casual abortion

And those Theories I was stating regarding the Big Bang weren't random. They are attempted explanations based on Scientific Facts.

The fact that you just used the word "random" pretty much confirms that you do not understand what is really meant by the different terms in the field of Science.

Scientific Law is in the same boat as Scientific Fact. Scientific Theory is still higher than both.

Absolute Truth, is not a term used in Science, nor can it be used in Science.

So no, I wasn't stating anything as if it was Absolute Truth because that is impossible within Scientific discussion.

You previously stated you would adress the Theories I listed regarding the universes' origins. I'm waiting to hear them.
 
BendzR, again I ask stop attacking unclear language. If I was talking to a scientist in real life, then I wouldn't be talking like this. Words like absolute truth probably come from the philosophy class I'm forced to take to graduate, and the assignment I'm trying to work on now while being distracted by MAP.
The fact remains, your attempted explanation failed and shows you lack understanding on the subject. I said they were random because you didn't use one coherent theory. It seems like you googled big bang and copied and pasted from different websites without really understanding the theories. The actual theories themselves were not random.

Ok. I think you have shown what you meant before. See CKava, he didn't mean what you said. Scientific law is definitely higher than scientific theory. A theory becomes law through a lot of testing.

I did partially address one of your theories regarding quantum tunneling. I'll respond to the others later.
 
Im with MAnewbie on that one.... a law essentially is an incredibly well supported theory. Isn't it?
 
You are continuing to suggest I do not understand what I was saying regarding the Big Bang and its relation to Quantem Mechanics.

How about you back it up ? Prove me wrong. Show me how it is wrong.

If you continue to say its wrong without actually showing me where I lack understanding, how can I possibly learn my mistakes (assuming I am wrong) ?

If you don't show me, then I will assume you are just trolling, because you don't want to discuss, you just want to tell me I am wrong without actually justifying it.

As for Scientific Law being definitely above Scientific Theory, you obviously do not trust my oppinion on it. So if you are actually here to debate - and not troll like Endeavor - then here you go. Read and learn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

As you can see, it is a generalisation. Much like theories, they are more "Absolute" because they aren't as specific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are explanations. They are higher. They cannot become Laws because that is not how the Scientifc Method functions.

Gravity is a Theory. It is a specific explanation of a specific phenomenom. The ultimate point in Science is to explain specific things with specific detail.

Newtons law of equal and opposite reactions is a Law. It is a generalised Rule or Law that applies to all Motion-Physics.

Which one do you think explains more ?

Now, you suggest that you said my theories were random because I wasn't refering to a single one. You didn't ask a single question either. Go figure.

First you say the Theories I listed were full of holes, and wrong. Now you say they are constructive.

The blatent contradictions in your posts suggest that, once again, you are not here to discuss anything. Carry on.
 
Attacking language again instead of the main idea, and incorrectly attacking it for that matter.
I read the Wikipedia articles, and it agrees with what I say. I suggest you reread them. I hope this isn't where you learned the difference between the two in the first place. Bad examples by the way .
I'll reply in due time, maybe later this week. I didn't say that the theories you stated were full of holes. I said that they were a combination of theories in an incoherent manner. I tried to make sense of your post before, but there was no logical order to it. Perhaps you could clarify what you were saying so that I can reply to it?
I honestly don't want to reply to it because it will take too long though.
 
I did not attack any language specificly. If you fail to use the correct language, then it is your credibility that crumbles. Not my problem.

This is the second time you have said "I will adress that later" but you haven't adressed things which I have asked you to do, repeatedly.

Once again, you fail to actually back up anything, nor have you made any clear points or "main concepts" as you are suggesting. All you are doing is trolling.







Clearly, those links do not agree with you. So now you are just making up crap.

Wikipedia is good enough to explain simple terms. So the reliability of the source is not an issue with this.

Stop trolling. Debate properly, or go play with Endeavor in his sand pit.
 
My credibility? I have countered every point you have made. Numerous spelling errors as well as many incorrect "facts" crumble your credibility. You definitely misunderstand theory and law. It seems like the first time you really learned about them was from Wikipedia. I repeat, when I have time, I'll address your posts. Stop hounding me until then.
I think you are more like Endeavor than I am...

This is why I hate arguing like little kids =/. Me and Bendzr are acting like 5 year olds.
I think I'll try to be the mature 5 year old and stop arguing. I'll still post my answer to big bang though when I have time, and a response to scientific law and theory, but nothing more.
 
No, they makes assumption based on other information and then varity that assumption to see if it holds.

And, before you lecture others about something, understand it yourself

FACTS are explained by THEORIES. You will have lots of facts on a certain issue and you explain them all by formulating a theory.
 
Based on the first quote, I would contest that you don’t.


Who argued against this?
 
Simpson, I already answered that I misunderstood what he said the first time, and clarified what I meant to say. No need to always be so hostile. Contest away.

Ok, I'm back to wasting my time. I'm ashamed to say, but we were both wrong, and both correct. I feel dumb. Sorry for not reading Wikipedia. Its hard to swallow my pride, but I must say sorry Bendzr. Stupid teachers throughout school taught the wrong thing, and I never looked into it myself. Theories manily attempt to explain phenomena, while laws mainly show a certain event occurring in nature, but also explain it somewhat. Better example: Universal gravitation is a law. Newton showed that two bodies attract each other, and showed it with an equation. This holds up for bodies at relatively low velocities and with relatively large masses, but not in all cases. It holds up in most cases though, and is only adjusted in these exceptions, so it is still considered a law. Einstein's theory of why gravity exists attempts to explain the observed phenomena (gravity). The law of gravitation was not always a law though...in Newton's time it was a theory which became so widely accepted that it is now a law. Theories are not always above laws. Both can be disproven, but laws are more likely to hold. There are different levels to theories as well, based on the amount of supporting evidence. My understanding anyway.

Thanks for correcting me Bendzr. You learn something new every day .
Why are we arguing about something as silly as this anyway?

Big Bang is a topic I know more about. I used to be interested in it, so I did a lot of reading as well as talked to my friend's dad who is a physicist who teaches this topic. I maintain my position, and will reply probably on the weekend.
 
Sorry if these points have been raised before, but this is a long thread.

I know it's easy to say this as a man that will never have to go through pregnancy, but I don't agree with abortion. I'm not religious, and I don't believe mothers who want to do so are all evil. I just believe in the sanctity of life. I therefore don't believe it's the mother's choice, because that is a LIFE in there that you're killing if you have an abortion. If a mother killed her child after it had been born, people would call it murder, but abortions happen inside the body and help to disguise or euphemise the killing.

If you're a teenager who's been impregnated, and you have no means of raising the baby, you can give it up for adoption. "Heh, nice easy solution there Tim ", you're probably thinking. And, you're right. I am oversimplifying it. Of course it's hard to go through the pregnancy and then have to give the baby up. If it was me in that situation I may well have had a different view on the subject, but looking at it objectively, the emotional torment that such a mother would go through, though tragic (and yes I really do mean tragic), does not justify the taking of a life. And that is what abortion is.
 
This was already covered. At the stage of allowed abortions the fetus is not 'alive', so your not killing anything.
 
I suppose then, in essence, you are killing a potential life...

Kinda like when I kill millions of potential lives with my gf.....
 
MAnewbie, there's nothing wrong with being wrong about something. That is how we learn things. Good to see you can admit if you were wrong.

Now, what I do have an issue with, is telling someone they are wrong, but not telling them why. If I am wrong about anything I have said, that is fine. But if you're going to point it out, then you need to explain how I am wrong, so I can also learn from mistakes.

I'll be all ears when you decide to post again about the BB.
 
I'd like to apologize for comments before...I have a bit of a temper sadly. It even surfaces on the internet for some odd reason. I also am honestly not used to being wrong, so it's hard for me to admit I was, but I still will. I'm glad to see the talking down has begun again though . I think this is what set me off the first time, so could you please stop this condescending attitude as well?

I'd like to ask you a favor...could you elaborate on what you said before about BB so i have more to critique? Mainly could you elaborate on the proof of no energy in the universe and show how this shows that something can come from nothing? You said that you simplified it for posting, but I'd appreciate it if you expanded it.

I just saw your quote by knighterrant. Its kind of funny. Sort of applies to us . I feel better now.
 
The fetus isnt alive? Hello?
x
Ask any woman, your wife, your mother, a stranger... Hey if you got pregnant and you were only pregnant for ONE MONTH and a man kicked you in the stomach and you lost the baby, would you feel bad or just realize like some people on here that its not really a life in the womb.
x
Please.
x
You KNOW if you had a wife who was pregnant you wouldnt tell her it wasnt alive if someone forced it to die at ONE month, you would be furious and deeply depressed, so why justify strangers who slaughter the innocent, just because they are merely statistics?
x
How about some statistics? Lets compare something like US war deaths in WW2.. about 407,316 soldiers died. Ok how about aborted babies since 1973 until April 22, 2004..............44,670,812.......(National right to life)
x
thats not counting self inflicted abortions and after birth homicide
x
When does life begin? Let's think about it... At 10 WEEKS the human body is formed..yes little toes...hands...head...EVEN FINGERPRINTS CAN BE FOUND AT 10 WEEKS...Brain waves have been recorded at ages under 2 months, BETWEEN 18 AND 25 DAYS A HEARTBEAT CAN BE DETECTED..
x
I really wonder if any of you have ever heard or seen what abortions are. Dilation and Evacuation/ salt poisioning... hysterotomy.... viscious and sick
a tragedy.
x
So many people cant have kids, and even many that can which dont have anyone they want to make a kid with, let these people love your kid! Theres actually people who would die to take care of someone just because thats the type of person they are. They dont understand about you and your poor decisions in life, but they do care about your situations.
x
 
Unrelated to the subject of abortion... Theories are "explainations" for facts.
The facts stay the same, the interpretations of how and why can change in a day. An example is the accepted fact that some people suffer certain mental issues. The accepted "cure" once was to drill through their skulls to let out the evil. So the fact was these people were crazy, the explaination for this fact was the sociology and psychology which identifed the deviance, but in time the explainations for the facts changed dramatically. Medications and terminations and restraints and rehabilitation.
x
So to argue a theory is almost impossible, because theorys are based on facts, but the accepted explanations of many things have been changed by the explainations of a single person who proves something solid and cannot be refuted. Many theorys are accepted, some are not so accepted. You cannot prove the big bang theory is wrong, but you can not prove it is the truth. You cannot prove intelligent creation is wrong, nor can you prove it is the truth. Anti-religous people will always want you to prove things and have no proof for you. There are plenty of facts, but the explainations for the facts are in a world of their own. Every religion has some kind of proof and they cant all be right, just as non-belivers and anti-religious people have evidence and curiosity yet the explainations are not as reliable as the facts. The facts are constant. Reasons why... show up in altered states. When anyone can PROVE the big bang, there wont be any believers. And when anyone can prove the Creation, there wont be any non-belivers, so why ask the other to prove it, let those that havent settled on an answer seek that information out in their own time.
x
You will find in life that there is a fine line between what you should believe and what you should have waited for conclusive information before you made your prejudged stand. The same is true for abortion, it is eaiser to say yes or no, but the fears and hardships and long term effects on the people involved linger in their daily thoughts when we click our computers on and off.
x
One major problem is obviously parents, who want to give their children "all that they never had, and not be so hard on them like their parents were" Well just look at the world today and see if that was a good idea. Sure Leave it to Beaver was a silly show, but at least it expressed values and a family and didnt have everyone cussing and cheating and actin a fool every moment.
Now there are tv shows about ozzy osborn and john gaddi Higher divorce rates, more violence in the schools, where are the role models?
Reality shows everywhree that have nothing to do with reality, people paid to act in front of the cameras and hyped up on the attention doing things under the watch of the lens where on the street they couldnt act or talk like they do... People glorify drugs sex and violence when you encounter these things in real life they dont evolve like they do in your favorite songs and movies, they were just a bluff.. smoke in the eyes
x
Back to the parent issue, I never could see why parents who didnt teach their kids about real life, once their daughter is pregnant, why contine to punish her? IT"S TOO LATE. ,,,,,yes, try to prevent unwanted actions, but dont further overkill the effects of those actions. Parents are responsible for perhaps more than half of the abortions in the world because they are not supportive of something that already happened.
x
What? you told your kid not to get pregnant so they shouldnt? Then why did you let her leave the house and hang at the mall when she was 15 with her boobs hanging out and the words "easy catch" written on her butt? With a ton of make up and a cell phone and a midnight curfew... Mamms angel right?
And some parents wonder when they went wrong....
x
They feed their kids all this crap about .."you gotta finish school and get money and go places and later on ...Then have a kid... but in reality most people in the world live in poverty.... Most people who are single or couples that dont have kids..they dont go to the Bahamas or Hawii.. Most people dont get the job they want regardless of their college education. The few that reach their goals still face the same problems in life. Yes, we do need money, but we need to push our kids that we accept them already and their financial status and their education are secondary to the precious lives that they are.
x
There is NO easy time for a kid, not if you are 15, 25, 35,45... never an easy time... money will be an issue no matter how much you have.. never enough... Cause and effect are very real words... actions have equal reactions.... so people need to consider what makes a baby... what you can offer a baby...what can the babys life offer in time... who can help.. and people are really lined up to help where people cant help themselves.
 
Yes, it isn’t alive.

Psychologically it might be, but biologically is isn’t.


Also, abortions happen naturally all the time, there not always intentional.
 
Yes, theories explain the facts. For example, it is a fact objects fall to the ground, so a theory was formulated to explain that fact. That theory is gravity. So, gravity is a theory!

Same thing with evolution and everything eles.


As for "proving" things. Science deal with probabilities and what is most likely according to observable evidence. When you say "when you prove it", are you referring to absolute proof? Absolute proof will NEVER happen because it is not science. Even if a theory was seemingly categorically undeniable, it still wouldn't be absolute according to science.
 
Don't even bother with him Homer.

Just a 12year old zealot who comes on here to preach. No room for discussion or debate.




MAnewbie,

My take on the BB and its relation to QM is based on books I have read. Although I haven't checked on many of the sources provided by them, they are thoroughly sourced throughout, and are scientifically accepted as reliable. I have read many books on QM and it interests me greatly, so based on what I know about QM, the BB theory I believe to be acurate is quite consistant with everything I know.

Once again, I will not go into the same detail as that of the Authors I have read from, simply because I do not have equal dexterity with my words, and I might confuse you and deter my efforts.

If you still desire more detail I'm afraid I will have to point you into the direction of a Book store, with some Book names.

So to explain to you with more detail than before;


• The universe exists.

That much everyone will agree on. We observe its existance, and we perceive it. If one does not assume this as fact then the discussion is pointless.

• The universe had an origin

Many people will suggest that the universe could maybe have existed for an infinite time, where the causes can regress back infinitely. Now this may be an appealing idea, but it is simply not scientifically sound.

We know that the universe had an origin in regards to our current time. It was 'born' some 15 billion years ago (in the Big Bang), which is widely accepted, since the primeval explosion is clearly detectable. We know this as the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat.

• Every effect/action, has a cause/reaction.

From a young age, we all believe in cause and effect, as we see it happen every day. Nothing happens for no reason. Things are not random. Physics has many laws to support this as well.

Thus, we draw another conclusion;

• The origin of the Universe (the BB) is the result/cause/reaction of something.

In otherwords "What happened before the Big Bang ?" Something must have caused it.

• The origin of Time did not occur before the origin of the Universe.

It was Albert Einstein who taught us that time and space is not merely an arena in which the universe plays out, but part of the physical universe. As physical entities, time and space can change as a result of gravitational processes. Gravitational theory predicts that under the extreme conditions that prevailed in the early universe, space and time may have been so distorted that there existed a boundary, or "singularity," at which the distortion of space-time was infinite, and therefore through which space and time cannot have continued. Thus, physics predicts that time was indeed bounded in the past. It did not stretch back for all eternity.

• Thus the question "What happened before the Big Bang" is meaningless.

Now based on what we know about the nature of time and space, we believe that time itself did not exist before the universe itself. The origin of the universe was not simply the sudden appearance of matter in an eternally pre-existing void, but the coming into being of time itself. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no "before," no endless ocean of time for physical process, to wear itself out in infinite preparation. This does not solve the problem though. Rendering the previous question meaningless, just generates a new one.

• Instead, a new (and more specific) question arises. "Why should time suddenly 'switch on'?"

So, what actually caused time to suddenly spawn ? This is where QM comes into the picture. There are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics.

Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual law of cause and effect are suspended. The law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.*

A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.

• Occams Razor states that the theory with least assumptions is the most correct.

The theory that the BB, along with time itself, was a result of a Quantem Phenomenon requires less assumptions than any other.

• Thus, the BB, (and thus the universe) tunnelled itself into existance.

So there you have it



*Thermodynamic laws are not violated when particles of matter appear into existance.

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed" actually reads "the total energy of the universe cannot be increased, nor decreased"

When one particle appears (increase in positive energy) it follows that there is an increase in negative energy somewhere else. This much we can confirm through Quantem experiments.

Which leads to the eventual conclusion that the total energy in the universe has never changed, regardless of the huge mass of matter in the universe that we know does exists.

I will go into this with more detail if you desire, but for now I will leave it at that. Only 1 topic at a time I think will benefit the discussion. I am sure you agree.
 
Back
Top