Originally posted by HalitoseDepends on the situation really. If the theory makes more sense then the immediate facts, then perhaps the facts should be changed, or at least more research should be done. Scientific facts get revised as often as theories do.
[b]"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
Albert Einstein
Er.. no. It should be -- "If the facts don't fit the theory -- change the theory."[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot true. I’ve said many times that it’s my belief that science and religion will converge, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The contrast with Einstein was simply to point out the value of keeping an open mind.
btw you seem, as many creationists do to disagree with Einstein's quote #2. You do not accept what science tells you, when it contradicts the bible. Oh, the irony!
Besides, the scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. 😀
Edit: Example: I believe that the world is billions and not thousands of years old.
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess Expressokay okay - i've had enough beer to agree to just about anything now! You're a good guy CE. I enjoy debating with you - it makes me better (reminds me to never stop reading)! You will agree though that some guys do disagree with scientific facts even when they are proven beyond reasonable doubt (like the planet being only 10,000 years old, considering we have 100,000 year old ice cores!)?
Not true. I’ve said many times that it’s my belief that science and religion will converge, and the truth lies somewhere in between. The contrast with Einstein was simply to point out the value of keeping an open mind.
Besides, the scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. 😀
Originally posted by HalitoseGood. Just about melting - my first NZ summer and it;s a little warm. Still tomorrow I might go down to the beach - have a swim and look at girls in bikini's. Does impure thoughts still go against you with the big man nowadays?
Well thanks. Yourself? Taking things a little leasurely at the moment...
Originally posted by scottishinnzokay okay - i've had enough beer to agree to just about anything now! You're a good guy CE. I enjoy debating with you - it makes me better (reminds me to never stop reading)!
okay okay - i've had enough beer to agree to just about anything now! You're a good guy CE. I enjoy debating with you - it makes me better (reminds me to never stop reading)! You will agree though that some guys do disagree with scientific facts even when they are proven beyond reasonable doubt (like the planet being only 10,000 years old, considering we have 100,000 year old ice cores!)?
Thanks Scott. You and Nemesio are the ones who get me to do the most research as well.
You will agree though that some guys do disagree with scientific facts even when they are proven beyond reasonable doubt (like the planet being only 10,000 years old, considering we have 100,000 year old ice cores!)?
Yes, I would have to agree with that.
Originally posted by scottishinnzlol. That's one of those things I'd have had differently, but... fortunately/unfortunately I must obey. 😀😀
Good. Just about melting - my first NZ summer and it;s a little warm. Still tomorrow I might go down to the beach - have a swim and look at girls in bikini's. Does impure thoughts still go against you with the big man nowadays?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPerhaps I misunderstand, but my understanding is that, within a closed system, E=mc^2 entails
E = mc^2 simply says matter and energy can be interconverted; that in fact they are the same thing. It doesn't say anything about them always having existed.
that whatever volume of matter+energy is a constant (an enormous one, to be sure). That is,
at any given time, it may be almost all energy or almost all matter, but it always is.
Consequently, the idea that matter 'comes into existence' without something to balance the
equation runs contrary to this equation.
That is, science makes no claims about matter/energy coming into being from nothingness. It
remains 'agnostic' on the topic.
When we start talking about matter 'coming into being,' we leave the realm of science, and enter
metaphysics. We may approach this matter 'scientifically' or 'theologically' or even
'FlyingSpaghettiMonsterly,' but it remains out of the realm of science.
And so, if the theologian wants to say, 'Science doesn't have an answer to what created matter,
but I do,' the scientist can rightly retort, 'But who created God?' And, if the theologian wants to
assert that God is eternal, having no creation nor end, so, too, can the scientist assert this about
the universe, because, as far as we know, matter/energy is a constant.
That's all I was trying to say.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, but you'll realise, i'm sure #1, that 'facts' are determined by many things, such as whether anyone is investigating them, what the last guy said (who came closest to the 'truth'😉, irrespective of whether he is right or wrong, is a 'fact'.
Facts cannot be wrong by definition.
I appreciate that, to a purist, they were not really facts before. I guess it's an exercise in semantics, no?
Originally posted by NemesioThe equation E=Mc^2 simply expresses the relationship between energy and matter. It has nothing to do with the amount of matter-energy in the universe except to say that the amount of energy is equal to the amount of matter times the speed of light squared. By itself, the formula doesn't preclude more matter coming into existence.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but my understanding is that, within a closed system, E=mc^2 entails
that whatever volume of matter+energy is a constant (an enormous one, to be sure). That is,
at any given time, it may be almost all energy or almost all matter, but it always is.
Consequently, the idea that matter 'comes into existence' without something to ba ...[text shortened]... ter/energy is a constant.
That's all I was trying to say.
Nemesio
Science is more than "agnostic" on whether matter can from nothingness. It answers that questions with a resounding "no" in this universe according to what we observe. The question of where the matter in the universe came from is unanswerable by science and science doesn't try to answer it. It leaves such questions to metaphysics.
BTW, ATY is right; the universe, as we now know it, may have started at the Big Bang but all the matter in the universe existed at the singularity. The singularity didn't "explode" (Big Bang is an aphorism coined by a critic of the theory); it expanded. The best analogy is the "raisin cake" with the raisins being the individual chunks of matter. As the dough (universe) expands, the raisins (matter) become further away from each other. There are localized effects which make the distribution non-uniform, but that is the basic premise of the Big Bang.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI suppose if by "facts" you meant what people believe to be facts, then that can certainly change as they come into more accurate information. That, however, is a non-standard definition of "facts"; facts are true in reality, not merely perceived as true. The tree falls in the forest even if no one sees or hears it.
Okay, but you'll realise, i'm sure #1, that 'facts' are determined by many things, such as whether anyone is investigating them, what the last guy said (who came closest to the 'truth'😉, irrespective of whether he is right or wrong, is a 'fact'.
I appreciate that, to a purist, they were not really facts before. I guess it's an exercise in semantics, no?
Originally posted by no1marauderIndeed, 'big bang' was coined by Fred Hoyle, who didn't believe it. It was a mere jest, extracting the urine, if you will.
The equation E=Mc^2 simply expresses the relationship between energy and matter. It has nothing to do with the amount of matter-energy in the universe except to say that the amount of energy is equal to the amount of matter times the speed of light squared. By itself, the formula doesn't preclude more matter coming into existence.
Science is mo ...[text shortened]... ich make the distribution non-uniform, but that is the basic premise of the Big Bang.
I like the cake analogy #1!
Originally posted by scottishinnzI forgot who came up with it; I recall it being in a college Astronomy text in the '80's (my all-time favorite elective).
Indeed, 'big bang' was coined by Fred Hoyle, who didn't believe it. It was a mere jest, extracting the urine, if you will.
I like the cake analogy #1!