Home  \  Off Topic  \  Logic

I want to know if someone can answer this simple logic question:

Most men are mortal
Jeff is a man
Therefore he is mortal

Next one for those who judge if there is a God or not:

How was the universe created, was it just there when life started or was there a creator behind it, which one seems more logical?

posted by  99integra

That there's a god.

posted by  Pythias

ok well the first one isnt even a question but a statement, as for the universe one, what do they mean was it just there when life started and what life do you refer to?

maybe you should read more about the big bang theory, or a brief history of time by stephen hawking.

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

The first one is not necessarilly true, it says most men are mortal, so he might not be.

The universe was created through the compression of all of the elements, which once it got so compressed, it exploded, and chunks were flying everywhere, and they would join together, and formed planets, and stars...But how it got there is the mystery...There probably is a God. I for one believe in a greater being, which may not have any control over our lives, but started the entire thing.

posted by  chris_knows

Its not a statement, read it again :wink2:
And no my point is doesn't it sound more logical to have someone to create this world other than some "big bang"?

posted by  99integra

Really? Then perhaps you could explain to me how your God got there in the first place. If the appearance of matter to compress is impossible to believe, how is a powerful entity?

Basically; what caused God to exist?

The belief of the matter causing itself to exist or being a brute fact is just as logical as a greater being creating it.

posted by  Godlaus

Logic would say that given the statistical probability of "something from nothing", there must be a "something" whether one believes it is the Judeo-Christian God...or just "something".

I lean towards the former.

posted by  BavarianWheels

And what caused that 'something'? And then, that 'something', and then that 'something', etc. etc.

This question was never meant to be solved, so let's just drop it.

posted by  Godlaus

There is no way to prove it, and part of me knows it's not possible, but I think it's human nature to have something to believe in...I've been raised to believe in God, and the Bible, and although I don't believe in the Bible, I do believe in God...

Which makes me wonder...what happens when you die? :screwy: I've gone into phases thinking for hours what happens, because heaven forever would probably get boring, rebirth I've sat and tried to remember my previous life but nothing, and what happens...does your brain just stop? What does it feel like? I've passed many a class like that through the years...

posted by  chris_knows

I agree...especially in a forum dominated by pre-pubescent derelicts of which most wouldn't understand the complexity of the universe...much less it's beginning.

posted by  BavarianWheels

In my opinion, it all depends on which side you believe in. There are 2 popular theories. One theory is scientific. This theory is the "bing bang" theory. I don't know the exact details, as it doesn't really interest me, but I'm guessing most science books in the topic of evolution will have it as would a simple google search.

The second option is the "religious" aspect. This aspect claims that there is a G-d who created the universe. I know a bit more about this aspect, but don't see a need to get into detail. In terms of how G-d actually got there, studying religion would definetely answer that question.

In the end, it all depends which side you want to choose, if any. Also, I don't see the point in discussing something as complex as this on a car-forum...

posted by  Nissan_Altima

I believe in God. Always have.

posted by  hondaman

Frankly, i don't care why we are here or how we appeared. Some think its coincidence, some think its because of a supreme power, some think science will eventually be able to explain it.

Who cares? If science truly does explain it, then maybe we stand to benefit from that information. Until then, its pointless to argue over it.

posted by  importluva

Apparently, you've never been bored :mrgreen: .

posted by  Godlaus

I've heard this argument a lot. "since there's a painting, there must be a painter" being applied to everything. and god is just assumed to be the creator.

Religion isn't meant to be logical. thats why its based on faith. it's about the simplest answer, and questioning it is sin.

posted by  shev

Can't say much on the topic of 'God'. Although i go to a Catholic school and have to take Religion, i dont care for it and have never gone through any of the steps to becoming Catholic or whatever, i've just had to go to the school.

I must say though, theres time i do belive in 'God', and theres times i dont (like when nothing seems to good how you plan and it seems your unimportant and worthless). I doubt anyone will ever be at liberty to say what really happened and what will later happen, better off wasting time dreaming about girls or cars then the beginning of life.

posted by  car_crazy89

I just wanted to see others opinions and have them think about this a little, and I know its a Car Forum but its in off topic, which means and I quote "Anything other than vehicles"

posted by  99integra

I believe in the Big Bang theory. Makes some sense after all it is only a theory not fact. Same with the Superior being creating the universe, just a belief. Religion was created by Man and Man created God to explain things they could not. Science is based in fact and can prove things. I'm not sure if we will ever know but this topic will continue to be discussed.

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

Science cannot prove ANYTHING. For it to be able to prove anything, you would have to test every law in every possible situation that it could ever apply to, which would be impossible. For example, Science had "proved" that the Borh model of an atom was, in fact, an acurate representation of an atom. But scientists have discovered that it cannot be completely accurate, and they have something now called the quantum mechanical model. So every scientific law ever created could potentially be overthrown, and science cannot prove anything. It can give us reasonably good assumtions of what certain things are and of their properties, etc., but it cannot actually PROVE anything.

Also, man didn't create God, man created gods, but apparently we're not supposed to talk about that subject so I'll keep quiet.

posted by  jedimario

Ah but it can. Science proved gravity existed. It proved the earth was round without traversing the globe. It proved we orbit the sun instead as early christians believed the universe circled around us. So yes it can PROVE things if you think about it, it Proved a lot of things. Borh's model is still correct it just didnt encompass all of the atom. The new model, which is not called the quantum mechanics model, describes the atom on even smaller level. It just builds on the Borh model. Please give more examples if you are going to make such a claim as "Science cannot prove ANYTHING"

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

There is a lot to a theory, it may not be fact, but its not a hypothesis. science is always finding new things, and disproving other things. but youre right, nothing really is ever "set in stone" with science. even laws can be rewritten.

Take evolution for example. it is only a theory, but there is a lot of evidence backing this theory up, a lot of work by many people have gone into it. right now it makes the most sense. sure there are gaps in it, but.... its just not finished. so why not have intelligent design taught in science class? because there isnt really much science behind it, its not really even a theory.

kind of funny how someone can be against something so broad and it's not really even defined to them.

"science" is really just trying to better understand the world around us is all.

posted by  shev

Technicall the universe does orbit around the Earth, but then again it orbits around everything, as it never ends...so everywhere would be the middle...mindboggling :tard:

posted by  chris_knows

It does not orbit the earth. If it does then why do we orbit the sun with eight other planets. In turn our solar system orbits around the center of the galaxy. Our galaxy does not orbit around anything. So it techinically does not orbit around the earth. :thumbs:

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

See...no basic understanding.

The universe, according to science, is expanding out from the point of the BB...wherever that point may be...

I'm gonna post something from a book I read a while back...I'll have to type it out, but it's good...concerning the "logic" of the universe.

posted by  BavarianWheels

Look forward to it.

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

Yes, it is... you said "he is mortal", not "is he mortal?".

What about this one (for all you Simpsons diehards out there):

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

[EDIT]: On the topic of all this orbiting guff .... has anyone heard of a relative frame of reference?

posted by  windsonian

It was supposed to sound like a statement not a question :wink2:

posted by  99integra

This is from a book called, "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder

What does it take to make a brain? It takes a big bang producing a universe guided by laws of nature somehow tuned to lead energy into rocks and water on a user-friendly planet that can take those rocks and water and change them into a marvelously complex, data-crunching, algorithmic, sound-, sight-, touch-, and smell-sensitive wonder capable of processing thousands of inputs in parallel with a cycling time of thirty-thousandths of a second. When contemplating the amazing complexity of the human life form, don’t just think of the entire body encased in a smooth flexible layer of skin. The skin hides the wonder within the body, just as visible nature masks the metaphysical within which it is embedded.

Think of the inner workings. Think triple-layered cell membranes with voltage and protein-regulated channels for getting nutrients in and products out. Think RNA polymerase receiving a signal from some remote region and then searching for and opening just the correct spot on the three-billion-nucleotide-long helix of DNA, pulling complementary nucleotides from solution to produce mRNA that, when transported out of the nucleus, will find a ribosome that will decode it, pulling molecules of tRNA bearing just the right amino acid out of the twenty variations of amino acids in the cytoplasm, all at fifty shots a second. Think motor molecules carrying their protein cargoes step over step along microtubules. Golgi apparatus, neurotransmitters, and more and more. Multiply that complexity by a billion written out a hundred times for the brain alone, and then for each of those hundred billion nerves, sketch out a thousand axon/dendrite synapses.

The wind blows and thousands of leaves shimmer in the sun. Your eye sees them all. A million, more probably a billion, ion channels opening and closing along the ganglia of a million optic nerves leading from retina to thalamus and on to the visual cortex, cycling thirty times a second, as bioelectric signals, the information that records the motion of each of those leaves, reach into your brain. A myriad of chemical reactions, all in parallel, simultaneously recording the data.

Trees, eyes, the brain, from inert rocks and water via dumb unthinking random reactions? Logic alone tells you it could not have happened by chance. But the materialist superstition of our culture, the idea that if you can’t measure it, it’s not there, insists that chance be the explanation. And once a fact is imprinted on a mind, like the song a sparrow learns in its youth, that fact is yours for life. Believe it or no!

And yet here we are. A small part of a vast universe thinking about its origins, rummaging through steamer trunks in the attic of space and brain, trying to find the meaning of that which we call the mind.

~ Gerald L. Schroeder Ph.D.

posted by  BavarianWheels

THey've already proven amino acids (the building blocks of life) could be created in the atmosphere at the time with the stanley miller experiment. it used the same gases believe to be here at the time, and a spark to represent lightning.

Over the billions of years, with just the slightest of changes every year, its entirely posible (and yes amazing) that something as complex as the human eye can come to be.

posted by  shev

That's pretty sweet, and will keep me thinking about it for the next week or so...

You didn't get it...the Earth orbits the sun, but that does not mean that the universe orbits the sun. The universe has no end...which I can't see possible...but a wall is even less likely. Our galaxy orbits around the universe, and as far as my knowledge goes a solar system is a galaxy...

posted by  chris_knows

Well then your knowledge is limited. Solar systems involve planets orbiting a star, two stars, or a blackhole. A galaxy is a system of these solar systems and stars. If our galaxy orbits around the universe then the universe must be quite small for our galaxy to orbit around the universe. Our galaxy as well as many others move within the universe.

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

Then why did you say "it's not a statement, read it again"?

posted by  windsonian


posted by  99integra

Let me re-cap:

99teg: "can anyone answer this question "
someonelese: "that's not a question it's a statement"
99teg: "no it isn't, read it again"
me: "no, it is a statement"
99teg: "it was meant to be a statement"
me: "then why did you say it wasn't a statement"

... now I see why you're scratching your head. I don't what you meant either.

posted by  windsonian


back on topic.... if we're all gods children, whats so special about jesus?

posted by  shev

That was so stupid a question I'll let someone else answer. :sleep:

posted by  Pythias

Maybe if you travel far enough in the universe, eventually you find yourself in the same spot you started. Kinda like in the game Asteroids!

posted by  Mathew

That was "so" stupid [of] a response I'll give you the finger :fu:

posted by  shev

Will you explain to me exactly HOW it has proved these things? And excuse me, it's the quantum mechanical model. And Bohr's model is completely incorrect on the orbit or electrons around the nucleus according to the quantum mechanical model.

As for another example, have you ever heard of the theory of spontaneous generation? If you went to/are in public school, probably not. Let me take an excerpt from a chemistry textbook(It'll go ahead and prove that science can't prove anything while it's at it)-

"The way scientists develop law is through experimentation and observation. After experimenting on or observing some facet of nature, scientists formulate a hypothesis to explain some aspect of the world around us. For example, when early scientists observed rotting meat, they always saw maggots crawling around on it. This led them to form the hypothesis that maggots are created from rotting meat.

Once a hypothesis has been formulated, scientists test it with more rigorous experiments. For example, after forming the hypothesis that maggots were created from rotting meat, early scientists did experiments to make sure that the maggots were not coming from something else. They would put rotting meat on a shelf high in the air to make sure that no maggot could crawl up to it. Even when the rotting meat was put high in the air, maggots still appeared on it. To early scientists, such experiments confirmed their hypothesis. Despite the fact that there was no way for maggots to crawl up to the rotting meat, they did indeed appear on it. Many similar experiments convinced early scientists that their original hypothesis was correct.

Once a hypothesis is confirmed by more rigorous experimentation, it is considered a theory. Early scientists called their theory "the theory of spontaneuos generation." As the centuries passed, many mor experiments were done to test the theory. Those experiments seemed to support the idea that life, such as maggots, can be created from non-life, such as rotting meat. After centuries of such experiments, the theory of spontaneuos generation was considered scientific law.

So we see that scientific law is really nothing more than an educated guess that has been confirmed over and over again by experimentation. The problem with putting too much faith in a scientific law is that the experiments which established it might be flawed, making the scientific law itself flawed.

Such was the case with the law of spontaneous generation. All of the experiments done to confirm this law were flawed. Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, showed that if you were careful to completely isolate the rotting meat from the outside world, no maggots would appear. Those who believed in the law of spontaneuos generation, however, were slow to give up faith in it. They believed that although maggots did not appear spontaneously on rotting meat, microscopic organisms did. The great French scientist Louis Pasteur performed careful experiments that finally overturned the law of spontaneuos generation. His work showed that even microscopic organisms could not arise from non-life, but can to the meat by dust particles that blew in the wind."

Exploring Creation With Chemistry, 2nd Edition; Dr. Jay L. Wile

posted by  jedimario

I'm not sure this is the topic...and besides...this is not the forum to discuss specific religions. The "God" question is a broad subject in relation to the universe and its beginning.

If you want the answer your specific question, there are countless Christian forums that will help you in finding an answer.

posted by  BavarianWheels

It's quite solvable, the problem is we quantify things in time, direction, mass, volume, etc as either scalar or vector. We consider things are finite because of the boundaries placed on us by our physical constraints = we are inside looking out through a very restricted portal

posted by  Wally

jedimario, nothing is written in stone. remember science is just trying to better understand things. besisdes, religion isnt completely seperated from science. religion in europe believed in spontaneus generation, and the geocentric theory because it had to do with god. geocentirc ideas were promoted by the church because it gave a place where god existed. and if you thought anything otherwie you were called a heretic. right around that, slightly afterwards, the scientific revolution occurred, and europe started becoming more secular. the scientific revolution provided a way to conduct experiments and such. you cant really judge science by things pre-scientifc revolution days.

"Will you explain to me exactly HOW it has proved these things?"

Ok, when you look out at the ocean there is a horizon, a vanishing point, so i hypothesize the world must be round. well we fly out to space and what do you know, the world is round. but later, we could find out its not round, maybe it's an octagon or oval.

bav.... it was a joke. (and a damn funny one if I do say so myself.)

posted by  shev

That doesn't mean science doesn't prove anything. You have to define "prove".

The whole point of "scientific law" as you call it, is that if something can't be disproved, then it's probably right.

Nothing, science/religion etc included, is infallible. If you take the hard line that because science isn't 100% certain it doesn't prove anything, then you could do the same for anything. The only reason that science cops it is because it's suppose to be hard and fast, black and white, whereas other theories (creation etc) are supposed to be abstract, therefore they are more difficult to disprove.

posted by  windsonian

I think something needs to be said here....

No one is asking you to convert. You, by choice, are what you want to be. So let's not become arrogant by trying to judge what others believe, ok?

posted by  hondaman

Well I beleive that there is indeed something that's infallible and perfect, but it's completely based on faith and completely illogical and unscientific, but that's the whole point of faith.

posted by  jedimario

That's the whole point ... it's faith, not black and white. I don't think you should say that something else is wrong because it doesn't conclusively prove something when you're basing your belief on faith. Just so you know, I have my faith too, but I'm not stupid enough (not that I'm saying you're stupid) to think that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

posted by  windsonian

It seems to me that some of you are confusing plain faith...with blind faith.

I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. That is faith based on scientific evidence that the earth spins on it's axis and also revolves around the sun.

But something cosmic could change that. My faith is based on a "track record"...so being the kind of faith spoken of in regard to religion.

posted by  BavarianWheels

Shit I haven't been to church since I was 10

posted by  99integra

But my faith forces me to believe this Thing is perfect, if It isn't, then my faith is based on something completely false. And that faith isn't causing me to think someone is wrong, the only person I think is wrong here is Sgt. Pepper(or anyone else) when he said science can prove things. My belief that that isn't true is based solely on how the scientific method works. As for the Big Bang, I don't know how God created the universe, I just know that he did. There very well could have been a big bang.

posted by  jedimario

a solar system is NOT a galaxy. a galaxy is a conjuction of stars and planets and everything in its range.

anyhow, glad to see im not the only one who has given this some thought. i had a talk with my dad-in-law about this some time ago. obviously, he went the full scientific way, and i went ahead and gave my hypothesis about science and religion combining and making the ultimate power.

so.... let me put the same example i did to him.

where did volcanos come from?

from a conjunction of dried up molten rock.

where did that molten rock come from?

from rocks somewhere near the center of the earth.

and where did the center of the earth come from?

in theory, from a specific chemical and physical reaction that caused the planet to be what it is.

and where did the elements used for that reaction come from?

from materials spread throughout the universe (in some theories, he believes in the Big Bang, and so do i but in a different way, im getting to it).

and where did those materials come from?

from combinations of molecules from space dust and such.

and where did those molecules come from?

from combinations of atoms.

and where did those atoms come from?

from some primary set of atoms that caused a chain reaction and caused the Big Bang.

and where did those atoms come from?

from nothing? impossible by today's scientific and modern accepted mathematical standards.

now... how about some incomprehensible power out there was actually able to create something out of nothing? he created something that in that instant some cataclismic explosion happened and BANG. everything slowly started to take shape. in religion, that something is God and it is extremely possible that He didnt just create everything in 6 days. it just might be that those 6 days represent a measure of time that we just will never know until we die. for those of you who are like my dad-in-law, u just might accept that there is just a power out there with that sort of power.

i believe that God is the perfect combination of science, religion, math, etc.
hence how everything is just perfectly in its place.

posted by  Inygknok

Science can't prove "anything?" he says this as he types on a computer that uses science to not only create the parts, but run, and communicate with us in differnt locations around the world instantly. Science can't prove anything, but my wireless 2.4GHz router works, even though religion explains nothing about the radio frequency spectrum...

Apparenty he's never used bio-engineered medicines, seen a scanning, tunnelling microscope in action, seen a prism in action, seen an atomic clock, studied molecular biology, used electricity (an invisible power proven to exist and controlled through science) created by a nuclear reactor, etc. He says we can't even prove atoms exist or how they are structured, yet we use them to make power plants and explosives that work exactly as predicted. Hydrogen fuel cells are proof that science works.

Science has proven the existence of DNA and genetic building blocks. the fact that things work and are repeateable by laypeople proves that the scientific method works.

Just because science is ALSO full of theories that are often later proven false does not mean science doesn't work or that it can't prove anything. It's the typical religious objection: if it can't prove EVERYTHING, then it proves NOTHING. What a crock of shite.

The basic functional difference in science and religion is that as soon as a theory is put forth in science, other scientists immediately question it's validity and try to prove it wrong. If they can't but CAN put it into practice, it's put into practice until such time as someone CAN prove it wrong, if possible.

Try this (if science can't prove anything). Tie a bowling ball to a rope, then tie the rope up to a scaffold with the ball hanging an inch off the ground. Hold teh ball then back up until the rope is taut and the ball is touching your nose. Release the ball and do NOT move... Science says that unless acted upon by an outside force (like pushing the ball) it will NOT, CAN not swing back up and hit you in the face.

posted by  ChrisV

to whom was that directed to?

posted by  Inygknok

Apparently it can prove many things, as I pointed out.

posted by  ChrisV

Science does not prove those things in the first two paraghraphs, it tries to explain how they work. We are just as sure now that the earth rotates around the sun as scientists centuries ago were sure that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat. Someone could make a discovery hundreds of years from now that shows experiments/observations to show that the planets rotate around the sun are flawed. So, untill everything have been discovered and everyhting has been invented and science has completely exhausted itself, it cannot prove anything. And it would of course be impossible for science to exhaust itself, we can always learn more.

posted by  jedimario

You haven't studied these things in depth, have you? (or you misunderstood what you saw).

Things like atomic power are not things that could be seen and felt. They had to be theorized, then located/invented and made to work. They weren't things that we already saw working and tried to explain (which is the method YOU are talking about). Radio frequencies, lasers, atomic clocks, etc, are things that we explained THEN found and made work. Repeatedly. Meaning that what science theorized was proven by practical application.

That's completely different than your accusation of seeing something work and then trying to explain it USING science.

You'll figure it out in a few years.

posted by  ChrisV

You know what? I'll just stop triing with the examples. I'm not pretending to know anything about atomic clocks, computers, electricity, or anything, I'm just triing to say that the scientific method's nature makes it impossible for it to prove anything. Please read the excerpt from the textbook again if you want the explanation.

posted by  jedimario

If you dont' even understand teh nature of what I'm telling you, then how can you say that it's impossible? Simply put, you THINK it's impossible because you don't know how it works to make all these things function. If it didn't work, none of them COULD function, as it took the scientific method and true science to MAKE them work, repeatedly.

Or do you think that the info on how to make a computer and an atomic bomb are found in Gods word in the bible? How about the orbital mechnaics that not only proves that we orbit the sun, but allows scientists (and now the aveage corporation) top launch and operate satellites?

posted by  ChrisV

Anyone heard of Einstein's theory of relativity? He made this crap up in his head about perceived lengths/times/weights etc changing as velocity approaches that of light. When I first heard about it, I thought "He's just making this up because he knows we don't have the technology to prove him wrong".

But then a few years ago they designed experiments to support his theories .... crazy.

posted by  windsonian

I looked through it, on howstuffworks or something, but got a bit confused a bit just from the basic theory...didn't get a thing from the advanced :doh:

It makes very little sense to me too, how something would expand, or how you could travel through time at near the speed of light :screwy:

posted by  chris_knows

For one I don't think he means that by saying that science cannot prove anything, and are you trying to say someone cannot believe in both science and god? Science exists it just doesn't answer everything correctly. Nothing does.

posted by  Pythias

There's a difference between saying science can't answer/prove everything, and saying it answers/proves nothing, as he did. The former is obvious, the latter is factually incorrect.

posted by  ChrisV

I agree.

posted by  Pythias

ok, im gonna help chrisv out here (woohoo!)

true, science cant prove EVERYTHING, at least not by itself by today's standards.

BUT, science is there for a damn reason. i know not all of you are religious but bare with me on this explanation.

God gave us science for a damn reason. so us, humankind, could evolve and prosper in this giant rock called Earth. He Himself says that science is here to help us understand life better. in fact, even religion itself has science involved.

how have people done studies to prove to others that everything in the Bible really did happen? sciences such as archeology and astronomy.

how has science proven to help people in need? open heart surgeries that have saved thousands. kidney transplants that have saved 1 week old babies. treatments for diabetes. proper treatment of injuries so an amputation isnt necessary.

wat else has science proven? just how perfect the human body was created. the function of lungs, the liver, intestines, and the unimaginably complex human brain.

the materials used to make our clothes? from science! even non-synthetic threads require some science to get them to work.

the stoves that cook our food. refrigirators that proved that salt isnt the only way to keep our meats from going bad.

the televisions that entertain us. the xbox's that allow us to shoot whores without going to jail for it.

the houses and buildings that we live in? science! how the hell do u think that today's buildings and bridges can withstand earthquakes and hurricanes? yes, science. the heavy rubber paddings used in the stands on the very bottom of buildings were created by science.

hair gel and make up? science. science proved we could make our hair stand up in spikes for hours and look half-natural at it.

so how has science NOT proven anything when it proves something every single day of our lives?

sure, science created weapons such as the atomic and hydrogen bombs, but God gave us free will for a reason. WE have to make our own decisions in life, wether they are bad or good. it's all up to us. we will eventually pay for the bad decisions, and get rewarded for the good ones.

after all, Isaac Newton's 3rd Law of Motion does state that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. funny how a scientific law states something that God himself has said for so many years, isnt it?

posted by  Inygknok

Perhaps we just don't define science the same way. I look at science as the study of the world around us using the scientific method. By this way, it can't prove anything. You guys are saying that science has proved how computers work, that we can do open heart surgeries, etc. In my opinion, this was experience, not science, that proved these things. Science did predict things would work in certain situations, but by my definiton, it did not prove they would work. Actually going out and trying it proved that it worked. Either way, none of us are going to change the other's mind, so let's just leave it.

posted by  jedimario

do u even know wat the scientific method is?

here is a quote:

"The scientific method
Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi "

the steps of the scientific method directly quoted from a site:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

there is no other way to study something. how do u study for a test?

1) u recieve the material to be studied
2) read it and study it
3) organize the data in a way it makes sense
4) practice it (like in math)
5) check to see if you got it right, and just keep practicing until you learn it completely

whoop dee doo! i just taught you how to study for any parcticular test of any given subject using the scientific method! i want a goddamn cookie for this cuz im a blatant genius!

this aint even about opinions anymore. you are trying to give science a definition that does not exist! that the scientific method is only used for scientifical studies!

where did the experience from open heart surgiries come from? from scientifical studies! someone started studying the human anatomy and kept discovering all of the functions of the heart and how the whole body had something to do with it. then he wrote a theory on how it is possible to open it and fix it up. he got a patient that was willing to risk his/her life for this surgery, and then at some point doctors got it right and BAM! now we have open heart surgeries cuz someone bothered studying the human heart. it's SCIENCE!

i am a religious person myself, but i know where to dictate that science did its job in history.

if open heart surgeries were "perfected" ONLY thanks to experience, then how the hell did doctors know what each thing in the heart does? how the hell did they know what to touch and what not to cut? they just knew from experience from knowledge coming out of their asses? WOW, your world sounds rose red fabolous!

no, they made scientifical studies and practiced. they hypothesized, tested, and got results. God gave those men the gift of having the ability to achieve those goals. God gave them science so they could cure the human heart by studying it properly and efficiently and it worked.

it doesnt matter what the hell you're doing in this damn universe. the scientific method will always be the most efficient and effective way to study anything thanks to its simple and yet achievable procedure! it works for everything!

how do you think expensive restaurants have those kick ass dishes? they hypothesized on a platter, gathered the necessary ingredients, and kept testing with the ingredients until they got their desired final product.

posted by  Inygknok

Hold up there. I'm going to have to counter you on how "perfect" we are created. Ever study what the appendix is for?

posted by  ChrisV

Ignyoks right. In effect, you're removing "science" from everything scientific to try and prove your point, and the fact is, you're wrong. As he said, it's no longer a matter of opinion but of you blatantly disregarding what it is to support your idea of what it isn't.

posted by  ChrisV

No, the hypothesis turns into a theory after step 4 if it hold up to the experiments. After futher testing, it can then become a scientific law. After that, it can't go any farther. And if you guys haven't gotten what I'm trying say from what I already hae said, well I can't make it any clearer.

BTW, I don't know why you guys keep bringing religion into this, have I said anything about religion on the topic of the scientific method? I don't think so.

posted by  jedimario

So science is the study of the world around us, but then when this study leads you to come up with a theory, then test it, and get the predicted result, it is experience, not science that has proved the rule....?

That's a little like saying the astronaut is responsible for getting to the moon, regardless of how many other people designed/built/planned/organised etc etc... the mission.

posted by  windsonian

What do you guys think about some secular scientists now pushing for "creational science" to be taught in schools. The reasoning behind this is because more and more secualar scientists are starting to say that there had to be a "creator", not necessarily the Christian God, or any other god, but that there had to be something superior. Really, one is a ludicrous as the other, virgin birth, or a big explosion and everythings underway. I've never seen a pregant virgin and the big bang makes me think of the shitfit people would have if America dropped a bomb on Iraq and it built them a new building instead of destroying things.

But in all seriousness, from everything I can tell it appears that science is moving in the direction of not being the polar opposite of religion. There are some things that science just doesn't explain, like if the Sahara desert (might be a differnet desert but I think that's the one) is growing at a rate of three feet per year and the world billions of years old, why is the entire world not a desert yet? As opposed to Christians saying that the world is only 6,000 years old makes a little more sense in answer to that question. The Joshua Tree, the oldest tree in the world, is only 6,000 years old. If the world were that old the Grand Canyon should be much bigger and Nigra falls should have eroded way much more. I suppose I am just playing devil's advocate though, although my personal choice of the two is the religous choice (please don't flame me I won't try to convert anyone or preach or anything).

posted by  chris945

for those of us who believe in God, i guess we have some asking to do to Him on that subject :thumbs:

but u know wat i meant with "perfect" :wink2:

posted by  Inygknok

well, I doubt that when people first studied the interior of the human bodie they instantly knew what everything did. In fact, I bet it took them awhile, and that one day we will indeed find a use for the appendix.

posted by  jedimario

Did you even read the report I posted? We know what it's for.

posted by  ChrisV

I don't believe that people evolved form anything, therefore, if I understood the article correctly, I can't believe it.

posted by  jedimario

Ahh, the old "my mind's made up, don't bother me with facts" line of argument.

So since we didn't evolve from anything, nothing in our bodies is similar to any other mammalian species. Right? Eyes and how they work are unique to humans. Brains and the various parts of it and what they do are unique to humans. Livers, pancreas, thyroid glands, etc, all completely unique. Right?

Or is it that even though modern medicine knows what this stuff is, and how it works, and can transplant a heart, kidney, lung, etc, YOU won't believe that the appendix is what it is because of your religion...

Dude, that's the definition of ignorant. And I really, REALLY don't care if you're offended by that.

I'm spiritual, and my "religion" is a personal thing. But I'm not going to be stupid and disagree with or refuse to believe medical science and at teh same time say "well, I dont' study it, and I dont' know much abou tit, but I'll argue that it's buk until the day I die."

If you refuse to actually use the brain God gave you to learn, you're not worth my time. :banghead:

posted by  ChrisV

This is the whole point. Just that some people have made up their mind that one is right and the other is wrong and that's that.

Last time I checked between black and white there was a little shade called grey.

posted by  windsonian

Your Message