Faith and Fact

[Iz Man]

Now I'm no "Bible Thumper" (as we used to say in the Navy), but I do believe in God.

"Faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see."
-Martin Luther

Now this could also be applied to the "Big Bang" theory. Which I believe to have merit; but it is a theory, not proven fact.

So to subscribe to the big bang theory, one must have faith that it is so.

Food for thought.......

[Neoteny]

::siezure::

[comic boy]

Now I'm no "Bible Thumper" (as we used to say in the Navy), but I do believe in God.

"Faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see."
-Martin Luther

Now this could also be applied to the "Big Bang" theory. Which I believe to have merit; but it is a theory, not proven fact.

So to subscribe to the big bang theory, one must have faith that it is so.

Food for thought.......

Faith is a belief in something that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Big Bang,evolution or any other theory are the product of various degrees of both and are not therefore simply the result of faith. You might say that evolution for example was 90 % proven and consequently 10% of ones belief in it rested on faith,with God its zero proof and 100% faith which is hardly comparable.

[unriggable]

Now this could also be applied to the "Big Bang" theory. Which I believe to have merit; but it is a theory, not proven fact.

It may as well be a fact. We know the universe is expanding, and mathematics proves that we can end up the way we did today through the big bang, as long as there are some other things previously undiscovered, such as radiation left over from the light-speed movement of particles and a common temperature throughout the universe, along with a bunch of other shit (dark matter, etc.). Those were all proven to exist.

[Iz Man]

Now this could also be applied to the "Big Bang" theory. Which I believe to have merit; but it is a theory, not proven fact.

It may as well be a fact.

may as well?
you just proved my point.
don't get me wrong, I personally subscribe to the big bang theory, but that's why its a theory, because it has not been proven as fact.
So you have faith that it is indeed true, just as others have faith in God to be true.

[unriggable]

Now this could also be applied to the "Big Bang" theory. Which I believe to have merit; but it is a theory, not proven fact.

It may as well be a fact.

may as well?
you just proved my point.
don't get me wrong, I personally subscribe to the big bang theory, but that's why its a theory, because it has not been proven as fact.
So you have faith that it is indeed true, just as others have faith in God to be true.

Except that the big bang isn't proven by books, its proven by extensive mathematics. The thing about these overly controversial theories is that when they are proposed they get a lot of flak, so the authors have to work extra-hard to get evidence.

I mean, if the big bang is a theory than continental drift may as well be a theory.

[Iz Man]

I mean, if the big bang is a theory than continental drift may as well be a theory.

The big-bang theory is a theory......

[Snorri1234]

Now this could also be applied to the "Big Bang" theory. Which I believe to have merit; but it is a theory, not proven fact.

It may as well be a fact.

may as well?
you just proved my point.
don't get me wrong, I personally subscribe to the big bang theory, but that's why its a theory, because it has not been proven as fact.
So you have faith that it is indeed true, just as others have faith in God to be true.

Scientific theories can't be proven as fact. When you say "it's only a theory", you show a clear lack of understanding of what it actually means.
Karl Popper based the worth of theories on falsifiability, which makes the Big bang-theory very scientific, and creationism very much not. The Big Bang theory has yet to been proven false, and observations have only underlined it's correctness.

[Snorri1234]

I mean, if the big bang is a theory than continental drift may as well be a theory.

The big-bang theory is a theory......

And continental drift is also a theory. But it's also true.

[MeDeFe]

Gravity is just a theory. It only exists because we have faith in it, if we didn't it would get bored and leave.

[2dimes]

Except that the big bang isn't proven by books, its proven by extensive mathematics.

So where do they store the mathematics? A big mac box, a rusty cookie tin, a condom?

[MeDeFe]

Except that the big bang isn't proven by books, its proven by extensive mathematics.

So where do they store the mathematics? A big mac box, a rusty cookie tin, a condom?

If you feel up to it you can do the math yourself.

[2dimes]

Except that the big bang isn't proven by books, its proven by extensive mathematics.

So where do they store the mathematics? A big mac box, a rusty cookie tin, a condom?

If you feel up to it you can do the math yourself.

I get 42.

[Snorri1234]

Except that the big bang isn't proven by books, its proven by extensive mathematics.

So where do they store the mathematics? A big mac box, a rusty cookie tin, a condom?

If you feel up to it you can do the math yourself.

I get 42.

[Hanul]

Now I'm no "Bible Thumper" (as we used to say in the Navy), but I do believe in God.

"Faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see."
-Martin Luther

Now this could also be applied to the "Big Bang" theory. Which I believe to have merit; but it is a theory, not proven fact.

So to subscribe to the big bang theory, one must have faith that it is so.

Food for thought.......

Before you go off saying any more Martin Luther quotes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_lut ... tisemitism
Food for thought.

[suggs]

Priase Be To God, For He Invented The Shift Key, Thus Enabling MY POsts To Be Even More Sub-Literate Than NOrmal.

Plus, GOd is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent.
So there is no evil in the world.
HUzzah TO THe BIg Man IN The Clouds:
"Nice Beard, Sir!".

[Neoteny]

I mean, if the big bang is a theory than continental drift may as well be a theory.

The big-bang theory is a theory......

A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested in attempts to disprove it. Theories like evolution, gravity, big bang, and germ theory have been tested for years and have not been disproven by anything so far. Additionally, most are supported by mathematics, particularly statistical analysis, that give the theories further credibility in addition to observational evidence. Nothing, under your definition, can be a fact in science. So all those chemical reactions that your life relies on are based on theory. So if you say all these things require faith on your part, that's all you, man. But I'll look at the evidence objectively, and agree with people much smarter than me who put their life's work, blood, sweat, and tears into figuring these things out for us. The alternative would be to call it "just a theory." And that's kind of a dick thing to do.

[Jenos Ridan]

Only the Laws of Momentum, Conservation of Energy and suchlike, the Laws of Physics, are facts; all else is theory. Not that theories can't be valid conceptions of observable phemomena, but they are not preminent features of science and can be modified or simply replaced when better hypothesies are put forth or new observations are made which are not consistant with theory. Gravity, Law. Relativity, Theory. Thermodynamics, Law. Quantum Mechanics, Theory. and so forth.

Law: Will always happen

Theory: to the best of human knowledge, this is how we think it works and we have some evidence to support it (you'd have to, else it is just a hypothosis).

Theories should always be open to reexamination. Anything else is simply unscientific and illogical. And I'm speaking to BOTH sides here.

[Neutrino]

Only the Laws of Momentum, Conservation of Energy and suchlike, the Laws of Physics, are facts; all else is theory. Not that theories can't be valid conceptions of observable phemomena, but they are not preminent features of science and can be modified or simply replaced when better hypothesies are put forth or new observations are made which are not consistant with theory. Gravity, Law. Relativity, Theory. Thermodynamics, Law. Quantum Mechanics, Theory. and so forth.

Law: Will always happen

Theory: to the best of human knowledge, this is how we think it works and we have some evidence to support it (you'd have to, else it is just a hypothosis).

Theories should always be open to reexamination. Anything else is simply unscientific and illogical. And I'm speaking to BOTH sides here.

Technically even Physical Laws are still theories...
Newton's laws of Gravity seem perfectly accurate 'til you realise Einstein made better ones...

[Jenos Ridan]

But the works of Newton were not thrown out, because they are still valid. Using his laws, the movements of objects in space can be reliable predited. Einstein only improved on certain aspects with theory, but the laws remain. last I checked, no one has proposed a theory that violates Thermodynamics (someone I know suggested that Evolution does but then, what do I have to fear from science?).

[Neutrino]

But the works of Newton were not thrown out, because they are still valid. Using his laws, the movements of objects in space can be reliable predited. Einstein only improved on certain aspects with theory, but the laws remain. last I checked, no one has proposed a theory that violates Thermodynamics (someone I know suggested that Evolution does but then, what do I have to fear from science?).

But, fundamentally, Newton's laws are still wrong. They may mimic the actual laws very closely, but on any decent timescale, the descrepancy between predicted and actual results will be obvious.

What about the Ether? For quite a while it was accepted as the medium that light moves in (IIRC) yet Special Relativity blew it out of the water.

Every generation is convinced that it's theories of how the universe works are the correct ones...

[Jenos Ridan]

This means then, given time, both Einstein and the guys behind Quantum Mechanics will look positively barbaric in their "crude understanding" of science when someone proves them wrong. Logically, this must go on Ad Infinatum.

Theromdynamics? Last I checked, no theory has derailed this one. Conservation of Momentum and Laws of Motion; last I heard, the saying that "to every action, there is an opposide and equal reaction" still applies to macroscopic objects (but not objects on the sub-atomic scale, Quantum Mechanics and Heisenburg Principle for those).

The facts about Newton's Laws:

1. If I'm driving a car at 35 mph and I hit head-on with another car travelling at the same speed, what will happen?

2. If I'm in a plane travelling 1000 mph and it comes to a cold stop in less than one minute, what will happen to me?

3. If I'm in space (in a suit, mind you) and I grab a passing satellite that is travelling at many thousands of miles per minute, what will happen?

Answers:

1. the force of inertia, as dictated in the Newtonian laws of motion, will result in a 70mph collision. Which, needless to say, is most probably not very good to both drivers.

2. At the very least, I'm not very comfortable with the negative Gs.

3. Two words: Chunky Salsa*.

(*In an atmosphere, it woud make a *RIP-SQUISH!!!* noise. But since sound cannot travel through a vacuum, I wouldn't even die with the dignity of a cool sounding Special-FX.)

I rest my case.

[Neoteny]

This means then, given time, both Einstein and the guys behind Quantum Mechanics will look positively barbaric in their "crude understanding" of science when someone proves them wrong. Logically, this must go on Ad Infinatum.

Theromdynamics? Last I checked, no theory has derailed this one. Conservation of Momentum and Laws of Motion; last I heard, the saying that "to every action, there is an opposide and equal reaction" still applies to macroscopic objects (but not objects on the sub-atomic scale, Quantum Mechanics and Heisenburg Principle for those).

The facts about Newton's Laws:

1. If I'm driving a car at 35 mph and I hit head-on with another car travelling at the same speed, what will happen?

2. If I'm in a plane travelling 1000 mph and it comes to a cold stop in less than one minute, what will happen to me?

3. If I'm in space (in a suit, mind you) and I grab a passing satellite that is travelling at many thousands of miles per minute, what will happen?

Answers:

1. the force of inertia, as dictated in the Newtonian laws of motion, will result in a 70mph collision. Which, needless to say, is most probably not very good to both drivers.

2. At the very least, I'm not very comfortable with the negative Gs.

3. Two words: Chunky Salsa*.

(*In an atmosphere, it woud make a *RIP-SQUISH!!!* noise. But since sound cannot travel through a vacuum, I wouldn't even die with the dignity of a cool sounding Special-FX.)

I rest my case.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your rested case, but I believe Neutrino is trying to note that calling something a law, doesn't quite make it one. A theory can be used to predict something to almost the same accuracy as a law (not quite, because most theories don't conform to a constant), but "law" is a term given to theories of extreme reliability within the range of current knowledge. Newton and his contemporaries and quite a few of his intellectual descendants could not have known that some of his laws break down during certain conditions in the universe. I'm not saying it'll happen, but it is possible that in the future we'll find a situation where his laws of thermodynamics cannot explain the situation. We call it a law, yes, but just because we attribute something that status, does not make it "fact." The word "fact" is pretty much useless in science, so be careful throwing it around so loosely. The same goes for "will always happen."

So, calling a law a "fact," and calling theory not a "fact" is, at best, playing with words, and at worst directly misleading. Hardly anybody questions germ theory any more, and even though it will never be a law, we can still attribute it the same factual status as a law, either in your sense or in mine.

Fact: if I throw a ball, it will follow a simple mathmatical formula according to the laws of physics.

Fact: if I lick a petri dish of Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 and lock myself in my room, I will die a horrible, poopy, poopy death.

Which is the law? Does it really matter?

[Neutrino]

This means then, given time, both Einstein and the guys behind Quantum Mechanics will look positively barbaric in their "crude understanding" of science when someone proves them wrong. Logically, this must go on Ad Infinatum.

Theromdynamics? Last I checked, no theory has derailed this one. Conservation of Momentum and Laws of Motion; last I heard, the saying that "to every action, there is an opposide and equal reaction" still applies to macroscopic objects (but not objects on the sub-atomic scale, Quantum Mechanics and Heisenburg Principle for those).

The facts about Newton's Laws:

1. If I'm driving a car at 35 mph and I hit head-on with another car travelling at the same speed, what will happen?

2. If I'm in a plane travelling 1000 mph and it comes to a cold stop in less than one minute, what will happen to me?

3. If I'm in space (in a suit, mind you) and I grab a passing satellite that is travelling at many thousands of miles per minute, what will happen?

Answers:

1. the force of inertia, as dictated in the Newtonian laws of motion, will result in a 70mph collision. Which, needless to say, is most probably not very good to both drivers.

2. At the very least, I'm not very comfortable with the negative Gs.

3. Two words: Chunky Salsa*.

(*In an atmosphere, it woud make a *RIP-SQUISH!!!* noise. But since sound cannot travel through a vacuum, I wouldn't even die with the dignity of a cool sounding Special-FX.)

I rest my case.

I was actually referring to his law of Gravity. The rest of them are fine (as far as we know).

But yes, eventually all modern theories will seem pathetically simple. The fact that we need two different sets of laws for things on different scales, for example.

It goes way past 'Not comfortable". 164 odd gees is entirely non-survivable for even tiny fractions of a second

[Backglass]

The big-bang theory is a theory......

So is the existence of magical sky gods.