Aug 29 - Bill Nye The Science Guy Rips On American's Who Teach Creationism To Children

most viewed right now
 161
NBA Lebron James just PUBLICLY ETHERED Stephen Curry CAREER and TOOK HIS SOUL ..
38 comments
@sports
most viewed right now
 161
Article inside New photo of Jet Li's physical deterioration is astonishing
61 comments
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 140
2008-2018: The New Wave Where are they Now?
71 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 124
Image(s) inside This girl is so fcking ugly Oh my but her body A1
58 comments
@thotsdimesetc

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 6 years ago '11        #161
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,562 | Props total: 6771 6771
 HHS said:
You couldn't know an event was random unless you observed it under experimental conditions, otherwise other factors might be influencing it that made it not entirely random.
So what random occurrences has science observed then?
 6 years ago '04        #162
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,555 | Props total: 94 94
 Kadillac87 said:
So what random occurrences has science observed then?
The breakdown of unstable atoms.
 6 years ago '11        #163
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,562 | Props total: 6771 6771
 HHS said:
The breakdown of unstable atoms.
I wouldn't say radioactivity is completely random since the catalyst is an unstable atom. You can't be certain how it will decay, but we know the atom doesn't have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together. Random in science means unpredictable. It doesn't mean without cause. We have a cause which is an unstable atom. Again, we've have only know about radioactivity for about 100 years. Potential discovery of the Higgs Boson means we possible don't even know all about particles on a sub-atomic level. Maybe it's not as random as it seems. And it's funny that you use the uncertainty of radioactivity as an example seeing how many people use radioactivity as a means to calculate with certainty of how old the Earth is.


Last edited by Kadillac87; 09-02-2012 at 04:38 PM..
 6 years ago '04        #164
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,555 | Props total: 94 94
 Kadillac87 said:
I wouldn't say radioactivity is completely random since the catalyst is an unstable atom. You can't be certain how it will decay, but we know the atom doesn't have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together. And it's funny that you use radioactivity as an example seeing how many people use radioactivity as a means to calculate how old the Earth is.
The chance a particular atom will decay is a constant, and the decay rate for a large group of atoms can be computed, but at what point in time a particular atom will break down is random.

Anyway, we're getting too far into this. Your original argument was that the idea of random occurrences was one taken on blind faith, but that's simply untrue, the claim of random occurrences is established on evidence and experimentation, which is the opposite of blind faith.
 6 years ago '11        #165
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,562 | Props total: 6771 6771
 HHS said:
The chance a particular atom will decay is a constant, and the decay rate for a large group of atoms can be computed, but at what point in time a particular atom will break down is random.

Anyway, we're getting too far into this. Your original argument was that the idea of random occurrences was one taken on blind faith, but that's simply untrue, the claim of random occurrences is established on evidence and experimentation, which is the opposite of blind faith.
Again, an unstable atom breaking down isn't without cause. We know it will breakdown due to it's unstable nature. As I mentioned in my edited post, we don't even know all it is about subatomic particle to classify it as completely random yet. You're taking random occurrence as a scientific term, meaning something with cause but is unpredictable in nature. I'm taking it as something truly without cause or governing laws.
 6 years ago '04        #166
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,555 | Props total: 94 94
 Kadillac87 said:
Again, an unstable atom breaking down isn't without cause. We know it will breakdown due to it's unstable nature. As I mentioned in my edited post, we don't even know all it is about subatomic particle to classify it as completely random yet. You're taking random occurrence as a scientific term, meaning something with cause but is unpredictable in nature. I'm taking it as something truly without cause or governing laws.
As in what?
 6 years ago '11        #167
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,562 | Props total: 6771 6771
 HHS said:
As in what?
You tell me. You said it is observable by science. What has happened without cause?
 6 years ago '04        #168
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,555 | Props total: 94 94
I gave you a valid example of randomness and now you're moving the goal posts, and this is all beside the point, which was the role of blind faith.


Last edited by HHS; 09-02-2012 at 06:49 PM..
 6 years ago '11        #169
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,562 | Props total: 6771 6771
 HHS said:
I gave you a valid example of randomness and now you're moving the goal posts, and this is all beside the point, which was the role of blind faith.
Umm, no. I made it very clear what I meant by random.

 Kadillac87 said:
Funny you say unpredictable because every "random" event in science has an equation. So is it really random if you can model it by an equation? And even something that appears random is governed by something. What random occurrence has science observed wasn't governed by some set of laws? Your idea of random is observing something occurring in a predefined space under predefined laws and conditions without an explanation. So has science really observed true random occurrences?

I have reiterated this statement continuously. So yes, science hasn't observed a true random occurrence. Again with the radioactivity example. Something I have harped on again and again. You say it is unpredictable event. Then why are we certain we can use an unpredictable event to determine with certainty the age of things much older than any human has lived? Is that not blind faith?
 6 years ago '04        #170
HHS 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$5,555 | Props total: 94 94
You're not talking about a random occurrence, you're talking about an event completely unconnected to anything. What scientifically based event do people have blind faith in that is completely unconnected anything?

As for why radioactive decay can be used for dating, it's only the decay of an individual atom that is random, the overall chance of decay is constant for a collection of atoms. Based on the evidence (not blind faith) we have, this is a constant and so can be used for dating. If someone can prove that incorrect, it'll have to be reevaluated.
 6 years ago '06        #171
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 HHS said:
Let's say you can't find the remote control to your TV. You go to look for it everywhere around the house, and you find it in a kitchen drawer that you know you haven't used recently. Now, you didn't see someone place it there, so you can't know for sure how it got there, but you can guess.

You know other people live with you and use the remote control and the kitchen. So, one possibility is that one of them put it in the drawer. Another possibility is that a gremlin snuck into your house and hid the remote control so you couldn't find it. Despite not actually seeing either thing happen, which explanation are you gonna heavily lean toward?

Now, take this one step further and say that you asked someone if they moved the remote control, and they say no, they didn't, and they claim that a gremlin moved the remote control. Do you accept their story as equally valid and plausible, or do you suspect that they're either lying or delusional?

Years later, you tell the story of the lost remote control, and you've come around to the gremlin theory. It's based on a fact, that the remote control was lost and you found it in a drawer, but does that mean every part of the account is factual?

Let's say later on the body of a mysterious creature is found, a creature that looks like the gremlin described in your lost remote episode.. The people who found it tell their friends, take pictures, let biologists examine it and test its DNA, and its found to be unlike any known animal. This knowledge is based on concrete, objective analysis, removing the existence of gremlins from the realm of the entirely subjective, and now we can reevaluate the story, because now the fantastical part of the story has some evidence, not just the mundane. Science allows us to do that, faith does not, because faith is entirely subjective.



[pic - click to view]

 6 years ago '06        #172
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
They both require blind faith. Belief in random occurrence or belief in God. That's what it comes down to. Did the physical laws that govern science happen by random occurrence or was it designed that way?
thats BS
 6 years ago '06        #173
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 HHS said:
You're not talking about a random occurrence, you're talking about an event completely unconnected to anything. What scientifically based event do people have blind faith in that is completely unconnected anything?

As for why radioactive decay can be used for dating, it's only the decay of an individual atom that is random, the overall chance of decay is constant for a collection of atoms. Based on the evidence (not blind faith) we have, this is a constant and so can be used for dating. If someone can prove that incorrect, it'll have to be reevaluated.
the problem wit these types of debates, is that wen the super religious person gets his card pulled, he has no choice but to "move the goal posts" or admit his beliefs are a logical fallacy and ultimately question wat he stands for
 6 years ago '08        #174
GrownmanJ 21 heat pts21
space
avatar space
space
$4,889 | Props total: 7 7
Kadillac went hard in this thread...
 6 years ago '11        #175
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,562 | Props total: 6771 6771
 HHS said:
You're not talking about a random occurrence, you're talking about an event completely unconnected to anything. What scientifically based event do people have blind faith in that is completely unconnected anything?

As for why radioactive decay can be used for dating, it's only the decay of an individual atom that is random, the overall chance of decay is constant for a collection of atoms. Based on the evidence (not blind faith) we have, this is a constant and so can be used for dating. If someone can prove that incorrect, it'll have to be reevaluated.
That is the definition of a random occurrence. And have you not heard of The Big Bang Theory? Quantum fluctuations? Science explains things already confined to predefined physical laws. With no God or catalyst, science will have to observe an event completely unconnected to anything which produces these set of predefined laws. That's the basis of The Big Bang Theory. An event completely unconnected to anything without a catalyst is science's blind faith.


And again, how can something based on chance be treated as a constant? That is the big a.ssumption radioactive dating relies on. The crutch of radioactive dating is an a.ssumption. How can one be certain when at the core, it rely on an a.ssumption?
 6 years ago '06        #176
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
That is the definition of a random occurrence. And have you not heard of The Big Bang Theory? Quantum fluctuations? Science explains things already confined to predefined physical laws. With no God or catalyst, science will have to observe an event completely unconnected to anything which produces these set of predefined laws. That's the basis of The Big Bang Theory. An event completely unconnected to anything without a catalyst is science's blind faith.


And again, how can something based on chance be treated as a constant? That is the big a.ssumption radioactive dating relies on. The crutch of radioactive dating is an a.ssumption. How can one be certain when at the core, it rely on an a.ssumption?
ur right and the science community acknowledges it as a THEORY, and even then theres some evidence that lends to the notion that the big bang COULD have happened. but scientists openly admit that its speculatory, whereas ppl with FAITH, dont usually wanna hear from sh*t
 6 years ago '11        #177
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,562 | Props total: 6771 6771
 nightmare said:
the problem wit these types of debates, is that wen the super religious person gets his card pulled, he has no choice but to "move the goal posts" or admit his beliefs are a logical fallacy and ultimately question wat he stands for
Show me where I have been inconsistent with my message? Where have I moved the goal post?
 6 years ago '06        #178
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
Show me where I have been inconsistent with my message? Where have I moved the goal post?
for example wen dude man was talking about the blind faith that exists in science, u kept prattling on about radioactive decay, going all off the main point
 6 years ago '06        #179
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 GrownmanJ said:
Kadillac went hard in this thread...
ill give him that much, he dont give up
 6 years ago '11        #180
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,562 | Props total: 6771 6771
 nightmare said:
ur right and the science community acknowledges it as a THEORY, and even then theres some evidence that lends to the notion that the big bang COULD have happened. but scientists openly admit that its speculatory, whereas ppl with FAITH, dont usually wanna hear from sh*t
A lot of things in science are considered THEORY. A lot of things in science are speculatory that you accept as fact. The basis of science is speculatory. It relies on a.ssumptions. As I have said, again and again, how can something speculatory in nature disprove something else you consider speculatory in nature?
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 46
Video inside Russians catching up on the the Culture too now, Jheeeeeeeze!!
64 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 38
Ms Vicky gives my blicky a stiffy with them titties
60 comments
22 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 26
Video inside I’ll take “things a brotha wouldn’t do” for $200 Alex
148 comments
1 day ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 24
NBA BX do you agree with Scottie Pippen??
176 comments
23 hours ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 16
Image(s) inside Arab girls are leveling up too(got a booty and curves)
73 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 14
Video inside This was by far the best catfish
118 comments
23 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 11
May 20 - Europeans Clown US Gun Violence & The NRA - #MAGA
121 comments
23 hours ago
@news
most viewed right now
 9
Video inside Slut Amber Rose meets the Slut Maker
60 comments
2 days ago
@thotsdimesetc
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy