Author Topic: The FH Pub  (Read 10660 times)

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #45 on: 19-02-2010, 22:02:23 »
Gravity is also a theory.  ::)

Offline Thorondor123

  • God Emperor
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.573
  • Lugbûrz-ûr!
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #46 on: 19-02-2010, 22:02:03 »
Well, evolution is a theory..It's not proven. Much like global warming for another example.

What does 'theory' mean in science? Let's ask the Oxford English Dictionary.

"Theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

Evolution, gravity, electricity and heliocentric solar system are scientific theories and I would rather like to see you denying the existence of any of those mentioned.

Let mortal heroes sing your fame

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #47 on: 19-02-2010, 22:02:08 »
Bingo.  Global Warming, IE, is not a theory by definition, but a hypothesis that has thus far not stood up to the rigours of actual scientific testing and predictions.  Meanwhile, evolution absolutely has stood up to the rigors of testing, predictions, and fossil evidence, and thus is not a hypothesis, but a theory, much like the others listed by Thorondor.
« Last Edit: 19-02-2010, 22:02:45 by VonMudra »

Offline Desertfox

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.657
  • Knowledge is power, and power corupts.
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #48 on: 19-02-2010, 22:02:46 »
The thing is, non of those are scientific Laws. There's a difference. A law is a near completely accepted fact, whereas a theory is supported by evidence, it hasn't enough proof to become an official law in science.

Offline Eat Uranium

  • Tea Drinker
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.569
  • Today's news will contain [REDACTED]
    • View Profile
    • FH2 Music
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #49 on: 19-02-2010, 22:02:09 »
Scientific laws (thermodynamics etc.) are still only theory.  If someone broke one of them in a reproducable way, they would have to be modified or thrown out.

Offline Thorondor123

  • God Emperor
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.573
  • Lugbûrz-ûr!
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #50 on: 19-02-2010, 22:02:12 »
The thing is, non of those are scientific Laws. There's a difference. A law is a near completely accepted fact, whereas a theory is supported by evidence, it hasn't enough proof to become an official law in science.
I just told you that F = G (m1m2/r^2) is "only a theory" :)
« Last Edit: 19-02-2010, 22:02:27 by Thorondor123 »
Let mortal heroes sing your fame

Offline sheikyerbouti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.402
  • Yay, Rep feature is dead
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #51 on: 19-02-2010, 22:02:35 »
Daisys are nice and their finnish name is awesome, just thinking what might be the opposite of it?
The opposite of "päivänkakkara" (little poop of the day) would of course be "yönlantakasa" (pile of manure of the night). ;D

PS. The grammar nazi in me says it's daisies. ;)

Awesome little bit of info, it's nice to know that there is one country that calls daisies by an appropriate name that evokes their god awful smell that is reminiscent of an angry, unspayed cat that has exacted its' revenge on your poor couch.
My Quebec includes Canada

Offline Desertfox

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.657
  • Knowledge is power, and power corupts.
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #52 on: 19-02-2010, 22:02:46 »
Throwing what I said before out, I don't remember when reading the bible it having anything that really says evolution is not true...*goes for bible*....It really doesn't say anything that interferes with evolution, but I don't take the bible literally, it is written with metaphors in it.

Offline [130.Pz]I.Kluge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • Better ask twice than lose yourself once.
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #53 on: 19-02-2010, 23:02:53 »
/To every one in general.
-*Keep the discussion to the specific subject.
As you all have notice some post have mysteriously disappeared in some divine act, and the thread could suffer the same fate; please follow the rules.

*Rule update

« Last Edit: 20-02-2010, 00:02:10 by [130.Pz]I.Kluge »

Offline [130.Pz]I.Kluge

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • Better ask twice than lose yourself once.
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #54 on: 20-02-2010, 03:02:32 »
-Religious Discussion is Dead-

[130.Pz]S.Tiemann

  • Guest
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #55 on: 20-02-2010, 04:02:25 »
Yep there is no such thing as a scientific law, they just call them that so as not to confuse those who are learning it. On that note i doubt we will ever solve everything, each new discovery yields 10 new questions.

Offline Mspfc Doc DuFresne

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 677
  • A Poet and I didn't Know It
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #56 on: 20-02-2010, 05:02:10 »
A scientific law can be too precise, and will not apply to a specific instance. It is a distillation of specific principles. Newton's law of universal gravitation, for instance, talks about the force of gravity exerted between objects, while the theory of evolution talks about the creation of new species better adapted to their environments through natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Notably, laws express relationships and theories define reasons. F=GmM/r2 is a law, but does not define why gravity works.

That being said, our knowledge of gravity is much hazier than that of evolution. The evidence supporting each is equally precise, but in the case of evolution we actually know why it occurs.

And no, the bible says nothing concerning evolution. As far as I know, the two arguments made by christians against evolution are as follows:
A) God is perfect, and what he makes is perfect. Evolution states that species are not perfect and are constantly getting better, but since god makes perfect things, this clearly cannot be.

   My quibbles with this argument are as follows:
      1. God made cancer as well.
      2. How do we know that everything god makes is perfect by our definition? God does what he wants.
      3. If you believe in predestination, then why couldn't god make evolution happen?

B) Evolutionary theories state that the earth is billions of years old and that humans have been around for only a tiny percentage of it. If that is the case then humans would not be as important as we clearly are: we are the reason for God's plan for the universe (or something like that).

   My quibble here is that people are confusing evolution with archeology and radiocarbon dating. Evolution does not say that the earth is 4 billion years old and that humans are unimportant; it says that species gradually become better adapted to their environments so individual organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce.

   Evolution is perfectly compatible with a young earth, as far as I can tell. The earth is 6000 years old (as an example; I am a old-earther), and evolution has been happening since creation. In some animals that are slow to reproduce and mutate changes would be minute, while in others, such as viruses and finches, changes would range from anywhere between noticeable to extreme.

Quoting myself from another forum:

Quote from: asdfsdf on 26-12-2009, 05:12:05
Quote
It is far easier to reconcile evolution and a 6000 year earth, and a literal interpretation of the bible, than it is to reconcile faith in modern biology while denying evolution. Just say that evolution has been going on since the earth was created, and so things that evolve slowly, like elephants, would look essentially the same, while bacteria would not.

Or look at it this way:
0. Do you believe in heredity and genetics? [Y/N]
1. Do you accept that traits are passed down from parent to child? [Y/N]
2. Do you accept that there is a certain amount of variation, including random variation, such as mutations, in reproduction, especially sexual reproduction? [Y/N]
3. Do you accept that animals with traits more conducive to surviving are more likely to survive, in a population overall? [Y/N]
4. Do you accept that animals with traits more conducive to reproduction are more likely to reproduce, in a population overall? [Y/N]
5. Answering Yes to 1, 3, and 4, Do you accept that animals which have traits more conducive to reproduction and survival are more likely to pass their positive traits down to their offspring, and animals with traits less conducive to survival and reproduction are less likely to pass their negative traits down to their offspring? [Y/N]
6. Answering Yes to 5, do you accept that the traits that exist in a certain species will become more positive, in general, over generations? [Y/N]
7. Answering Yes to 1 and 2, do you accept that new traits will arise, and will vary from positive to negative, with some being better than existing traits and some being worse? [Y/N]
8. Answering Yes to 6 and 7, do you accept that the traits present in a population will become better and better suited to survival and reproduction over multiple generations? [Y/N]

If you answered yes to 8, congratulations, you believe in evolution. You don't believe in a 5 billion year old earth, because believing in evolution does not require you to accept that the earth is more than 6000 years old. You just need to deny radiocarbon dating and the fossil record as accurate measures of age, which is much less difficult to prove through an argument like that. For all I know, all those damn fossils could have been placed their by god in order to test our resolve and trust in the bible, and you have passed while I have failed.
Twilight - the movie is just like Schindler's list... You know you're watching a crime against humanity, but it's sort of entertaining.~~Ts4EVER

Offline Moose

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.293
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #57 on: 20-02-2010, 15:02:22 »
+1 for illiteracy. Come on people, listen to Kluge. Of course it would be warrior who posts right under him about religion.

We're not discussing that anymore. Give it up.

We're on a new topic. Which I am not sure what it is. So I will start a new topic. Something...less heated.

Burning your tounge on a food. I did it last night, and now it feels weird this morning. I hate doing that. Discuss

Offline Flippy Warbear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.921
  • Adequately docile
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #58 on: 20-02-2010, 15:02:59 »
* Flippy Warbear cracks his knuckles.

Offline Tedacious

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.214
    • View Profile
Re: The FH Pub
« Reply #59 on: 20-02-2010, 15:02:44 »
-Religious Discussion is Dead-

It never reached the bottom right? only like 2 places down from the bottom.

I'll just make one post, I've got some things to say.


Edit: sorry, I just spent 20-30 minutes writing this posts, when I was done flippy and moose had posted. I'm not removing all this now.

Quote
What i saw when i live in liberal countries where many of its people hate religion (like Ted) is, they are utterly bitter. Sometimes too pessimistic, lifeless, and they easily look down on things. Heck... many of them claims that they are like that, because of science and technologies, yet none can mention anything in detail. They just know it, and with that shallow understanding they dared to even think like that.
That is correct. I'm a very pessimistic person, a lifeless person that easily look down on things. I'm not like this due to science and technolgoies, I'm like this due to us humans. When I say that I'm pessimistic and "lifeless", it only goes with my veiw on the world and all life. On a personal level, in my private life, I'm quite the opposite, I'm full of life, happy and very optimistic. It's just when looking at the big picture I get pessimstic.

I have no faith in mankind, I lost it 2 years ago while I was philosophying on the subway.
We are but humans, we are not special. Take global warming for example (i'm nto saying it's the scourge that will wipe out the human race), it can never be solved if not a huge catastrophy completely eliminates every last human being.
No matter how hard we try, not matter how much we want to (climate conferences, people encouraged to buy low-energy lightbulbs etc.) there will always be people who will succumb to their desires. By nature, humans are greedy and selfish. Despite that we (here in sweden at least) leave in abundance, we always want more and more. I believe that everyone (me included) always prioritizes themselves in any way, when you do something nice for someone; deep down you only did it to satisfy yourself.

In the example about encouraging people to buy low-energy lightbulbs, I hate that phenomenon. Buying low-energy lightbulbs will make people think "I'm doing my part, now I can drive that SUV all day long!". Also, if we are to buy "low-energy lightbulbs", then EVERYBODY needs to do it if it is to make a difference, but everyone will never do that, people will always choose the cheaper alternative. Therefore there need to be governmental decisions about it, removing all high-energy lightbulbs, so you don't have any options.

This is my view on mankind, and it reflects into religion.
We are only human, we will always do everything the most simple way possible. Religion is an "easy way out", which people may choose rather than dealing with "problems".

Moose said something good:
Quote
I believe religion was created to dominate other people. Religion was formed to explain the unknown to people.
Couldn't agree more actually.

Today religion isn't used to "dominate" people in the same sense at least.
But it was originally made only to have an easy way to control people.
A great example of how corruptive and controlling religion is/has been, is in like the 15th century when cardinals and the pope had (don't know the english word) but "Avlats-brev" in swedish. Where people could pay a fine to the cardinals/pope as a way to get rid of their sins.

It's not religion that is problematic, but the religious mindset of believing things for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, or, worse yet, not believing things for which there is evidence solely because it contradicts your (made up) beliefs. Of course, there are many atheists who have this mindset and many religious people who do not. In fact, Tedacious pretty clearly demonstrates he has a religious mindset in the last sentences of his post.

There are answers within the bible I found that have better explanation than science, which are constantly changing thier "scientific facts" and I see lack of proof in many theories scientists have had, especially evolution, where there is sufficient lack of evidence. The only evidence they show are the statistics.. like oh..our DNA is 90% similiar to the chimpanzee or whatever it is. But how do we know there wern't just made up, there is no evidence showing they wern't. I mean, scientists have lied and made stuff up before....*Cough* global warming *Cough*... what was the motive...money, the route of evil  ;). Now, I too believe everyone has the right to their opinion...so that's why I rarely bring up religion in conversation, because I don't like do ram it down people throats or try to convince anyone it's true...and I don't even really like to preach the bible, if someone doesn't believe that's fine, but I do... there is mention in the bible that explains modern time events, including what someone mentioned about the holocaust and the Jews...

As far as using religion to corrupt the government...I feel that's nonsense. There are warnings of the government in the bible and plus... that is why the Unites States has a seperation of State and religion.

uhh.....

Science is not absolute. Science has never said that what we know right now is absolute, we can not just learn everything about the world in decade, the mroe science finds out, the closer to "the truth" we get (generally, though I believe we will never reach that "truth", we aren't capable of comprehending it. Man I'm sounding religious, well I'm not devoted to a religion, but rather to materialism. I'm a consistent materialist). When we say we belive the evolution theory, we only believe it right know because it is the most sensible explanation at the moment, with research we may learn that it is false, and then we chagne our minds again.
Unlike religion, science is always changing.


I see were you are trying to reach: "how can a 17 year old kid have such a thinking like this? why doesnt he wants to be like normal teens who whana get rich? and his plan actually makes sense, but is too damn revolutionary and good at the same time than is still doubthfull if it works..." - Damaso