Do you believe the discoveries that scientists are finding out about the universe? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Do you believe the discoveries that scientists are finding out about the universe?

Opening Argument

Casual debate that questions the proof that scientists will give us for certain discoveries in the universe. Do you believe what they tell us, or do you have a different point of view?
  1. ?

    16 votes
    1. Yes, I agree with what scientists tell us
      12.50%
    2. No, I don't believe what scientists tell us
      18.75%
    3. Yes, but only if the scientists provide enough evidence to support their claim
      68.75%
A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 





Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
44%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • The extraordinary foundation encapsulating the scientific method is whatever one claims, can be tested and confirmed independently by anyone who tries to debunk that claim. And in the end, within the omnipotent matrix of nature, becomes the judge.
    NopeDrCerealEdrilErfisflatEvidence
  • I am of the opinion and understanding that the Scientific community as a whole (Mostly referencing governing organizations and academies) are extremely loose and incompetent in their regulation of Publications of Scientific study and research.

    Simply put, official organizations who regulate publications of Scientific research and study do an agonizing job at scrutinizing, reviewing and auditing the submissions.  This accounts for an unforgivable amount of misinformation spreading throughout the World today disguised as legitimate and reliable Scientific evidence.

    Case in Point: All the misinformed people who still think vaccines are bad for their children based on the MMR Vaccine Publication by Andrew Wakefield.  Mind you that the research and study that led to the belief that the Vaccine was dangerous was actually published in the British Medical Journal The Lancet.  The Lancet is one of the oldest and best known medical Journals in the World.  This of course isn't even the top layer of problems with Scientific publications of any type but stands as one simple example of why I don't purchase into what Scientists publish...even if I quit my job and did nothing but review Scientific research...I still wouldn't have enough time to do what Scientific Organizations are SUPPOSED to be doing in regards to reviewing Scientific research and study for accuracy and legitimacy.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Hahahaha I just saw this. I can't stop laughing now. 12% of the voters believe anything as long as it says "scientists claim" in front of it.
    SilverishGoldNovaVaulkEvidencePogue
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Erfisflat said:
    Hahahaha I just saw this. I can't stop laughing now. 12% of the voters believe anything as long as it says "scientists claim" in front of it.
    But scientists say we live on a shittake mushroom shaped Earth made out of mcdonalds fries.
    Vaulk
    Retired DebateIslander, Former Earth Science Community Moderator, and ex-Flat Earther. 
  • Erfisflat said:
    Hahahaha I just saw this. I can't stop laughing now. 12% of the voters believe anything as long as it says "scientists claim" in front of it.
    But scientists say we live on a shittake mushroom shaped Earth made out of mcdonalds fries.
    I saw it on TV! It must be real!

    SilverishGoldNovaVaulkEvidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • I believe it yes. Why do I believe it? Because to fight the scientists is a battle that always ends badly for the one fighting them.

    Work with them to prove themselves wrong. Learn to play the game.
    Erfisflat
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • I believe it yes. Why do I believe it? Because to fight the scientists is a battle that always ends badly for the one fighting them.

    Work with them to prove themselves wrong. Learn to play the game.


    So true, especially if you're a scientist who needs a job, .. go to learn how to play the game by the Big-Bang Evolution Rules.
    Erfisflat
  • Evidence said:
    I believe it yes. Why do I believe it? Because to fight the scientists is a battle that always ends badly for the one fighting them.

    Work with them to prove themselves wrong. Learn to play the game.


    So true, especially if you're a scientist who needs a job, .. go to learn how to play the game by the Big-Bang Evolution Rules.
    That's not fair, lol @evidence, you know that probably went well over his head..
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • @Erfisflat

    But you apparently have no issue with people who don't believe scientists even when the evidence shows the scientists are right.

    Telling.
    JustIgnoreMePogue
  • Ampersand said:
    @Erfisflat

    But you apparently have no issue with people who don't believe scientists even when the evidence shows the scientists are right.

    Telling.
    Depends entirely on the evidence and the claim it supports. I'm not against "science", just pseudoscience. You know, like "astrophysics" and evolution?
    SilverishGoldNovaEvidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Agreed with @Erfisflat
    Erfisflat
    Retired DebateIslander, Former Earth Science Community Moderator, and ex-Flat Earther. 
  • Casual debate that questions the proof that scientists will give us for certain discoveries in the universe. Do you believe what they tell us, or do you have a different point of view?


    Actually I take that back, I do believe what "scientists" are telling us about what they observe in the world around us, including that we have stars in our heaven!
    Stars, .. not objects called planets named after pagan Greek and Roman gods like Mars. Jupiter, Venus etc.

    We Believers in Infinite God can see the I.D. in all of His creations, and studying His creation is what we Believers, or Flat Earthers do, but claiming that there is an expanding vacuum out there filled with giant balls of burning gas, planets and black holes that can suck an entire imaginary galaxy up into itself, .. or that animals and especially humans popped out of a rock that was sweating salt water for billions of years, which it held to the rock by a magical force called gravity keeping the mist from being frozen, or  sucked up by the vacuum of space, which is what would happen according to scientific experiments where we put water in a vacuum, .. such claims are NOT science.

    With the help of God, once we put an end to this Religion called Evolution and Big-Bang, we can once again reestablish the true meaning of "science". We are sick and tired of Organized Religions interpreting both God, and the definition of science for us!
    Erfisflat
  • @WilliamSchulz ;

    Ha Ha.

    Mention scientists and the conspiracy theorists are thrown into an orgasmic frenzy.


    Your opening proposition is grammatically inaccurate.

    There is a clear distinction to be made between a discovery and a theory.

    Theories are proposed and are therefore open to question.

    Discoveries are actual and are therefore irrefutable. 


    Obviously the paranoid conspiracy theorists will always attempt to discredit the discoverer.

    The discoverer or scientist is always part of a secret master plan of deception.

    What the purpose of all the deception is, I don't know and neither do the conspiracy theorists. 

    I tend to think that conspiracy theorists are just out to be deliberately antagonistic. 

    Which is absolutely fine, because deliberate antagonism always stimulates interest in a debate.
    Erfisflat
  • Evidence said:
    Casual debate that questions the proof that scientists will give us for certain discoveries in the universe. Do you believe what they tell us, or do you have a different point of view?


    Actually I take that back, I do believe what "scientists" are telling us about what they observe in the world around us, including that we have stars in our heaven!
    Stars, .. not objects called planets named after pagan Greek and Roman gods like Mars. Jupiter, Venus etc.

    We Believers in Infinite God can see the I.D. in all of His creations, and studying His creation is what we Believers, or Flat Earthers do, but claiming that there is an expanding vacuum out there filled with giant balls of burning gas, planets and black holes that can suck an entire imaginary galaxy up into itself, .. or that animals and especially humans popped out of a rock that was sweating salt water for billions of years, which it held to the rock by a magical force called gravity keeping the mist from being frozen, or  sucked up by the vacuum of space, which is what would happen according to scientific experiments where we put water in a vacuum, .. such claims are NOT science.

    With the help of God, once we put an end to this Religion called Evolution and Big-Bang, we can once again reestablish the true meaning of "science". We are sick and tired of Organized Religions interpreting both God, and the definition of science for us!

    1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
    Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or ...?
    2) "expanding" universe
    When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.
    3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/
    4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?
    Pogue
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 122 Pts
    Science operates through the process known as "scientific method". This process prescribes a few stages that need to be conducted for the claim to be accepted as reasonably correct; in general, a claim should have an array of consequences that can be experimentally tested for matching the expectations or not matching them, and if all relevant experiments provide results that match the expectations and no consistent non-matches occur, then the claim is considered sound.

    "Belief" is not really a part of the scientific process, so believing what a scientist tells you based solely on what he tells you would be fallacious. However, most claims accessible to the common individual have a reasonable amount of evidence and reasoning behind them published for the curious individual to be able to understand where these claims come from and why they are considered sound by the scientific community. This is what I do: when I do not know one aspect of how the world operates and want to learn about it, while not being a specialist in the field, I will get familiar with a few overview articles and get the general idea out of it.

    For example, I am currently learning how cars operate. I am by no means a specialist in the field, so obviously I cannot rigorously, through all the equations and engineering designs, verify whether the cars indeed function as explained by the professionals, or whether all the professionals are lying. But a reasonable assumption generally is that millions car professionals will not make things up due to some vile international conspiracy, and instead I should listen to what they say and see if it all put together makes sense. And it does: I understand now what a differential does, how the engine cooling systems work, how clutch connects to the engine to regulate the energy output - and even though I am not a car engineer, I think at this point my knowledge is solid enough to identify a wide array of problems a car might have and to suggest the general way to try to fix them. And this is all a non-scientists needs to know about science: how the world works and how to utilize it in practice. No need to understand the intricacies of topology to learn a few simple knots that will help you in sailing or mountain climbing, for example; you only need to have a general idea of topology, and maybe a bit of material science and solid state physics, to use a rope with a very high efficiency.
  • EvidenceEvidence 516 Pts
    Evidence said:
    Casual debate that questions the proof that scientists will give us for certain discoveries in the universe. Do you believe what they tell us, or do you have a different point of view?


    Actually I take that back, I do believe what "scientists" are telling us about what they observe in the world around us, including that we have stars in our heaven!
    Stars, .. not objects called planets named after pagan Greek and Roman gods like Mars. Jupiter, Venus etc.

    We Believers in Infinite God can see the I.D. in all of His creations, and studying His creation is what we Believers, or Flat Earthers do, but claiming that there is an expanding vacuum out there filled with giant balls of burning gas, planets and black holes that can suck an entire imaginary galaxy up into itself, .. or that animals and especially humans popped out of a rock that was sweating salt water for billions of years, which it held to the rock by a magical force called gravity keeping the mist from being frozen, or  sucked up by the vacuum of space, which is what would happen according to scientific experiments where we put water in a vacuum, .. such claims are NOT science.

    With the help of God, once we put an end to this Religion called Evolution and Big-Bang, we can once again reestablish the true meaning of "science". We are sick and tired of Organized Religions interpreting both God, and the definition of science for us!

    1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
    Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or ...?
    2) "expanding" universe
    When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.
    3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/
    4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?

    Sorry @JustIgnoreMe I honestly didn't mean to ignore you.

    1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
    Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or …?

    They are stars, and not like our sun but all kinds of different, beautiful stars, like Flat Earthers shown you with our telescopes and cameras, .. not artist rendered images of sci-fi planets.

    2) "expanding" universe
    When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.

    13.75 billion years isn't eternal, nor does two distant stars that look like they are moving away from each other mean the heaven (whatever medium the stars are in) is stretching and is now Infinite. Cannot "stretch" Infinite.

    3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/

    Ever heard of a vacuum chamber? Here is one that we built for NASA:
    Image result for pic of NASA giant vacuum chamber

    Now let me see them put a hamster in his sealed ball in there, then open it up and see how many billions of years it would take for the air molecules in the hamster-ball to gradually dissipate into the vacuum chamber? Not to mention water, which instantly boils, then freezes in a vacuum.
    Now imagine if the walls of the vacuum chamber were expanding at:
    - Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years) - Google

    So you still think your Globe, covered in air and water would last more than a few minutes in a giant expanding vacuum chamber called; Universe/space*(r)

    (*Universe/space is a registered trademark of NASA and those who run the UN)

    4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?

    "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Light/order God called day, and darkness/chaos He called night. Before God fixed up the earth again in Genesis 1:2 there was no sun or moon, or stars, nor will we have a sun or moon on that New Earth and New Heavens that God and His son Word (aka Jesus Christ) is preparing for those who love him, because well be changed into incorruptible bodies that thrive on Gods love/order. But those who hate God and His order/light, will have a place without God, in darkness/chaos where they will have eternity to wait for a Big-Banged universe to live in.

    Erfisflat
  • Evidence said:
    Evidence said:
    Casual debate that questions the proof that scientists will give us for certain discoveries in the universe. Do you believe what they tell us, or do you have a different point of view?


    Actually I take that back, I do believe what "scientists" are telling us about what they observe in the world around us, including that we have stars in our heaven!
    Stars, .. not objects called planets named after pagan Greek and Roman gods like Mars. Jupiter, Venus etc.

    We Believers in Infinite God can see the I.D. in all of His creations, and studying His creation is what we Believers, or Flat Earthers do, but claiming that there is an expanding vacuum out there filled with giant balls of burning gas, planets and black holes that can suck an entire imaginary galaxy up into itself, .. or that animals and especially humans popped out of a rock that was sweating salt water for billions of years, which it held to the rock by a magical force called gravity keeping the mist from being frozen, or  sucked up by the vacuum of space, which is what would happen according to scientific experiments where we put water in a vacuum, .. such claims are NOT science.

    With the help of God, once we put an end to this Religion called Evolution and Big-Bang, we can once again reestablish the true meaning of "science". We are sick and tired of Organized Religions interpreting both God, and the definition of science for us!

    1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
    Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or ...?
    2) "expanding" universe
    When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.
    3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/
    4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?

    Sorry @JustIgnoreMe I honestly didn't mean to ignore you.

    1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
    Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or …?

    They are stars, and not like our sun but all kinds of different, beautiful stars, like Flat Earthers shown you with our telescopes and cameras, .. not artist rendered images of sci-fi planets.

    2) "expanding" universe
    When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.

    13.75 billion years isn't eternal, nor does two distant stars that look like they are moving away from each other mean the heaven (whatever medium the stars are in) is stretching and is now Infinite. Cannot "stretch" Infinite.

    3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/

    Ever heard of a vacuum chamber? Here is one that we built for NASA:
    Image result for pic of NASA giant vacuum chamber

    Now let me see them put a hamster in his sealed ball in there, then open it up and see how many billions of years it would take for the air molecules in the hamster-ball to gradually dissipate into the vacuum chamber? Not to mention water, which instantly boils, then freezes in a vacuum.
    Now imagine if the walls of the vacuum chamber were expanding at:
    - Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years) - Google

    So you still think your Globe, covered in air and water would last more than a few minutes in a giant expanding vacuum chamber called; Universe/space*(r)

    (*Universe/space is a registered trademark of NASA and those who run the UN)

    4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?

    "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Light/order God called day, and darkness/chaos He called night. Before God fixed up the earth again in Genesis 1:2 there was no sun or moon, or stars, nor will we have a sun or moon on that New Earth and New Heavens that God and His son Word (aka Jesus Christ) is preparing for those who love him, because well be changed into incorruptible bodies that thrive on Gods love/order. But those who hate God and His order/light, will have a place without God, in darkness/chaos where they will have eternity to wait for a Big-Banged universe to live in.

    The Universe is not a vacuum, because it is full of stuff and space is simply a reality and God is a figment of the human imagination and for the time being the answer is out of reach. Maybe someday, something will work it all out.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1216 Pts
    edited June 18
    @MayCaesar said:

    "...But a reasonable assumption generally is that millions car professionals will not make things up due to some vile international conspiracy, and instead I should listen to what they say and see if it all put together makes sense. And it does: I understand now what a differential does, how the engine cooling systems work, how clutch connects to the engine to regulate the energy output - and even though I am not a car engineer, I think at this point my knowledge is solid enough to identify a wide array of problems a car might have and to suggest the general way to try to fix them. And this is all a non-scientists needs to know about science: how the world works and how to utilize it in practice. No need to understand the intricacies of topology to learn a few simple knots that will help you in sailing or mountain climbing, for example; you only need to have a general idea of topology, and maybe a bit of material science and solid state physics, to use a rope with a very high efficiency."

    Yes, motors, computers, flat earth, these things relating to science, we can empirically validate, test, and measure, things dealing with natural sciences. A "planet" or a black hole billions of light years away or a does not fall into this category, and is considered pseudoscience.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • EvidenceEvidence 516 Pts
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:
    Casual debate that questions the proof that scientists will give us for certain discoveries in the universe. Do you believe what they tell us, or do you have a different point of view?


    Actually I take that back, I do believe what "scientists" are telling us about what they observe in the world around us, including that we have stars in our heaven!
    Stars, .. not objects called planets named after pagan Greek and Roman gods like Mars. Jupiter, Venus etc.

    We Believers in Infinite God can see the I.D. in all of His creations, and studying His creation is what we Believers, or Flat Earthers do, but claiming that there is an expanding vacuum out there filled with giant balls of burning gas, planets and black holes that can suck an entire imaginary galaxy up into itself, .. or that animals and especially humans popped out of a rock that was sweating salt water for billions of years, which it held to the rock by a magical force called gravity keeping the mist from being frozen, or  sucked up by the vacuum of space, which is what would happen according to scientific experiments where we put water in a vacuum, .. such claims are NOT science.

    With the help of God, once we put an end to this Religion called Evolution and Big-Bang, we can once again reestablish the true meaning of "science". We are sick and tired of Organized Religions interpreting both God, and the definition of science for us!

    1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
    Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or ...?
    2) "expanding" universe
    When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.
    3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/
    4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?

    Sorry @JustIgnoreMe I honestly didn't mean to ignore you.

    1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
    Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or …?

    They are stars, and not like our sun but all kinds of different, beautiful stars, like Flat Earthers shown you with our telescopes and cameras, .. not artist rendered images of sci-fi planets.

    2) "expanding" universe
    When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.

    13.75 billion years isn't eternal, nor does two distant stars that look like they are moving away from each other mean the heaven (whatever medium the stars are in) is stretching and is now Infinite. Cannot "stretch" Infinite.

    3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/

    Ever heard of a vacuum chamber? Here is one that we built for NASA:
    Image result for pic of NASA giant vacuum chamber

    Now let me see them put a hamster in his sealed ball in there, then open it up and see how many billions of years it would take for the air molecules in the hamster-ball to gradually dissipate into the vacuum chamber? Not to mention water, which instantly boils, then freezes in a vacuum.
    Now imagine if the walls of the vacuum chamber were expanding at:
    - Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years) - Google

    So you still think your Globe, covered in air and water would last more than a few minutes in a giant expanding vacuum chamber called; Universe/space*(r)

    (*Universe/space is a registered trademark of NASA and those who run the UN)

    4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?

    "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Light/order God called day, and darkness/chaos He called night. Before God fixed up the earth again in Genesis 1:2 there was no sun or moon, or stars, nor will we have a sun or moon on that New Earth and New Heavens that God and His son Word (aka Jesus Christ) is preparing for those who love him, because well be changed into incorruptible bodies that thrive on Gods love/order. But those who hate God and His order/light, will have a place without God, in darkness/chaos where they will have eternity to wait for a Big-Banged universe to live in.


    The Universe is not a vacuum, because it is full of stuff and space is simply a reality and God is a figment of the human imagination and for the time being the answer is out of reach. Maybe someday, something will work it all out.

    @Fredsnephew - Just Great, after NASA waisted billions of our tax dollars building a giant vacuum chamber, .. you say the universe is not a vacuum. No wonder they scrapped it and moved their ISS into a nice warm pool. Do you even know who came up with the dumb idea that space is a vacuum? Because we all have seen the bubbles rolling off the helmets of NASA Scubanauts, so I guess you're right, space is filled with stuff, mostly chlorinated water right?


    So NASA's big dreams to explore strange new worlds and to conquer an expanding vacuum came from here:



    To fighting the Van Allen belt, .. here:




    You know what, instead of wasting all that money shooting up rockets and crashing them into the sea, NASA should have stuck with the TV shows.
    But then, they couldn't of conquer the world, and get ready to exterminate us all.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 122 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    @MayCaesar said:

    "...But a reasonable assumption generally is that millions car professionals will not make things up due to some vile international conspiracy, and instead I should listen to what they say and see if it all put together makes sense. And it does: I understand now what a differential does, how the engine cooling systems work, how clutch connects to the engine to regulate the energy output - and even though I am not a car engineer, I think at this point my knowledge is solid enough to identify a wide array of problems a car might have and to suggest the general way to try to fix them. And this is all a non-scientists needs to know about science: how the world works and how to utilize it in practice. No need to understand the intricacies of topology to learn a few simple knots that will help you in sailing or mountain climbing, for example; you only need to have a general idea of topology, and maybe a bit of material science and solid state physics, to use a rope with a very high efficiency."

    Yes, motors, computers, flat earth, these things relating to science, we can empirically validate, test, and measure, things dealing with natural sciences. A "planet" or a black hole billions of light years away or a does not fall into this category, and is considered pseudoscience.
    It does not matter how far away it is. What matters is that it gives us data that will differ depending on the origin of the object.

    Have you ever taken a car engine apart to inspect it in detail? I bet not. Then how can you know how it works? You know how it works and, most importantly, that it does work, because every time you drive your car, the results of its work are in front of your eyes: your car is moving, all the car controls are working, and so on. You can say, "Ah, the engine is put in there by god, and it will work by the will of it. I only need but to pray, and nothing else". Such a mistake will lead to the practical consequences, when your engine falls apart, because instead of placing your faith in the knowledge of how it actually works and supplying it with the necessary resources (engine oil, coolant, etc.), you decided to place your faith into how you wish it worked.

    It is the same here. You do not need to walk on Mars to know a lot about Mars, since you have all the relevant data and knowledge on it, and you can test the knowledge by matching it with this data. Of course, if you are as stubborn as you usually are with regards to what Mars is, then your theory will always mismatch the data - but, unlike the above case where not changing the oil will break you car, in this case the only thing that will be broken is your reputation. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1216 Pts
    edited June 22
    @MayCaesar

    "It does not matter how far away it is. What matters is that it gives us data that will differ depending on the origin of the object."

    How exactly are you obtaining this "data"? Where does it come from? Please explain how I can personally obtain data from a black hole light years away. Keep in mind that I don't put much trust in government institutions, for obvious reasons.

    "Have you ever taken a car engine apart to inspect it in detail? I bet not. Then how can you know how it works? You know how it works and, most importantly, that it does work, because every time you drive your car, the results of its work are in front of your eyes: your car is moving, all the car controls are working, and so on. You can say, "Ah, the engine is put in there by god, and it will work by the will of it. I only need but to pray, and nothing else". Such a mistake will lead to the practical consequences, when your engine falls apart, because instead of placing your faith in the knowledge of how it actually works and supplying it with the necessary resources (engine oil, coolant, etc.), you decided to place your faith into how you wish it worked."

    I don't know how you got the impression that I only pray that my car works, therefore it will. This is probably the most asanine red herring I've ever seen. Of course one can read manuals about engines, and of course, have enough basic knowledge of what maintenance a car engine needs...

    "It is the same here. You do not need to walk on Mars to know a lot about Mars, since you have all the relevant data and knowledge on it, and you can test the knowledge by matching it with this data."


    Um, no. It is not the same. If I were so inclined, I could dismantle an engine, test and see if the manual(data) is correct, etc. You or I will never, ever walk on mars. You can of course watch videos of Mars from government institutions, and assume the data they supply is correct,  but this is foolish and NOT the same as dismantling a car engine by any means. This is quite obviously a false comparison, as anyone can see.



     "Of course, if you are as stubborn as you usually are with regards to what Mars is, then your theory will always mismatch the data - but, unlike the above case where not changing the oil will break you car, in this case the only thing that will be broken is your reputation."

    This is a sophistical statement to say the least, and condescending at worst, not that I really care what your or anyone else's opinion of me is. My goal is truth, not bandwagon fallaciousness.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 122 Pts
    @Erfisflat

    Read the manuals? Written by evil corporations hiding the truth from all of us and faking their data? Are you sure you want to trust them? Maybe you should instead watch a few conspiracy Youtube videos that tell you that your engine is flat and needs no maintenance instead? Why not?

    I can tell you why. Because with the car, your life and your hard-earned money is on the line, so you prefer to use logic, instead of fantasies, to understand how it works. With the Universe, it is not the case, hence your imagination runs wild.

    ---

    For the black hole, you make two assumptions: 1) the object is a black hole, 2) the object is not a black hole. Then you ask yourself, "What would be the observable consequences of 1) or 2)? How would the difference between them reflect on the data we collect?" Once that is answered, you look at the relevant data you can measure: the approximate velocity distribution of the surrounding objects (by measuring the Doppler widening of their spectral lines), the relation between the distance to it (from redshift, or from standard candles and similar methods) and its luminosity (simple integral over the output of every pixel on the telescope CCD sensor), the brightness of the surrounding gas (you can measure its gradient and hereby separate the object's internal brightness from the brightness of the gas itself)... Then you look at the predictions of these measurements for your theoretical model of a black hole and ask yourself, "Does this data match the predictions well?" Yes or no. Then you look at the alternative models explaining the observation that are not related to black hole. Same questions. Do it with multiple candidates for black holes, and if your model on the black holes matches the observations consistently, then this is a plausible model.

    It is the same with the car engine. You predict the effects your car engine leads to, and you can measure them. You do not need to take the engine apart and look at its every atom to know whether your model for how the engine works is plausible or not. You can never tell that it is correct with 100% certainty, just as you can never tell that the object is a black hole with 100% certainty - but you can make educated guesses and evaluate their plausibility. Test-drive a car by looking at its observable effects - it works. Test-drive a black hole by looking at its observable effects - it works.

    Erfisflat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch