Artificial Life Created

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Observation.



The idea comes from the observation of time, galaxies and the movement of the galaxies.



The big does not say the universe started then. We do not know how the universe started.

Correction. Atheists do not know how the universe started.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Correction. Atheists do not know how the universe started.

If it was that easy why wouldn't science just make something up and then claim we all knew what started the universe?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You don't understand Wicknight correctly.

I'm currently debating whether I will bother to correct the numerous misunderstandings in your post, I'll get back to you.

So are virtual particles a case of "Um, we don't know but we think it might be like this"?

Also, would the following quote be accurate? From http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/virtual.html

Virtual Particles

Virtual particles are a language invented by physicists in order to talk about processes in terms of the Feynman diagrams. These diagrams are a shorthand for a calculation that gives the probability of the process. The calculation is derived from quantum field theory.

Morbert

I notice the conversation has turned to quantum mechanics. I'm in berlin for the next while unfortunately but when I get back I'll infodump some stuff about quantum mechanics and virtual particles, and their relation to the 'beginning' of the universe.

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

The big does not say the universe started then. We do not know how the universe started.

Or indeed if there was a "start".

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Or indeed if there was a "start".

Really? So if there was no start then where are they getting the 13-15 billion year figure for the age of the universe?

Is is the 13-15 billion year stuff in fact science, or more a case of "Um, we don't know but we think it might have been like this"?

Nick Dolan

JimiTime wrote: »

No! how you get to the above is just ridiculous in the extreme.

from post no 556

Maybe you misunderstand. I am not saying that you start with an immovable conclusion. I'm saying you start with an idea, e.g. The world has a beginning. You don't set out to disregard anything that contradicts this, but rather use it as a starting point. If a creationist sets out with an immovable conclusion, then I would say that that is not science. However, it is ABSOLUTLEY SCIENTIFIC, to start out with the idea of a 6 day creation, and honestly look to create a model which can show this to be so. It will live or die scientifically, based on your ability to create an accurate model, NOT on where your initial idea came from.

so we have gone from the bible being authoritive to being hypothetical. And anyway dont most christians believe this anyway?

"Wisdom is a fountain of life to him who has it" - Proverbs 16:22


Ok Stealth, hands up, I googled it. Theres no way i can claim to be a biblical scholar

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So are virtual particles a case of "Um, we don't know but we think it might be like this"?

More like this testable model of virtual particles explains the observations pretty accurately.

PDN wrote: »

Also, would the following quote be accurate? From http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/virtual.html

Yes, some what. Virtual particles are inferred from interactions with real particles. They are by themselves undetectable.

As this quote puts it

Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing" (vacuum fields conceptually analogous to lines of force between magnetic poles) for extremely short periods of time and then disappear again. Such particles permeate space, mediate particle decay, and mediate the exchange of the fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong, and—in accord with quantum theory—gravititational forces). Virtual particles are real and have measurable effects, but the same uncertainty principle that allows them to come into existence dictates that they cannot be directly observed.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html

The term "virtual particle" is used in the same sense as "dark matter"

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Really? So if there was no start then where are they getting the 13-15 billion year figure for the age of the universe?

Is is the 13-15 billion year stuff in fact science, or more a case of "Um, we don't know but we think it might have been like this"?

"Start" doesn't make much sense if time doesn't exist.

BTW Um, we don't know but we think it might have been like this is a flippant but some what accurate description of science. Science never proves anything and thus cannot say for 100% certainty that any theory or model is true. It only tests and refines models of phenomena to see if what we think is happening can match observed results, thus increasing the accuracy of the model.

Which beats the heck out of "This is the infallible word of God"

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

If it was that easy why wouldn't science just make something up and then claim we all knew what started the universe?

Well I thought science did make stuff up sometimes

Not to mention the "science" stuff you see on food packaging. There is bad science out there and there are marketing departments.

I think you question may indeed be better directed at the marketing department althought I'm pretty sure they'll tell you there is no money going that route.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

BTW Um, we don't know but we think it might have been like this is a flippant but some what accurate description of science. Science never proves anything and thus cannot say for 100% certainty that any theory or model is true. It only tests and refines models of phenomena to see if what we think is happening can match observed results, thus increasing the accuracy of the model.

So science has not yet proved that the earth is spherical.
Can you also confirm that evolution is still a theory and not a fact.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

More like this testable model of virtual particles explains the observations pretty accurately.

Hmm, I'm worried that I might be detecting a whiff of BS in the air.

So the model "explains things pretty accurately", but you can't say whether it's true or not because the virtual particles are not real particles and have only been invented in order to talk about processes in diagrams which are themselves shorthand for a calculation that has been drawn from a theory?

In fact, could it be the case that this model might ultimately prove to be as real as some of Newton's models that were ultimately dumped in favour of Einstein's models?

Nevertheless, this model that has been invented to talk about processes in diagrams that are shorthand for a calculation that has been drawn from a theory is actual science, rather than saying "Um, we don't know but we think it might be like this?"

Am I doing OK so far?

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

So science has not yet proved that the earth is spherical.

And I wondered why you didn't understand the words theory, fact and hypothesis :rolleyes:

No, science has not proven the Earth is spherical. You know why ? Because its NOT spherical. The best answer we have for the shape of the Earth is its an oblate ellipsoid.

People use to think the Earth was flat. Were they right ? No.
People then said the Earth was round. Were they right ? No. But they were 'less wrong' then the people before.
Then scientists more accurately measured it and came out with an oblate ellipsoid, because the Earth is flattened at the poles. Is this 'proven' ? No of course not. Its the best answer we currently have. Its 'less wrong' then the people before.

Science gives us the best possible answer according to the evidence at hand. Nothing in science is 'proven'. If you want proof you have to go to Maths.

Another simple example. How long is it from my house to the nearest shop ?
100 metres. Is that right ? No because I measured it and its actually 101.1 metres. Is that 'right' ? No because someone else measured it and got 101.12321111 metres. Is that 'right' ? No, because a scientist came and measured it and got 101.123213214231423121234112231223231323 metres ? Is that 'right' ? No. Its the 'best' answer we currently have.

Can you also confirm that evolution is still a theory and not a fact.

Evolution is a theory and a fact just like gravity is a theory and a fact.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So the model "explains things pretty accurately", but you can't say whether it's true or not because the virtual particles are not real particles and have only been invented in order to talk about processes in diagrams which are themselves shorthand for a calculation that has been drawn from a theory?

Please see my post regarding science and 'truth'. In science nothing is ever proven 100%, its not possible.

In fact, could it be the case that this model might ultimately prove to be as real as some of Newton's models that were ultimately dumped in favour of Einstein's models?

I think your familiar with dark matter aren't you ? Do you think its 'not real' ?

"Um, we don't know but we think it might be like this?"

Everything, every single thing without exception in science is "We don't know, but we think its this".

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

And I wondered why you didn't understand the words theory, fact and hypothesis :rolleyes:

No, science has not proven the Earth is spherical. You know why ? Because its NOT spherical. The best answer we have for the shape of the Earth is its an oblate ellipsoid.

People use to think the Earth was flat. Were they right ? No.
People then said the Earth was round. Were they right ? No. But they were 'less wrong' then the people before.
Then scientists more accurately measured it and came out with an oblate ellipsoid, because the Earth is flattened at the poles. Is this 'proven' ? No of course not. Its the best answer we currently have. Its 'less wrong' then the people before.

Science gives us the best possible answer according to the evidence at hand. Nothing in science is 'proven'. If you want proof you have to go to Maths.

Another simple example. How long is it from my house to the nearest shop ?
100 metres. Is that right ? No because I measured it and its actually 101.1 metres. Is that 'right' ? No because someone else measured it and got 101.12321111 metres. Is that 'right' ? No, because a scientist came and measured it and got 101.123213214231423121234112231223231323 metres ? Is that 'right' ? No. Its the 'best' answer we currently have.



Evolution is a theory and a fact just like gravity is a theory and a fact.

well, as long as evolution is not proven I'm fine with that.

I prefer it as a theory that can be pulled apart, like how did sex evolve and how does evolution know when to produce one of each sex of a new species is such a way that interactions with closer but not the same species cannot yield either progeny or fertile progeny.

Like with horses and donkeys. They are equus and can mate but all or most progeny are infertile.

And does it produce enough of the new species in twos such that incest is not required. What are the probabilities required for the appearance of sufficient numbers. Maybe one male and 10 females perhaps? If evolution knows how to do this it is really clever don't you think?

Unless sex evolution is a fact too...

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

BTW Um, we don't know but we think it might have been like this is a flippant but some what accurate description of science. Science never proves anything and thus cannot say for 100% certainty that any theory or model is true. It only tests and refines models of phenomena to see if what we think is happening can match observed results, thus increasing the accuracy of the model.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So science has not yet proved that the earth is spherical.
Can you also confirm that evolution is still a theory and not a fact.

Sorry Wicknight, I have to ask my question again having been ticked off for not being perfectly scientifically accurate with my use of technical english.

So science has not yet proved that the earth is an oblate ellipsoid. Is this correct?

Or maybe I should ask have we not proven that the earth is not flat.

Can you also confirm that many elements of evolution are still only theory.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Please see my post regarding science and 'truth'. In science nothing is ever proven 100%, its not possible.

So the theory of evolution is not 100% proven then. Hence, there is a possibility the theory might be wrong. Like Dawkins probability that there might be a God. Apologies, I don't read much of him but I believe he gave God an outside chance.

So there is always the possibility that there is a God and that evolution might not be a fact, or a theory.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

well, as long as evolution is not proven I'm fine with that.

Waste of time talking to you isn't it ?

I prefer it as a theory that can be pulled apart, like how did sex evolve and how does evolution know when to produce one of each sex of a new species is such a way that interactions with closer but not the same species cannot yield either progeny or fertile progeny.

I'm not going to bother correcting you here because you've demonstrated you have no intention of listening and I don't want to waste my time.

Just understand what you've just said is one of the stupidest things I've heard anywhere outside of the creationism thread.

Like with horses and donkeys. They are equus and can mate but all or most progeny are infertile.

And does it produce enough of the new species in twos such that incest is not required. What are the probabilities required for the appearance of sufficient numbers. Maybe one male and 10 females perhaps? If evolution knows how to do this it is really clever don't you think?

This is so ignorant I'd go so far as to suggest your trolling.

Nick Dolan

StealthRolex wrote: »

well, as long as evolution is not proven I'm fine with that.

Oy Vey! Glad I brought a tin opener to this thread Im sure theres another thread somewhere, check out the greatest show on earth by Dawkins, its just evolution stuff not so much of the anti religious stuff.

This 100% proveable is nonsence. Better not buy cat food ,cos theres a slim chance it will have turned into a dog by tomorrow.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Sorry Wicknight, I have to ask my question again having been ticked off for not being perfectly scientifically accurate with my use of technical english.

So science has not yet proved that the earth is an oblate ellipsoid. Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct (leaving aside that the Earth is actually a close approximation to an oblate ellipsoid, but I knew what you mean)

StealthRolex wrote: »

Can you also confirm that many elements of evolution are still only theory.

All evolution is a theory. Not sure what you mean by "only". Only compared to what.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Everything, every single thing without exception in science is "We don't know, but we think its this".

That's what I thought up until 2 days ago, but Wicknight was very insistent that science doesn't say that at all (post #394 in this thread).

Maybe the two of you can sort out between yourselves what science is or is not? Then at least when we talk about science we'll all be using an agreed definition.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, that is correct (leaving aside that the Earth is actually a close approximation to an oblate ellipsoid, but I knew what you mean)

Funnily enough it was only four weeks ago that I visited Mitad del Mundo in Ecuador where the French Geodesic Mission did all the measurements that demonstrated that the earth's circumference is greater at the equator than when measured through the poles. This led, rather inescapably, to the conclusion that the earth is flattened at the poles.

They had a fascinating little museum there that showed how they calculated it all. Of course I didn't understand most of it at all.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, to try and clear this up, can you answer me this.

The scientist reads about this in the Bible and says I'm going to explore this scientifically. What precisely is he exploring? What does he test or model?


You "misunderstood" that my problem was I want to redefine science to exclude the religious?



How does one explore an abstract idea with the scientific method, ie an idea that does not relate back to any current observable phenomena. How does one test this?

You appear to be saying that religious curiosity can inspire people to go looking for observable phenomena. Fine. But that isn't science, and it is particularly unhelpful to have a pre-conceived notion in your head when you go into science as to where you think this observable phenomena comes from.



Not science.

It is really that simple. What you are describing is not science. From the point where there is an observable phenomena then it is science but once you have an unexplained observable phenomena you don't need any of the other bits. No one has ever had trouble finding things that are unexplained.

I really just want to walk away from this WN, as I appear to be hitting the Wickie Wall. Here is what Sam said earlier:

Science and faith can be a very harmonious relationship only as long as the scientist does not accept anything on faith. Trusting god's word is what religion is about, investigating things, be it something that is claimed to be god's word or not, is science.


I agree with this, and is pretty much behind what I have been saying. If I follow the scientific method to investigate something, WHEREVER THE IDEA TO INVESTIGATE IT CAME FROM, then I am engaged in science. THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING.

jimitime over and out, if you don't get it, I give up.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Really? So if there was no start then where are they getting the 13-15 billion year figure for the age of the universe?

Is is the 13-15 billion year stuff in fact science, or more a case of "Um, we don't know but we think it might have been like this"?

Yup. Really! Time began (well, er, it emerged from space) all those billions of years ago. To say the universe had a beginning back then is a little iffy. Time began, but does that actually mean the universe did? The mind boggles.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

That's what I thought up until 2 days ago, but Wicknight was very insistent that science doesn't say that at all (post #394 in this thread).

Right this is probably my fault so let me try and correct it. I was very simplistic in my last post.

I said "We don't know, but we think its this". Now last night when my wife called me and asked what time I was coming home I said "I don't know but I think around 4" to which my wife replied angrily relaying previous instances of predictions of the time of my homeward bound journey with displeasure.

To which I responded "Given the current conditions of my wallet, given my not so drunken state and given the likelihood of a reprimand from yourself should I fail to appear at the appointed hour, I can say with 99% certainty given this evidence, that I will be home at 4."

I think there are two different discussions going on here and I've mixed them up. When I said science doesn't 'know' I meant quite simply that science (at least the kinds we're discussing) cannot be proven 100%, its not possible.

From wikipedia; Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.

Scientific theories are falsifiable, they are not provable.

Some things in science, such as theories, are so overwhelmingly supported by evidence that the likelihood of them been wrong is minuscule, but parts of them can be wrong and corrected.

For example, evolution says that organisms change through genetic drift over generations. The likelihood of that been false is unimaginably small but we still cannot say with 100% certainty that it is absolutely 100% true.

Parts of evolution such as the processes are tweaked and corrected all the time. Thats the very cornerstone of science.

So when I said "We think its this" I meant, "We think its this based on this evidence, these experimentations and these observations" but we cannot be 100% certain.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Really? So if there was no start then where are they getting the 13-15 billion year figure for the age of the universe?

Is is the 13-15 billion year stuff in fact science, or more a case of "Um, we don't know but we think it might have been like this"?

The 13-15 billion year age for the universe as we know it. What happened 'before' the big Bang we don't know and as has been pointed out, 'before' the big bang is not really a correct term.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Right this is probably my fault so let me try and correct it. I was very simplistic in my last post.

I said "We don't know, but we think its this". Now last night when my wife called me and asked what time I was coming home I said "I don't know but I think around 4" to which my wife replied angrily relaying previous instances of predictions of the time of my homeward bound journey with displeasure.

To which I responded "Given the current conditions of my wallet, given my not so drunken state and given the likelihood of a reprimand from yourself should I fail to appear at the appointed hour, I can say with 99% certainty given this evidence, that I will be home at 4."

I think there are two different discussions going on here and I've mixed them up. When I said science doesn't 'know' I meant quite simply that science (at least the kinds we're discussing) cannot be proven 100%, its not possible.

From wikipedia; Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.

Scientific theories are falsifiable, they are not provable.

Some things in science, such as theories, are so overwhelmingly supported by evidence that the likelihood of them been wrong is minuscule, but parts of them can be wrong and corrected.

For example, evolution says that organisms change through genetic drift over generations. The likelihood of that been false is unimaginably small but we still cannot say with 100% certainty that it is absolutely 100% true.

Parts of evolution such as the processes are tweaked and corrected all the time. Thats the very cornerstone of science.

So when I said "We think its this" I meant, "We think its this based on this evidence, these experimentations and these observations" but we cannot be 100% certain.

I know, and that's what I was saying two days ago. But then I was told I was wrong and don't understand science.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

The 13-15 billion year age for the universe as we know it. What happened 'before' the big Bang we don't know and as has been pointed out, 'before' the big bang is not really a correct term.

Or, more accurately, you don't know if its the correct term or not. But some people think it isn't.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Or, more accurately, you don't know if its the correct term or not. But some people think it isn't.

We're pretty sure time was created with the big bang which we're pretty sure happened so we're pretty sure its not the correct term.

This is why there are so many misunderstandings in science, when I hear people say things like "evolution is just a theory". The ignorance it takes to come out with a statement like that :rolleyes:

In normal language "I think" can be pulled out of your rear-end. In science "I think" better have a lot of evidence backing it up or its meaningless and will be ignored.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

We're pretty sure time was created with the big bang which we're pretty sure happened so we're pretty sure its not the correct term.

Who is this 'we' you speak of? (as Tonto replied to the Lone Ranger's comment that '"we're in trouble" when surrounded by a thousand Indians)

These guys aren't as sure as you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440217.stm

Meanwhile, Professor Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."

Maybe Sean Carroll (who happens to be a pretty outspoken atheist btw) doesn't understand science? Heck, next he'll be saying that evolution is just a theory.