The Problem with Religious Moderation

[billw55]

Huh, the LHC will fail? The LHC already succeeded. They did not award the Nobel prize for building the LHC. They gave the Nobel prize for finding Higg's boson. Read this previous sentence if you ever decide to read any of my posts that are addressed to you.

To be entirely accurate, the prize was given to Higgs and Englert for proposing the particle decades ago. The experimenters who found it lost out this time.

[\nitpick]

[barmar]

To be entirely accurate, the prize was given to Higgs and Englert for proposing the particle decades ago. The experimenters who found it lost out this time.

[\nitpick]

Right. They did the scientific research that determined that the particle should exist. Since then we've just been waiting for technology to improve so that their conjecture could be verified, and that's the point we reached last year with the LHC. Once the physics community felt the evidence was sufficient, their discovery deserved the award.

[32519]

Throughout history, many scientific explanations of the natural world have contradicted religious explanations. In every case, the scientific explanations have been correct. When you give that some real thought, you'll realize why things always work out that way. Better not to position your religious views so they can be refuted by science. Most moderates have figured that out.

 

Evolution is a fact: the evidence is overwhelming and there is no plausible alternative. Most religious folks do understand that, after reading up on it. The fact of evolution should not pose a problem for anyone's religion. If it does, the religion needs to change.

Which part of my post did you not understand?

 

I really, really, really hope that every other scientist on planet earth who rejects the possible existence of a super-natural being echoes this view of yours, “There is NO PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE.”

 

The theory of EVOLUTION is 100% dependant on the BIG BANG theory. When the BIG BANG theory fails, the EVOLUTION theory fails as well. And so we have the LHC. When the LHC fails to deliver, how are scientists going to explain how the universe came into existence, let alone the diversity of living things on planet earth? Now your theory of EVOLUTION has had its legs chopped right off. The best part here is that it was chopped off by you yourselves (the scientists). You never needed any help from any of the following to point out the flaw in the theory, a) atheists, b) agnostics, or c) believers. You did it all alone. Together the scientists spent like how many years to “perfect” this theory? You held the perfect hand for your “perfect” theory, one which you kept on throwing into the face of anyone who thought differently to yourselves. And then what do you do? You revoke! All your years of hard work you yourselves come and blow to pieces! Wow! That’s a BBO expert on display!

 

If you (and likewise thinkers) cannot see that with the failure of the BIG BANG theory, the scientists are steadily painting themselves into a corner from which there is no escape, then there is nothing anyone can do to help you.

 

PS: Have you stuck my post onto your fridge yet?

[hrothgar]

 

The theory of EVOLUTION is 100% dependant on the BIG BANG theory. When the BIG BANG theory fails, the EVOLUTION theory fails as well.

 

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

[32519]

Huh, the LHC will fail? The LHC already succeeded. They did not award the Nobel prize for building the LHC. They gave the Nobel prize for finding Higg's boson. Read this previous sentence if you ever decide to read any of my posts that are addressed to you.

 

I already answered your question on the "glaring flaw" on the BBT: there are theories out there that state that the total energy of the universe is zero (there is a huge positive component from E=mc^2 and a huge negative component from the gravitational attraction that probably cancel out). Therefore, it is energy-neutral for the hot, dense universe to come into being out of nothing or that it vanishes. However, after it came into existence, it quickly exploded and then cooled off. This is also basic thermodynamics. Note that I am a physicist but I am not a cosmologist. I read this explanation in The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow. I have also already posted this upthread. But from your reluctance to read the Nobel committee's decision and your fellow BBF members' 100-500 word posts, I gather you are not a big fan of books.

It what way is this supposed to put any fear into me, "Note that I am a physicist"? But with your superior knowledge, tell me how you produce the BIG BANG when you got nothing at your disposal (my point 1 above)? When I asked MikeH he threw all his toys out the cot. How about you?

 

You can post as many formulas as you choose in this thread. It matters squat. Why? Go and read your own post again…slowly…! Can you spot the flaw? Here’s a clue – it is the word theory. So you need to build the LHC to give any substance to your theories. Why? Never mind whether you are talking to atheists, agnostics or believers about all your fancy theories, all you need is some rational thinking to point out the stupidity of the whole thing. And my guess is that more and more rational thinkers are pointing out to science the absurdity of these theories. And you just don’t have anything left in defence. So what do you do? You need to build the LHC! And to encourage like thinkers, you award them the Noble Prize (spelling mistake deliberate), so as to say, “Hey guys, don’t give up yet. We’ve got to be able to defend this thing!”

 

I concede that the theory of EVOLUTION is PLAUSIBLE. But it goes up in smoke when the BIG BANG theory fails.

 

We got plenty of lurkers reading this thread. They are going to start throwing your theories back into your face. Be ready with some new answers. The old ones won’t do the trick anymore.

 

PS. Have you stuck a copy of my post on your fridge yet?

 

PPS: Back to the Pink Floyd lyrics:

 

Breathe

(Waters, Gilmour, Wright) 2:44

 

<Snip>

 

Run, rabbit run.

Dig that hole, forget the sun,

And when at last the work is done

Don't sit down it's time to dig another one.

 

<Snip>

 

Time

(Mason, Waters, Wright, Gilmour) 7:06

 

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day

You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way.

Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town

Waiting for someone or something to show you the way.

 

Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain.

You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today.

And then one day you find ten years have got behind you.

No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.

 

So you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking

Racing around to come up behind you again.

The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older,

Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

 

Every year is getting shorter never seem to find the time.

Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way

The time is gone, the song is over,

Thought I'd something more to say.

 

<Snip>

 

Us and Them

(Waters, Wright) 7:40

 

Us, and them [scientists and everyone else?]

And after all we're only ordinary men.

Me, and you.

God only knows it's not what we would choose to do.

Forward he cried from the rear

and the front rank died.

And the general sat and the lines on the map

moved from side to side.

Black and blue

And who knows which is which and who is who.

Up and down.

But in the end it's only round and round.

Haven't you heard it's a battle of words

The poster bearer cried.

Listen son, said the man with the gun

There's room for you inside.

 

<Snip>

 

Down and out

It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about.

With, without.

And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?

Out of the way, it's a busy day

I've got things on my mind.

 

<Snip>

 

Brain Damage

(Waters) 3:50

 

The lunatic is on the grass.

The lunatic is on the grass.

Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs.

Got to keep the loonies on the path.

 

The lunatic is in the hall.

The lunatics are in my hall.

The paper holds their folded faces to the floor

And every day the paper boy brings more.

 

And if the dam breaks open many years too soon

And if there is no room upon the hill

And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too

I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

 

The lunatic is in my head.

The lunatic is in my head

You raise the blade, you make the change

You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane.

You lock the door

And throw away the key

There's someone in my head but it's not me.

 

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear

You shout and no one seems to hear.

And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes

I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

 

"I can't think of anything to say except...

I think it's marvelous! HaHaHa!"

 

Eclipse

(Waters) 2:04

 

All that you touch

All that you see

All that you taste

All you feel.

All that you love

All that you hate

All you distrust

All you save.

All that you give

All that you deal

All that you buy,

beg, borrow or steal.

All you create

All you destroy

All that you do

All that you say.

All that you eat

And everyone you meet

All that you slight

And everyone you fight.

All that is now

All that is gone

All that's to come

and everything under the sun is in tune

but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.

[Trinidad]

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

Come on, all theories are connected... If (big if) the Big Bang theory falls then behavior theory will fall too and Pavlov's dog will stop drooling immediately. The Law of Supply and Demand will break down and the oil price will drop when we want more of it. Molecular theory... completely out of the window: acids will start reacting with acids and bases with bases.

 

In short: as soon as the Big Bang theory falls... Doomsday will arrive.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Here’s a clue – it is the word theory.

 

Do not use the word "theory" again until you understand what it means.

[hrothgar]

 

And my guess is that more and more rational thinkers are pointing out to science the absurdity of these theories. And you just don’t have anything left in defence. So what do you do? You need to build the LHC! And to encourage like thinkers, you award them the Noble Prize (spelling mistake deliberate), so as to say, “Hey guys, don’t give up yet. We’ve got to be able to defend this thing!”

 

We got plenty of lurkers reading this thread. They are going to start throwing your theories back into your face. Be ready with some new answers. The old ones won’t do the trick anymore.

 

 

All these "lurkers", "rational thinkers", and "free thinkers" that you're talking about.

 

Do they speak to you?

Do they ever tell you to do things?

Have they ever taken the form of your neighbor's dog?

 

Do you know that wearing a tin foil hat will stop the MK Ultra from reading your brainwaves?

[kenberg]

listen: there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go --- e.e. cummings

[gwnn]

Are you underlining the parts of our posts that you HAVE read? In that case you are doing OK. Other creationists are quoting only the underlined part.

[Winstonm]

It what way is this supposed to put any fear into me, "Note that I am a physicist"? But with your superior knowledge, tell me how you produce the BIG BANG when you got nothing at your disposal (my point 1 above)? When I asked MikeH he threw all his toys out the cot. How about you?

 

Here’s a clue – it is the word theory.

 

I concede that the theory of EVOLUTION is PLAUSIBLE. But it goes up in smoke when the BIG BANG theory fails.

 

 

 

That's quite a theory you got there - the theory of theories. Myself, I get theory-eyed thinking that in Texas you could be elected to Congress.

[Fluffy]

Come on, all theories are connected... If (big if) the Big Bang theory falls then behavior theory will fall too and Pavlov's dog will stop drooling immediately. The Law of Supply and Demand will break down and the oil price will drop when we want more of it. Molecular theory... completely out of the window: acids will start reacting with acids and bases with bases.

 

Yeah like theory of gravity, you fools still believe its true, but I know masses just get random forces into them, the fact that all of those you observe seem to go towards each other its just luck, it will stop anytime soon.

[mikeh]

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

I know you 'get it' but, it seems, you can't quite bring yourself to realize just how futile it is to engage a troll. The more you appear to take it seriously, as seeing it as raising issues that you will address, the more it feasts, and rubs its tiny, greasy paws together while gloating over our gullibility. It lives on our indignation, and our attention. Without it, it has only its squalid, deranged inner thoughts and desires, circling endlessly in the narrow, circular tunnel that is its mind. Any resemblance to the shape of the LHC is coincidental, but both are almost entirely composed of vacuum when in operation.

 

The troll is incapable of rational thought, has no concept of the concept even. Remember how worked up you (and I) got with Lukewarm? This troll is Lukewarm without the veneer afforded by Lukewarm's superficial familiarity with logic.

 

Lukewarm seems to have gone away and, if we stop feeding it, maybe this one will follow suit. Heck, maybe they'll find each other! Wouldn't reading their exchanges be a guilty pleasure :P

[Vampyr]

Lukewarm seems to have gone away and, if we stop feeding it, maybe this one will follow suit. Heck, maybe they'll find each other! Wouldn't reading their exchanges be a guilty pleasure :P

 

Speaking of guilty pleasures, I am forced to admit that I find 325's posts very funny -- especially as they get more and more frantic and incoherent.

[32519]

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

Are you also a scientist? If then, tell me how you produce the BANG when you got nothing? When I asked MikeH he threw all his toys out the cot. Then I asked gwnn. He too failed to offer anything. So now its your turn to fly the flag for every scientist who supports the BIG BANG theory. How do you produce the BANG with a big fat nothing at your disposal?

 

How much time do you need? But your request brings a smile to my face. It is simple enough and I will agree to it if you also agree to my request, which is this

1. Cut out post 249 of this thread and stick it on your fridge. Then on the 16th of October every year (the date when the post was made) come and update this forum on LHC developments.

2. Your update must include

a. Progress

b. Failures

c. Latest actual spend on the LHC

 

Deal or no deal?

[32519]

Are you underlining the parts of our posts that you HAVE read? In that case you are doing OK. Other creationists are quoting only the underlined part.

Have you seen these words anywhere before?

 

... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.

George Carlin

 

There is zero logic in the BIG BANG theory. If there was you would have been able to answer my previous question to you.

[32519]

That's quite a theory you got there - the theory of theories. Myself, I get theory-eyed thinking that in Texas you could be elected to Congress.

How about you? Have you seen these words anywhere before?

 

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

—- Mark Twain

 

Why is it that you guys are doing the exact opposite? You got no facts or logic on the BBT, only a theory, but you have managed to convince each other it is fact. And to back it up with gwnn's flawless logic, you have gone and made all sorts of meaningless calculations, which the likes of the MikeH's of the world proudly quote as fact?

[Vampyr]

Yeah like theory of gravity, you fools still believe its true, but I know masses just get random forces into them, the fact that all of those you observe seem to go towards each other its just luck, it will stop anytime soon.

 

Given how poorly gravity is understood, this is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility!

[Vampyr]

Then on the 16th of October every year (the date when the post was made) come and update this forum on LHC developments.

 

You will be waiting a long time, because the collider has been turned off for two years to prepare it to run at its peak energy. But there are websites and magazines (eg New Scientist, Scientific American) in which you can read about the data collected by the LHC and the significance of them.

 

Perhaps the problem you are having is that physics in the modern world, such as that done by the researchers at CERN, is very hard for most of us to understand well. In high school physics, we were able to determine certain properties of waves, of electromagnetism and many other things using fairly simple apparatus. We could not have discovered the Higgs boson, or even understood from the data received by the collectors that we had discovered it. So we have to trust others to do the science and tell us what it means.

 

Or could it be that you just think that the LHC is too expensive a project relative to its usefulness? There are some people who think that all pure science is a luxury we can't afford in a world plagued by hunger, disease, loss of biodiversity, environmental catastrophes and pockets of poor mobile phone reception. I don't hold this opinion myself, but I can see the point.

 

Many scientists believe in a god or gods. Are you sure that your god requires you to be anti-science? Perhaps he or she created the physical sciences to allow you the joy of discovery as you learn more and more about them, and is hurt that you are unimpressed.

[gwnn]

Have you seen these words anywhere before?

 

... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.

George Carlin

 

There is zero logic in the BIG BANG theory. If there was you would have been able to answer my previous question to you.

I have. Twice. But my ability to explain something bears no connection to whether that thing has any logic in it. (Thank God for that!)

[akwoo]

The question "Is the big bang theory correct?" is like the question "Here is my hand; is a 1♣ opening correct?"

 

Neither question can be answered out of context. For me to answer the second question, I need to know what your bidding system is. For me to answer the first, I need to know how you decide whether theories are correct or not. (To use the fancy word, I need to know your epistemology.)

 

Please note that, at the bottom, a bidding system cannot be completely logically justified against all others. One can give reasons why a bidding system is structured a certain way, but that does not mean one can give a complete logical foundation that removes all possible doubt. The same goes for an epistemology.

 

That doesn't mean anything goes. I can say your bidding system is terrible, and I can say your epistemology is terrible. These however are practical judgements, not metaphysical ones. Here is an observation that points out the difference: it sounds a little funny to say that your bidding system is incorrect (rather than terrible).

 

It does mean, however, that there is a range of reasonable epistemologies, and one can even mix and match them for different types of questions (just as one might vary systems depending on vulnerability, or depending on the strength of the field in your event).

 

(Hmm - a bridge question - it seems to me that the ACBL allows a pair/team to change systems between the first and second half of a 48/64-board match, since those are different sessions. Are there any known instances of a pair changing a system to a more/less swingy one (e.g. putting in/taking out a mini-NT) when well behind/ahead halfway through a match?)

[Trinidad]

I have. Twice. But my ability to explain something bears no connection to whether that thing has any logic in it. (Thank God for that!)

I would say that while there is a very strong positive correlation between your ability to explain something and the ability of the general audience to understand what you explain, there is zero correlation (or perhaps even a negative correlation) between your ability to explain something and the ability of a certain individual to understand what you explain.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

I would say that while there is a very strong positive correlation between your ability to explain something and the ability of the general audience to understand what you explain, there is zero correlation (or perhaps even a negative correlation) between your ability to explain something and the ability of a certain individual to understand what you explain.

 

Rik

Yes but that wasn't my point. I was simply saying that sometimes I can't explain something because I don't understand it well enough, not because it is impossible to do so. Which reminds me of the philosopher House: "Just because something is inexplicted, doesn't mean it's inexplicable."

[hrothgar]

 

Lukewarm seems to have gone away and, if we stop feeding it, maybe this one will follow suit.

 

Here's the rub...

 

I don't believe that Lukewarm went away out of boredom.

 

Lukewarm's exit from the forum's coincided with the 2012 presidential elections.

 

Jimmy made a long series of outlandish and erratic predictions about the coming Romney victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, ...

(He was seriously drinkig the unskewed poll's Kool-Aide)

 

I suspect that he knew that people were going to hang those predictions / bets around his neck and mock him without mercy any time he opened his mouth.

(I certainly was)

[hrothgar]

Are you also a scientist? If then, tell me how you produce the BANG when you got nothing? When I asked MikeH he threw all his toys out the cot. Then I asked gwnn. He too failed to offer anything. So now its your turn to fly the flag for every scientist who supports the BIG BANG theory. How do you produce the BANG with a big fat nothing at your disposal?

 

How much time do you need? But your request brings a smile to my face. It is simple enough and I will agree to it if you also agree to my request, which is this –

1. Cut out post 249 of this thread and stick it on your fridge. Then on the 16th of October every year (the date when the post was made) come and update this forum on LHC developments.

2. Your update must include –

a. Progress

b. Failures

c. Latest actual spend on the LHC

 

Deal or no deal?

 

If the cost of a year's freedom from your drivel is as simple as a bit of research and posting something on 10/16 each year I am more than happy to take one for the forums.

(Thankfully, I have a calender app that can remind me of this)

 

So, let's get down to brass tacks.

 

From what I can tell, I need to accomplish two distinct things.

 

1. Provide sufficient supporting evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (This shouldn't be too difficult). You've already admitted that this theory seems plausible.

 

2. Demonstrate that the theory of evolution does not depend on the big bang theory.

 

Are we in agreement about the specifics?