- Member for
- 5 years 36 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- there is a lot of compelling evidence for the non-static evolution of the universe, commonly known at BBT. stellar and galactic metallicity measurements, particle & atomic theory, Inflation, labda-CDM model, CMB temperature measuements & anisotropies of the CMB power spectrum. stellar standard candle measurements and doppler effect velocity measurements. I could go on, but that's all I can remember off the top of my head.
- the amount & diversity of evidence for BBT amounts to a molehill when compared to the mountain of evidence for evolution via natural selection.
|1 day 2 hours ago||big win for us- Minn probably||
big win for us- Minn probably can't go below 50 in RPI no right? If they beat Wisc tomorrow- oh man that's big.
|2 days 7 hours ago||oh shit, I forgot about||
oh shit, I forgot about losing Rivera. WTF. gonna be a long year.
|2 days 8 hours ago||yeah, I'm not expecting much||
yeah, I'm not expecting much from the Yankees this year, especially from Jeter, unfortunately. Too much time off this late in his career doesn't bode well. I'm expecting about 130 games played- probably only 80 at SS. About .230 BA, .290 SLG, .350 OBP. 50-60 RBIs, 3-5 HRs, 70-80 runs scored.
people will knock him for being overrated and having so much media attention- but that's nothing new.
|2 days 12 hours ago||Thank you as well!||
Thank you as well!
|2 days 13 hours ago||theories are not EASILY||
theories are not EASILY immutable if the theory is a strong one. so yeah a ...
single piece of the right information can be enough if it provides a better explanation for observed phenomena.
so, observing an apple falling upwards. yes, that would throw a wrench into gravity theory. An equivalent wrench would be finding a dinosaur fossil chained to an ancient house structure circa 6000 BC. and radiologically dating all the fossil and structure to 8000 years ago. Yabba dabba do.
If I misinterpreted your level of understanding of scientific theory based on your misuse of the word 'opinion,' then sorry for that.
|2 days 14 hours ago||You can teach intelligent||
You can teach intelligent design without naming the "designer"
Not in a science classroom. Intelligent design is just a name change for creationism. No matter what you call it, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.
and being one of the guys on the Big Bang Theory (which I obviously am not and don't claim to be)
I was one of those guys on BBT. Now I teach. I don't know as much about evolution compared to BBT. Nonetheless, I am very confident in saying 2 things:
I'll have to look into your angular momentum information.
you do that. may I suggest:
you may want to do backgroud research on moments (rotational inertia), torque and angular velocity all of which can be found at that site.
I could list many names of great scientific pioneers whose Christian beliefs did not preclude them from making some of the greatest discoveries in the history of man.
No one would dispute this. As I mentioned in this thread somewhere else: NOT all religious/devout people attack science, but ALL people who attack science are religious/devout. And they aren't attacking just any/all science, just the parts that make them feel "squishy" about their faith. Not gravity, but biological evolution via natural selection. Not cancer, or quantum theory, but BBT.
I have never seen any science that has interfered with the narrative of my religion,
could have fooled me. it sounds like BBT and evolution via natural selection seem to slightly interfere.
|2 days 15 hours ago||why don't all the celestial||
why don't all the celestial bodies spin in the same direction?
this is why I assume you don't have a science background. you don't demonstrate any knowledge [edit: no, it's reall UNDERSTANDING] of the science behind the Big Bang or evolution. Assuming that an infinitecimal singularity whose initial composition is all energy and no matter would be spinning (which is a big assumption), as the universe expanded, the rotation rate would actually slow down (for the same reason that a figure skater slows down when their arms extend). Now, assuming a finite initial rotation speed, and the amount the universe has expanded since then (essentially infinity), it's no surprise that we don't observe rotation: it would be so close to zero that we likely couldn't observe it. Not to mention, that local gravitational influences cause torques that can change the amount of anular momentum an individual local system would have. In addition, angular momentum is a vector, so the DIRECTION of an objects spin (Counter clockwise, say) can cancel out the ang. mom. of a clockwise spinning object- resulting in a net ang mom of zero. So even if the ang mom of the universe has to be constant, individual objects within the system can spin in opposite directions to produce a net ang mom of zero. This angular momentum arguement is one of the more sophistic arguments I've read from creationists. Looks like you've been reading a lot of Ray Comfort literature. I mean, are we gonna argue that bananas were perfectly designed by god to fit into the hands of humans next? well, there goes evolution theory, everyone.
I accept most of science as fact
Sure, as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrivite as described in your religion.
|3 days 40 min ago||DVR is an amazing advancement||
DVR is an amazing advancement is TV tech. But it doesn't have as huge of an impact on any TV show for me, in comparison to hoops.
I can still watch a normal TV show w/o DVR. Football, hockey, the news, etc. but basketball? NO WAY. I can't watch Mich-Purdue without having a 45+ min lag on my DVR, let a lone an important game. I don't even consider watching M games in real time anymore. the times out are ridic and the DVR'd alternative is 100000000 times better.
|3 days 1 hour ago||http://www.talkorigins.org/fa||
it's incredibly frustrating when people who have absolutely no fucking idea about how science works or how evolution works basically say, "teach all the alternatives." that's just stupid. I have an alternative theory of gravity: you see, I think magic pixies drag all objects to the ground. Shall we teach the magic pixies theory of gravity to everyone in elementary school & HS too? It's only fair, afterall. I mean, if newtonian gravity theory is really so superior, let it rise to the top in schools. Hey, here's another idea: let's teach the alternative to D=M/V (I call it the "witch theory"). You see, my theory on density is that witches float because they have renounced baptism when entering the Devil's service. If you sink, you're innocent. if you float, you're a witch and shall be burned. I mean, if D=M/V is such a solid theory, then all the kids will clearly see that if we teach both theories.
Let's switch shoes for a moment. Imagine if I were harping on trying to get people to teach something in your sunday school at church/mosk/temple. Would you enjoy me coming in to your church and teaching against the fundamental tenents of your religion? Consider, I don't even know much about your religion- I'm sure I'm almost totally ignorant of it in fact.
Here's a deal I'm willing to strike: How about I stay out of your church and you stay out of my science classroom. Neither of us have a leg to stand on in the other's area, so let's agree to that. I'm in. Let's do it.
And I'm not ridiculing you, I'm ridculing a belief. laughable beliefs like pixies and witch density and creationism should be ridiculed, not respected. people should be respected, not beliefs. beliefs should be questioned & held to an evidentiary standard.
|3 days 1 hour ago||well again, DM can be||
well again, DM can be measured thru it's gravitational influence only.
Similar for DE, tho it has been a few years since I've read about the details.
I don't know if it's reasonable to doubt theories b/c past theories are often wrong. much of the time the theories are amended based on new evidence. Certainly, electron theory, QM, evolution, gravity shouldn't be doubted b/c humans have been wrong in the past. Hell, we can't directly observe electrons (recent advances in technology the last few months to a year may have changed this, but IDK), yet our theory of electrons and atomic & molecular interactions works pretty damn well. So, just b/c we can't physically see it or measure it doesn't mean the theory should be doubted.
I suppose the order of magnitude needs to be greater than 50 for your hypothesis to work. the problem is, there isn't any evidence to support it and there's no way to test the hypothesis that I could think of (in less than 5mins anyway).
I also think you've got a misconception about the DM/DE theory. no one's "trying to make sure our equations remain correct." In every other application of the laws of physics, they do work. So we have 2 possibilities: 1) all the equations work in every observed experiment we've ever done, except at the galactic scale. 2) there is some form of matter that we heretofor could not detect b/c it apparently doesn't interact with photons in any way.
now, given the fact that a) there's no evidence and thus no legitimate reason to believe that the laws/equations of physics and chem wouldn't work at large scales and b) the DM theory seems to explain, at the very least, 1) Galactic rotations curves, 2) gravitational lensing, 3) the timescale for and structure of formation of galaxies and superclusters of galaxies on the largest scales, CMB power spectra, and standard candle supernovae confirmation of the Lambda-CDM model of the universe, I'd say DM theory has a pretty decent leg to stand on.
|3 days 6 hours ago||have you ever watched CSI? It||
have you ever watched CSI? It is possible to solve a crime without having to literally witness it in real time. That's precisely what scientists do in Astrophysics.
Why not doubt our estimates for the mass of the sun? We can't run out to the sun with a bathroom scale and weigh it. You tell me why you're so confident about the mass of the sun, but not the larger scale masses of galaxies or super clusters. And don't play scale here either, boss: the masses of stars are ~ 30 orders of magnitude greater than what we can "tangibly measure."
How about the temperature of the Sun? we have very accurate values for surface and internal temperatures of the sun which are 3-6 orders of magnitude greater than temps "tangibly measured" on Earth.
How about ages of the stars? You have to doubt that too, since we can't sit around and wait for a sun-like star to first be born, migrate to the main sequence, migrate off the main sequence, go nova and eventually EVOLVE into a white dwarf.
Even better: intrinsic brightness (luminosity) of stars? those are 40-50 (!!!!) orders of magnitude greater than what we can "tangibly measure" on Earth.
I guess it's more plausible to 'expect' that the laws of the universe just work differently at +x orders of magnitude. Heck, why not? the conventional laws don't work at 10-30 orders of magnitude smaller (quantum scales). Oh wait, I do know why not. There isn't evidence to support that hypothesis. Look you're a good dude, and seem knowledgeble, but you're essentially calling into doubt 90+% of astronomy and astrophysics, with no data, observations or any reason to do so other than a 'gut feeling' or some such, I guess. But hey, you could be right.
|3 days 6 hours ago||As such, a theory is - itself||
As such, a theory is - itself - an opinion.
re: evolution: Sure, an opinion that has a mountain of evidence in support of it. As opposed to say, my opinion that the Sun will rise in the West tomorrow AM.
you're not understanding the difference b/t a hypothesis (closer to an opinion) and a theory. Hypotheses can be invalid based on one piece of counter evidence- theories can not b/c they have mountains of evidence, predicted observations, and experiment in support of them. Generally, it would take more than one single piece of data to counterbalance the evidence in support of evolution.
|3 days 6 hours ago||R U SRS. If the||
R U SRS.
If the alternatives to evolution are so laughable, why not let them all be taught and compared and contrasted in classrooms with the best information we have on all the theories.
Look, the purpose of science education at the secondary and primary level is not to teach every alternative theory to the gravity, evolution, cancer, cell, Newtonian,atomic, electron theories. It's patently ridiculous. This is why:
If evolution is indeed so vastly superior, then it will surely rise to the top.
EVOLUTION HAS ALREADY RISEN TO THE TOP IN SCIENCE. THAT'S WHY IT IS TAUGHT IN CLASSROOMS. EVOLUTION TOOK THE ADAM & EVE CREATION BULLSHIT AND, IN SPITE OF ALL THE CULTURAL AND INSTUTIONAL MOMENTUM CREATION HAD, SHAT ALL OVER IT OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS.
|3 days 15 hours ago||inflection pt? IDTTMWYTIM||
inflection pt? IDTTMWYTIM
|4 days 2 hours ago||Fair enough||
|4 days 2 hours ago||LOL, I'm still waiting for my||
LOL, I'm still waiting for my 'thank you.' I won't hold my breath.
|4 days 2 hours ago||Dark matter and dark energy||
Dark matter and dark energy and other "dark" things are no more than faith
As usual, people are mixing terms. It's not faith in terms of the common usage of the term 'faith". It's faith based on the evidence we have measured, calculated and predicted. You mentioned a lot of the evidence for a form of matter that only seems to be observed based on it's gravitational interaction with light and matter.
Same with "proven." Nothing in science is truely proven as most would interpret that term. Dark matter theory, tho it doesn't have the amount or diversity of evidence in support of it when compared to evolution, nonetheless has a lot of data to support it. The observational effects you mention (lensing, Rot curves, etc) all seem to be explained by the universe containing a type of matter that does not interact with light (except thru its gravity causing spacetime to curve). It's kind of shocking that you dismiss a fairly simple explanation for all those independent observations that indeed do span tens of orders of magnitude.
By the way, these include neither the higgs boson verification last summer, nor the theoretical calculations of large scale structure formation in the early universe whose timescale and size scales & structure cannot be explained without a dark matter component in the universe - and the results of which seem to match observations.
The same could be said for dark energy, tho that is a relatively new (last 15-20 years at most) set of ideas, that again are constructed to understand what is observed. It's not inventing something to "make ourselves right." It's inventing something that explains a varied set of observations and indeed makes accurate predictions of what we should observe in the future. It's inventing something that makes the universe make sense and become predictible. Sure, maybe what we're inventing could turn out to be the wrong model. But the fact is, we don't have a better one right now. And to be honest, I have seen papers that posit amended gravity theories (perturbation gravity theory). They have been published in peer reviewed journals. The thing is, they may explain this ONE thing- rotations curves for milky way-sized galaxies. But these theories don't get a lot of traction b/c they don't explain other size scales or the other myriad observations that DM theory doeas explain.
Still, the more disturbing issue to me is the following: in spite of all the evidence for DM (and lack of evidence to the contrary at this time), you still choose to believe (blindly by definition-if there is no counter evidence, which there isn't) in an alternative that just doesn't have much, if any, evidence behind it. It's very similar to the following thought experiment:
What if penicillin might cause autism (there's no evidence to think that right now, but it's possible)? Now, if your son catches a bacterial infection that threatens his life will you withhold a penicilin regimen treatment? Today, there is no evidence to suggest that he'd be better off WITHOUT that treatment, and a shit-ton to suggest that he's better off WITH it. It is therefore irrational (and criminal, IMO) to refuse the treatment EVEN IF 20 YEARS FROM NOW WE FIND OUT THAT PENICILIN CAUSES AUTISM.
So yeah, maybe we don't have sufficient gaurentees that DM (or any theory) is the correct model for the universe. But damn if it doesn't, 1) explain a shit ton of what we observe and 2) there isn't even close to an equal amount of evidence for a counter theory as of yet. So even if DM turns out to be dead wrong, you're still wrong to not "believe" it- b/c you're just ignoring the evidence for it. See, no one BLAMES ancient people for believeing that the Earth was flat or that the sun travelled around the Earth- b/c based on all the available evidence, that's the best theroy that explained observations up that point! You know what we DO blame ancient people for? NOT CHANGING THEIR MINDS IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THEIR OPINION. IOW, not "believing" the mountain of new evidence that has developed and the theory that explains it all and makes predictions that can be observed and verified. That's what scientists now do- b/c we've learned from the lessons of the past. Always question, always be open to other possibilities. Until the last 150-200 years or so, humanity was turrible at that and progress was slow. Now, it's different. In short, don't believe a theory just b/c it's there, believe the evidence in support of it: the theories' explanations and predictions for what we observe. Belief in spite of evidence is faith. Belief b/c of evidence is science. I encourage more people to engage in the latter rather than the former.
|4 days 4 hours ago||multiple anecdotes !=||
multiple anecdotes != data
not directing it at you specifically, but we don't need every tom dick and harry volunteering their flu shot history- it literally means nothing.
|4 days 6 hours ago||I also believe that there is||
I also believe that there is simply a good chance that the equations we use are good approximations at certain scales and not necessarily at others.
just asking: any evidence for/reason to believe this?
|4 days 6 hours ago||It's not blindly. there is||
It's not blindly.
there is literally a moutain of observational and empirical evidence that not only supports evolution, but verifies the predicitions that evolution makes.
Science presupposes that statements are to be believed based on evidence, not revelation. Based on logic and objective observations, not authority.
The amazing thing to me is, people seem to think that no scientist EVAH has questioned theories before. Like, that's actually how science works. People questioned EVERYTHING about evolution for the last 150+ years. Not just people, PhD's in bio, anthro, astrophysics, entymology, etc etc etc. And you know what convinced all these scientists over the last 150+ years? Not a teacher or a textbook or a gubmint office. The evidence convinced them.
|4 days 7 hours ago||Yeah, I think most do a great||
Yeah, I think most do a great job of that, to be honest.
|4 days 7 hours ago||All people who practice||
All people who practice religion do NOT seriously & publicly attack science (for a given definition of seriously & publicly attack)
All people who seriously & publicly attack science do seem to practice religion.
Long story short, there aren't a lot of "Cheaster" christians looking to get evolution out of biology textbooks.
Also, the International Astronomical Union screwed over Pluto almost a decade ago. Because the evidence was strong enough to do so.
|4 days 7 hours ago||Speciation is a thing. It||
Speciation is a thing. It happened/is happening and can be observed. Happy reading.
|4 days 7 hours ago||lemme know what side of the||
lemme know what side of the fence you fall on re: gravity.
|4 days 7 hours ago||AFA public speakers & science||
AFA public speakers & science educators, it's a tough choice b/t Sagan and Feynman.
|4 days 7 hours ago||I almost posted a thread last||
I almost posted a thread last night, but was too tired to do it. Bravo OP. As someone who knew all of the science in the show (except the biographical stuff), there were no AH HA moments, but nonetheless, I thought the production value was excellent, the graphics very well done and the show overall was great. Yes, there a lot of shows out there (morgan freeman, etc), but this was the pilot and they had to start somewhere. Connected to the Sagan series and everything. Very well done. I hope my kids can get into, but they are a little young (5 & 8).
|4 days 7 hours ago||I recall reading a lot about||
I recall reading a lot about the 1-3-1 when Beilein was hired and being intrigued- especially regarding the 1-3-1's ability to not just generate TOs, but to generate high percentage possessions off those TOs. The 1-3-1 has just ONE man at the baseline guarding the basket. 3 mid-way and the high man (Levert). Off a TO, that creates numbers on the fast break. The high man (Levert) needs to be a great fast break player and finisher at the rim (in addition to a long athletic quick defender obvs) b/c TOs off a 1-3-1 create fast break opportunities more so than a standard zone, or any other half court D for that matter.
It really is a great D if you have the personnel: Levert as the high man, long wings, and a quick PG who is willing to defend the baseline with reckless abandon. It seems to me, we've been slowly bring this out the last 2-3 weeks b/c the B10 was on the line and the team is gearing up for the post season. I bet they've been practicing that D a ton throughout the year (more than one would expect, given they haven't used it until recently) knowing it would be an "ace in the hole" so-to-speak when March rolls around.
|5 days 1 hour ago||b/t the UVa game, MSU losing,||
b/t the UVa game, MSU losing, and NEBRASKETBALL! ...
Everything's coming up Milhouse!
|5 days 1 hour ago||they have to be in. they get||
they have to be in. they get the OSU/Purdont winner, which means worst case is they lose to OSU. that shouldn't knowck out a 11-7 B10 team.
If we can beat the Neb/osu winner, and minnesota can win a couple games, we will be in with a good 2 seed.
|5 days 2 hours ago||M is going to win the B10 by||
M is going to win the B10 by 3 full games. unreal