A group for those interested in science from the vast expanse of the universe or technology.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Scientific method
embed
share
previous next
 
Post comment Comments  (0 - 50 of 53)
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 4 2012, 7:09pm buried:

(buried)

okay, so lets add a creation view to this layout. Question: how did we get here? background research: either God made us and the world, or it made itself. Hypothesis: God made us. Experiment: since God made us we should trust his word, and it is possible to prove his word so his word is true. there have been many finding CONFIRMING the Bible. Conclusion: since the Bible has been proven right and NEVER wrong then we should not try to change it to fit our hypothesis. And since there is a lot of it that happened, then we can conclude that it is true that God created everything like he said he did, so why do we need to constantly try and create life from non-living stuff? (hint: its impossible to make life from non-living matter, only God can make something out of nothing/life out of non-life)

-5 votes     reply to comment
Readyus Creator
Readyus Aug 4 2012, 7:12pm replied:

By your same arguments, I could say that the entire universe made itself.

+4 votes   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 4 2012, 8:04pm replied:

Well, what are you waiting for then?

+1 vote     reply to comment
Readyus Creator
Readyus Aug 4 2012, 8:13pm replied:

*How did we get there?
14500 millions of years ago,a quantum singularity known as the Big Bang, with the size of a sugar cube, reached the new size of a grapefruit, inflating until an explosion that created the Cosmos. The planet Earth was formed 4500 millions of years ago due to the collision of dust and an interplanetary disc.
*How was the Universe created?
A)It was the result of the destruction of another universe, and that universe the result of another, and the infinite cycle of universes continues.
B)It created itself.
C)The universe "reeincarnates". Every time it ends, the Big Bang is produced.
Sorry for my bad english, it's not my primary language.

+3 votes   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 5 2012, 3:28am replied:

That's not even remotely close to the though procedure in my post. However there is a major issue with your theory. Where did he first universe come from? And why haven't we gotten thermodynamic death yet? PHYSICAL matter cannot last forever you know.

-2 votes     reply to comment
Readyus Creator
Readyus Aug 5 2012, 1:55pm replied:

The multiverse is infinite, just like our universe. The thermodynamic death comes at a determinated time. Not now, I guess.Saying your last phrase is like saying: "If we are alive, why we haven't die yet?

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 5 2012, 3:24pm replied:

okay so what you just said is the multiverse had no beginning what so ever? sounds an awful lot like a GOD. and then you went on saying that since it existed for ever thermodynamic death hasn't come to pass yet because it hasn't lived long enough yet. but didnt you say that it was infinite so that means that it cannot get older then it is? Infinity is a very long time, so why hasnt it ended yet? and surely it must have had a beginning otherwise you believe in a GOD, since gods are infinite.

-2 votes     reply to comment
Mr.Walrus
Mr.Walrus Aug 4 2012, 7:31pm replied:

Oh god, the fundamentalists have arrived. Gentlemen, prepare for war...

+6 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias Creator
Cervi_Messias Aug 4 2012, 8:33pm replied:

Hey I can do this to.
question how did we get here? Hypthesis Created by Giant cosmic pink fluffy bunny.
Experiment: since I believe in the bunny he must be real, because there is no proof the bunnyisnt real that must mean it is real.
conclusion- becaue the bunny must be real because there is no proof it isnt real.
All BOW BEFORE MY PRIEST OF THE ALL MIGHTYBUNNY!!!!

p.s. your argument isnt science, it isnt even good peusoscience its just crap.
and yes I am making fun of you

+4 votes   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 5 2012, 3:39am replied:

I said "Experiment: since God made us we should trust his word, and it is possible to prove his word so his word is true. there have been many finding CONFIRMING the Bible" I even put my main idea in CAPS so how did you not see that part of my coment? Really be more respectful too. Arguments are junk when all that happens is people insulting each other. What you said had no evidence like what I said, fact I cannot prove that God created this world the way he said it was, but I can prove a bunch of other stuff like the red sea parting. Or Jesus being alive, or a global flood, I can even prove that there had to be a creator…but you deleted that news article.

-3 votes     reply to comment
Mr.Walrus
Mr.Walrus Aug 5 2012, 11:14am replied:

Just for speculation, can you please tell us how exactly you proved the red sea parting, or Jesus being alive, or a global flood?

+2 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 5 2012, 3:02pm replied:

Red sea parting can be proven by finding the Egyptian Chariots at the bottom of the red sea. (how else do you think they got there? Jesus being alive has been proven by several people. The case for christ is an amazing book/movie about that. (Watch on YouTube) as for a flood I beleive I got an entire list of sources written by me on the Christian site:D still not a single Athiest is debating me about it:(

-1 votes     reply to comment
Mr.Walrus
Mr.Walrus Aug 5 2012, 10:09pm replied:

I'm starting to find it increasingly obvious you simply don't understand the scientific method. Saying that the "Red sea parting can be proven by finding the Egyptian Chariots at the bottom of the red sea. (how else do you think they got there?" is about as viable by the scientific method as me saying "Well, because I found a 17th-century galleon at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, it was OBVIOUSLY slammed by a thermonuclear missile fired by Russian aliens through a time portal from an alternate parallel oscillating multiverse. As nothing suggests otherwise, I declare this proven fact." There is literally no difference. As for Jesus having lived, the sources for that are sketchy at best; I've actually researched this quite a bit, it's pretty much impossible to prove or disprove Jesus' existance (personally I do think he existed, though I definitely don't claim this as fact). As for the flood sources, I'm not an atheist but an agnostic but I'll still debate you over it; I checked out those sites, they are essentially all biased, pseudoscience pro-Christian websites, which I find very hard to believe are reliable :/

+3 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 6 2012, 4:11am replied:

Alright, so I really like science but would you be using science to prove leonardo da vinci's existance? No you would clearly look at his paintings and see his signature, along with historical documents. So there is a fine line where using a scientific method is illogical, because it takes too much time, or/and too much resources, and/or the answer is right infront of you!

As for Jesus's existence check the case for Christ on YouTube. Great movie!! Done by an Athiest.

-2 votes     reply to comment
Mr.Walrus
Mr.Walrus Aug 6 2012, 11:21pm replied:

"So there is a fine line where using a scientific method is illogical, because it takes too much time, or/and too much resources, and/or the answer is right infront of you!" ? So you're supposed to just assume that something is true because you don't have the time or resources to actually find out the truth? That's ridiculous; I think I'll stick to using the scientific method rather than declaring theories to be facts because I'm too lazy to actually prove anything.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 7 2012, 3:28am replied:

Okay so by the use of scientific method only prove to me that the Eiffel Tower was made by Eiffel. scientifically you would have to go: question who made this tower? {ignoring the fact the the builders name is in the title[and yeah he probably had help but that's not the point]} background research, well here's where you hit the first issue since both historical documents, and the towers name indicate who made it, so you have to skip this step....maybe check what year it was in. Hypothsis, since everything points to Eiffel it must have been him, but we still need the expiriment, {note this is very much like what I do with the bible, I use it as the background research and base my hypothsis on it} anyways, and expiriment might include testing to see if Eiffle lived in the correct time period, if he lived in that area. {if you got other ideas share them} conclusion, the hypothesis is correct! So the documents and towers name were not lieing:) isn't that basicly what I do with the bible?

-1 votes     reply to comment
Mr.Walrus
Mr.Walrus Aug 7 2012, 10:30am replied:

The main difference here is that you consider the bible to be fact, while me and most everyone else on this page considers it to be a work of fiction. It's like saying that because the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe states that there's a magical land called Narnia, Narnia is proven to exist.

+2 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 7 2012, 10:55am replied:

Okay, I get the skepticism, and if you trully want to know the truth, then search it up, see if what the bible claims can be possible. Lets use narnia as the example this time:) so question: is narnia real? Research: try locating a magical wardrobe, or magical dirt that could be formed into rings. Now if no leads come up, what do we do? Do we make a hypothisis like: narnia is not true since the background research doesn't locate anything that could help you to get to narnia. And then there's not much of an expiriment without the special dirt, or wardrobe:( so right here is where it's possible to disprove narnia. I would consider the bible as non-fiction because most events have a location that is possible, (nothing like far, far away and long, long ago like most fictions) a relatively accurate timeline, and possible characters. Now that's all you need to start an expiriment, let's use the biblical story of the red sea parting, so question did the red sea actually part? Background info includes: location: red sea(the more specific the better, but I don't have the time to search it to the nearest millimeter, feel free to do your own reasearch!!) time about 4000 years ago(plus or minus 500) event: red sea parted, Israelites walked through, but when the egyptians pursued them the red sea fell on them. Hypothesis: (lets consider that it didnt happen.) red sea parting was a fairy tale. Expiriment: look for broken chariots at the bottom of the sea, check to see if Egypt even existed at that time, consider and explain why someone would make up such an event(what was their goal) and last but not least, consider if such an event could have been possible(does God really have that power? Or is he just comanding his creation like a programmer can command a program?) conclusion: that's up to you:) let me know if I missed something and have mercy on my spelling and grammar, it's my iPhone's fault.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 5 2012, 2:58am replied:

"hint: its impossible to make life from non-living matter"

I believe autotroph bacteria will disagree with you there. As will any other life-form. As will scientists, since artificial life HAS been made in the lab.

+2 votes   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 5 2012, 3:32am replied:

But IF a scientist made life doesn't that prove that it takes intelegence to make life which proves my point about nothing making itself by random chance. Also if a scientist actully made life then I find the lack of a link to some evidence, disturbing. By the way there's a lot of laws that disprove the theory that non-living stuff can become living.

0 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 5 2012, 4:07am replied:

No. It does not.

+1 vote   reply to comment
ComradeWinston Creator
ComradeWinston Aug 5 2012, 4:41am replied:

Wasn't that life created specifically with elements thought to be present at the advent of life on earth?

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 5 2012, 4:42am replied:

So why is there no link to an article about it yet? By the way did they really use the correct theoretical atmoshpere that the early earth had? And what did they make a Bactria? Or a dog. Or did they just make the building blokes for life?

0 votes     reply to comment
Admiral-165 Author
Admiral-165 Aug 5 2012, 4:21am says:

"Experiment: since God made us we should trust his word, and it is possible to prove his word so his word is true. there have been many finding CONFIRMING the Bible."

your 'experiment' there is your conclusion. That is the problem with Creationist logic is that you arrive at a conclusion before you even test anything.

"the Bible has been proven right and NEVER wrong" I had a long argument with Ecclesia about this and i can show you many, many quotes showing the bible is incorrect. Would you like me to?

+3 votes   reply to comment
Readyus Creator
Readyus Aug 5 2012, 1:11pm replied:

He's not responding.
No new arguments,huh?

+1 vote   reply to comment
Cervi_Messias Creator
Cervi_Messias Aug 5 2012, 2:45pm replied:

think you mighta just won the debate

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 5 2012, 4:39pm replied:

sorry there, i didnt see you, so go ahead be my guest a proving the bible wrong, and good luck. as for my experimentation there is countless proof that a lot of the events that happened in the bible were in fact a proven event.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 5 2012, 4:50pm replied:

How about... Noah's Flood. Sedimentary layers directly prove that no such thing happened.

Also the Earth was not magically poofed into existance in 6 days (or years, or millenia for that matter), but formed through accretion in the Sun's protoplanetary disk.

Life wasn't created in its present form, and certainly isn't unchanging, and the Earth is not flat,and yes, the Bible says it's flat. It says it's a circle, and that you can overlook all of it if you were high enough, which is evidently not the case.

+2 votes   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 6 2012, 3:24am replied:

How do sediment layers prove that a flood didnt happen? My hypothsis is that dirt gets shorted into those fine layers during a global flood. My way of testing this would be to get a bunch of dirt from several layers. Dump it into a bucket/jar (anything seethrough) and then try replicating flood like conditions. I can't test it since I don't have sediment layers with me.
God is all powerful he is not bound to the laws that he creates. For example the makers of a operating system are not bound to living inside the operating system. They continue living outside the computer entirely. So please don't try limiting God because you yourself are limited. Therefore an all-powerful God that is not bound to the world/laws he created can make anything in a blink of an eye. Except that he is done with creation until the new heaven and the new earth.
The bible says its flat? Noway I'm sure that the bible mentions that the earth is round. As for life not being the same as when it was created. Well that's obvious! It was perfect at creation. (no defective genes, which means no autoimmune diseases, no cancer{or the cancer was destroyed by the body} no birth defects, etc)

0 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 8 2012, 10:52pm replied:

Sedimentary layers disprove the Flood because the sediments would Not have been deposited into layers, but in one giant layer. No such thing has been found.

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 8 2012, 11:31pm replied:

I disagree. I actually think that they formed during the flood, since there are trees going through several layers of sediment. And by your reasoning the trees would have decayed before they would get buried, even if they were buried they would still decay if they were near the earth's surface. So a fast burial answers why they were not decayed, if the layers are even several years old, it causes a major problem.
A way to test this would be to get dirt from several layers and see what happens when flood like conditions are applied to it.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias Creator
Cervi_Messias Aug 5 2012, 6:11pm replied:

bible says rabbits chew cudes but rabbits don't chew cuds, elf your making this to easy

there found something wrong

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 6 2012, 3:26am replied:

If its really in the bible then I'd like to see a biblegateway link:D

0 votes     reply to comment
Admiral-165 Author
Admiral-165 Aug 5 2012, 9:43pm replied:

Moddb.com

Read my debate with Ecclesia in the comments. Note this was my only 'debate' with him because he descends into fail arguments and personal attacks/logical fallacies in the end.

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 6 2012, 3:37am replied:

Yikes that's a lot of reading:( I read a bit of it. And I already have to debate your first point. Two people are enough to sustain a gene pool. And even though it could be impossible today because of all the mutations that have happened to our DNA over the past 6000 years. It was possible when Adam and Eve were made perfectly. Also that is a minor problem compared to evolution. Evolution teaches that long long ago, life magically appeared from non living stuff and somehow that life found someone to reproduce with. oh sorry it was asexual but then how did sex "evolve" by the way just because something is a better system doesnt answer of HOW did it evolve

0 votes     reply to comment
B7Biscuit
B7Biscuit Aug 7 2012, 8:38pm replied:

@ElfFriend:

"Evolution teaches that long long ago, life magically appeared from non living stuff and somehow that life found someone to reproduce with."

I think that you're about half right: Evolution does say that life came from non-living material. But there's no magic to it; in fact, I'd say that the theory is actually quite realistic.

In order to understand a theory on the origin of life, you must first define life. My on-the-spot, sub-scientific definition of life is: a quality describing a body composed of a potentially complex organization of many elements (primarily oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen) in which systems of chemical reaction allow energy to be stored within the body, and controllably released, granting the body, as a whole, the ability to actively influence the universe. (That was wordy as Hell but I'd rather give you a definition based on my own understanding than one that I've just looked up.)

Based on this definition, the main difference between a living body and a non-living body is that a living body has the ability to influence its environment entirely from within itself, whereas the non-living body can only influence its environment if acted on externally.

Another way of looking at it is: a human being is alive, and can pick up a rock and throw it, not because he is acted on by some force, but because he contains a certain amount of energy and because his body is made up of many systems that can controllably exert that energy a certain way. The rock however, which is not alive, cannot influence anything unless something else exerts a force unto it. And even then, the rock will only continue to have influence until that energy is fully released; then the rock will become inanimate again.
(I suppose that you could consider the rock to be "alive" while in motion as it does contain energy that it is using to influence the world, though that is much more a philosophical outlook than a scientific one.)

+1 vote     reply to comment
B7Biscuit
B7Biscuit Aug 7 2012, 8:41pm replied:

Okay, so now that we've looked at what life is, I think that I can at least try to explain how it might have arisen from non-life...

If you consider that before life would have begun based on the theory, that the state of the planet would have been influenced solely by natural law, and that natural law would have formed many natural cycles (think water cycle, plate tectonics, etc.), then it would make sense that a large number of different materials would have MANY chances to combine and react with each other over a long period of time.

Now, there are many theories on how exactly life began, but put broadly: the right materials found their way to the right place for the right amount of time, and the resulting reactions eventually formed primitive, very simplistic life. And of course, this sounds like a lot of requirements to be met by the sheer, unconscious forces of nature - as it is - but if you consider the amount of time involved, then it is still a realistic theory.

As for reproduction, I don't know if it would be more likely that the organisms had some form of very primitive asexual reproductive system from the get go, or if the environment in which they were created would have been prominent enough to yield a huge number of them.

Finally, as the rest of the theory goes, these organisms would have been refined and made increasingly complex over time, eventually evolving into the creatures that exist today. But of course, this is just a theory and this is just my understanding of it. And now that I've explained it to you in more detail than I care to consider, I can finally go to bed; good night Z_Z

*This has been another fine TL;DR by B7BLUE Co.
Remember: if it ain't long, and it ain't hard - it ain't Blue.*
XD

+1 vote     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 8 2012, 1:09am replied:

Okay. So strange enoungh I was debating an Athiest here and when I asked how did we get complex life, isn't it thanks to imporvememt? No that can't be right theres more flaws then improvements, which explains why he kept saying that changing is not for good or bad, it's just change. Either way evolution cannot have happened based on the fact that there are more mutations then improvements. By the way a saying oh this is billions of years old does not sound like science to me, since we have only observed and have fairly well documented documents (not counting the bible) begin slightly before 0ac, which means we have certainty that the roman empire existed. We also know that the earth is older then 2000 years. Mhh if the earth is billions, well we could only prove less than 1 percent of that time frame. The rest evolutionists claim is in the ground. Well they never found the entire geological column in one part anywhere on earth, it was always in segments. Life, well life in my mind is something that has cells(Is made up of them) also life would mean anything that can be placed in a vacuum/extreme temps and it will die. Become changed due to such an event. Also I need to go to sleep too, I can hardly see straight.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 8 2012, 10:58pm replied:

You do realise that Mutation does NOT mean detriment, right? If a Mutation (as it would be with myself) gives you greater bone density, making your bones harder to break than normal, it'd probably be a beneficial mutation. If it however, is one that gets you killed (ALS), it's a detrimental mutation, and if all it neither helps nor interferes with reproduction or survival, it's a neutral mutation.

There are lifeforms (Tardigrades for instance) that can survive in vacuum for some time.

The oldest rock found on Earth was IIRC 3.7 billion years old, while the Moon, the Sun and meteorites are all dated around 4.5 billion years, and the Moon formed just after Earth, from the two moons that formed from the Debris of the collision between Earth and Thea.

+1 vote   reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 8 2012, 10:59pm replied:

Also the Moon is EXACTLY where it should be if it formed 4.5 billion years ago.

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 9 2012, 12:06am replied:

You know what, your right. At least the way I tested it you are:D the earth would have only moved away 171 450km in 4.5 billion years. Unless I used a bad "constant" rate of the earth loosing the moon, I used 1.5 inches/per year. I'll redo the test with different measurements some time later.

Just because something lives under a certain condition for awhile doesn't mean that it can live like that for a long time. People can survive under water for awhile too:) until they run out of breath. If the moon was formed from a bunch of rocks, then why is there no sign of "cracks"? why didn't NASA look for those when they had astronauts there?

How did they date the rock? What method did they use?

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 9 2012, 12:17am replied:

That is, if it had formed right at the surface of the Earth, which it didn't. It formed in orbit around it.

Cracks? The thing was a molten ball of Lava....two molten balls of Lava, actually, which slowly melded into one. There's actually signs of that on the 'dark' side of the Moon.

Not sure how they dated it, and I was actually wrong about the date. 4.28 billion years is the oldest one found now, not 3.2 billion, dated via the decay neodymium-142 I think.

Edit: Wrong again...the oldest dated zircon is 4.36 billion years old. So Earth is *at least* that old.

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 9 2012, 2:57am replied:

Okay, but if the moon was made from lava, then why are there "hills" on it? The moon doesn't have plate tectonics, does it? Apod.nasa.gov note the near perfect hills.

Not all dating works. carbon dating doesn't work for example. There are flaws with dating methods, and so before claiming "this is X amount of years old" they should date something that they know when it died before saying it works and dating stuff that they don't know the date of.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 9 2012, 9:19am replied:

Because liquids don't form perfect spheres in space. Also craptons of meteor impacts shaking it up all the time. Youtube.com

Carbon dating does work, however, only for I think 60000 years old samples, and should not be used for aquatic samples. And only works with things that contain carbon.

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 9 2012, 12:52pm replied:

I'll watch the video later. Also carbon dating doesn't work, I heard that living snails have been dated to several million years. (I haven't confirmed it yet) also if creatures are older then 80000 years then we should see creatures without carbon 14. Right? So it there are any then give me a link:)

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 9 2012, 1:02pm replied:

C14 doesn't work with living creatures.

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 9 2012, 2:25pm replied:

Okay but that still doesnt explain things like.
Contenderministries.org
Answersingenesis.org
Lastly watch the questions and answers bit on www.drdino.com

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 9 2012, 6:40pm replied: +1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 9 2012, 8:55pm replied:

Okay, however this fails to recognize that if there was more plants, and creatures then carbon 14 would not have been absorbed at the same rate that it is absorbed at today:)

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 9 2012, 10:06pm replied:

And there are papers about that most certainly.

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 10 2012, 2:18am replied:

Then if there are any then you should link to them.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho Creator
Sarge_Rho Aug 10 2012, 6:24am replied:

I suppose you didn't watch the videos I sent?

+1 vote   reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 10 2012, 5:20pm replied:

I did

+1 vote     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Description

Shows the Scientific Method used by modern scientists.

Image Details
Type
Concept
Date
Aug 4th, 2012
Size
362×348
Options
URL
Embed (big)
Embed
Share
Report Abuse
Report media
Add Media
Members only