its acceptance (or not) by the establishment is by no means a parallel to the former example of the incompatibility of science and religion. In mathematical terms, that's like saying A+B=C; what conclusions can we therefore draw about X?
> ...



You're beggining to defend creationism. Very good points.


----------



## kcl (Nov 9, 2013)

rj said:


> You're beggining to defend creationism. Very good points.



Please stop fueling the fire.. Debates over religion almost always end with someone getting hurt by it.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 9, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Kong, you're making this far too easy for me. BTW, I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, not because I disagree with you. More that I love picking holes in your arguments!
> 
> 
> Even you must see that this is a fallacious statement? The priest's sexuality, and its acceptance (or not) by the establishment is by no means a parallel to the former example of the incompatibility of science and religion. In mathematical terms, that's like saying A+B=C; what conclusions can we therefore draw about X?
> ...



well if your arguing for the sake of it then im out of this. I just hate arguing in general and if you see me do it then it is because i actually disagree with something.

just because some old scientist were "religious" does not mean science and religion fit each other. even you cannot disagree with that. 

i proposed A: science and religion. two things which i propose are incompatible. 
you countered with A': some famous scientists were religious so they must be able to fit each other.

thats like B: catholic church and homosexuality. two things which i propose are incompatible. 
and B': some catholic priests are gay so the catholic church accept homosexuality, which clearly do not stand.

because B' do not work for B, therefore A' do not work for A, therefore my argument A still stands.

u see now? 

i dont see why you are disagreeing with me. if you are really doing it for the sake of it then i will just leave it at that.



rj said:


> You're beggining to defend creationism. Very good points.



not a single one of his point had anything to do with creationism


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 10, 2013)

KongShou said:


> well if your arguing for the sake of it then im out of this. I just hate arguing in general and if you see me do it then it is because i actually disagree with something.


Feel free to bow out at any stage if you don't enjoy a good argument, I won't think any less of you. I'm not arguing against your point of view, I'm merely arguing against the logic and structure of your argument. 



KongShou said:


> just because some old scientist were "religious" does not mean science and religion fit each other. even you cannot disagree with that.


True; however your original point was this:


KongShou said:


> I do not believe you can believe in both science and religion at once, as one is observation and conclusion based on empirical evidence through organised research, the other being stuff taken literally from a little book.


I.e. your personal belief is that the two are mutually exclusive. My point is merely that far greater minds than ours disagree. Maybe they're all wrong, and you're right?  



KongShou said:


> i proposed A: science and religion. two things which i propose are incompatible.
> you countered with A': some famous scientists were religious so they must be able to fit each other.
> 
> thats like B: catholic church and homosexuality. two things which i propose are incompatible.
> and B': some catholic priests are gay so the catholic church accept homosexuality, which clearly do not stand.


Suggesting that a few minor Catholic priests who are gay are in any way comparable to the massively influential mainstream scientists I named is clearly not a valid comparison. Einstein =/= some random gay priest; if anything, he'd be the Pope! Here's the bigger hole in your logic though:

My argument (A') is that some scientists are religious, so the science and religion aren't entirely incompatible *not* that because some scientists are religious, all scientists must accept religion. As a result your counter (B') that some priests are gay does not contradict my point at all. Some priests are gay (true) so Catholicism and homosexuality _cannot_ be entirely incompatible; this is not to say that all Catholics must accept homosexuality. 

I do see your point, I just don't agree.



KongShou said:


> i dont see why you are disagreeing with me. if you are really doing it for the sake of it then i will just leave it at that.


As I've said on a couple of occasions, I'm not disagreeing with the overall impetus of your argument at all. Neither am I arguing for the sake of arguing (although I do enjoy it). I'm arguing because I disagree with many of the individual points you make. For example, suggesting that Einstein 'went mad in his old age' and became Christian is a massive cop out. Apart from being totally untrue. I can't allow a comment like that to stand without challenging it, especially when it's posted in response to something I've said. 



KongShou said:


> not a single one of his point had anything to do with creationism


Now this I DO agree with. Please note that in no point in this thread have I defended Creationism. I have defended Creationists' right to freedom of belief, and freedom to not have those beliefs ridiculed by others, in much the same way as I would have defended ANY belief system against what I see as an unfair, unprovoked, or malicious attack.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Kong, you're making this far too easy for me. BTW, I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, not because I disagree with you. More that I love picking holes in your arguments!



Are you sure your winning? What exactly are you doing? Denying KongShou his right to have an opinion of his own or or are you just being flippant and denying his facts? On to the facts:

Galileo was locked away for his last 12 years. He was under house arrest in an age where the wars of religion raged, millions were killed over doctrine. Fear of hearsay was tremendous on both sides of the reformation. Ironically both sides accused the others of being atheists. Innocents - religious and irreligious alike were caught in a horror, made miserable, tortured, ruined, or murdered over absurd things.

Galileo didn't have a lot of freedom to say what he might have really believed. His personal views on god can't be known. No man's can - especially from a time and place like that. His personal views might be besides the point. He was imprisoned for his observations and conclusions, for writing what he actually saw and spelling out the implications however abrasively or occultly he wanted to to that. He spoke the truth and was rendered to the the inquisition. Then he was forced to deny the truth and his books banned. He will forever be a martyr for freedom of thought and freedom of speech from an age that was just gearing up to produce thousands upon thousands of unwilling martyrs for this cause.



pipkiksass said:


> Einstein was also born religious, and maintained that there was intelligent design behind the creation of the universe throughout his life.



Einstein was far far far from a biblical literalist. He hated biblical literalism found the idea of a personal deity childish.

He did believe in some nebulous creator, however when he felt he was channeling that creator's true abilities - when Einstein said "God does not play dice" Einstein was wrong and he was a being a dense old man who did not understand a newer physics than his own and couldn't be bothered to quite learn it.

He was very perceptive and gifted but "truthiness" tripped him up a few times.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 10, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> Are you sure your winning?


No, I'm not winning. I'm just analysing an argument that's full of holes. It's not a matter of winning or losing.


SenileGenXer said:


> What exactly are you doing? Denying KongShou his right to have an opinion of his own or or are you just being flippant and denying his facts?


Actually, I'm quite clearly doing neither. I don't at any stage attempt to deny him his right to an opinion. Also, you can't deny a fact, because it's just that: a fact. You can deny fiction though!

Many thanks for the summary of Galileo's life. As I've mentioned already, the fear of heresy only applies to one of the 6 or 7 scientists I've mentioned. Feel free to remove Galileo from that list if you feel he is not a relevant example. In which case there are only 6 relevant examples.



SenileGenXer said:


> Einstein was far far far from a biblical literalist.


I know, this argument long ago moved away from biblical literalism. The argument is about whether science and religion are mutually exclusive. My point is that Einstein (among many others) thought not. As I've quite clearly stated.


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 10, 2013)

I'd like to quickly point out that believing in a deity doesn't make you religious. A scientist may believe there is a god, but that doesn't make him religious. It's a different thing to think there's A deity than it is to say there's a god and book X is his word.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> I.e. your personal belief is that the two are mutually exclusive. My point is merely that far greater minds than ours disagree. Maybe they're all wrong, and you're right?



name a greater mind than ours that disagreed. not just assume that they are religious because everyone else at that time was. for example, name somewhere where Newton admitted to believing in God. 



pipkiksass said:


> Suggesting that a few minor Catholic priests who are gay are in any way comparable to the massively influential mainstream scientists I named is clearly not a valid comparison. Einstein =/= some random gay priest; if anything, he'd be the Pope!



how is it not. you seem to have this misunderstanding that those few famous scientists represent all science. but they do not represent science at all. a scientist is a human, science is a subject. just like a few people, no matter how important, cannot represent religion. so proving something about the pope has no effect on proving something about religion. you can prove that the pope is a mass murderer, but Catholicism is still Catholicism. I hope that was clear.
Einstein != the pope, not even close. in fact, scientist != science. so you are saying A = B B = C so therefore A = C, when in fact the B's in the two equation do not equal each other.



pipkiksass said:


> My argument (A') is that some scientists are religious, so the science and religion aren't entirely incompatible *not* that because some scientists are religious, all scientists must accept religion. As a result your counter (B') that some priests are gay does not contradict my point at all. Some priests are gay (true) so Catholicism and homosexuality _cannot_ be entirely incompatible; this is not to say that all Catholics must accept homosexuality.



no.
im saying that some priests are gay, so therefore catholic church and homosexuality aren't entirely incompatible. exactly same as your point. which summarise into: some priests != whole catholic church, therefore some scientist != science. which is the point you keep missing. even the pope != catholic church.



Nilsibert said:


> I'd like to quickly point out that believing in a deity doesn't make you religious. A scientist may believe there is a god, but that doesn't make him religious. It's a different thing to think there's A deity than it is to say there's a god and book X is his word.



also this^ 
which i forgot about


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 10, 2013)

Some scientists being religious doesn't make the two compatible.
Look up "a scientist visits the creation museum" on youtube to understand how I mean that.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 10, 2013)

KongShou said:


> name a greater mind than ours that disagreed. not just assume that they are religious because everyone else at that time was. for example, name somewhere where Newton admitted to believing in God.



Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica



KongShou said:


> how is it not. you seem to have this misunderstanding that those few famous scientists represent all science. but they do not represent science at all. a scientist is a human, science is a subject. just like a few people, no matter how important, cannot represent religion. so proving something about the pope has no effect on proving something about religion. you can prove that the pope is a mass murderer, but Catholicism is still Catholicism. I hope that was clear.


Yep, agreed.


KongShou said:


> im saying that some priests are gay, so therefore catholic church and homosexuality aren't entirely incompatible. exactly same as your point. which summarise into: some priests != whole catholic church, therefore some scientist != science. which is the point you keep missing. even the pope != catholic church.


But I'm not saying that science and religion (or, to satisfy Nilsibert) science and belief in a deity ARE compatible. My point is that some truly eminent scientific minds thought they were. And they're smarter than me, so who am I to say that they're not. Maybe the gay priests would say the same?! 


KongShou said:


> also this^
> which i forgot about


Splitting hairs. Doesn't make any difference to my point. Unless you're saying you can be a scientist and believe in a deity, but not be a scientist and be religious?


----------



## KongShou (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Splitting hairs. Doesn't make any difference to my point. Unless you're saying you can be a scientist and believe in a deity, but not be a scientist and be religious?



thats true, but you can believe in a deity and not be religious. therefore even if some great scientific minds believed in deity, they might still thinks that science and religion are incompatible. so your point is still invalid

but now your cause is lost because even if Newton was a devout Christian it would make no difference to this argument. so my point, for about the fifth time. still stands.

no matter how you look at it your point is invalid.

edit: lel


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 10, 2013)

Them being smarter than you doesn't mean they are right about eveything, that would be an argument from authority wouldn't it?

They could also think the earth is flat, and they would be wrong however smart they are.

And you don't have to satisfy me, it's a fact that believing in some deity and being religious isn't the same at all.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 10, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> you don't have to satisfy me, it's a fact that believing in some deity and being religious isn't the same at all.


I challenge you to find any comment in any of my posts that says it is. 


KongShou said:


> but now your cause is lost no matter how you look at it your point is invalid.


I disagree. What you're saying is that substituting "belief in a deity" for "religion" completely invalidates my argument, while yours still holds true. Look back over your previous posts, and you will see that this is not the case. For example: you posited that the two are incompatible because scientists require evidence in order to believe something. Ergo, if a scientist believes in a deity, they are believing in something without empirical proof.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> I disagree. What you're saying is that substituting "belief in a deity" for "religion" completely invalidates my argument, while yours still holds true.



they are separate points, please address them separately. 

1.you can believe in a deity and not be religious. therefore even if some great scientific minds believed in deity, they might still thinks that science and religion are incompatible.

2.a scientist's belief or action has no effect on representing science. so even if Newton was a devout Christian it would make no difference to this argument.



pipkiksass said:


> Look back over your previous posts, and you will see that this is not the case. For example: you posited that the two are incompatible because scientists require evidence in order to believe something. Ergo, if a scientist believes in a deity, they are believing in something without empirical proof.



for the sixth time, what the scientist do or believe has nothing to do with science. so even if a scientist believe in something without empirical evidence, science is still very much studies based on empirical evidence. religion is still not. so it still proves nothing

which part of that do you not understand now?


----------



## Nilsibert (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> I challenge you to find any comment in any of my posts that says it is.




You were complaining that it was said that science and religion are incompatible, were you not? I merely pointed out that a scientist believing in god doesn't mean he's religious.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Nov 10, 2013)

KongShou said:


> ..name somewhere where Newton admitted to believing in God.



Check out some of his alchemy, occult and biblical chronology stuff stuff.. He doesn't talk much directly about god because he didn't want his jobs taken, stuff stolen and himself burned. It was a time when you were required by law to believe in specific church teachings and his country was undergoing violent revolutions and vicious fights about what specific teachings. Look up the Commonwealth period then the Restoration then later the Glorious Revolution. Figures like Oliver Cromwell. The laws like the Acts of Uniformity, the Acts of Oblivion, the Acts of Settlement. People were absurdly concerned with their neighbors beliefs and their kings mere religious leanings. They did crazy things because of it. Not just crazy things wild and completely out of control things. That was all in Newton's country and Newton's lifetime.

Newton occupied high offices and was visible as master of the mint and member of Trinity and Cambridge colleges when those were explicitly religious institutions with required religious oaths.

He worked on reconciling religion and his study of the natural world. Some of his solution to that reconciliation was throwing out Jesus and the Holy Sprit. Became something like a radical unitarian. He kept that to himself. We see it repeated again in a lot of America's founding father's - believing in a god but not per se the divinity of Jesus or the Virgin birth, the need for a specific prayer or practice or the things their grandfathers were being so horrible to each other about. Keep church membership required of public figures recite the creeds when required but have all sorts of deep skepticism about secondary doctrine's outside of monotheism.

In Newton's case we see that science and religion instead of being contained in separate boxes are a spectrum of human questioning about the nature of reality. They are both a search for truth.

I think this is what scares the religious people about science. It can be objectively true not just subjectively. When an individual can't keep them in separate boxes that individual may chuck a large part of the religious bit.

A good scientist put forward a peace plan and proposed having non-overlapping magisteria. The religious in America, some Muslim countries, and parts of India constantly try to violate and bully science's magisteria. I think that was a terrible move on the fundamentalist's part. Compulsive not strategic. The fundamentalist/traditionalist view of the world is objectively falsifable. Rama & Hanuman's monkey army didn't build a bridge to Lanka. Genies & Buraq don't exist. Adam and Eve are mythological. 

These things may not falsifable to the fundamentalist/traditionalist but falsifyable to everyone around and eventually to his/her children. It may take a long time and things may get crazy and out of control but I think science is going to clean religion's clock if the magisteria keep fighting. Whatever we believe or don't most of us are closer to a Newton or Galileo willing to look at evidence and consider things than to the "error has no rights" crowd like an inquisitor or restoration sherif willing willing to kick in someone's door, seize papers, perform interrogations and even burn people for not believing the right things.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 10, 2013)

KongShou said:


> which part of that do you not understand now?



None of it. I'll gladly concede that no matter how many scientists are religious/believe in a deity, that does not necessarily mean that science and religion are compatible. Neither, however, does it mean that they are _in_compatible. They are just two things!

Meanwhile, SenileGenXer has hijacked this thread with a truly interesting post about the life of Newton. I've studied the period extensively - a large number of authors of the time wrote in code in order to hide their non-conformist religious views. For example Andrew Marvell (who held political office both under Cromwell's Commonwealth and under Charles' restoration government), Defoe and, most famously, Milton. It has been argued (very persuasively) by Paulin and others that Paradise Lost is a veiled allegory for the plight of the non-conformist.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> None of it. I'll gladly concede that no matter how many scientists are religious/believe in a deity, that does not necessarily mean that science and religion are compatible. Neither, however, does it mean that they are _in_compatible. They are just two things!



But you still haven't prove that they could be compatible. Therefore my point still stands, a point which you claimed was full of holes.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 10, 2013)

KongShou said:


> But you still haven't prove that they could be compatible. Therefore my point still stands, a point which you claimed was full of holes.



I never said your point was full of holes, I said your ARGUMENT was full of holes. I.e. the idea that 19th century scientists living in non-catholic countries risked being tried for Heresy, or that Einstein only believed in God because he went mad in later life. These arguments are nonsense. 

It's not my place to prove that they could be compatible, merely to prove that they're not inherently incompatible. You said "I do not believe you can believe in both science and religion at once", and it was that that I was arguing against. I believe you can. Not me personally, but I believe that people can believe in both, if they choose to do so.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> I never said your point was full of holes, I said your ARGUMENT was full of holes. I.e. the idea that 19th century scientists living in non-catholic countries risked being tried for Heresy, or that Einstein only believed in God because he went mad in later life. These arguments are nonsense.
> 
> It's not my place to prove that they could be compatible, merely to prove that they're not inherently incompatible. You said "I do not believe you can believe in both science and religion at once", and it was that that I was arguing against. I believe you can. Not me personally, but I believe that people can believe in both, if they choose to do so.



The above two points were not my original point.

Well you CAN believe in anything. You can believe that if x=1, then x=2. which is nonsense, but you can still believe in them. But people who believe in both religion and science are hypocrites. Because science and religion cannot both be true. 

Inb4 god helped evolution to happen or similar arguments. If you truly believe in science, you would not believe in anything else that is not based on empirical evidence, anything else that is solid, proven facts.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 10, 2013)

KongShou said:


> If you truly believe in science, you would not believe in anything else that is not based on empirical evidence



Aren't there elements of theoretical physics that have no empirical evidence? I know there's a big difference between believing something that is PROBABLY true and something that is ludicrously improbable, but still!


----------



## rj (Nov 10, 2013)

KongShou said:


> The above two points were not my original point.
> 
> Well you CAN believe in anything. You can believe that if x=1, then x=2. which is nonsense, but you can still believe in them. But people who believe in both religion and science are hypocrites. Because science and religion cannot both be true.
> 
> Inb4 god helped evolution to happen or similar arguments. If you truly believe in science, you would not believe in anything else that is not based on empirical evidence, anything else that is solid, proven facts.



Well, then Einstein, Galileo, and Newton were all hypocrites.

EDIT: And Tesla and Darwin.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Aren't there elements of theoretical physics that have no empirical evidence? I know there's a big difference between believing something that is PROBABLY true and something that is ludicrously improbable, but still!



you know this is a worthless argument. i wont even bother answering. 

ok fine i will answer it. Theoretical physics is based on huge amount of calculations and predictions. there is still empirical evidences involved, even if not directly. i personally dont put all my faith into theoretical physics, and i will refuse to believe in the big bang theory like i believe in evolution. If someone ask me how the universe is created, i will answer the big bang theory but it is not 100% true. in fact there are evidences building up that suggest against it.

you yourself said that there is a huge difference. and by that i assume you know this is an extremely weak argument.



rj said:


> Well, then Einstein, Galileo, and Newton were all hypocrites.



find me a proof of them believing in God.

not just some random texts they have wrote to satisfy the authority.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 10, 2013)

KongShou said:


> you know this is a worthless argument. i wont even bother answering. ... you yourself said that there is a huge difference. and by that i assume you know this is an extremely weak argument.



No it's not an argument, it's a genuine question. I don't know much about theoretical physics beyond Copenhagen and a few books I've read about quantum theory, I was interested to hear your opinion.

Technically then, I suppose, theoretical physics resides on the boundaries of science. Or, perhaps more properly, is attempting to bring borderline theories into the mainstream by establishing proofs. At which stage, I suppose, theoretical physics becomes just physics!?


----------



## KongShou (Nov 10, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> No it's not an argument, it's a genuine question. I don't know much about theoretical physics beyond Copenhagen and a few books I've read about quantum theory, I was interested to hear your opinion.
> 
> Technically then, I suppose, theoretical physics resides on the boundaries of science. Or, perhaps more properly, is attempting to bring borderline theories into the mainstream by establishing proofs. At which stage, I suppose, theoretical physics becomes just physics!?



no. you have misunderstanding of theoretical physics. Im no expert but i am sure it relies on evidence just as normal physics. except the evidence isnt solid evidence. It uses mathematical model to predict things, things we often cannot prove or disprove for a long time. the boundary between theoretical physics and experimental physics is often blurred in my opinion. 

Wikipedia is always helpful! i think this summarize it quite nicely:

A physical theory is a model of physical events. It is judged by the extent to which its predictions agree with empirical observations. The quality of a physical theory is also judged on its ability to make new predictions which can be verified by new observations. A physical theory differs from a mathematical theorem in that while both are based on some form of axioms, judgment of mathematical applicability is not based on agreement with any experimental results.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 10, 2013)

KongShou said:


> no. you have misunderstanding of theoretical physics.


^why does this not surprise me?

Lol, thanks Kong. 

Gotta love Wikipedia. If it had been around when I'd been a student I wouldn't have had to go to the library so much!


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 19, 2013)

rj said:


> Well, then Einstein, Galileo, and Newton were all hypocrites.
> 
> EDIT: And Tesla and Darwin.



Einstein would be best described as a deist.
Galileo and Newton lived in an age when denial of a God was almost unheard of.


----------

