Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

The difference between the BIG BANG and GOD?
The former is a controversial scientific theory that currently explains best the scientific datas collected, while the latter is a totally unscientific (in the neutral sense of the word) concept of belief.

We know quite a bit already about our universe I would say. Everything we found currently points towards an expanding universe, we see back until a very early stage of the universe as well. We can watch actually how the universe looked like billions of years ago.

We can't see anything really near of the supposed Big Bang yet, but we are approaching the supposed date increasingly further.

The Big Bang theory has a few, lets say critical points, like the inflationary expansion I would say.


The given case that the Big Bang theory is really correct which is lets say not unlikely, its simply impossible to say what was before. You can speculate and guess (religions will love it, as thats their domain), but I doubt you will find any scientific means to research that. Not with the technology we know today.


Enough differences, or shall I continue?

Originally Posted by wouldliketoknow

Christanity is very quickly becoming "politicly(hope I spelled that right)incorrect,as Tim said in his post,its more about destroying it. Theres no such thing as Freedom of Religion anymore,unless you're willing to pratice it behind closed doors.

Originally Posted by Ygorl

Yes.

And as a fan of the most offensive band on Earth, GWAR. My entire LIFE revolves around offending people (since I hate most people :-) )

So, NOW I have to start being a fucking CHRISTIAN. I'll start wearing a cross and telling people about God now.

See, this is proof that humans are garbage.

That I have to GIVE UP GWAR AND BECOME A CHRISTIAN TO OFFEND PEOPLE AND MAKE THEM UNCOMFORTABLE ...........

............... what more proof do we need ?

People are fucked.

Originally Posted by presluc

Shall I go on?
Theory= A beleif in something

Originally Posted by Ygorl

Yes.

And as a fan of the most offensive band on Earth, GWAR. My entire LIFE revolves around offending people (since I hate most people :-) )

So, NOW I have to start being a fucking CHRISTIAN. I'll start wearing a cross and telling people about God now.

See, this is proof that humans are garbage.

That I have to GIVE UP GWAR AND BECOME A CHRISTIAN TO OFFEND PEOPLE AND MAKE THEM UNCOMFORTABLE ...........


............... what more proof do we need ?

People are fucked.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

thats not correct

A scientific theory is a model to describe empirical data. It can by definition not be proven ultimately but at any time discarded by new data or newly found out inconsistencies.
By definition a theory has to fulfill these requirements. That means a theory has to be disprovable, to be one.

Belief is by definition not disprovable.

A very clear difference.
If you say this is no "real difference, what else? Belief and theory are two totally different pairs of shoes.

But by the way, its also a reason why both things, scientific theories and belief can exist beneath each other. For issues where it is not viable to pose theories (as it can not be disproven), you can have beliefs instead. The question if god exists, is no question science can handle, its a question of belief.

Originally Posted by Ygorl

Yes.

And as a fan of the most offensive band on Earth, GWAR. My entire LIFE revolves around offending people (since I hate most people :-) )

So, NOW I have to start being a fucking CHRISTIAN. I'll start wearing a cross and telling people about God now.

See, this is proof that humans are garbage.

That I have to GIVE UP GWAR AND BECOME A CHRISTIAN TO OFFEND PEOPLE AND MAKE THEM UNCOMFORTABLE ...........

............... what more proof do we need ?

People are fucked.

Originally Posted by presluc

My bad, for using theory and beleif in the same sentence. lol
So if sceintist do not "beleive" in theories. What is it ,they have an idea for a theory,perhaps a maybe for a theory.lol
Come on, any theory that any human has is based on an idea.
To present your idea you must "beleive" it will be accepted?
Without belief in yourself or your ideas nothing would be said at least "IN THEORY". LOL

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

We often dont differentiate between those words in daily life, myself included. But there is a fundamental difference behind it, as I explained above. Sometimes scientists get off the right path as well, than they dont want to accept that their theory could be disproven. Those things happen, but they are bad science, and its just a matter of time until more dynamic scientists will lead the theory to be discarded.

Granted, for many the evolution theory has already crossed the border from theory to belief, but there would be still many scientists, if not most who are perfectly open to scientific arguments, also if they contradict with the evolution theory. As soon as the creationists would find a really good scientific argument, there is no doubt that the theory will be discarded as well. But as it looks like thats not too likely.
On the other side have creationsists a problem. They want to be scientific but none of there theories must conflict their religious concepts, but science can only work if you dont define the result for fix already before the experiment. A real scientist might follow an anomaly even if its throwing all his theories into the trash pin. (some might even dream to find this anomaly eventually), a creationist wont follow it, as only those who are not putting his fundamental concepts in question have a worth.

Thats the difference between scientist and creationist.



The theory was formed by man. A theory just describes what we consider as "reality" (which is a theory in itself as well). What you probably mean is, what is if evolution was formed by God. Well, nothing is then. Thats a question of religion, science does not give answer that can not be disproven.

I mean there are guesses why humans exist, but one should not call that theories if we stay within proper terminology. One of those guess, which I am a supporter of: If the universe would be only slightly different than it is, if one single constant would be only a nearly unreckognizable bit different, we would not exist, hence could not ask the question why we exist. If you furthermore pose the assumption that there exist multiple universes which is possible under the current theories, but of course not verifiable, than you simply just have to wait enough universes with different natural laws, until the right one appears eventually. In this nearly impossible case where everything fits together, eventually intelligent beings will start to exist and ask themselves the question why they are there. And the answer: random. A product of statistical mechanisms.

Its like dicing, everyone gets a six once, if he dices long enough. The only difference is that the dice of the universe has unimaginably more numbers than just 6 different ones. But thats no problem as you have the entire eternity to get the number you need. (Its not sure time has a meaning outside of the universe anyway)



Man, you are not entirely up to date it seems. Never was worked on more theories than today. Just because you will never ever here about most of them, does not mean scientists are not working on it.

In the field of profession I study, you can see great progress being on its way. Its interesting btw, people really are not aware. Science slowly leaves the old concept of copying nature for his own purposes. We enter the concept of creating life ourselves. Live that did not exist in that way before. We have a collection of bacterias today where we know what the entire genome is for. We know what the gens express, what those enzymes will do, how the metabolism work with each intermediate substance and even the molecular mechanisms that make the transformations possible. The knowledge is not perfect yet, but impressive in its depth already. As I said, the next step will be to plan ourselves new enzymes that never existed for purposes we need to be tackled.

That is still a look into the future a bit, but what is already routine is for example that genetic modified microorganisms produce human insulin for millions of people to an affordable price with no side effects like the pig insulin for example. To give you a small example what its worth for.


But what am I writing so long. The point is, most of science is very dry. If a nanophysician starts talking about the most exciting break through on his fields, normal people will A) understand nothing and B) bore themselves to dead. Even though these are fundamental new concepts they are working on.

PS:
I am a bit inexact myself, we were talking about theories. What you listed above was mainly no theories. It was inventions. Inventions are practical applications of theories.
A field were a major theory creation is very much in progress currently is the field around nanophysics I would say. These theories are so weird however for normal people, and even for the scientists themselves, that one of them said once: "Everyone who thinks he has understood the laws of nanophysics, has no idea of it".

On the field of biology there are lots of theories on the way about concrete mechanisms of evolution. For example about transposons and introns, that seem to have not much of justification for their existence, but experiments suggest that they are a major factor in mutation and therefore evolution.

To name just two tiny examples in a sea of new theories.

PPS:
If we are talking about inventions. How about this one: An affordable house that can be heated by not more than the heat the humans who life in produce themselves and with the utilities they use in daily life (kitchen, PC etc)? A type of house that could reduce if becoming the standard the need for energy dramatically on a national level.

Isn't that bombastic enough?