Printable View
Alright, back to scientific basics. Enough with philosophy (for me) - we could argue that forever without going anywhere.
Anyone think they can prove the Big Bang (at least give a reasonable argument for it)? Want to start with basic scientific laws? The last time I posed this question, no one wanted to approach it. I will not bash on anyone, just have an intelligent debate on scientific facts, laws, and observations.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Does GA tech accept people with double digit IQs? Damn I must have slipped under their radar because it sure as hell wasn't my grades that produced that acceptance letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by The12lber
I would love to explain some of the physics behind it, if you are still online. I have read a couple Steven Hawkings books as well as done a bit of my own research on the subject (during my Physics course at GT). The origin of the universe and the complexities of time amaze me.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Hahahaha, does GT have an IQ field to fill out on the application? More over, they state the purpose of the episode within the first two minutes. You didn't watch the whole thing obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
must see video lol. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
This is the definition of the big bang. " A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature."Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
There really isn't anything else to explain other then the fact of the laws of science, which David88vert already went over... I sometimes wonder how matter could have gotten to a size where there is infinite mass and matter. The universe has alot of secrets that we just don't know yet. Explaining how gamma bursts, unknown planets, black holes, ect ect are made. I personally would rather waste my time and energy trying to learn all I can about this than fiction storys found in the bible.
Exactly! So what did people do after the new testament was made? Changed it up! If christianity was created after the old testament, then that means they're not going by what the original god said, but going by what the new one wants. Hmm this just doesn't make sense...Quote:
Originally Posted by NAG2I
Maybe it's because that wasn't the video posted earlier. See how important context is...Quote:
Originally Posted by The12lber
You apparently think you're much smarter than you actually are. GT does in fact have an IQ field, also known as SAT scores from which IQ is a mathematical derivative. You need to sit back, open your ears, and close your mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by The12lber
When I said physics I meant a strong mathematical theory supporting the big bang, not a wiki definition aimed at the simple minded. Actually scratch that, I just figured out how to explain it simply. Maniac, I don't know how proficient you are in mathematics but if you're pretty good, you might want to consider a college physics or astronomy course. If your math is not spectacular, philosophy is a great alternative. Really gets you thinking about things in a new way. I'm thinking about minoring in philosophy now that I've already experienced the physics side of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maniac©
Wow, you are INSANELY stupid. Not only is the SAT NOT A DETERMINANT OF IQ. If you've ever taken an IQ test, it differs dramatically in important areas from the SAT. In academia, the idea of the two sharing an absolute and direct relationship is about as widely accepted as James Bond in Harlem. There are numerous criticisms of why the SAT is a bad test of anything to begin with. Go search for criticisms of SAT on Google, or Wiki SAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
More over, I'd like to add that if you feel comfortable with the notion that SAT and IQ share a direct and absolute relationship, you're also comfortable with the notion that as a whole certain racial groups have lower IQs than their asian and white bretheren because these groups have lower SAT scores on average (and therefore their race is inherently less intelligent). So I hope you're cool with that.
In other news, I'm still in disbelief you're that dumb that you couldn't use your logic to figure this out for yourself.
I apologize, I didn't know that the poster was too incompetent to post the entire episode but instead some butchered one minute version of it. You on the other hand probably should have been able to figure out it was an over edited abomination so I don't feel too guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
I've never heard anyone say they can "prove" the Big Bang. It is usually refered to as the best theory we have but never scientific fact. You can easily point to lots of evidence such as redshift, proportion of elements, etc but they are not definitive. Since I do not feel it can be proven 100% at this time, i would rather discuss the items you feel are inconsistent with the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Wow, most of the last few pages are filled with personal attacks and almost nothing on topic. I love IA!
no this is very untrue. you must not know what changed from the new and old testament and why things were different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maniac©
jesus dying changed a lot of things. doesn't mean God changed.
Where did I say SAT and IQ are absolute and direct relatives? I said derivative. Meaning you can derive and approximate IQ level based on a person's SAT score. If you don't believe that they are related in any way you may want to give up on life. As for whether I've taken an IQ test, first one was in 5th grade, led to an SAT the summer after which then put me in Calculus at UCF, when I was 14.Quote:
Originally Posted by The12lber
As for whether or not some races have higher IQs than others, statistically speaking yes. But we all know the problem with statistics. Why wouldn't I be cool with that?
As for logic, you seem to be the one that's lacking.
But let's try to get back on topic. I'm done arguing with high schoolers.
It never will be proven, nothing in the past without a record can be. They may prove the theories to be possible physically, but that doesn't answer anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
There is, but if it isn't an absolute and direct relationship why even reference it in relation to your IQ?Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
And yes, that's the point. There are problems with statistics. So don't build arguments around them alone. That is all.
Sounds like you're trying to call me, dumb! LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by fcman
Seriously though, getting too deep into the big bang would only cause more confusion... because the majority of the people don't know what physics is and would much rather go about it in a different way. I know for me, I could take it there, but it'll get to a point where talking about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
So why not explain it in away everyone could understand it?
As for my ups and downs. Lol im not all the good when it comes to mathematics. Back in school I was only good in science, social studies, and other extra classes like gym, art, and computer classes. Lol I really want to gain more knowledge by trying new things, but my first priority right now is finding a job!
Actually I don't know, care to post up what did change? Maybe then I could get a better picture of the old/new bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAG2I
Also, tell me what changed after jesus got crucified. Because from what I know, things changed for the good, right? Do you know of any actual evidence of jesus christ ever existing? Or are you just following what the bible tells you?
Based on everything you've said so far, lets come back to this.
Obviously, there's a relationship. But there are tens of other factors that will determine your SAT score.Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
Your statement was that SAT scores and IQ scores are indeed directly and absolutely related.
Your statement is the logical equavilent of saying "GT does in fact have a weight field, also known as height". The two are related, obviously. A tall person is likely to weigh more than a short person. But who knows how much each one eats, works out, or what health issues they have?
Except if height and weight in this statement share the same relationship as in yours, they'd be the same thing... they are obviously not.
I hope that makes it easier for you to understand what this discussion stems from and why you are wrong, smart guy. That is all.
It's what we like to call using logic. x+3=5 vs. 2=2Quote:
Originally Posted by The12lber
See the difference. We use proofs and logic to determine relationships. A direct relationship only requires your senses.
I don't believe I ever brought statistics into this. I think you might be confusing logic with statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by The12lber
BTW, you should try laying off the personal attacks. It might result in you being taken seriously.
I just realized that the tone is this thread is way to intense for a car forum.
Listen, we may not all have the same religious beliefs, but I know onw thing we ALL have in common... our passion for out automobiles.
Jesus, Muhammed, God, Alah,...Science... yeah, it's important, but lets not let these differences fortify and type or form religious biggotry. :D
Com'mon... group hug! (no homo);)
One thing remains true. We all want to know the answer to life. If everyone was trying to get somewhere by taking the same path, if they got lost, there would be no alternative and we would all be up shiit creek. Maybe there is a reason that humans are gifted with our curious intellect... the more ways we use to try and find the key, the more likely we are to actually find it.
ill try my best but those are some pretty big questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maniac©
in the old testament for people to be forgiven of there sins they had to do sacrifices to be forgiven. there were different sacrifices for different sins, mostly it was sacrificing animals. and jesus being crucified was the ultimate sacrifice so people wouldn't have to have there own sacrifice every-time they sin. and yes there is a lot of historical evidence for his existence. many historians wrote about him and included his name in there writings.
Lol interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by NAG2I
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
As a side note, both equations were examples of items that share a direct and absolute (!= absolute value btw, absolute also means complete, unwavering, entirely consistent, etc) relationship. You might as well have written "2=2 vs 2=2, see the difference?" seeing as how there was only one variable. You couldn't even get that right, so don't insult my logic.
The reality is too complex for a math problem. What you're doing is only approximating IQ, which you yourself said. Let substitute a connotative synonym for "approximating", guess, in its place.
You can use math to guess, with varying degrees of accuracy, what someone's IQ is. Its that simple. Its not a reliable method, so calling the SAT field the "IQ field" is a plainly false.
Basically, you were wrong and you were a condescending ******* whilst being wrong.
Only one historical writer I know of living in his time, Tacitus, wrote about him. That being said, Tacitus never actually met Jesus or anything of that sort. He just mentioned that some Jew named Jesus was causing trouble in Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAG2I
Tacitus knew that Jesus existed in the same sense Winston Smith knew Goldstein existed, basically. When you skim over archaelogical evidence you'll actually find that Israel was plagued by would be Messiahs at the time, and that the only thing that differentiates Christ from these others is he lucked out with a religion and the rest are doomed to obscurity.
LOL Alright kiddie. Now I'm being condescending. This is worthless. In no way will you be able to prove your intelligence or mine. This is the internet. YOU were the one who started by being condescending, even though you have nothing to show other than moronic thoughts. YOU are the one who clearly doesn't understand logic. I merely put the simple equation to show the difference between that which is blatantly obvious and that which requires logic (btw you're a moron if you don't think x+3=5 requires logic) You clearly don't understand what is going on here and are trying to bring me down to your level. Your demeanor alone confirms any doubts that you are a weak individual. Calling people out over the internet. Someone states a fact that you think is wrong, tell them, don't act like a buffoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by The12lber
Get back on topic.
That is a well-put and completely correct answer. Let's start with some basic inconsistencies/errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by bu villain
Law of Conservation of Mass:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mass.html
Law of Conservation of Energy:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html
Law of Increased Entropy:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/entropy.html
Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/angular_momentum.html
Basic problem: Where did the space, time, matter, and energy come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang? Next, how did this explosion and expansion cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?
How does the Big Bang explain the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons, without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum? Venus, Pluto, and Uranus spin backwards. Do you understand how much energy it would take to spin a planet backwards? anything that hit it hard enough to spin it backwards would take a huge chunk out of it AND knock it out of it's orbital path. Venus has an almost perfect shape and orbit. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons in orbit in both directions.
Additionally, how do you approach the uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter. For the Big Bang to be real, all matter should be fairly evenly distributed.
The problem here is we don't know the limits of the universe, if there are any. The hardest thing for the human mind to comprehend is something that is infinite.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
However if there is a limit, we can assume that, due to the posted laws, the universe is a sphere. We know that the universe is constantly expanding, and according to Steven Hawking that all major systems are moving away from each other. This can only mean that the universe is in fact a sphere. The fact that this sphere is growing means not only was there some force that pushed everything away, but that there is a center.
A center means a few things:
1. Everything started in one place
2. Everything will return to that place.
"uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter"
This all depends on perspective. A huge void may actually be tiny depending on how large the universe actually is. For instance, if you were to shrink the earth to the size of a pool ball, it would be smoother than the actual thing, even though we have "huge" landforms such as mountains.
Bah, I have to leave, I'll continue later.
Interesting Thread :goodjob:
2 problems with that:Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
Because of the enormous initial rate of expansion, faster-than-lightspeed signaling would have been necessary for forces to produce and retain universal smoothness over billions of years; however, even the transmission of information above lightspeed is a violation of the theory of relativity. How do you explain the instantaeous expansion, and what energy could overcome the gravitational attraction of the entire mass of the universe?
If you follow Einstein's theories, space is curved due to the presence of matter, but is only positively curved. If you believe that space is uncurved or negatively curved, there must be something to overcome the positive curvature resulting from the presence of the matter. Do you accept the idea of uncurved space of a flat universe, or the negatively curved space of an open universe, and acknowledge the existence of negative gravity? Do you have evidence to provide for the rationale for flat or negative curvature in a universe of significant mass - the mathematics must represent some physical phenomena, specifically, Einstein's publishing of cosmic repulsion.
Thallus and PhlegonQuote:
Originally Posted by The12lber
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.
Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.
Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead.
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war.
We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.
Charles Bukowski
US (German-born) author & poet (1920 - 1994)
Live well, be open-minded, proactive, productive, responsible, and tolerant. I don't need religion to be a good person and make sound decisions. But if others do, than so be it. Whatever it takes to upstanding citizen, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
I notice you don't care to address anything I said about how you can't reliably calculate someone's IQ from their SAT score because of the myriad of other factors that determine said final score. My logics and maths are ironclad, bye.
The Eye Of God is watching you!!!!
This is a real Pic from Nasa....i thought it was pretty awesome looking!!
Not really off topic but kinda :P
pretty interesting topic... one that probably would never get answered....
in my own opinion... i do not believe in a god. all that crap was placed there to scare u and set u straight. if u didnt like something, what is the easiest way to get someone to do something? tell them god said so. there is no proof of god. and just as some of yall already said on here, i do not need a god to become a good person. and also lol, i got better things to do then sit in a "house of god" for a couple of hours listening to a man that talk about the same crap over and over. "if u dont do this u will go to hell and if u do this u will go to hell" i mean wth man? sorry if im offending u hardcore christians but this is my honest opinion
I'm not impressed. Josephus is a pretty credible source for the most part. That being said, when you look at the context of this particular situation, Its not so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAG2I
The main problem with all of this business is, there's archaelogical evidence this good or better (not saying much) for tens of other messiahs. You're better off just concluding that its an article of faith and leaving it at that.
thats fine if your not impressed. i was just letting you know that more then one historian wrote about him.Quote:
Originally Posted by The12lber
The point of my comment wasn't that, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAG2I
It was the circumstances under which he wrote. I said that Tacitus knew that Jesus existed and caused trouble in the same manner that Winston Smith knew about Goldstein and his trouble making.
I'll explain the allusion. Tacitus didn't live in the Holy land. He didn't meet Jesus, see him crucified, meet anyone who met Jesus, etc. He just heard some Jew named Jesus was starting **** and mentioned it in one of his histories. Tacitus was basically writing hearsay, which isn't a big insult for a write of the time considering the way information was disseminated at the time. The point is, Tacitus has no concrete information on Jesus. None.
Winston Smith is the protagonist of 1984 and a citizen of Oceana. This guy called Goldstein is a symbol used by the state, everyone in Oceana knows who he is because the state (an intermediary) tells them about him. However, you find out later on in the book that Goldstein's actions are undoubtedly fabricated by the state and whether or not he even exists is quite ambiguous. Sound familiar?
Its the same situation with all of these sources. All are greatly removed from the event (and man) itself by time and physical remoteness. Some of these sources aren't definitively about Jesus at all. All of these writings that were actually about Jesus were basically written with no evidence in hand at all. There are no first hand accounts.
The conclusion you can draw. Its very likely someone named Jesus existed. Its also very likely all these other equally or better documented Messiahs existed. And that's all the more you can conclude from the archaelogical record.
Honestly, I am not even sure why the faithful are in here trying to refute scientific and historical contradictions to their faith. It is still mind boggling to me today that the faithful actively try to undermine our understanding of the natural world's workings. Why is it that because something can be explained with science (evolution etc) it is a threat to your faith? Just come to the conclusion that just because something can be explained doesn't mean it isn't the work of god. This is a logically sound position to hold. Stop wasting your time, believers. Science and the hypothetical existence of god don't logically contradict one another. That is all.