Astronomers date star's birth back to nearly the dawn of time

[TheElite]

They may not even find out anything. If they do, lets hope they understand it.

[Mathiasdm]

So, if we do get something useful out of it, even though understanding it may take some time, which area of physics would it most likely over-rule or change our understanding of? Or speculation is of no use here as we don't know any of the possible outcomes?

Well, it could overrule basically anything. Since we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, it's very much possible that the laws of physics that we know, didn't even exist!

It is like "carbon dating." Pfffffft. The ego on some peoples shoulders.

Care to explain?

Carbon dating works fine, as far as I know, as long as you:

-don't extrapolate too far (you're allowed to extrapolate, just not too much)

-keep in mind changes in the atmosphere in the past X years

[vincent]

Easy and comforting answers with no rhyme? Ok.

When there is undeniable proof that God does not exist, or undeniable proof that this universe wasn't created by a divine being, then we'll speak.

Logical fallacy, you can't disprove something that has not been proven to exist in the first place.

[TheElite]

Well, if I know that something exists, but can't prove TO YOU that he exists, does that mean he doesn't really exist?

Atleast with this there's belief. With science EVERYTHING is unproven until you can prove it. It's a shame you need leaps of faith with science aswell.

[acies]

Well, if I know that something exists, but can't prove TO YOU that he exists, does that mean he doesn't really exist?

Well why should anyone think "he" exists?? Do you think God told George Bush to go to war?

Atleast with this there's belief. With science EVERYTHING is unproven until you can prove it. It's a shame you need leaps of faith with science aswell.

See science doesn't need "faith" to create a theory or prove something I mean what's the point in that? Science is simply a way of furthering knowledge in a systematic way. You don't "believe" in evolution or the big bang, these are just very strongly supported theories with good solid evidence.

[TheElite]

Well why should anyone think "he" exists?? Do you think God told George Bush to go to war?

See science doesn't need "faith" to create a theory or prove something I mean what's the point in that? Science is simply a way of furthering knowledge in a systematic way. You don't "believe" in evolution or the big bang, these are just very strongly supported theories with good solid evidence.

Why should anyone believe anything at all? Hmm, lets see, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN IT.

Bush is a moron.

Yes, these theories have evidence which you put in if it fits or discard if it doesn't. Then you link up everything you want and call it a theory. Then you conduct tests to see if they somehow fit, so you have some evidence. If the result does not match, then you throw it out and go to extreme lengths to find a way of matching it. Thats science alright.

The Big Bang theory might be a good one, but its incomplete. If you dont know what was there before this single dense atom, how can you be so sure that this was the only atom there that sparked the universe. Assumptions. In science, if you cant see something, you assume that it doesnt exist at all.

Edited May 25, 2007 by ZAnwar

[vincent]

Well, if I know that something exists, but can't prove TO YOU that he exists, does that mean he doesn't really exist?

More than likely, no. In order for a god to exist as within said claims, it has to be irrefutable and absolute for everyone, personal experience(s) don't fly too well in the arena of logic. Here is the thing. You can't disprove something that has not had evidence offered. Thats what the word means. The prefix 'dis' means to remove. So to disprove something means to remove or refute proof (in this case evidence). Trouble is claims for God keep getting refuted. But the theists don't play fair and keep insisting that there is a God even if they can't show any evidence that stands up for it.

You cannot disprove what has not been proven. Because there is no significant evidence for God it is an unsupported claim. There is no need to disprove it because it has not been succesfully proven.

This is why the flow of burden of proof is laid out the way it is. The positive claimant has to provide evidence supporting their case. If it is sufficient then it is accepted as likely true. But if the evidence or claims are effectively refuted then the claim has failed and it is not accepted as true.

Atleast with this there's belief. With science EVERYTHING is unproven until you can prove it. It's a shame you need leaps of faith with science aswell.

Science builds on doubt... you're horribly wrong here, it's a methodology, not a belief system son.

[vincent]

Why should anyone believe anything at all? Hmm, lets see, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN IT.

Bush is a moron.

non-sequitur, coupled with a horible ad-hominem :laugh: how did bush get into this discussion, i have no clue.

Yes, these theories have evidence which you put in if it fits or discard if it doesn't. Then you link up everything you want and call it a theory. Then you conduct tests to see if they somehow fit, so you have some evidence. If the result does not match, then you throw it out and go to extreme lengths to find a way of matching it. Thats science alright.

And you're wrong but thanks for playing, i can keep this up as long as you like.

The Big Bang theory might be a good one, but its incomplete. If you dont know what was there before this single dense atom, how can you be so sure that this was the only atom there that sparked the universe. Assumptions. In science, if you cant see something, you assume that it doesnt exist at all.

Perhaps it is incomplete, perhaps it isn't science doesn't deal in the business of absolutes. The Big bang is the most accepted theory, becasue that is what the evidence points to, this isn't really hard to understand. When is the last time you've pointed a telescope out to the night sky?

[acies]

Bush is a moron.

Yea, that's my point.

Yes, these theories have evidence which you put in if it fits or discard if it doesn't. Then you link up everything you want and call it a theory. Then you conduct tests to see if they somehow fit, so you have some evidence. If the result does not match, then you throw it out and go to extreme lengths to find a way of matching it. Thats science alright.

What?? You think science just makes things up. What would be the point in that?!?

The Big Bang theory might be a good one, but its incomplete. If you dont know what was there before this single dense atom, how can you be so sure that this was the only atom there that sparked the universe. Assumptions. In science, if you cant see something, you assume that it doesnt exist at all.

Do you have a better theory you'd like to put forward???

PS: ripgut, glad you changed your sig, that penguin was scaring me.

[TheElite]

Perhaps it is incomplete, perhaps it isn't science doesn't deal in the business of absolutes. The Big bang is the most accepted theory, becasue that is what the evidence points to, this isn't really hard to understand. When is the last time you've pointed a telescope out to the night sky?

If science doesn't deal with absolutes, how can you have faith in something that may not be what it is. If we have some evidence of it, there maybe more evidence which disproves something.

Big Bang for example, if there is so much evidence pointing to it, why don't we class this as the norm? It's because theres something missing. We cannot totally PROVE it happened. You know aswell as I do that we are ignorant about what was there before this bang. You only know how the universe was made, you dont know anything about the circumstances around this though.

Is pointing a microscope into the sky going to prove the Big Bang occurred?

Yea, that's my point.

What?? You think science just makes things up. What would be the point in that?!?

Do you have a better theory you'd like to put forward???

Ok, we've agreed Bush is a moron.

Science sees things and tries to explain how it works. Whether the evidence is convincing or not, is a different matter.

No, I'll leave this for the "open-minded free thinkers". :whistle:

More than likely, no. In order for a god to exist as within said claims, it has to be irrefutable and absolute for everyone, personal experience(s) don't fly too well in the arena of logic. Here is the thing. You can't disprove something that has not had evidence offered. Thats what the word means. The prefix 'dis' means to remove. So to disprove something means to remove or refute proof (in this case evidence). Trouble is claims for God keep getting refuted. But the theists don't play fair and keep insisting that there is a God even if they can't show any evidence that stands up for it.

You cannot disprove what has not been proven. Because there is no significant evidence for God it is an unsupported claim. There is no need to disprove it because it has not been succesfully proven.

Refuted by who? Scientists?

[acies]

Is pointing a microscope into the sky going to prove the Big Bang occurred?

I am no expert, but as far as I know it's because of the time delay, light can only travel so fast. The further into space you look the further back in time your seeing. Hence when you look into space you can see the universe as it was.

Ok, we've agreed Bush is a moron.

Yea, I do agree. Although that wasn't my point. More to do with you seeing his statement as moronic.

Science sees things and tries to explain how it works. Whether the evidence is convincing or not, is a different matter.

No, I'll leave this for the "open-minded free thinkers". :whistle:

I don't know if your trying to imply something there.

Refuted by who? Scientists?

Refuted by the world as we know it.

[TheElite]

Refuted by the world as we know it.

By the world? Last time I checked, the majority of the world, were in one way or another, theist; Meaning, had belief in a God. :rolleyes:

[vincent]

By the world? Last time I checked, the majority of the world, were in one way or another, theist; Meaning, had belief in a God. :rolleyes:

Nature itself refutes god

[TheElite]

May I ask how?

[acies]

I can't help but feel were going in circles here....

May I ask how?

Time and time again science, logic and common sense contradict such holy books as The Bible, hence why they are not considered historical fact

[TheElite]

I was talking about nature.

Not even I would consider the Bible as fact, whats your point?

[acies]

I see well, I guess it depends on what your believing. For example, if you think two giant god decided to create the earth, well there's nothing really to refute.

[TheElite]

I would even refute the 2 god theory. THAT would be illogical AND impractical.

But people believing in a God, theres nothing ridiculous about that.

[acies]

I would even refute the 2 god theory. THAT would be illogical AND impractical.

But people believing in a God, theres nothing ridiculous about that.

It's as ridiculous as any belief in any god/s.

[vincent]

I would even refute the 2 god theory. THAT would be illogical AND impractical.

On what grounds?

But people believing in a God, theres nothing ridiculous about that.

How so?

[TheElite]

It's as ridiculous as any belief in any god/s.

In your opinion.

On what grounds?

How so?

On the grounds that God has got many attributes. All of these are absolute, like The Most Powerful. What is there to say that both Gods have the same power, and the same attributes? What dictates that they don't have an argument after every decision? It's the same reason why the Trinity in Christianity doesn't work.

How so? Well, people believe that the holy books (or most of them) were written by God. In them are stated numerous miracles and reasons for life. Also it is stated how to live your life according to a good person. People believe God ordained all this.

[vincent]

In your opinion.

On the grounds that God has got many attributes. All of these are absolute, like The Most Powerful. What is there to say that both Gods have the same power, and the same attributes? What dictates that they don't have an argument after every decision? It's the same reason why the Trinity in Christianity doesn't work.

This lacks evidence.

How so? Well, people believe that the holy books (or most of them) were written by God. In them are stated numerous miracles and reasons for life. Also it is stated how to live your life according to a good person. People believe God ordained all this.

Belief doesn't constitute as evidence. In fact faith is just that, a firm belief in spite of evidence.

[TheElite]

Why doesn't belief constitute as evidence?

Maybe if there was one madman saying this, then maybe your argument could be right. But with over 3 billion reasonable people believing this, doesnt that constitute as evidence?

[vincent]

Why doesn't belief constitute as evidence?

Maybe if there was one madman saying this, then maybe your argument could be right. But with over 3 billion reasonable people believing this, doesnt that constitute as evidence?

Reasonable? Are you seriously going to use that as an argument? I can believe in the purple snake living in my pocket and get a million people to do so with me, doesn't make it true. This isn't hard to understand.

[benplace]

There is no age of the Universe. Time does not run in a straight line, it only appears that way to our species, which is not intelligent enough to understand the Universe.

Once we accept that we will understand the Universe better.

Also, there IS other life in the Universe. Why haven't they come to Earth to enhance our tehnology? Why havent we spent billions of dollars to enchance the technology of Gorillas in the jungle?