Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Science


Puskas

Recommended Posts

For people who have been following the Intelligent Design vs. "real proper science as done by scientists" debate in the US you might be interested in a new site dedicated to fighting the influx of Intelligent Design into classrooms in the UK... yes, it's come over the pond and it's here.

 

The site is called Science, Just Science

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can anything ever be rejected in that case? Is there some kind of universal non-arrogance test?

 

Arrogance is sometime appropriate - such as when dismissing rubbish like 'Intelligent Design'.

 

Arrogance is not looking at the evidence or producing pendantic posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who is being arrogant? Or pedantic?

Seriously, I'd like to know.

IIRC you dropped in a sarcastic one liner the last time this topic came up and were never heard from in the topic again - so where's the debate?

If you want to debate ID vs Evolution with me I'm right here...

 

anyone not willing to look at both sides of the evidence is arrogant, John L is pedantic for wanting my version of the arrogance richter scale.

 

Why would anyone want to debate online we all look like spazzers in the end and no one has an opinion changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone not willing to look at both sides of the evidence is arrogant, John L is pedantic for wanting my version of the arrogance richter scale.

I'd be interested to see what evidence you think that either side has that supports their position...

 

What is the evidence for Intelligent Design?

It's a very good question. I'm hoping spion_kop2 will provide some. Unless...

 

Why would anyone want to debate online we all look like spazzers in the end and no one has an opinion changed.

It is possible to have an opinion changed. I have mine changed all the time. It does however require admitting that you were wrong the first time...

 

If you don't want to debate then I can't force you.

 

If you're actually interested in looking at the evidence then let me know and I can point you in the direction of some excellent resources on the web.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arrogance is not looking at the evidence or producing pendantic posts.

 

Nothing pedantic about that post.

 

What 'evidence' has been put forward for 'Intelligent Design' HAS been looked at and seen to be full of sh*te.

 

Arrogance and not looking at the evidence are NOT the same thing.

 

Or is it pedantic to object to words being used for things which have no relation to what they actually mean? Pedantic and correct!

 

I'd like to see a coherent argument from John L on any topic

 

You've had loads and loads more to follow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone not willing to look at both sides of the evidence is arrogant, John L is pedantic for wanting my version of the arrogance richter scale.

 

Why would anyone want to debate online we all look like spazzers in the end and no one has an opinion changed.

 

So instead you just throw in some random disaraging comments and look like a 'spazzer' anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there really any need - to puntuate your post with a loan of random dashes - not to mention 'inverted commas for emphasis' - it makes them harder than usual on the eye - and doesn't at all disguise the fact that you're not actually saying anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there really any need - to puntuate your post with a loan of random dashes - not to mention 'inverted commas for emphasis' - it makes them harder than usual on the eye - and doesn't at all disguise the fact that you're not actually saying anything

 

 

Is there really any need to spell 'punctuate' or 'load' incorrectly in your post - it makes them harder than usual on the eye - and doesn't at all disguise the fact that you're not actually saying anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. If you watched horizon last night, about the make up of our universe, you would have seen one of my old physics lecturers at Durham university, Dr. Carlos Frenck. He was discussing how when in the early 90s he made the first measurements of the amount of dark matter in the universe, they found it to be around 5 times less than they had predicted, completely throwing the established theories of cosmology on its head. The concept of dark matter had only been theorised and accepted by the astrophysics community during the 80's.

 

So in the space of 10 years, our understanding of the makeup of the universe was completely changed on two separate occasions and is still far from being fully understood today.

 

Scientists never stop wondering and analysing. It is only the general public who discusses the possibility of'people stopping wondering' and only the general public who could accept an all encompassing theory of evolution and the origins of everything such as 'god made it'.

 

As was mentioned in that programme - trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is futile

 

There can be no arguments one way or the other that are conclusive.

 

Just different interpretations of the 'facts' on offer.

 

Of course, the facts change all the time - and mostly you are not proving or disproving anything other than the opinions of other people - which have nothing to do with the matter on hand.

 

I believe that the 'secrets of the Universe' haven't even been touched yet - and over time we may get a greater understanding - but from all indications - things are going to continue getting 'weirder' the deeper we delve.

 

I don't try and prove anything - I believe in God personally - if other people do - then fine - if they don't I'll discuss it - but if you've made your mind up - I am unlikely to sway your belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As was mentioned in that programme - trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is futile

 

There can be no arguments one way or the other that are conclusive.

 

Just different interpretations of the 'facts' on offer.

 

Of course, the facts change all the time - and mostly you are not proving or disproving anything other than the opinions of other people - which have nothing to do with the matter on hand.

 

I believe that the 'secrets of the Universe' haven't even been touched yet - and over time we may get a greater understanding - but from all indications - things are going to continue getting 'weirder' the deeper we delve.

 

I don't try and prove anything - I believe in God personally - if other people do - then fine - if they don't I'll discuss it - but if you've made your mind up - I am unlikely to sway your belief.

 

I think you are talking about the ID Horizon programme from a couple of weeks back - I was referring to the one last nioght about cosmology.

 

I suspect there are very few scientists impudent enough to claim that the secrets of the universe are anywhere close to being revealed. Once we start to understand fundamentally how the 4 visible forces interact and are unified (potentially through the existence of other, unseen, potentially other dimensional forces) then the whole of science will have to be revisited.

 

When scientists first analyse things they view the macro (c.f. Newton). Then they look into it in more detail and gain a greater understanding of it at a more micro level (c.f. Einstein). As technology and research become more advanced science achieves greater advances in understanding the microscopic detail of things (c.f. Schrodinger). However we are by no means 'there' because there are many theora which fundamentally do not overlap or work together. Clearly our understanding remains too basic. Too macro if you will.

 

Maybe we will never truely understand the secrets of the universe, simply because it is impossible to measure the existence of the smallest particles, or simply because the universe is completely random, or perhaps because there is an all-seeing creator who will never let us truely establish his existence and will continue to trick us into believing that the universe is one big fluke.

 

Science will continue to probe until it can probe no further, and even then it will endeavour to find ways to improve its understanding. That is the nature of human beings. If we were to stop we would stagnate, and those that wish to tell us that we should accept the existence of a creator, would effectively cause human/scientific query to end and us as a species to no longer evolve.

 

You suggest that I do not believe in god. As it happens, I believe in god in the same way that many other people do. I want to believe in a god, because a life with nothing beyond it scares me. I want to believe in a god for my own benefit in the same way as the majority of other believers. Its just that unlike many, I am prepared to admit my reasons for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are talking about the ID Horizon programme from a couple of weeks back - I was referring to the one last nioght about cosmology.

 

I suspect there are very few scientists impudent enough to claim that the secrets of the universe are anywhere close to being revealed. Once we start to understand fundamentally how the 4 visible forces interact and are unified (potentially through the existence of other, unseen, potentially other dimensional forces) then the whole of science will have to be revisited.

 

When scientists first analyse things they view the macro (c.f. Newton). Then they look into it in more detail and gain a greater understanding of it at a more micro level (c.f. Einstein). As technology and research become more advanced science achieves greater advances in understanding the microscopic detail of things (c.f. Schrodinger). However we are by no means 'there' because there are many theora which fundamentally do not overlap or work together. Clearly our understanding remains too basic. Too macro if you will.

 

Maybe we will never truely understand the secrets of the universe, simply because it is impossible to measure the existence of the smallest particles, or simply because the universe is completely random, or perhaps because there is an all-seeing creator who will never let us truely establish his existence and will continue to trick us into believing that the universe is one big fluke.

 

Science will continue to probe until it can probe no further, and even then it will endeavour to find ways to improve its understanding. That is the nature of human beings. If we were to stop we would stagnate, and those that wish to tell us that we should accept the existence of a creator, would effectively cause human/scientific query to end and us as a species to no longer evolve.

 

You suggest that I do not believe in god. As it happens, I believe in god in the same way that many other people do. I want to believe in a god, because a life with nothing beyond it scares me. I want to believe in a god for my own benefit in the same way as the majority of other believers. Its just that unlike many, I am prepared to admit my reasons for doing so.

 

 

I *am* talking about the one last night - One of the scientists said wot I said before.

 

Believing in God or not - it's every persons decision to make.

 

So far there has been no 'proof' one way or the other because there cannot be - we can just see what is there.

 

Like yourself I believe that science will never run out of things to investigate

 

Great though when 'established truths' like the rotational velocity around the sun of the planets is kind of scuppered by viewing the rotational velocity of galaxies..

 

I have a question though for you - given that a rotation of a galaxy takes millions of years - how have they established the speed of rotation of a galaxy such as Andromeda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I *am* talking about the one last night - One of the scientists said wot I said before.

 

Believing in God or not - it's every persons decision to make.

 

So far there has been no 'proof' one way or the other because there cannot be - we can just see what is there.

 

Like yourself I believe that science will never run out of things to investigate

 

Great though when 'established truths' like the rotational velocity around the sun of the planets is kind of scuppered by viewing the rotational velocity of galaxies..

 

I have a question though for you - given that a rotation of a galaxy takes millions of years - how have they established the speed of rotation of a galaxy such as Andromeda?

 

My guess would be doppler shift showing velocity of planets at the core and on the outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I *am* talking about the one last night - One of the scientists said wot I said before.

 

Great though when 'established truths' like the rotational velocity around the sun of the planets is kind of scuppered by viewing the rotational velocity of galaxies..

 

I have a question though for you - given that a rotation of a galaxy takes millions of years - how have they established the speed of rotation of a galaxy such as Andromeda?

 

Sorry I must have missed the bit about god in it.

 

Its just one of the macro / micro things I was talking about. We see in our solar system the macro because the size of the solar system is too small to measure the differences in rotational velocity and our focal point is too close to observe them accurately. When we view the galaxy as a whole, whilst more 'macro' on a size scal it actually enhances our ability to measure the error in the original theory i.e. more micro. If that makes sense.

 

From memory, you can measure the rotational velocity of an unresolved galaxy by measuring the spectral line emissions from the disc as a function of line of sight velocity, which can be inferred from the doppler shift.

 

My guess would be doppler shift showing velocity of planets at the core and on the outside.

 

You don't need to resolve individual stars or planets. Just use specific parts of the emission spectrum across the galaxy. I think for optically resolved nearby galaxies they use the alpha spectral line and for distant galaxies, the spectral line of oxygen. For radio frequencies they use one of the hydrogen spectral lines.

Edited by boohog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...