PDA

View Full Version : Science Wins Over Creationism In South Korea (article)



Bittersweet
September 7th, 2012, 10:56 AM
Sorry, I'm just lazily pasting this directly from Slashdot, but I've been following this case and wonder if anyone else had been as well.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/07/1235224/science-wins-over-creationism-in-south-korea (http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/07/1235224/science-wins-over-creationism-in-south-korea)

ananyo writes "South Korea's government has urged textbook publishers to ignore calls to remove two examples of evolution from high-school textbooks (http://www.nature.com/news/science-wins-over-creationism-in-south-korea-1.11377). The move marks a change of heart for the government, which had earlier forwarded a petition from the 'Society for Textbook Revise' to publishers and told them to make their own minds up about the demands. The petition called for details about the evolution of the horse and of the avian ancestor Archaeopteryx to be removed from the books. In May, news emerged (http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/07/08/1551241/south-korea-will-revisit-plan-to-nix-evolution-references-in-textbooks) that publishers were planning to drop the offending sections, sparking outrage among some scientists. The resulting furor prompted the government to set up an 11-member panel (http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/07/08/1551241/south-korea-will-revisit-plan-to-nix-evolution-references-in-textbooks), led by the Korean Academy of Science and Technology. On 5 September, the panel concluded that Archaeopteryx must be included in Korean science textbooks. And, while accepting that the textbooks' explanation of the evolution of the horse was too simplistic, the panel said the entry should be revised rather than removed or replaced with a different example, such as the evolution of whales."

Chaos Greyblood
September 7th, 2012, 09:07 PM
The what now?

I thought that kind of thing happens in shows like The Simpsons. I guess this is really happening now.

Twelveseal
September 7th, 2012, 09:54 PM
Lol. It's been happening for a long time. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Crying_Vegeta
September 8th, 2012, 03:08 PM
Ah yes, I remember this...

Counterguardian
September 8th, 2012, 09:41 PM
One small step for science, one large kick in the behind for creationism!

Lycodrake
September 8th, 2012, 09:47 PM
I'm sorry, but the choice in wording is...poor.
Maybe if you worded it less antagonistically and didn't paint all creationists with the same exact shade of color, then I could take this as unbiased.

terraablaze
September 8th, 2012, 09:57 PM
I'm not sure if unbiased was a goal of this thread.

RadiantBeam
September 8th, 2012, 09:58 PM
And so it continues.

ratstsrub
September 8th, 2012, 10:31 PM
I'm sorry, but the choice in wording is...poor.
Maybe if you worded it less antagonistically and didn't paint all creationists with the same exact shade of color, then I could take this as unbiased.

...Not sure if serious.


Anyways, creationism is one of the lulziest denial around.

I3uster
September 8th, 2012, 10:44 PM
Yeah, but it doesn't even reach the top ranks. Like round earth denial and shit like that.

Kieran
September 8th, 2012, 10:54 PM
Oh, I don't know about that - there's a book at work that goes into explicit detail proving that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on Earth when it was first created, six thousand years ago . . .

You gotta love working at a library. Sooner or later, you run across everything.

ratstsrub
September 8th, 2012, 11:01 PM
Oh, I don't know about that - there's a book at work that goes into explicit detail proving that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on Earth when it was first created, six thousand years ago . . .

You gotta love working at a library. Sooner or later, you run across everything.

Which, of course, necessitates a young Earth position, which makes it even lulzier.

Wayback when (12 years ago), I actually met a person who believed that God put the fossils where they are to test people.

Don't see that much nowadays, since pretty much every single arguments put forth were soundly mauled and thrown in the gutter, but man it was funny.

I3uster
September 8th, 2012, 11:05 PM
Don't see that much nowadays, since pretty much every single arguments put forth were soundly mauled and thrown in the gutter, but man it was funny.

I want to live in your world. People still make these claims, lol.

It's funny, even though this is a Catholic country, if you were to publically deny evolution people would laugh at you and think you're one of those crazy Americans we can see in the news sometimes.

Mcjon01
September 8th, 2012, 11:09 PM
I get sad when I see this topic on the front page, because it cuts off the "In South Korea" part so for a second I'm like "Hell yeah!" and then I remember.

ratstsrub
September 8th, 2012, 11:55 PM
I want to live in your world...this is a Catholic country



Well there's your problem. D:

Anyways, didn't the Pope said evolution yes? That could be why you don't see public denial.

I3uster
September 8th, 2012, 11:56 PM
Wait, did he? News to me.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 12:03 AM
Well I believe the last Pope did anyways. Dunno about this one.

MZeroX
September 9th, 2012, 12:05 AM
Yeah, last pope said that evolution happened, but when humans started being humans, it's because God intervened and gave them a soul.

Mcjon01
September 9th, 2012, 12:05 AM
I don't think it's official dogma or anything, but the Catholic Church has pretty much embraced the idea of God-guided evolution and the big bang being the creation of the universe. I guess they're still trying to make up for that Galileo thing.

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 12:05 AM
Hahahaha

Adapt or perish.

Mcjon01
September 9th, 2012, 12:15 AM
Don't you mean "Adapt or... parish"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o

Techlet
September 9th, 2012, 12:25 AM
Oh, I don't know about that - there's a book at work that goes into explicit detail proving that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on Earth when it was first created, six thousand years ago . . .

You gotta love working at a library. Sooner or later, you run across everything.

6000 years ago? Wtf? It's 2012. Where the hell did the extra 4000 years come from? :V

Five_X
September 9th, 2012, 12:35 AM
Don't you mean "Adapt or... parish"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o

Okay, you got a laugh out of me there.

Seika
September 9th, 2012, 01:54 AM
I want to live in your world. People still make these claims, lol.

It's funny, even though this is a Catholic country, if you were to publically deny evolution people would laugh at you and think you're one of those crazy Americans we can see in the news sometimes.

Yeah, this. The UK has an established religion and our head of state is the head of the Church. But our Deputy Prime Minister's a publicly admitted agnostic/atheist and no-one cares. It's the US with its careful disestablishment that still has its liberal candidates defining their arguments in terms of 'Scripture' (to take Mr. Kerry's recent example). Such are the ironies of the world.

RadiantBeam
September 9th, 2012, 02:43 PM
Yeah, this. The UK has an established religion and our head of state is the head of the Church. But our Deputy Prime Minister's a publicly admitted agnostic/atheist and no-one cares. It's the US with its careful disestablishment that still has its liberal candidates defining their arguments in terms of 'Scripture' (to take Mr. Kerry's recent example). Such are the ironies of the world.

You'd hate my campus. We have hardcore Bible thumpers who like to preach about the evils of science, technology, and homosexuality.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 02:57 PM
I'm sorry, but the choice in wording is...poor.
Maybe if you worded it less antagonistically and didn't paint all creationists with the same exact shade of color, then I could take this as unbiased.

Erm, the very definition of "Creationist" implies anti-science, because it implies a belief that God created the Earth from nothing, rather than it forming from a cloud of dust surrounding our new-born sun....

- - - Updated - - -


Well there's your problem. D:

Anyways, didn't the Pope said evolution yes? That could be why you don't see public denial.

The Catholic Church officially condones the Big Bang theory, certainly (mainly because the alternative (and now discredited) Steady State theory pretty much nullifies any possibility of a God).

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah, last pope said that evolution happened, but when humans started being humans, it's because God intervened and gave them a soul.

Well, to be fair, there's nothing anti-science in that, since science says nothing about the existence or otherwise of a soul....

Lycodrake
September 9th, 2012, 02:57 PM
Erm, the very definition of "Creationist" implies anti-science, because it implies a belief that God created the Earth from nothing, rather than it forming from a cloud of dust surrounding our new-born sun....
I'm not sorry. I believe in God. And creationism, at least as a possibility. I'm also not anti-science.
Too unbelievable?
Get this: I'm not lying.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:00 PM
6000 years ago? Wtf? It's 2012. Where the hell did the extra 4000 years come from? :V

Are you trolling, or do you actually not understand the basis of our entire dating system...?

- - - Updated - - -


I'm not sorry. I believe in God and creationism. I'm also not anti-science.
Too unbelievable?
Get this: I'm not lying.

Yes, you are "anti-science", because you are refusing to accept well-tested scientific theories which happen to underpin much of science.

If you don't believe in the Big Bang, then the CMB is meaningless, which means that a large part of our understanding of modern physics is somewhat questionable. Similarly, if you don't believe in evolution, then Biology falls apart. Additionally, for Creationism to be true, you have to disregard most of Geology, Palentology, parts of Physics (particularly the stuff to do with Radioactivity) and so on. Essentially, you can't believe in Creationism and science, because the two are fundamentally contradictory.

eddyak
September 9th, 2012, 03:00 PM
6000 years ago? Wtf? It's 2012. Where the hell did the extra 4000 years come from? :V
Don't think the world was made when Jesus died.


who like to preach about the evils of science, technology
These kinds of people need to be tossed into a remote jungle somewhere. Don't like technology? YOU DON'T GET TO USE A FRIDGE. OR LIGHTBULBS.

Lycodrake
September 9th, 2012, 03:02 PM
Yes, you are "anti-science", because you are refusing to accept well-tested scientific theories which happen to underpin science.

If you don't believe in the Big Bang, then the CMB is meaningless, which means that a large part of our understanding of modern physics is somewhat questionable. Similarly, if you don't believe in evolution, then Biology falls apart.
No, I am not anti-science.
I would kindly ask you to not call me something I am not.

Lotus Saint
September 9th, 2012, 03:04 PM
Science Hater.

RadiantBeam
September 9th, 2012, 03:04 PM
These kinds of people need to be tossed into a remote jungle somewhere. Don't like technology? YOU DON'T GET TO USE A FRIDGE. OR LIGHTBULBS.

They're hilarious. They once even gave us little "Will you get into Heaven?" questionnaires to fill out.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:06 PM
No, I am not anti-science.
I would kindly ask you to not call me something I am not.

How can you claim not to be when you consider most of modern science to be wrong?

Lycodrake
September 9th, 2012, 03:08 PM
How can you claim not to be when you consider most of modern science to be wrong?
Since when did evolution and the Big Bang become the end-all, be-all of science?

And, I would like you to kindly note that I stated:

...creationism, at least as a possibility.
Or did you purposefully miss this part?

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 03:09 PM
Holy fucking crap, Lyco is serious?!

Ah ha ha....

Actually, somehow that's not all that surprising to me.



Tell me Lyco, how old is the Earth?
What's the mechanism for creationism? Did God create everything as is, or do you believe, as some do, that it was God 'guided' evolution?

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 03:10 PM
Well, if even the Pope backpedalled on that issue it can't be hard for Lyco to do it one day too...

Lycodrake
September 9th, 2012, 03:12 PM
I would kindly ask people to cease with the trolling, baiting, and/or rude commentary.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 03:14 PM
Well, if even the Pope backpedalled on that issue it can't be hard for Lyco to do it one day too...

I doubt it. It's more likely that as more and more information piles and piles, either it will be a retreat more and more to the gaps in the info, or just plain disregard logic and facts and exalt in faith.

"I believe this based on absolutely nothing at all and that is admirable!"

- - - Updated - - -


I would kindly ask people to cease with the trolling, baiting, and/or rude commentary.

If you can't defend your beliefs, then maybe the problem isn't other people.

RadiantBeam
September 9th, 2012, 03:14 PM
Holy fucking crap, Lyco is serious?!

Ah ha ha....

Actually, somehow that's not all that surprising to me.


Well, if even the Pope backpedalled on that issue it can't be hard for Lyco to do it one day too...

All right, that's enough.

Have your debate if you feel so inclined, but leave personal attacks out of it, please and thank you.

Lycodrake
September 9th, 2012, 03:14 PM
I'll ask again: kindly cease the baiting, trolling, and/or rude commentary.

I won't bother answering if all you're going to do is that.

ItsaRandomUsername
September 9th, 2012, 03:16 PM
People, stop singling the guy out and cease with the personal attacks already, otherwise warnings're going be passed out.

While I'm no creationist I certainly believe in a higher power (IE God) who more or less guided - or at least set it up to happen on its own - the development of everything ever.

Science and religon don't necessarily have to be at odds, if one doesn't want them to be. Just that compromises gotta be made.

Ace
September 9th, 2012, 03:20 PM
Since when did evolution and the Big Bang become the end-all, be-all of science?



Yes, you are "anti-science", because you are refusing to accept well-tested scientific theories which happen to underpin much of science.

If you don't believe in the Big Bang, then the CMB is meaningless, which means that a large part of our understanding of modern physics is somewhat questionable. Similarly, if you don't believe in evolution, then Biology falls apart. Additionally, for Creationism to be true, you have to disregard most of Geology, Palentology, parts of Physics (particularly the stuff to do with Radioactivity) and so on. Essentially, you can't believe in Creationism and science, because the two are fundamentally contradictory.

Sup.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 03:22 PM
All right, that's enough.

Have your debate if you feel so inclined, but leave personal attacks out of it, please and thank you.

I refuse. I'll ridicule the ridiculous beliefs that's antithesis to everything that modern science have discovered and forms the basis of many of the things that Lyco himself takes for granted.

If he believes in a Young Earth, then when mike called him anti-science, mike is absolutely right.
If he believes in an Old Earth, and also in creationism, and specifically that a deity intervened in the natural process of the universe to lead to us, then when mike called him anti-science, mike is absolutely right.

Just because he has a religious view shouldn't exempt him from harsh criticisms, anymore so than say someone actually liking pop music (urgh) or is a gold standard bearing libertarian (lol).

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:22 PM
Since when did evolution and the Big Bang become the end-all, be-all of science?

Evolution underpins pretty much the entirety of Biology. If you disregard it, then Biology falls apart.

And, if the universe is only 6000 years old, then that means that absolutely everything we've learnt from astronomical observations more than 6000 light years away is false. Which covers quite a lot. Not to mention that, for that to be the case, a bunch of other scientific fields would need to be fiddled to explain why we don't notice the fact that the universe is only 6000 years old, and also to explain why everything we see seems to fit with existing physics despite it being entirely made up.

Further, if the universe is 6000 years old, that means that essentially all of Geology is wrong, Palentology is wrong, our knowledge of Radioactivity is wrong, our understanding of the entire universe is wrong and a whole bunch of other stuff is wrong too. Further, given that science is getting it so drastically wrong, how can we trust anything else we find out from it?


And, I would like you to kindly note that I stated:

Or did you purposefully miss this part?

I didn't see that part but, regardless, Creationism is not a "possibility". It contradicts about 10 different fields of science, at least.


I'll ask again: kindly cease the baiting, trolling, and/or rude commentary.

I won't bother answering if all you're going to do is that.

How is pointing out that Creationism contradicts science "baiting, trolling or rude commentary"?

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 03:23 PM
Science and religon don't necessarily have to be at odds, if one doesn't want them to be. Just that compromises gotta be made.

I have no real problem with god-of-the-gaps thinking, I actually prefer it to hardcore religious dogma. My problem is people who promote dogmatic beliefs on one hand and on the other "believe in science".

Believe really is the key point here, since if you deny its foundations it becomes nothing more than that. It ceases to be science.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:24 PM
People, stop singling the guy out and cease with the personal attacks already, otherwise warnings're going be passed out.

Excuse me, but he's the one who is being unreasonable here. Creationism is anti-science, Nothing he says can change that, and nor can the dictats of a rather biased mod....


While I'm no creationist I certainly believe in a higher power (IE God) who more or less guided - or at least set it up to happen on its own - the development of everything ever.

Science and religon don't necessarily have to be at odds, if one doesn't want them to be. Just that compromises gotta be made.

No, Science and Religion don't have to be, but Science and Creationism are.

SeiKeo
September 9th, 2012, 03:24 PM
Evolution underpins pretty much the entirety of Biology. If you disregard it, then Biology falls apart.

I... don't think you'd need evolution to do biology? I mean, yeah, without it there's jack to explain where everything came from, but it's not a barrier to seeing what's going on right now.

RadiantBeam
September 9th, 2012, 03:27 PM
Excuse me, but he's the one who is being unreasonable here. Creationism is anti-science, Nothing he says can change that, and nor can the dictats of a rather biased mod....

Perhaps so, but there's a fine line between debating the merits of science and creationism and attacking someone personally because you don't share their beliefs. All we ask is you don't cross that line, and that applies to everyone who participates in this thread.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:27 PM
I... don't think you'd need evolution to do biology? I mean, yeah, without it there's jack to explain where everything came from, but it's not a barrier to seeing what's going on right now.

Yeah, you do, because about 90% of Biology is explained and understood through Evolution. If you don't accept Evolution, then most of the conclusions which underpin modern Biology don't apply.

My friend is a Virologist, and his work would simply not make sense except in the context of natural selection and genetics. If you refute the basic principles of that (for example, the idea that it is possible for new species to evolve), then the entire thing falls apart because that is a fundamental part of the theory.

eddyak
September 9th, 2012, 03:28 PM
I... don't think you'd need evolution to do biology? I mean, yeah, without it there's jack to explain where everything came from, but it's not a barrier to seeing what's going on right now.
Evolution is happening right now, in just about every reproducing cell in your body.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:28 PM
Perhaps so, but there's a fine line between debating the merits of science and creationism and attacking him personally because you don't share his beliefs. All we ask is you don't cross that line, and that applies to everyone who participates in this thread.

Sorry, but Creationism is anti-science. I did not attack him, I merely stated that fact and he took offense to it due to being a Creationist himself. If he doesn't understand science and, therefore, fails to see the contradiction, that is his problem, not mine.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 03:29 PM
While I'm no creationist I certainly believe in a higher power (IE God) who more or less guided - or at least set it up to happen on its own - the development of everything ever.

Science and religon don't necessarily have to be at odds, if one doesn't want them to be. Just that compromises gotta be made.

I reject your premise and the fact that you're using your authority to push your premise. Science and religion don't have to be at odds only if you refuse to accept or just plain ignore science where it's inconvenient, else it is always at odds.

There is no need for a higher power in the development of our Universe, and no arguments put forth have ever shown any need for, much less any evidence.

eddyak
September 9th, 2012, 03:30 PM
There is no need for a higher power in the development of our Universe, and no arguments put forth have ever shown any need for, much less any evidence.
Kinda untrue, unless they've already discovered what happened to start up the whole process of, y'know, existence.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:31 PM
I reject your premise and the fact that you're using your authority to push your premise. Science and religion don't have to be at odds only if you refuse to accept or just plain ignore science where it's inconvenient, else it is always at odds.

Actually, no, that's not true. You can also take the approach of ignoring religion whenever they conflict, and then it works just fine. And, honestly, the conflict isn't as great as you might think, because religion and science are designed to answer different questions. Science asks how things happen, whereas religion tends to ask why. It's only when religion tries to dictate how as well that it comes unstuck.


There is no need for a higher power in the development of our Universe, and no arguments put forth have ever shown any need for, much less any evidence.

No, but there being no need for one isn't the same as saying that there can't be one.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 03:32 PM
Kinda untrue, unless they've already discovered what happened to start up the whole process of, y'know, existence.

Virtual particles, negative energy, the sum energy of the Universe is 0.


No, but there being no need for one isn't the same as saying that there can't be one.

That's a weak argument. You can't disprove anything 100%, but that doesn't mean you should believe in anything. There is no evidence for, so believing in it is bad.


Actually, no, that's not true. You can also take the approach of ignoring religion whenever they conflict, and then it works just fine. And, honestly, the conflict isn't as great as you might think, because religion and science are designed to answer different questions. Science asks how things happen, whereas religion tends to ask why. It's only when religion tries to dictate how as well that it comes unstuck.

But you can't ignore religion everytime whenever they conflict, else you won't have any religion left. I'm not saying that people can't function fine even if they have two conflicting beliefs, but to pretend that they don't is just naive thinking.

The basis of religion encourages belief in things for absolutely no rational reason at all (else nobody would be religious), while science is exactly the opposite of that.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:32 PM
Kinda untrue, unless they've already discovered what happened to start up the whole process of, y'know, existence.

That doesn't imply that there must be a higher power, though. After all, if God created the universe, then who created God...?

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 03:33 PM
AH, Mike, why can't you always be like this. I love it when you science.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:33 PM
Virtual particles, negative energy, the sum energy of the Universe is 0.

Eddy is right here, we don't yet know how the universe started, although you are right that, to within experimental error, the universe is flat and, thus, has zero total energy. Although, that's only true because of how we define potential energy, and IIRC that's pretty arbitrary anyway.

eddyak
September 9th, 2012, 03:34 PM
Virtual particles, negative energy, the sum energy of the Universe is 0.
I don't know what any of those things are, so I'm going to look in the opposite direction, hum, and pretend I never read this post.


That doesn't imply that there must be a higher power, though.
True enough.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:36 PM
I don't know what any of those things are, so I'm going to look in the opposite direction, hum, and pretend I never read this post.

I think that's a somewhat dubious argument anyway, not least because energy is not Lorentz invariant....

Five_X
September 9th, 2012, 03:36 PM
Here, have some silliness:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-worl,2879/

RadiantBeam
September 9th, 2012, 03:37 PM
After all, if God created the universe, then who created God...?

Going by the Bible, God was acting before time began when He created the universe. The general theory is that God exists in a timeless eternity, and since He created time, cause and effect therefore doesn't apply to Him.

So says the Bible. In terms of science, your guess is as good as mine.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 03:38 PM
I don't know what any of those things are, so I'm going to look in the opposite direction, hum, and pretend I never read this post.


The perfect religious answer.


I think that's a somewhat dubious argument anyway, not least because energy is not Lorentz invariant....

I'm not even sure if we're talking about the same thing here.

eddyak
September 9th, 2012, 03:39 PM
The perfect religious answer.
http://www.bruceblinds.co.uk/images/thumbs-up.jpg

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 03:47 PM
Basic gist is that modern physics have an idea of how a Universe can come to being from out of nothing. Want to know more?

Go into physics. It's a fascinating subject.

ItsaRandomUsername
September 9th, 2012, 03:49 PM
Excuse me, but he's the one who is being unreasonable here. Creationism is anti-science, Nothing he says can change that, and nor can the dictats of a rather biased mod....

Not sure how I'm being biased here. I was just saying that there's no need under these cicrumstances everyone needs to just stop personally attacking Lyco, regardless of how conflicting your beliefs may be and whether or not you like the guy.

It's a matter of courtesy, not ideology.


I reject your premise and the fact that you're using your authority to push your premise. Science and religion don't have to be at odds only if you refuse to accept or just plain ignore science where it's inconvenient, else it is always at odds.

There is no need for a higher power in the development of our Universe, and no arguments put forth have ever shown any need for, much less any evidence.

>posting an opinion, just like you and everyone else here
>accused of using authority to push said premise simply because of my status as a mod

Must be nice this time of year in Ratsburg. :ciel:

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 03:53 PM
The third is related to the first.


People, stop singling the guy out and cease with the personal attacks already, otherwise warnings're going be passed out.

I seriously hope that green color isn't actually radiation damaging your forebrain Runnie. :ciel:

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 03:57 PM
Going by the Bible, God was acting before time began when He created the universe. The general theory is that God exists in a timeless eternity, and since He created time, cause and effect therefore doesn't apply to Him.

So says the Bible. In terms of science, your guess is as good as mine.

The same applies to the universe itself, though. Time is a property of the universe, so to talk about a time before the Big Bang is quite simply meaningless.


I'm not even sure if we're talking about the same thing here.

No, I've heard the argument you're making before (although it only applies if the universe is perfectly flat, which we don't know for certain). I'm just not overly convinced by it since, as I said, energy is not a Lorentz invariant quantity, so whether the universe has zero total energy depends on what frame we measure the energy in.


Not sure how I'm being biased here. I was just saying that there's no need under these cicrumstances everyone needs to just stop personally attacking Lyco, regardless of how conflicting your beliefs may be and whether or not you like the guy.

It's a matter of courtesy, not ideology.

Because we weren't "personally attacking" Lyco, we were attacking his views and he took that as a personal insult despite it not being intended in that way.

ItsaRandomUsername
September 9th, 2012, 04:02 PM
Fair enough.

Although I wasn't referring to you specifically. That was directed to someone of a rodent persuasion, among a couple others who were being forthcoming.

Not you, Ivan. You're alright so far.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 04:20 PM
No, I've heard the argument you're making before (although it only applies if the universe is perfectly flat, which we don't know for certain). I'm just not overly convinced by it since, as I said, energy is not a Lorentz invariant quantity, so whether the universe has zero total energy depends on what frame we measure the energy in.

Fair enough, for the flat universe, but I don't particularly see how your argument follows.

Since, we could have zero energy in a non flat universe too.

I mean, I seriously hope you're not saying that energy is not conserved in General Relativity, because then this is gonna open a whole can of worms that quite frankly I don't think will lead anywhere...

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 04:27 PM
Fair enough, for the flat universe, but I don't particularly see how your argument follows.

Since, we could have zero energy in a non flat universe too.

Well, in Cosmology, it's possible to define a reference frame which is "special" in a sense, at least if you assume the FRW metric for the universe (which is close to the true metric, but not exact). Essentially, it's the reference frame in which the CMB is stationary. And, in that frame, a flat universe will have zero energy.


I mean, I seriously hope you're not saying that energy is not conserved in General Relativity, because then this is gonna open a whole can of worms that quite frankly I don't think will lead anywhere...

It is conserved, but it's not Lorentz invariant.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 04:51 PM
Again, I'm not seeing how that matters. I mean, presumably you know the math of how you can get zero total energy, so I'm not seeing in there how your point...would mean that it wouldn't be zero.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 05:17 PM
Again, I'm not seeing how that matters. I mean, presumably you know the math of how you can get zero total energy, so I'm not seeing in there how your point...would mean that it wouldn't be zero.

Well, the total amount of energy depends on the frame in which you measure it in, and the whole point of Relativity is that no inertial frame is any more fundamental than any other inertial frame.

As a simple example, if you look at a single particle, then the amount of kinetic energy that particle possesses depends on its velocity, and the velocity depends on the frame.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 05:36 PM
Oh I see. Well let's take your single particle for example, since that's easier.

Certainly the kinetic energy of the particle depends on its velocity. And certainly the velocity depends on the frame.

But as we can see from the energy-momentum relation, given the invariant mass of the particle, if the particle now moves, certainly the total energy of the system increases, but now you must subtract from it the momentum of the particle.


So I still don't see how the fact that energy is lorentz invariant precludes the ability to meaningfully calculate the total energy of the universe...unless we're talking about two different nuance of energy, which I now suspect we are.

Techlet
September 9th, 2012, 05:38 PM
Don't think the world was made when Jesus died.

Of course it is! He died for our sins and something about curing leprosy and shit.

It's not like humans actually existed before God sent down his only son to the most illiterate part of the world to spread his teachings and act as a human sacrifice.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 05:56 PM
Oh I see. Well let's take your single particle for example, since that's easier.

Certainly the kinetic energy of the particle depends on its velocity. And certainly the velocity depends on the frame.

But as we can see from the energy-momentum relation, given the invariant mass of the particle, if the particle now moves, certainly the total energy of the system increases, but now you must subtract from it the momentum of the particle.

Erm, what?

The invariant mass of a particle isn't the energy of that particle. The energy is the energy of the particle....


So I still don't see how the fact that energy is lorentz invariant precludes the ability to calculate the total energy of the universe...unless we're talking about two different definition of energy, which I now suspect we are.

Well, if energy isn't Lorentz invariant, then the value you get depends on the frame in which you measure it....

In-N-Out Double-Double & Animal Fries
September 9th, 2012, 06:08 PM
We can't stop IRuN, not when someone on the internet is WRONG.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 06:11 PM
Erm, what?

The invariant mass of a particle isn't the energy of that particle. The energy is the energy of the particle....

But from that, the value is equivalent to the energy of the particle at rest, no matter how fast the particle moves, no matter which frame you're measuring it from.

I don't see why we'd care about anything other than that, for this purpose. It just seems...irrelevant.

Kieran
September 9th, 2012, 06:15 PM
Of course it is! He died for our sins and something about curing leprosy and shit.

It's not like humans actually existed before God sent down his only son to the most illiterate part of the world to spread his teachings and act as a human sacrifice.

Untrue - even the Bible admits that.

. . . I'm not a fan of religion in general (any religion), because every religion that came before it was considered just as valid at the time. However, in regards to the possibility of a Supreme Being or Intelligent Designer, I prefer to take the view of Ian Malcolm in Michael Crichton's "The Lost World": that the odds of every evolutionary adaptation necessary for current living conditions on Earth happening at random are akin to those of a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a working 747 - theoretically possible, but statistically unlikely.

Presumably, I'll find out the truth for myself when I finally pass on - and I can wait.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 06:17 PM
But from that, the value is equivalent to the energy of the particle at rest, no matter how fast the particle moves, no matter which frame you're measuring it from.

Erm, no, it's not.

The invariant says that E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2. In other words, the energy of the particle depends on the momentum (the invariant mass is indeed invariant) and, thus, is different depending on the frame you measure it in.

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 06:17 PM
If they seem "statistically unlikely" to you, I doubt that you grasp how incredibly fucking huge the universe is.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 06:19 PM
I prefer to take the view of Ian Malcolm in Michael Crichton's "The Lost World": that the odds of every evolutionary adaptation necessary for current living conditions on Earth happening at random are akin to those of a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a working 747 - theoretically possible, but statistically unlikely.

Lucky that we have an almost infinite number of "junkyards" for it to happen in then, isn't it...?

Also, that's a pretty big exageration and, further, it ignores the possibility of other conditions also supporting life.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 06:25 PM
Erm, no, it's not.

The invariant says that E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2. In other words, the energy of the particle depends on the momentum (the invariant mass is indeed invariant) and, thus, is different depending on the frame you measure it in.

Re-arranging that equation:

E^2 - p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4

Given p = 0 (and thus rest mass/energy):

E^2 = m^2 c^4

Or...E = mc^2


Or if you don't like that: Then look at the right side, then look at the left side.



However, in regards to the possibility of a Supreme Being or Intelligent Designer, I prefer to take the view of Ian Malcolm in Michael Crichton's "The Lost World": that the odds of every evolutionary adaptation necessary for current living conditions on Earth happening at random are akin to those of a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a working 747 - theoretically possible, but statistically unlikely.

That example has been thoroughly refuted. It's based on a very common misconception that evolution by natural selection is random.

In fact, it is very much not random. It's in the meaning of the words natural selection.

Things are built upon things, and selected and kept by natural pressure. A more accurate metaphor would be a sufficiently large junkyard (i.e. the Earth), getting hit by many tornadoes over the course of billions of years (the misconception causing random mutation/events), and then everything that confers an evolutionary advantage is kept through each iteration and built upon (natural selection).

Supposing you're looking at say a certain tower, how would you explain that tower being built by natural selection?

Well you say that if a block is placed at a certain spot, that block is then kept, and so on and on. Then you place blocks at random.

Evetually, if you place enough blocks, and if you have that selecting pressure, you're going to get that tower.

Of course, that is building towards a specific goal, while evolution by natural selection has none, but it demonstrates that the process isn't really all that random. It's just not design.

Techlet
September 9th, 2012, 06:31 PM
. . . I'm not a fan of religion in general (any religion), because every religion that came before it was considered just as valid at the time. However, in regards to the possibility of a Supreme Being or Intelligent Designer, I prefer to take the view of Ian Malcolm in Michael Crichton's "The Lost World": that the odds of every evolutionary adaptation necessary for current living conditions on Earth happening at random are akin to those of a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a working 747 - theoretically possible, but statistically unlikely.

Considering every species that's ever walked on earth (and presumably all with representatives that squeezed onto the Arc), it's not as statistically unlikely as one might think.

On the other hand, intelligent design is about as valid a theory as homeopathy is a pharmaceutical alternative.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 06:31 PM
Re-arranging that equation:

E^2 - p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4

Given p = 0:

E^2 = m^2 c^4

Or...E = mc^2

Erm, yeah, you're misunderstanding what E=mc2 actually means.

The "m" in E=mc2 is not the same as the m in the invariant. The m in the invariant is the rest mass of the particle, which is often written as m0, whereas the m in E=mc2 is the relativistic mass of the particle, which is defined as (1/(1-v2/c2)1/2)m0.

In fact, you can derive the invariant from E=mc2, using the definition of momentum and the definition of the relativistic mass.

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 06:33 PM
physics pls go

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 06:36 PM
The "m" in E=mc2 is not the same as the m in the invariant. The m in the invariant is the rest mass of the particle, which is often written as m0, whereas the m in E=mc2 is the relativistic mass of the particle, which is defined as (1/(1-v2/c2)1/2)m0

Given p = 0, v = 0.

(1/1) m_0 = m_0 = rest mass = invariant mass.

You'd find that the definition of the rest mass of a particle is the same as the invariant mass.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 06:37 PM
Given p = 0, v = 0.

1/1m_0 = m_0 = rest mass = invariant mass.

Yes, and?

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 06:40 PM
How do you suppose we reduced E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 to E = m c^2?

Or, in other words, what happened to the p?

The m in E = m c^2 is the rest mass is the invariant mass.

In fact, I don't even use relativistic mass...

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 06:41 PM
How do you suppose we reduced E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 to E = m c^2?

Or, in other words, what happened to the p?

What?

Did you actually read what I said before?

Both E=mc2 and the invariant apply regardless of what p is. The difference is that the definition of m in the two is not the same, except in the special case that the particle is stationary. Which is, in itself, frame dependant....

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 06:41 PM
Did you?

Oh I see your confusion. No, I read your post before your edit, but the point stands. m is the invariant mass.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 06:46 PM
Did you?

Oh I see your confusion. No, I read your post before your edit, but the point stands. m is the invariant mass.

Erm, no, it's not. The m in E=mc2 is not the rest mass, unless the particle is at rest (whereas the m in the invariant is the rest mass). If you honestly believe it is, then you need to go talk to whoever taught you Special Relativity, because they've not done a very good job of it....

Honestly, E=mc2 isn't that commonly used, for precisely this reason. It involves the relativistic mass, which isn't an overly-useful quantity, except in a conceptual sense (in particular, it's a good way of explaining why you can't travel faster than the speed of light to a layman).

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 06:48 PM
That makes no sense, because the m in E = m c^2 is the rest mass. Which is my point, of how do you think we got to E = m c^2 in the first place...

In fact, that's how you define the rest energy.

I really don't see where you're getting form E = m c^2 any sign that the particle is not at rest.

Tobias
September 9th, 2012, 06:50 PM
ITT; mathporn.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 06:52 PM
That makes no sense, because the m in E = m c^2 is the rest mass. Which is my point, of how do you think we got to E = m c^2 in the first place...

In fact, that's how you define the rest energy.

I really don't see where you're getting form E = m c^2 any sign that the particle is not at rest.

Actually, no, that's not true.

You can define E=mc2 even for a particle that isn't at rest, and doing so gives a sensible definition of the "mass". In particular, the mass you get from that is the same as the mass you use in the relativistic definition of momentum and, indeed, you can derive the invariant from the definition of E=mc2 that I gave.

However, if you're take E=mc2 to only apply to a particle at rest, then I don't see how it applies to a particle that isn't at rest, like here. The energy of that particle is frame-dependant, although there is a minimum possible energy that is given by the energy in the frame where the particle is not moving.

terraablaze
September 9th, 2012, 07:03 PM
I was expecting some of these arguments to happen a lot sooner, and some of these I never expected to see.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 07:04 PM
Well it doesn't apply to a particle that isn't at rest...because we're using the same symbol for different concept.

I mean, the definition of E=mc^2 I gave was of the rest mass, not of relativistic mass, so it doesn't apply to moving particles.

Certainly you can define it so that it does, but then it'd be different, indeed, by m_rel = m_o 1/(1-(v^2/c^2))^(1/2)

If you want, I can explicitly write it out to be:

Eo = mo c^2

Rest energy and rest mass.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 07:06 PM
Well it doesn't apply to a particle that isn't at rest...because we're using the same symbol for different concept.

I mean, the definition of E=mc^2 I gave was of the rest mass, not of relativistic mass, so it doesn't apply to moving particles.

Certainly you can define it so that it does, but then it'd be different, indeed, by m_rel = m_o 1/(1-(v^2/c^2))^(1/2)

Yeah, OK, then what's your point?

An equation which is defined only for particles at rest self-evidentially does not apply to a particle which is not at rest, like the one in my example....

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 07:15 PM
The point is, so what if energy is not invariant? That doesn't mean you can't calculate the total energy of the universe, by way of rest energy. Hence, ability to meaningfully calculate the total energy of the universe.

Crying_Vegeta
September 9th, 2012, 07:16 PM
WHY DID THIS THREAD GET SO BIG!

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 07:21 PM
The point is, so what if energy is not invariant? That doesn't mean you can't calculate the total energy of the universe, by way of rest energy. Hence, ability to meaningfully calculate the total energy of the universe.

No, because the rest energy isn't the total energy, it doesn't take into account motion, or gravity, or any other forms of energy.

For example, if you have two particles moving towards one another, then there is no frame in which the total energy is the combined rest energy of the two particles.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 07:26 PM
Obviously not, but you can account for the total kinetic energy in much the same way (metaphorically...)

Just put an observer at any arbitrary location and calculate the total kinetic energy w/ respect to him.

Same with gravitational potential energy.

Which, if you sum it all up, for certain assumptions, you get 0. (Well...within experimental errors.)

I mean, the math is pretty straightforward. I think the problem you have is with the methodology, in which case I suggest you just read a paper or two on how they actually calculate the total energy of the universe.



But just because energy is not invariant doesn't imply that you can't do the above, or that the above doesn't have any physical sense.

Crying_Vegeta
September 9th, 2012, 07:50 PM
Obviously not, but you can account for the total kinetic energy in much the same way (metaphorically...)

Just put an observer at any arbitrary location and calculate the total kinetic energy w/ respect to him.

Same with gravitational potential energy.

Which, if you sum it all up, for certain assumptions, you get 0. (Well...within experimental errors.)

I mean, the math is pretty straightforward. I think the problem you have is with the methodology, in which case I suggest you just read a paper or two on how they actually calculate the total energy of the universe.



But just because energy is not invariant doesn't imply that you can't do the above, or that the above doesn't have any physical sense.

Noh because inverse square law.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 07:52 PM
Obviously not, but you can account for the total kinetic energy in much the same way (metaphorically...)

Just put an observer at any arbitrary location and calculate the total kinetic energy w/ respect to him.

Same with gravitational potential energy.

Except that what they measure depends on what inertial frame they're in....


Which, if you sum it all up, for certain assumptions, you get 0. (Well...within experimental errors.)

I mean, the math is pretty straightforward. I think the problem you have is with the methodology, in which case I suggest you just read a paper or two on how they actually calculate the total energy of the universe.



But just because energy is not invariant doesn't imply that you can't do the above, or that the above doesn't have any physical sense.

The issue I have is that you're assuming there is some kind of "special" frame in which you can perform this measurement, which isn't really true.

Do you actually know what you're talking about here, or are you guessing based on something you read in a newspaper somewhere. Because I am actually a Cosmologist, so I've studied this stuff at beyond degree level.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 07:57 PM
I'm not assuming some kind of special frame, I'm using just any arbitrary frame. It's with respect to the arbitrary observer, that observer is at rest.

At this point, I'm more convinced that you haven't seen the calculations, just the general idea, and that's being generous to you. Being ungenerous, I'd say that you just don't understand the calculations.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 08:04 PM
I'm not assuming some kind of special frame, I'm using just any arbitrary frame. One frame is just as good as another, it doesn't matter which.

But that's quite simply not true because, as I said, energy is not Lorentz invariant.


At this point, I'm more convinced that you haven't seen the calculations, just the general idea, and that's being generous to you. Being ungenerous, I'd say that you just don't understand the calculations.

I've not seen the calculations, no, but it's not true that I don't understand the physics behind it. In fact, I'm pretty sure I understand the physics behind it far better than you do. It may be that the calculations make an assumption that you're missing because you don't really have a fucking clue what you're talking about and I'm not taking into account because I don't know it, but I'm absolutely certain that you cannot pick any arbitrary frame and have the energy come out the same.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 08:09 PM
I rest my case. Please come back when you've actually read what you're trying to argue against.

I can't tell you what you don't know because I don't know what you don't know, and I can't seem to understand what you don't know. It'd be better for all of us if you just...go look at the actual work...

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 08:13 PM
I rest my case. Please come back when you've actually read what you're trying to argue against.

I can't tell you what you don't know because I don't know what you don't know, and I can't seem to understand what you don't know. It'd be better for all of us if you just...go look at the actual work...

Have you read it?

Also, it's rather hard to read the paper when I don't know where the paper is....

eddyak
September 9th, 2012, 08:16 PM
that the odds of every evolutionary adaptation necessary for current living conditions on Earth happening at random are akin to those of a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a working 747 - theoretically possible, but statistically unlikely.
It's more like loads of tornadoes hitting a junkyard, and slapping together a rickety tower of junk. The parts of the tower that don't get ripped off it stay. The parts that do aren't fit to be there. Animals aren't exactly perfect- take a look at the human body. Half a dozen parts that are neither necessary (appendix, pancreas), nor have people even figured out what they were there for in the first place (shoulder blades). There are more things that can go wrong with your body than with a hundred satellite launches or space walks.


Presumably, I'll find out the truth for myself when I finally pass on
Or not, as the case may be.

RR121
September 9th, 2012, 08:17 PM
{Scrubbed}

Crying_Vegeta
September 9th, 2012, 08:18 PM
I have a 3rd degree in Burn studies

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 08:19 PM
Not that I actually disagree with you, since your actual science is...well, quite accurate, but proclaiming your credentials in the internet is about as relevant as peeing in the ocean.

Just saying.

Well, it's true, so I honestly couldn't care less what you think about it....

Oreo
September 9th, 2012, 08:20 PM
I've read through the comments in this thread, and I know now that you're all missing the point. God created science.

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 08:20 PM
Have you read it?

Also, it's rather hard to read the paper when I don't know where the paper is....

'It'?

Anyways, yes. And 'it' is easily publicly available on arxiv.

I'm going to assume that you also know how to search, but if you don't, try combinations of energy, total, universe, and calculations.

eddyak
September 9th, 2012, 08:22 PM
I've read through the comments in this thread, and I know now that you're all missing the point. God created science.
Unless humanity is one giant, twisted experiment, you are wrong, good sir.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 08:23 PM
'It'?

The paper.


Anyways, yes. And it is easily publicly available on arxiv.

I'm going to assume that you also know how to search, but if you don't, try combinations of energy, total, universe, and calculations.

I do know how to search, that doesn't mean I'm going to find the specific paper you're talking about. A link would be nice....

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 08:26 PM
I've read through the comments in this thread, and I know now that you're all missing the point. God created science.

I don't trust you, your only 2 friends are CV and a CV sockpuppet.

Are you a sockpuppet?

ratstsrub
September 9th, 2012, 08:28 PM
That's why I said 'it'. The calculations are not exactly the purview of a single author. I suppose I can find a paper on that subject for you, but you can do that too.

I mean, I don't particular care which calculation you see exactly, I just want you to actually look at any one to see if maybe that can help you understand how it's done better.

Crying_Vegeta
September 9th, 2012, 08:32 PM
Buster, you stil lhavent explained why you think I need a different account to post weird things when i still post weird things with this account.

- - - Updated - - -

And that person is only added as a friend because he/she allegedly lives in the same state as me because i'm shallow like that.

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 08:33 PM
You don't need a reason to do weird shit, though your ban list is piling up, so having a few sockpuppets around would mean you can ban evade easier :V

Them being super obvious makes the whole thing not only funnier for me but also for you.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 08:36 PM
You don't need a reason to do weird shit, though your ban list is piling up, so having a few sockpuppets around would mean you can ban evade easier :V

Exactly. Although, if the mods can prove it, then he's gone straight away....


Them being super obvious makes the whole thing not only funnier for me but also for you.

Yeah, they are somewhat obvious....

Crying_Vegeta
September 9th, 2012, 08:37 PM
You are just living in wishful thinking land. I'd never make it that easy for anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh good Sherlock fucking mike is on the case. boy you lot have me cornered now, i'm sure it'll be any moment before you solve this case

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 08:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHhMH3__74M

Randy Hamblast
September 9th, 2012, 08:44 PM
http://www.mofahaimages.com/b3ta/flanbase_in_smoking_gown.jpg

Crying_Vegeta
September 9th, 2012, 08:46 PM
I mean, come on. would I shoot myself in the foot THAT hard?

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 08:48 PM
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you'd cut your own dick off just so that you could superglue it to Darples head.

RR121
September 9th, 2012, 08:49 PM
{Scrubbed}

Randy Hamblast
September 9th, 2012, 08:49 PM
Why did you suddenly start talking about dicks?

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 08:50 PM
I'm also talking about superglue, why are you so fixated?

Heh, fixated, superglue, get it.

Mike1984
September 9th, 2012, 08:52 PM
Appeal to authority. That's what you be doing. Look into it.

Make your argument stand for itself, not with your credentials.

The thing is, when my credentials are directly relevant to the argument in question, it's not unreasonable to bring them up. I do know what I'm talking about, and I have a degree that says I do....

Crying_Vegeta
September 9th, 2012, 08:52 PM
It's suddenly all clear to me. This is that Clunge guy in #notes. The fact that you are the person showing up to "tie all this together" makes it seem like it's really just your sockpuppet which you are just using to harrass me or get me banned.

I3uster
September 9th, 2012, 08:55 PM
But you are that Clunge guy in #notes! And this is all part of your evil plan to destroy BL!
(Hell, he doesn't strictly have to be your sockpuppet anyway, maybe there is a community where people of equal retardation meet for reproductive purposes or something, but since it's THAT obvious atm I'm going with sockpuppet)

RR121
September 9th, 2012, 08:58 PM
{Scrubbed}

Break
September 9th, 2012, 09:38 PM
just read through the whole thread, and somehow you guys made me totally nostalgic mixed with a feelign similar to homesickness. the whoel thign reminded me so much of the discussions we used to have at dinner in my old boarding school...good times... too bad theyre over... *sniff*
not really contributing anythign to the discussion i know but i just kinda wanted to say it..

Crying_Vegeta
September 9th, 2012, 09:40 PM
Break that was the most coherent thing you've ever typed. Are you undrunk?

Counterguardian
September 10th, 2012, 04:14 AM
Huh, is physics our go-to science in this forum?

I mean sure, it makes sense seeing that every other field draws from it in one way or another, but a little more variety would be nice.


Regarding the original topic, I've got a feeling (well, that's the nice way to put it) that many people here haven't considered what a "belief" can imply. Believing the sky is psychedelically colored implies you believe everyone who ever looked at the sky is wrong. Believing in a deity that created humanity as-is also has implications and constraints on what your possible knowledge-space can contain in exactly the same way.

IRuN has the right idea by holding a God-of-the-Gaps view on the matter and he has my respect for it. There really isn't any other way to play if you want to play the game. Science has no compromise, that's the entire point of it.



Mold religion around science, don't try to force science to fit religion.

Mike1984
September 10th, 2012, 06:09 AM
Huh, is physics our go-to science in this forum?

I mean sure, it makes sense seeing that every other field draws from it in one way or another, but a little more variety would be nice.

Well, I think it just so happens that this forum has quite a few physicists. Which isn't really that surprising, given that physicists tend to be geekier than other scientists....


Mold religion around science, don't try to force science to fit religion.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Science and religion don't have to conflict provided you are willing to accept that science and not religion tells us how things happen, and if religion attempts to do so then you must ignore it if the two conflict. Religion exists primarily to answer moral questions, which science simply cannot do.

Break
September 10th, 2012, 06:28 AM
in my opinion, religion and science does indeed conflict unless you use your religiona as a kind of philosophy and not a belief. (and honeslty, thats probably the best and most sense-makign way to use science anyways). all the "religion x science" stuff is pretty much just sugarcoating things because you either cant let go of the beliefs you grew up with, or you are pandering to religious masses to not get frowned upon. or, as is probably the reason why now, in the most scientific age (yet), so many people start believing in the supernatural and stuff ranging from pretty coherent philosophy with some mysticism, up to completely nonsensical sects, you are subconsciosuly afraid of the prospect of your life beeing only such a tiny , microscopic part of the whole and therefore you believe because oyu search for comfort for your fear of mortality.

Crying_Vegeta
September 10th, 2012, 08:26 AM
New crack pairing lemon: Religion x Science

Bittersweet
September 10th, 2012, 10:53 AM
Ohh, what happened to my thread? ;_;

Why did this have to turn into a debate?

SeiKeo
September 10th, 2012, 10:59 AM
Ohh, what happened to my thread? ;_;

Why did this have to turn into a debate?

You posted an article about the intersection of science and religion on the internet, look upon ye works blah blah blah.

Mike1984
September 10th, 2012, 11:00 AM
Ohh, what happened to my thread? ;_;

Why did this have to turn into a debate?

Well, it's a pretty debate-worthy topic, and the title was always going to rile up any Creationists who might happen to be around....

Bittersweet
September 10th, 2012, 11:01 AM
But the topic was current events, a news article! You can't debate current events, they already happend.

SeiKeo
September 10th, 2012, 11:01 AM
I think the previous few pages beg to differ that you can't debate current events.

Mike1984
September 10th, 2012, 11:09 AM
But the topic was current events, a news article! You can't debate current events, they already happend.

You can't debate what did happened, but you can debate whether it should have happened.

Bittersweet
September 10th, 2012, 11:10 AM
I think the previous few pages beg to differ that you can't debate current events.


You can't debate what did happened, but you can debate whether it should have happened.

Hmm, I suppose you are both right. At any rate, it seems we are debating whether or not you can debate such a thing, and that's just silly.

Techlet
September 10th, 2012, 11:30 AM
Mass debate.

aldeayeah
September 10th, 2012, 11:50 AM
We're teaching the controversy *snicker*

Twelveseal
September 10th, 2012, 01:18 PM
I heard you liked debates, so I put a debate in your debate, so you can debate while you debate.
Meh. Yes, lame. I know.

Seika
September 10th, 2012, 01:46 PM
But you are that Clunge guy in #notes! And this is all part of your evil plan to destroy BL!
(Hell, he doesn't strictly have to be your sockpuppet anyway, maybe there is a community where people of equal retardation meet for reproductive purposes or something, but since it's THAT obvious atm I'm going with sockpuppet)

I'm saying sockpuppet just because I really want it to be true. Crying Vegeta being permabanned would improve my day/week/month immensely.

Mike1984
September 10th, 2012, 01:49 PM
I'm saying sockpuppet just because I really want it to be true. Crying Vegeta being permabanned would improve my day/week/month immensely.

I don't think he needs sockpuppets for that....

Bittersweet
September 10th, 2012, 02:06 PM
The way I see it is that we have two possibilities here. One of them is easy to deal with and the other one not so easy.

1. Crying Vegeta is using sockpuppets and he is just severely doing it wrong.

2. There are other people out there on the internet who are actually even _____er... (I'm really having a hard time finding the right adjective here, because I don't want to offend anyone, even if they are a less than reputable member of this forum) but basically there are people out there who are more of that. More of whatever CV is.

If we accept the first one, I can't shake the feeling that it's nothing more than the ostritch with its head in the sand approach to life.

Accepting the second is allowing yourself to take a walk down the Gen Urobuchi side of life.

Pick your poison.

Seika
September 10th, 2012, 04:42 PM
I don't think he needs sockpuppets for that....

Would speed it up, though.

Mike1984
September 10th, 2012, 04:46 PM
Would speed it up, though.

True.

Mcjon01
September 10th, 2012, 08:01 PM
You people are crazy, I hope CV never gets banned. Again.

Crying_Vegeta
September 10th, 2012, 10:02 PM
You people are crazy, I hope CV never gets banned. Again.

Awwwww, I hope you never get banned too, bud. ^_^

Kyte
September 11th, 2012, 01:39 AM
Pfff. The universe is just one big Sims game. Or maybe Dwarf Fortress. You know, with that world creator that makes the world seem old and lived-in even though it's brand new.

KAIZA
September 11th, 2012, 01:46 AM
Pfff. The universe is just one big Sims game.

Unless humanity is one giant, twisted experiment, you are wrong, good sir.
Shit, they're onto us! Quick, raise the Float!
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110822033802/villains/images/0/0f/Shadow_Hearts_screen_shoots_GOD.png
It's time to call the Meta-God...

The Curious Fan
September 11th, 2012, 02:28 AM
Meta-God was disappointingly easy, I didn't even have to use the high end fusions or overlevel to beat him.