Do you disagree with scientific consensus on anything?

Turkey · March 21, 2016, 07:23:42 PM

What is it, and why?

Examples:

The Big Bang is the most complete theory of the origin of the universe to date
Abiogenesis is the best theory of the origin of life on Earth to date
Evolution is the best theory of how life developed on Earth
Young Earth theory and creationism models are not accurate or accepted
GMOs present no particular danger to consumers
Anthropological climate change is real and presents a significant danger to humanity

etc. Post others and I'll add them if they can be confirmed.

Mattie G Indahouse · March 21, 2016, 07:26:10 PM

Do the moon landings count? There's people which think they were staged but science was involved in order for them to happen.

Turkey · March 21, 2016, 07:27:51 PM

Quote from: Little Willie on March 21, 2016, 07:26:10 PM

Do the moon landings count? There's people which think they were staged but science was involved in order for them to happen.

I suppose, but I think that falls more into the realm of conspiracy. There probably is some sort of scientific rebuttal of their claims, though.

Sandtrap · March 21, 2016, 07:35:58 PM

I'm always iffy on GMOs. It's not that I don't trust in the growing ability of the scientific community to accurately modify things without shit repurccussions(Monarch butterfly endangerment forgive me).

I don't like the way they're handled like a blunt instrument over the head of consumers. GMOs are treated like they're the second coming of jesus among growing food and fuck do they ever try to force it on people.

I don't trust them to tell folks what exactly is in that food(potential harmful things, which there always are), or what it might lack.(various nutritions when compared to a more home grown counterpart)

And most of all, the distributing companies of GMO's are just scum. When a farmer up here signs a contract with a company for GMO seeds, they lose ALL distribution rights. At which point the company has free reign of what and where their product goes, or even if it goes nowhere, which happens a lot. All this excess and it's not put to good use. It's just left to rot, essentially.

Luciana · March 21, 2016, 07:50:13 PM

I always like to think the Big Bang theory is false and that the universe has always been there. Humans and life as we know is all based with time, and that's how we think. It's hard to ever think anything can be "infinite". Everything has to have a beginning and end, as the human mind can't comprehend something being there forever, always.

Of course that's most likely not true because evidence for Big Bang is quite a bit. I just like to fancy the idea.

challengerX · March 21, 2016, 07:54:25 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Winy · March 21, 2016, 09:02:15 PM

Nothing that I can think of. More importantly, I'm a 19 year-old college freshman, I have no qualifications that'd make it even reasonable for me to doubt scientific consensus.

DAS B00T x2 · March 21, 2016, 09:04:27 PM

Off the top of my head, just some crazy fringe shit that can be lumped together and commonly disregarded as "scientific" racism.

Luciana · March 21, 2016, 11:50:20 PM

Quote from: challengerX on March 21, 2016, 07:54:25 PM

Quote from: Luciana on March 21, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
I always like to think the Big Bang theory is false and that the universe has always been there. Humans and life as we know is all based with time, and that's how we think. It's hard to ever think anything can be "infinite". Everything has to have a beginning and end, as the human mind can't comprehend something being there forever, always.

Of course that's most likely not true because evidence for Big Bang is quite a bit. I just like to fancy the idea.
That's actually an interesting perspective on it.

But it doesn't really pan out.

My friend brought it up when I was in my mid teens, and it's just something cool that makes my mind kinda lose itself. To think something could be around forever. Of course you'd have to break our dimension and rip the fabric of time for that to happen, so it can't really work that way.

Sandtrap · March 21, 2016, 11:56:07 PM

Quote from: Luciana on March 21, 2016, 07:50:13 PM

I always like to think the Big Bang theory is false and that the universe has always been there. Humans and life as we know is all based with time, and that's how we think. It's hard to ever think anything can be "infinite". Everything has to have a beginning and end, as the human mind can't comprehend something being there forever, always.

Of course that's most likely not true because evidence for Big Bang is quite a bit. I just like to fancy the idea.

That's invalidated by our old pal einstein figuring out that time is a functioning aspect in the universe and influenced by the universe, rather than existing outside of it as some constant.

Your idea might not be so far off though. Think of it like this. Our whole universe is based off renewal and dispersal. Cycles of creation and destruction and so on. I like to think of the big bang as the kickstarter. Renewal. Some time along the line, as our universe ages, and the bonds between matter break down until everything is too distant and everything exists in a near zero energy state, something happens to start the process again.

I know that current models predict that we'll just reach a cold death and nothing more. But the existence of the big bang invalidates this if you think about it. An infinitely dense, singular point does not come from nowhere. I think it's foolish to assume that a definite end can result to a universe when the universe itself spontaneously showed up from nothing.

Plus, we sure don't know everything about how the universe works either. The theories we have today will no doubt change in the future.

Luciana · March 22, 2016, 12:03:13 AM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 21, 2016, 11:56:07 PM

Quote from: Luciana on March 21, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
I always like to think the Big Bang theory is false and that the universe has always been there. Humans and life as we know is all based with time, and that's how we think. It's hard to ever think anything can be "infinite". Everything has to have a beginning and end, as the human mind can't comprehend something being there forever, always.

Of course that's most likely not true because evidence for Big Bang is quite a bit. I just like to fancy the idea.

That's invalidated by our old pal einstein figuring out that time is a functioning aspect in the universe and influenced by the universe, rather than existing outside of it as some constant.

Your idea might not be so far off though. Think of it like this. Our whole universe is based off renewal and dispersal. Cycles of creation and destruction and so on. I like to think of the big bang as the kickstarter. Renewal. Some time along the line, as our universe ages, and the bonds between matter break down until everything is too distant and everything exists in a near zero energy state, something happens to start the process again.

I know that current models predict that we'll just reach a cold death and nothing more. But the existence of the big bang invalidates this if you think about it. An infinitely dense, singular point does not come from nowhere. I think it's foolish to assume that a definite end can result to a universe when the universe itself spontaneously showed up from nothing.

Plus, we sure don't know everything about how the universe works either. The theories we have today will no doubt change in the future.

An interesting perspective, and yeah, we don't even know anything about Dark Matter, so... yeah it'll change.

What if the Big Bang was just another mass recycle in the infinite cycle of events in the universe? Like it fades away, boom. And just keeps repeating at one point or another? In that sense, it could be infinite, no?

Sandtrap · March 22, 2016, 12:16:28 AM

Quote from: Luciana on March 22, 2016, 12:03:13 AM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 21, 2016, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Luciana on March 21, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
I always like to think the Big Bang theory is false and that the universe has always been there. Humans and life as we know is all based with time, and that's how we think. It's hard to ever think anything can be "infinite". Everything has to have a beginning and end, as the human mind can't comprehend something being there forever, always.

Of course that's most likely not true because evidence for Big Bang is quite a bit. I just like to fancy the idea.

That's invalidated by our old pal einstein figuring out that time is a functioning aspect in the universe and influenced by the universe, rather than existing outside of it as some constant.

Your idea might not be so far off though. Think of it like this. Our whole universe is based off renewal and dispersal. Cycles of creation and destruction and so on. I like to think of the big bang as the kickstarter. Renewal. Some time along the line, as our universe ages, and the bonds between matter break down until everything is too distant and everything exists in a near zero energy state, something happens to start the process again.

I know that current models predict that we'll just reach a cold death and nothing more. But the existence of the big bang invalidates this if you think about it. An infinitely dense, singular point does not come from nowhere. I think it's foolish to assume that a definite end can result to a universe when the universe itself spontaneously showed up from nothing.

Plus, we sure don't know everything about how the universe works either. The theories we have today will no doubt change in the future.
An interesting perspective, and yeah, we don't even know anything about Dark Matter, so... yeah it'll change.

What if the Big Bang was just another mass recycle in the infinite cycle of events in the universe? Like it fades away, boom. And just keeps repeating at one point or another? In that sense, it could be infinite, no?

That's what I was getting at. You and me, everything around you is made of something that once was something else. Critters live and die, things form and erode, but their fundamental building blocks never fade and just become part of the framework for something else.

In it's own very special, abstract snowflake sort of way, nothing ever ends.

eggsalad · March 22, 2016, 12:24:39 AM

Young Earth theory makes perfect sense if you don't first establish there isn't a God. I think that's the biggest error anyone can make when trying to debate Creationists, if you allow them an omnipotent being, no radiological dating will ever upset their claims or premises.

Kiwicake · March 22, 2016, 01:17:00 AM

Quote from: Luciana on March 21, 2016, 07:50:13 PM

I always like to think the Big Bang theory is false and that the universe has always been there. Humans and life as we know is all based with time, and that's how we think. It's hard to ever think anything can be "infinite". Everything has to have a beginning and end, as the human mind can't comprehend something being there forever, always.

Of course that's most likely not true because evidence for Big Bang is quite a bit. I just like to fancy the idea.

The Big Bang technically doesn't actually mention how the universe began/what happened, only immediately afterwards

So who knows what went on beforehand

BaconShelf · March 22, 2016, 02:41:31 AM

We've been to the dark side of the moon but there was a transformers ship there so we covered it up.

In seriousness, not really. I tend to agree with consensus in science, even when it sucks and half the exoplanets you were using for a project were disproved and you have to go and rewrite a fuck ton of stuff.

Verbatim · March 22, 2016, 02:45:44 AM

I'm skeptical on things like the big bang, string theory, and time dilation.

I think the notion that the universe is "infinitely expanding" is a joke, and I don't automatically accept the existence of extraterrestrial life just because we have an abundance of water in space.

There's nothing about water that says life MUST exist elsewhere, just as there's nothing about land that says life must exist elsewhere. We very well could be alone, and it's not controversial to say that.

Verbatim · March 22, 2016, 02:54:02 AM

Quote from: Winy on March 21, 2016, 09:02:15 PM

Nothing that I can think of. More importantly, I'm a 19 year-old college freshman, I have no qualifications that'd make it even reasonable for me to doubt scientific consensus.

I'm not necessarily qualified either, but there's still some things out there that just sound like bullshit to me.

I'd certainly like to learn more about them.

Luciana · March 22, 2016, 03:28:32 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 22, 2016, 02:45:44 AM

We very well could be alone, and it's not controversial to say that.

Yeah but there are so many galaxies and everything that I think it's just probably there is life someplace. If we truly are alone, that is both scary, and miraculous.

BaconShelf · March 22, 2016, 03:32:33 AM

Quote from: Luciana on March 22, 2016, 03:28:32 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 22, 2016, 02:45:44 AM
We very well could be alone, and it's not controversial to say that.
Yeah but there are so many galaxies and everything that I think it's just probably there is life someplace. If we truly are alone, that is both scary, and miraculous.

It's not even controversial to say. Probability dictates that life should be a reoccurring thing within a single galaxy like our, let alone the billions of galaxies out there. But that's just probability. Until we get hard-evidence (or at least a large enough sample size of stars), it's just as idiotic to say life does exist as to say it doesn't.

Luciana · March 22, 2016, 03:34:44 AM

Quote from: BaconShelf on March 22, 2016, 03:32:33 AM

Quote from: Luciana on March 22, 2016, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Verbatim on March 22, 2016, 02:45:44 AM
We very well could be alone, and it's not controversial to say that.
Yeah but there are so many galaxies and everything that I think it's just probably there is life someplace. If we truly are alone, that is both scary, and miraculous.

It's not even controversial to say. Probability dictates that life should be a reoccurring thing within a single galaxy like our, let alone the billions of galaxies out there. But that's just probability. Until we get hard-evidence (or at least a large enough sample size of stars), it's just as idiotic to say life does exist as to say it doesn't.

So I guess until we get something, it's a half glass empty/full thing.

Sandtrap · March 22, 2016, 03:38:43 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 22, 2016, 02:45:44 AM

I doubt they'll ever actually "see" the big bang, but it's almost confirmed at this point. They theorized about the critical years after the big bang in the early expansion period, and sure enough, their theories line up with background radiation and light checks they've discovered as they look farther away in the universe. They've looked so far back that they're only a few billion years off from the theorized starting point to everything.

As for string theory, that's a no-brainer. String theory is used mainly as a good theoretical framework to help solve problems.

As for time dilation, I can't really answer that one. Of the few things I've read involving time I wouldn't have enough to say anything.

You're out of date on "infinitely expanding" by the way. At the moment, current projections and such "hint" that it'll forever expand because it has a stable framework, but they all point to it gradually slowing as it expands outwards. That's only with what we currently know though. The stuff we know is there but we can't "see" plays a role too.

And, as for life, I think you're mistaken somewhat about the parameters needed for it start. When life started out here, there was no oxygen yet. There wasn't "water" yet since oxygen wasn't around yet. It was other liquid compounds, but not straight up water.

It was most likely lightening in our atmosphere that created new particles and elements that allowed things to merge and create organic molecules. You don't quite need water for life, to be certain. Just the right compounds and exposure and all the material neccessary for organic molecules forms and starts doing it's thing.

It's not controversial to say we're alone in the universe. Since at the moment that statement rings true due to our communication and travel abilities. But to even think that in something as inhumanly massive as the universe that the same common reaction with molecules found here on our planet didn't occur elsewhere in all that space is just absurd, really.

Hell, the scientists who theorized about this made an isolated bubble, dumped in gases that were in theory, around during early earth days, and subjected them to lightening, and they got everything needed to start the process.

Whether it starts or not is the important bit. But with such an immense amount of complexity and options for organic molecules to form, and the sheer number of worlds with conditions close to ours, it's almost a sealed deal completely without even having found anything yet.

BaconShelf · March 22, 2016, 03:46:00 AM

Quote from: Luciana on March 22, 2016, 03:34:44 AM

Quote from: BaconShelf on March 22, 2016, 03:32:33 AM
Quote from: Luciana on March 22, 2016, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Verbatim on March 22, 2016, 02:45:44 AM
We very well could be alone, and it's not controversial to say that.
Yeah but there are so many galaxies and everything that I think it's just probably there is life someplace. If we truly are alone, that is both scary, and miraculous.

It's not even controversial to say. Probability dictates that life should be a reoccurring thing within a single galaxy like our, let alone the billions of galaxies out there. But that's just probability. Until we get hard-evidence (or at least a large enough sample size of stars), it's just as idiotic to say life does exist as to say it doesn't.
So I guess until we get something, it's a half glass empty/full thing.

Pretty much. I'm of the belief that, if you take the Heat Death scenario as fact, then we're still in the opening seconds of life of the universe and that life is incredibly rare but over the years it will become more common and eons from now, if we become spacefaring, we'll be the forerunners/ protheans or whatever. It sounds kind of stupid but it makes more sense the more yu think about it.

BaconShelf · March 22, 2016, 03:52:26 AM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 22, 2016, 03:38:43 AM

As for string theory, that's a no-brainer. String theory is used mainly as a good theoretical framework to help solve problems.

As for time dilation, I can't really answer that one. Of the few things I've read involving time I wouldn't have enough to say anything.

We can directly observe and measure time dilation now with modern technology. Satellites in orbit travel pretty fucking fast, and the atomic clocks have to be retuned all the time because they get out of sync with the ones on the ground. Time dilation is fact because we can directly observe and measure it. IT's just that it doesn't become noticeable to a human until your talking about relativistic velocities (Velocities that can be talked about in percentages of the speed of light).

But considering that mass increases with velocity increases, it means that the current high-end estimates for the maximum velocity attainable with realistic technology remains about 300km/s, even then, we're looking at doing gravity assists to accelerate. Any more and you simply won't be able to carry enough fuel to accelerate any more (At least, not feasibly.) On KSP (A game which doesn't model relativity/ mass increases), you need about the same mass of the moon in fuel to even gt near the speed of light. That's before considering your mass increasing and needing more fuel. So yeah, we probably won't even need to worry about relativity.

DAS B00T x2 · March 22, 2016, 05:37:19 AM

Quote from: Luciana on March 22, 2016, 12:03:13 AM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 21, 2016, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Luciana on March 21, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
I always like to think the Big Bang theory is false and that the universe has always been there. Humans and life as we know is all based with time, and that's how we think. It's hard to ever think anything can be "infinite". Everything has to have a beginning and end, as the human mind can't comprehend something being there forever, always.

Of course that's most likely not true because evidence for Big Bang is quite a bit. I just like to fancy the idea.

That's invalidated by our old pal einstein figuring out that time is a functioning aspect in the universe and influenced by the universe, rather than existing outside of it as some constant.

Your idea might not be so far off though. Think of it like this. Our whole universe is based off renewal and dispersal. Cycles of creation and destruction and so on. I like to think of the big bang as the kickstarter. Renewal. Some time along the line, as our universe ages, and the bonds between matter break down until everything is too distant and everything exists in a near zero energy state, something happens to start the process again.

I know that current models predict that we'll just reach a cold death and nothing more. But the existence of the big bang invalidates this if you think about it. An infinitely dense, singular point does not come from nowhere. I think it's foolish to assume that a definite end can result to a universe when the universe itself spontaneously showed up from nothing.

Plus, we sure don't know everything about how the universe works either. The theories we have today will no doubt change in the future.
An interesting perspective, and yeah, we don't even know anything about Dark Matter, so... yeah it'll change.

What if the Big Bang was just another mass recycle in the infinite cycle of events in the universe? Like it fades away, boom. And just keeps repeating at one point or another? In that sense, it could be infinite, no?

I cant remember if the big crunch was supported by most science folk ot not, but if so, yes, it could be.

BaconShelf · March 22, 2016, 05:42:57 AM

Quote from: DAS B00T 2016 on March 22, 2016, 05:37:19 AM

Quote from: Luciana on March 22, 2016, 12:03:13 AM
Quote from: Sandtrap on March 21, 2016, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Luciana on March 21, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
I always like to think the Big Bang theory is false and that the universe has always been there. Humans and life as we know is all based with time, and that's how we think. It's hard to ever think anything can be "infinite". Everything has to have a beginning and end, as the human mind can't comprehend something being there forever, always.

Of course that's most likely not true because evidence for Big Bang is quite a bit. I just like to fancy the idea.

That's invalidated by our old pal einstein figuring out that time is a functioning aspect in the universe and influenced by the universe, rather than existing outside of it as some constant.

Your idea might not be so far off though. Think of it like this. Our whole universe is based off renewal and dispersal. Cycles of creation and destruction and so on. I like to think of the big bang as the kickstarter. Renewal. Some time along the line, as our universe ages, and the bonds between matter break down until everything is too distant and everything exists in a near zero energy state, something happens to start the process again.

I know that current models predict that we'll just reach a cold death and nothing more. But the existence of the big bang invalidates this if you think about it. An infinitely dense, singular point does not come from nowhere. I think it's foolish to assume that a definite end can result to a universe when the universe itself spontaneously showed up from nothing.

Plus, we sure don't know everything about how the universe works either. The theories we have today will no doubt change in the future.
An interesting perspective, and yeah, we don't even know anything about Dark Matter, so... yeah it'll change.

What if the Big Bang was just another mass recycle in the infinite cycle of events in the universe? Like it fades away, boom. And just keeps repeating at one point or another? In that sense, it could be infinite, no?
I cant remember if the big crunch was supported by most science folk ot not, but if so, yes, it could be.

It isn't as accepted anymore as it once was. The closest to a consensus would be heat death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

challengerX · March 22, 2016, 06:13:35 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

PSU · March 22, 2016, 08:01:17 AM

Yes because I believe in God.

Naru · March 22, 2016, 10:45:59 AM

Of course, they make sense to me for the time, but until I'm more familiar with the work, I'll think they are accurate

eggsalad · March 22, 2016, 10:56:48 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 22, 2016, 02:45:44 AM

I think the notion that the universe is "infinitely expanding" is a joke

Why?

Verbatim · March 22, 2016, 11:01:12 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on March 22, 2016, 10:56:48 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 22, 2016, 02:45:44 AM
I think the notion that the universe is "infinitely expanding" is a joke
Why?

Well, as someone pointed out to me already, it's an outdated notion.