Quote from: Mongoose on March 13, 2011, 16:08:20 PM
gentlemen, since we all know where this road goes, shall we agree not to go down it this time?

Agreed

I was watching the Sky at Night 700 Not Out episode and one of the viewer questions was along the lines of "Where in the Universe is Heaven ?". Needless to say the entire panel basically said "We'll not go down that path shall we..." and then gave what their personal ideas of Heaven in the Universe are/would be. Was a great bullet dodge I thought

Looking forward to episode 2 tonight.

Quote from: Goblin on March 12, 2011, 19:54:50 PM
Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.

Can I just say.....LOL 

Best.Rebuttal.Ever.

Quote from: Goblin on March 12, 2011, 19:54:50 PM

Quote from: Serious on March 12, 2011, 16:09:03 PM
God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise

Going OT here, but that is such a stupid argument. Take something with, literally, no evidence to suggest it exists and then claim "you can't prove this thing I just made up doesn't exist". Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.

But there is! you can see where it has punched it's head through the Horsehead nebula! 

It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.

I didn't make up the idea of god, just said it was effectively unprovable either way, so don't try sticking that old stupid argument on me. Umm, what about String theory and other similar things which are presently unprovable too? There's a load of scientists effectively saying it's the way to the 'new bible' and just as many saying it's 'complete and utter heresy'. Those were just 'made up' so your argument applies equally to them. Scientists have used the same argument against tectonic plates and movement, and a load of other scientific ideas which have since been proven as fact.

All that a scientist can say is 'this is the way it looks' or 'this is how I think it works and this evidence seems to confirm that as far as I can'. There are always other people coming up with competing hypothesis and theories.

Scientists use the same old tactics the Religionists have used for hundreds of years, they are just as pig headed, selfish, possessive and downright nasty, as often to each other as well as outsiders.

I'm not saying there is a god or not, I'm saying that in any given universe there is a chance of something that might be termed god. If there is one I very much doubt if it is like the impressions any of the religions portray.

Then there is the two slot experiment, if the multiple universe idea proves wrong, who was there to observe the start of the universe?

Actually unicorns do exist, they are one horned rhinoceroses. The problem came in describing them so the adventurers used the nearest thing they knew, 'it's a bit like a horse with a horn on it's forehead.'

Quote from: Serious on March 14, 2011, 00:57:53 AM

Quote from: Goblin on March 12, 2011, 19:54:50 PM

Quote from: Serious on March 12, 2011, 16:09:03 PM
God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise

Going OT here, but that is such a stupid argument. Take something with, literally, no evidence to suggest it exists and then claim "you can't prove this thing I just made up doesn't exist". Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.

But there is! you can see where it has punched it's head through the Horsehead nebula! 

I didn't make up the idea of god, just said it was effectively unprovable. Umm, what about String theory and other similar things which are presently unprovable too?

All that a scientist can say is 'this is the way it looks' or 'this is how I think it works and this evidence seems to confirm that as far as I can'. There are always other people coming up with competing hypothesis and theories.

Scientists use the same old tactics the Religionists have used for hundreds of years, they are just as pig headed, selfish, possessive and downright nasty, often to each other as well as outsiders.

What a load of crap. Despite the often poor reporting of science in the media and the fact that there are many scientists out there who aren't in it for the science there is fundamentally no comparison between scientists and "religionists".

Leaving broad sweeping generalisations aside about every scientist and "religionist" a scientist works diligently and very thoroughly to explore a hypothesis and reach a conclusion, be it experimental or theoretical. Theories are tested by the scientist to ensure that they conform to the facts known about the observed universe. The scientist is also amenable to change and is always looking to new hypothesis and ideas that help to better this understanding.

Your "religionists" base their "theories" (I use the term very loosely) on faith which by its very definition ensures that it can never be tested or explored in any way, shape or form. You mention string theory; science is always forging forward and is working to a point in the future where we can demonstrate physical actual proof. Religion actively discourages this; to question it is often wrong according to its own teachings and thus begins the perfect self perpetuating cycle of slavish adherence to faith.

Science helps us understand our place universe and the way things work and is always working to broaden our horizons. Religion appeals to the narrow minded and aims to narrow our horizons by preaching dogmatic belief in something that can never be proved nor disproved.

I was editing my post when you posted...

Quote from: Quixoticish on March 14, 2011, 01:13:09 AM

Quote from: Serious on March 14, 2011, 00:57:53 AM

Quote from: Goblin on March 12, 2011, 19:54:50 PM

Quote from: Serious on March 12, 2011, 16:09:03 PM
God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise

Going OT here, but that is such a stupid argument. Take something with, literally, no evidence to suggest it exists and then claim "you can't prove this thing I just made up doesn't exist". Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.

But there is! you can see where it has punched it's head through the Horsehead nebula! 

I didn't make up the idea of god, just said it was effectively unprovable. Umm, what about String theory and other similar things which are presently unprovable too?

All that a scientist can say is 'this is the way it looks' or 'this is how I think it works and this evidence seems to confirm that as far as I can'. There are always other people coming up with competing hypothesis and theories.

Scientists use the same old tactics the Religionists have used for hundreds of years, they are just as pig headed, selfish, possessive and downright nasty, often to each other as well as outsiders.

What a load of crap. Despite the often poor reporting of science in the media and the fact that there are many scientists out there who aren't in it for the science there is fundamentally no comparison between scientists and "religionists".

Really??

Quote
Leaving broad sweeping generalisations aside about every scientist and "religionist" a scientist works diligently and very thoroughly to explore a hypothesis and reach a conclusion, be it experimental or theoretical. Theories are tested by the scientist to ensure that they conform to the facts known about the observed universe. The scientist is also amenable to change and is always looking to new hypothesis and ideas that help to better this understanding.

Then all that shouting about other scientists being mad, nuts, completely bonkers, loony, etc. never happened? I think not! You obviously have no idea what goes on.

There has always been 'scientists' willing to put their own self higher than anything else, right down to forging evidence.

Scientists use every tactic available to degrade others and promote their pet theory/hypothesis above the competition, that has always happened and will never stop happening. You are talking about people here, not 'saints' (which don't exist IMHO). This whole thread proves it.

'amenable to change' grief, that made me laugh. No they aren't, they stick to their old theory because they have invested so much time and effort backing it.

Quote
Your "religionists" base their "theories" (I use the term very loosely) on faith which by its very definition ensures that it can never be tested or explored in any way, shape or form. You mention string theory; science is always forging forward and is working to a point in the future where we can demonstrate physical actual proof. Religion actively discourages this; to question it is often wrong according to its own teachings and thus begins the perfect self perpetuating cycle of slavish adherence to faith.

No, they are based on faith, belief and hypothesis, no theory there. You need at least some experimental or physical proof for theory. Of course, some would claim 'miracles' as such proof but I don't.

Quote
Science helps us understand our place universe and the way things work and is always working to broaden our horizons. Religion appeals to the narrow minded and aims to narrow our horizons by preaching dogmatic belief in something that can never be proved nor disproved.

I seem to remember for a very long time scientists complaining about people being told about science, exclaiming 'they won't be able to understand any of it!' Seems your experience of them is different to mine.

If you want to look at science gone wrong just look at the present situation medicine is in, at least one big company under investigation. Then there was that Korean dog cloning scandal. Lots of others too, right back to Piltdown man and beyond.

You're making tremendously broad generalisations about every scientist and the state of science as a whole and cherry picking occasional negative occurrences to reinforce your own warped negative point of view.

Henceforth your argument is rendered invalid. Have a nice day.

Last I heard there is "discs" of several universes ( which always existed ! ) and if they "touch" it will seem like a "big bang".

Wow, from scientific discussion to religious debate in three easy steps. Just to drag the thread down another notch, "It's only gay if two universes are touching"

Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on March 14, 2011, 09:46:56 AM
Wow, from scientific discussion to religious debate in three easy steps. Just to drag the thread down another notch, "It's only gay if two universes are touching"

Almost actually PMSL, and what did I start

Well I thought episode 2 was great and its almost like Brian anticipated what everyone said in the thread as this time he pointed out quite clearly what was proven fact (as well as mentioning and then quickly moving on from religion)

I think he explains it to the layperson extremely well, but without dumbing it down too much. It's definitely a gift to be able to explain complex theories quite easily, so I don't think that it's a negative thing, in fact I think it's great.

The first episode left me feeling extremely nihilistic, the fact that nothing at all will survive.

It is rubbish.

He opens with a 5 min carrot on a stick, this is what this show is about. It's about this. We're gonna talk about this. This thing is the subject of this show. I'll talk about this amazing thing.
Ok so... interest piqued, right?

Then he spends 55 minutes talking about one thing. One little thing. 55 minutes. His use of language is awful too but let's not dwell on that.


Let's instead recreate the show in text-form:
Right, we're all made of atoms, just like everything else is in the universe, as far as we can tell. We're pretty sure all these atoms were made in the following manner:
step 1) All the squiggly bits left over from the big bang formed into protons and neutrons after a few seconds.
step 2) These hooked up to become hydrogen atoms.
step 3) As everything expands away from a central point, some atoms locally pull together to form clumps.
step 4) The clumps get bigger and ignite into stars. Here are some pretty pictures.
step 5) The processes that happen within the life and death of stars create heavier atoms. These are spread around when the star dies. Look, here's a pretty rainbow.
step 6) These heavy atoms fly around clumping into asteroids, planets, and whatever else.
step 7) end credits

Boiled down like that it's about a minute's worth of informative dialogue?

Once again, the BBC have excelled in taking a fascinating subject and making a horrendously dull show out of it.

epic point recognition fail

Quote from: Pete on March 16, 2011, 11:50:28 AM
It is rubbish.

He opens with a 5 min carrot on a stick, this is what this show is about. It's about this. We're gonna talk about this. This thing is the subject of this show. I'll talk about this amazing thing.
Ok so... interest piqued, right?

Then he spends 55 minutes talking about one thing. One little thing. 55 minutes. His use of language is awful too but let's not dwell on that.


Let's instead recreate the show in text-form:
Right, we're all made of atoms, just like everything else is in the universe, as far as we can tell. We're pretty sure all these atoms were made in the following manner:
step 1) All the squiggly bits left over from the big bang formed into protons and neutrons after a few seconds.
step 2) These hooked up to become hydrogen atoms.
step 3) As everything expands away from a central point, some atoms locally pull together to form clumps.
step 4) The clumps get bigger and ignite into stars. Here are some pretty pictures.
step 5) The processes that happen within the life and death of stars create heavier atoms. These are spread around when the star dies. Look, here's a pretty rainbow.
step 6) These heavy atoms fly around clumping into asteroids, planets, and whatever else.
step 7) end credits

Boiled down like that it's about a minute's worth of informative dialogue?

Once again, the BBC have excelled in taking a fascinating subject and making a horrendously dull show out of it.

I got bored reading your version before step 4...

I thought he trod the line between too complex so you lose the audience and seeming dumbed down very well. The processes by which stars do what they do are b****y complicated (at least, they seemed so to me as a meer 3rd year Physics undergraduate), but this show went deeper than the standard "stars form, magic happens, elements are produced" without totally breaking the minds of the uninitiated.

Honestly, I used to actively avoid programs presented by Brian Cox, but he's really grown on me since the stargazing live show. I don't know if he's got better or I've just grown more tolerant of him, but I'm actually getting to quite like the man. He's still no Richard P. Feynman, but then, who is?