Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

Please keep this on topic! ...some posts may have mysteriously disappeared.

Originally Posted by TimeDragon97

Science: it works, bitches!

Nominated for Quote of the Millennium.

Yeah it works.
But the problem is that science never talked about Theory as a dead sure FACT. I repeat myself =)
Science is one thing, theory is another, and your interpretation of that theory is another, and your faith is another.
Don't protect yourself with the word "science" because no scientist will tell you that it is a certanity, a fact.
It is a theory, an assumption, an ideas based on the observations.

Originally Posted by astralboy

But the problem is that science never talked about Theory as a dead sure FACT.

Neither did we. We defined a theory by what it is. Or at least I did. You would know this if you actually read my post I suppose.

i think it's pretty obvious what he's calling out

Originally Posted by episode24

i think it's pretty obvious what he's calling out

Enlighten me.

Originally Posted by astralboy

It is a theory, an assumption, an ideas based on the observations.

I don't know if "assumption" is the right word. Theories have enough evidence backing them up that we can say that they are most likely what is. I guess you could consider that an assumption, albeit a wise one.

i assume you have 10 fingers. i assume you have 8 toes on each foot. both assumptions are theories until i meet you in person and can observe the fact of the matter. we can agree one assumption is "wiser" than the other since this part of human anatomy is common knowledge. when i speculate about someday learning the truth about you by meeting you in person, i'm assuming i might ever get that chance. it's a theory. i might never know.

when it comes to my own body, it's a fact i have 4 fingers and 2 toes because i can observe them.

this difference between fact and theory is what astralboy was defending. he called out xei for claiming they meant the same thing. wow this place is boring

Except you're using the incorrect definition of theory again.

Originally Posted by episode24

i assume you have 10 fingers. i assume you have 8 toes on each foot. both assumptions are theories until i meet you in person and can observe the fact of the matter.

Ah, so you support scientific observation. Good to know.

OMG at least one understood lol.

episode24... they don't want to understand even if you show them a dictionary they will try to search thing that go with their faith.
It is the same with jeohava's witnesses! even when you show them verses that contradict them... from their bible ... they don't believe you.

KNOWLEDGE is not theory,
knowledge is not reading about something,
knowledge is not having assumptions,
knowledge is not believing,
...

Knowlege is when you experience something. Reading that you fly and flying are 2 different things.
You KNOW nothing about the beginning since you didn't experienced it, no one did and no one ever will.
You can have faith in your theory but never KNOWING FOR SURE.
Don't lie to yourself, don't pretend knowing, even if you're programmed with that dogma.
Yeah maybe it reasure you that science have a theory but the fact is that you don't know and they don't know,
but you have an assumtion or an interpretation of some observable facts or phenomena.
I say interpretation and assumptions, not knowledge. There is facts in the universe but no fact say "hey! the big bang made me".
That's why it is ONLY a Theory. NOT dead sure fact. Not a knowledge.

Be very careful when you use the verb "know"... When you say "I know" do you know really?
Religious people tell you that they KNOW things about God because they read books LOL!
You think you KNOW "the beginning" because you read another books!

People are often mistaken about what they think they've experienced.

A person can have a powerful emotional experience at church and confuse that with experiencing the power of the lord. How do you analyze what you've experienced to determine the true nature of it?

Science is the best bullshit detector we've come up with yet.

they don't want to understand even if you show them a dictionary they will try to search thing that go with their faith.
It is the same with jeohava's witnesses! even when you show them verses that contradict them... from their bible ... they don't believe you.

This is a good description of what you're doing.

Like I said "There is facts in the universe but no fact say "hey! the big bang made me"."
It is the same with experiences... if you had a powerful emotional experience at church it is a fact that you had a powerful emotional experience.
That experience doesn't tell you "hey God made me!"

Originally Posted by astralboy

if you had a powerful emotional experience at church it is a fact that you had a powerful emotional experience.
That experience doesn't tell you "hey God made me!"

So you agree with me at least up to a point.

Originally Posted by astralboy

"There is facts in the universe but no fact say "hey! the big bang made me".

But the question is, how do you figure out what are the 'facts in the universe" and what aren't?

We all agree that scientific theories can't be undeniably and unequivocally called absolute facts - that's why scientists never refer to them that way, unless it's in an unguarded moment and for the sake of convenience - it's tiring to always have to say "as far as we've been able to determine".

But you keep talking as if somehow you personally are able to separate the real facts from fallacies, and do so with more accuracy than all of science. How do you do that?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

We all agree that scientific theories can't be undeniably and unequivocally called absolute facts - that's why scientists never refer to them that way, unless it's in an unguarded moment and for the sake of convenience - it's tiring to always have to say "as far as we've been able to determine".

So yeah. If you don't know for sure you say I don't know but I have a theory, that's what scientists do.
I don't have a problem with them but with you all.
Because you talk as if you KNOW for sure. As if it was a Fact.

I don't believe scientific theories are absolute facts. In fact it's well known that they're only the best models we've been able to come up with so far, and that periodically with new discoveries we'll be able to revise them or in some cases invalidate them.

I'd say the difference between you and me is that I don't believe we definitely know anything for an absolute fact, the best we can do is develop scientific theories and test them, but you seem to feel that you have some authority to say what is and isn't an absolute truth. Or am I wrong about that?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ah, so you support scientific observation. Good to know.

i didn't know i had other options

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I'd say the difference between you and me is that I don't believe we definitely know anything for an absolute fact, the best we can do is develop scientific theories and test them

are you a duck

I say "I don't know" nothing more. I don't know the absolute truth and it is the same for you. So don't pretend knowing (you or others) or talk about it with certainity. Often when people talk me about big bang they talk about it as if it was THE BIG TRUTH. Some people here are really blinded by their faith and their ignorence of knowing. Why it is so hard to say the simple truth "I don't know"?

Fact is when you KNOW. When you know for sure the cause and the effect...
When you can reproduce it, observe it, experience it, repeat the experience...
Big Bang is not observable, experimentable, reproducible, no one can see it. No one KNOW the cause because etc...
It is so far from the word FACT.

Originally Posted by episode24

i didn't know i had other options...

are you a duck

Well, I can float in water, but I don't quack or say Aflack so no, a simple test shows I'm not a duck, and no, you can't burn me!

@ Astralboy - as I already told you, I do not believe scientific theories are absolute facts. So we're in agreement and no reason to continue arguing. Yes, there are science fanatics - I'm not one of them, and I don't think most people on this thread are either.

hm maybe you're a woman then and you need me to show you how i know

You make me feel so cheap!

Next time you ought to shell out the extra dough for a keyboard that has punctuation!

shh here's your allowance money now why don't you do a little shopping and buy me the one you like?

Originally Posted by TimeDragon97

Except you're using the incorrect definition of theory again.

ok maybe creation theories should be separate from the rest then.

we use the word theory to represent a group of hypotheses about the nature of something. these hypotheses are supported by evidence/observations/facts. if all hypotheses are proven to be true, then a theory evolves into its final form - a physical law or axiom. one example of an evolved theory is what we now call heliocentrism.

this [observations => hypotheses => theory] sequence/pattern/rule for reasoning defines the act of theorizing always and forever with one exception - creation theories. creation theories are special because they are the truth too.

The matter at hand here is that astralboy is being pedantic.

Numerous times we've established that a theory is not an absolute fact, however in the context of a discussion it is reasonable to mention it as such.

As Darkmatters said, notifying everyone that a theory is not fact within every sentence is complete nonsense.

Originally Posted by episode24

shh here's your allowance money now why don't you do a little shopping and buy me the one you like?

(is this really the level on which you like to discuss science?)