Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America

2009-09-17 04:28:06

#101

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
That's not the starting point. It was the ending point based on the ratio that came out when comparing the difference in perceived time passage between the Earth and the Big Bang origin point.
That kind of thing can be fudged any way you like it.
'Oh look, I have two pieces of elastic, oh wow they are the same length. God exists QED'
I think it was a cosmologist having a bit of fun TBH.

Astrophysicist, not a cosmologist.

You're being intentionally simplistic about something that is inherently complicated. He did relativistic calculations based on two different observation points for the same event--sort of the whole point of relativistic theory. That's hardly the same as looking at two pieces of elastic.

Dilbert_X wrote:
The big bang theory is indeed untestable, but there is a lot of evidence pointing towards it, which is more than you can say for yours.

It's not my theory.

Dilbert_X wrote:
No doubt it will be adjusted or replaced, doesn't mean there's a god though.

The point being that it doesn't mean there's NOT a God, either.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-17 04:32:18

#102

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
The point being that it doesn't mean there's NOT a God, either.

True, but at least there is a pile of evidence which supports the big bang theory, and none which supports existence of god.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-17 05:03:59

#103

PureFodder: Member; +225|6572

Look at the guy's theory (assuming it's the Dr. Russell Humphreys stuff) It requires:
a) there is an edge of the universe, contrary to physics
b) there is a centre of the universe, contrary to physics
c) the Earth is near the centre of the universe, violating the mediocrity principle.

Total fail.

2009-09-17 05:37:34

#104

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6962|Canberra, AUS

Welllllll in terms of the centre of the observable universe which really is all we should be worrying about in all but the very highest levels (i.e. solving quantum gravity and First Cause problems) the earth is the centre.

And what the fuck is the mediocrity principle

Last edited by Spark (2009-09-17 05:37:49)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-17 05:55:46

#105

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle
We aren't special, some people can't deal with that and turn to religion which tells them we are.

PS I was right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-17 05:56:56)

Fuck Israel

2009-09-17 09:20:59

#106

PureFodder: Member; +225|6572

Spark wrote:
Welllllll in terms of the centre of the observable universe which really is all we should be worrying about in all but the very highest levels (i.e. solving quantum gravity and First Cause problems) the earth is the centre.

And what the fuck is the mediocrity principle

This guy's theory has a definitive centre and edge of the universe that is the same whatever reference frame you use. In his model you could theoretically stand on the edge of the universe. If you can't define a centre of the universe that is not dependent upon your reference frame the theory completely falls apart.

2009-09-17 16:36:04

#107

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6732|The Land of Scott Walker

Dilbert_X wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle
We aren't special, some people can't deal with that and turn to religion which tells them we are.

PS I was right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

Personally, I think the human race and this earth are quite amazing. But go ahead, D_X, you take great pride in the fact that you are, in your opinion, not special.

2009-09-17 16:46:22

#108

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

My mum says I'm special
But not special in the context of the rest of cosmos.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-17 16:49:06

#109

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6732|The Land of Scott Walker

Why not?

2009-09-17 16:54:57

#110

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

Because the cosmos is so incredibly large the probablity is that planet earth and the life on it are average rather than special.
Its all here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

Fuck Israel

2009-09-17 17:04:22

#111

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6281|Truthistan

The philosophy that "everyone is special" simply encourages mediocrity by ensuring that no one will be special.
The Philospohy of Dash Parr

I think that means that Stingray is encouraging D_X

2009-09-18 00:18:39

#112

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6962|Canberra, AUS

Personally I dislike the anthropic principle and mediocrity principle and stuff like that to do with astronomy. Strikes me as less scientific and mathematical and more towards the philosophical.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-18 00:24:25

#113

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6888|132 and Bush

Why is the Universe expanding faster? I have my own theory.. What is beyond the edge (the observable universe) is more massive.
Discuss .

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-18 00:41:33

#114

PureFodder: Member; +225|6572

Spark wrote:
Personally I dislike the anthropic principle and mediocrity principle and stuff like that to do with astronomy. Strikes me as less scientific and mathematical and more towards the philosophical.

They are scientific because they stop very unscientific expalinations that revolve aroud the obviously unprovable ideas that the universe is made just for little old us. Literally in this case the blokes assumption that we are in the middle of the universe (the entire universe not just our visible universe) is because that will give us the best view of the universe that God made for us. That is the basis of his argument. If you get rid of the mediocrity principle, then you can claim that everything in the universe is that way becuse if it wasn't humanity as we know it wouldn't exist, rather than the more scientific approach that humanity as we know it exists such as it is to best fit the conditions that exist. (put another way is the container just the right shape for the liquid or does the liquid just fit which ever shape the container happens to be?) There is no scientific reason to believe that we're a special case of anything.

2009-09-18 04:41:41

#115

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6972|United States of America

Dilbert_X wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle
We aren't special, some people can't deal with that and turn to religion which tells them we are.

PS I was right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

Spare us the tired, old "religion is for the weak-minded who can't handle life, so they make something up" argument...

2009-09-18 05:28:56

#116

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6962|Canberra, AUS

PureFodder wrote:
Spark wrote:
Personally I dislike the anthropic principle and mediocrity principle and stuff like that to do with astronomy. Strikes me as less scientific and mathematical and more towards the philosophical.
They are scientific because they stop very unscientific expalinations that revolve aroud the obviously unprovable ideas that the universe is made just for little old us. Literally in this case the blokes assumption that we are in the middle of the universe (the entire universe not just our visible universe) is because that will give us the best view of the universe that God made for us. That is the basis of his argument. If you get rid of the mediocrity principle, then you can claim that everything in the universe is that way becuse if it wasn't humanity as we know it wouldn't exist, rather than the more scientific approach that humanity as we know it exists such as it is to best fit the conditions that exist. (put another way is the container just the right shape for the liquid or does the liquid just fit which ever shape the container happens to be?) There is no scientific reason to believe that we're a special case of anything.

I didn't say they were unscientific, I said they were less scientific. There is no observational evidence for an anthropic principle and there won't be for a very long time if ever.

And "it's scientific because it prevents people making unscientific suggestions" is an odd one.

As for the mediocrity principle, well.

The mediocrity principle is the notion in philosophy of science

I'm not saying we should abandon it, I'm just saying it's a part of science I don't paticularly 'like' (<3 maths, mathematical physics and anything in which the only variables you have to deal with are little symbol on a page)

Last edited by Spark (2009-09-18 05:29:50)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-18 06:23:10

#117

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

DesertFox wrote:
Spare us the tired, old "religion is for the weak-minded who can't handle life, so they make something up" argument...

But its my best one

Fuck Israel

2009-09-18 23:41:26

#118

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5986

Dilbert_X wrote:
DesertFox wrote:
Spare us the tired, old "religion is for the weak-minded who can't handle life, so they make something up" argument...
But its my best one

Ahaha, "my."

2009-09-28 04:31:07

#119

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:
Look at the guy's theory (assuming it's the Dr. Russell Humphreys stuff) It requires:
a) there is an edge of the universe, contrary to physics
b) there is a centre of the universe, contrary to physics
c) the Earth is near the centre of the universe, violating the mediocrity principle.

Total fail.

a) If the universe is expanding (according to physics), there MUST be an edge. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

b) If the universe is expanding from a central explosive singularity (again...according to physics), there MUST be a center. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

c) It absolutely DOES NOT require the earth to be anywhere in particular in the universe. The whole concept is the earth's known/suspected position RELATIVE to the known/suspected origin point (the center), which obviates your position that it REQUIRES the earth to be somewhere near the center. All according to physics, mind you.

not so fail...if you bother to think about it for half a second.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-28 04:32:54

#120

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The point being that it doesn't mean there's NOT a God, either.
True, but at least there is a pile of evidence which supports the big bang theory, and none which supports existence of god.

None of which eliminates the existence of one, either.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-28 04:36:53

#121

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6962|Canberra, AUS

There could be a boundary between the 'observable' and 'unobservable' universe, no it makes no sense but we are talking about an area of science that physics knows nothing about.

We haven't even decided whether the universe follows "normal" geometry or not (which is actually rather important to our discussion - I think hyperbolic is favoured now?)

Last edited by Spark (2009-09-28 04:39:34)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-28 05:55:22

#122

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
None of which eliminates the existence of one, either.

Correct, but if there is a pile of evidence backing one argument, and none at all backing the other I'll go with the one which has something more than faith behind it.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-28 06:18:07

#123

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6829|Texas - Bigger than France

FEOS wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
Look at the guy's theory (assuming it's the Dr. Russell Humphreys stuff) It requires:
a) there is an edge of the universe, contrary to physics
b) there is a centre of the universe, contrary to physics
c) the Earth is near the centre of the universe, violating the mediocrity principle.

Total fail.
a) If the universe is expanding (according to physics), there MUST be an edge. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

b) If the universe is expanding from a central explosive singularity (again...according to physics), there MUST be a center. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

c) It absolutely DOES NOT require the earth to be anywhere in particular in the universe. The whole concept is the earth's known/suspected position RELATIVE to the known/suspected origin point (the center), which obviates your position that it REQUIRES the earth to be somewhere near the center. All according to physics, mind you.

not so fail...if you bother to think about it for half a second.

Clarification

a) According to Einstein, space is curved. If you are thinking 3 dimensions...there is no edge - if you travel in the same direction, you'll end up in the same spot. In actuality, everything exists on the "edge"...if you go beyond 3D thinking. Or at least, that's how I think all of this is supposed to be interpreted.
See second paragraph
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110484/ … .php?id=52

2009-09-28 14:28:21

#124

PureFodder: Member; +225|6572

FEOS wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
Look at the guy's theory (assuming it's the Dr. Russell Humphreys stuff) It requires:
a) there is an edge of the universe, contrary to physics
b) there is a centre of the universe, contrary to physics
c) the Earth is near the centre of the universe, violating the mediocrity principle.

Total fail.
a) If the universe is expanding (according to physics), there MUST be an edge. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

b) If the universe is expanding from a central explosive singularity (again...according to physics), there MUST be a center. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

c) It absolutely DOES NOT require the earth to be anywhere in particular in the universe. The whole concept is the earth's known/suspected position RELATIVE to the known/suspected origin point (the center), which obviates your position that it REQUIRES the earth to be somewhere near the center. All according to physics, mind you.

not so fail...if you bother to think about it for half a second.

Go read up on the physics of the universe, there really is no 'edge' of the universe. Don't try to claim things are 'according to physics' if you haven't done the research first.

2009-09-28 16:09:04

#125

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7062|Noizyland

I don't want to shit all over the movie but from reading the synopsis in the OP - Darwin never lost his faith in God, in fact in Origin as well as Decent he argued that God and evolution weren't mutually exclusive; that God instead of creating everything exactly as they are instead created them and then created a rule in order to turn them into what they are today. Darwin wasn't a religious man but then he was brought up in the period after the enlightenment when people were trying to explain the world around them instead of simply falling back on "God made it that way".

Darwin wasn't the father of Eugenics either, he was a naturalist, it was others who took Origin and applied to humanity. Darwin's follow-up Decent addressed humanity and although some argue this work suggested the theory that would become eugenics Darwin never was clear on whether he believed in it - certainly not on a practical scale. It was other men, most notably Sir Frances Galton a half-cousin of Darwin's, who would define and propagate the theory.

Anyway eugenics was an accepted science, people like Winston Churchill, Ted Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson believed in it. Since it did turn out so tragically, (Mr. Hitler also subscribed to eugenics,) and looking back on it it can be seen how racist, cruel an wrong it was Christianity likes to use it as an example of what happens when you leave the "all people created equal under God", (HAH!) model and instead rely on rational thought and logic to explain the world.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

BF2S Forums Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Spark wrote:

DesertFox wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

DesertFox wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Board footer