h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There are some significant factual errors in this article that should be corrected.

"Now science has proven that the universe did indeed begin, and in a way not unlike the Genesis account."

Science has proven no such thing. By definition science cannot prove anything, proof is a mathematical concept. Science meerly suggests theories to explain observations.

"There is also something called 'dark matter', which is believed to be residue from a cosmic explosion, floating around the universe."

Dark matter is simply an unobserved source of mass which throws out the calculation of cosmology. There are any number of theories to explain it. It doesn't have to be anything directly to do with the big bang, it could be neutrinos with a small but non-zero mass, it could be very dim brown dwarfs, etc.

"The first law of thermodynamics, or the law of conservation of matter, states that matter cannot be created or destroyed,"

IIRC the 1st law of thermodynamics is the conservation of ENERGY not matter. Relativity suggests that they are equivelent (E=MC^2), but matter can be destroyed, eg. the sun is decreasing in mass at a rate of billions of tons a second (i think... its a while since i read that, but it is definitly a large number), and antimatter-matter collisions destory eachother completely, converting itself to energy.

Tango

Tango:

I think you've missed the point a bit. This article is a statement of *beliefs* - not facts. If it was put through Peer Review on its own it would, I hope, be a snowball in a very hot furnace. However - it didn't go through Peer Review, because it's part of a larger project. And it simply *must* be seen in the context of that larger project.

On one level, this IS a factual article - it is a fact that there are a lot of people who really do believe this nonsense, and it's a further worrying fact that some of them work for schools. It's important that people see that this is what Creationists believe.

I hoped, by stringing together the project, that I could get Creationist ideas read about, while simultaneously making sure that nobody with two braincells to rub together would see that they make no sense at all, have nothing to do with the real world, and are dangerous garbage which nobody has any business teaching to children.

Thanks for commenting, I do feel in some ways a bit of a failure now you've felt the need to "correct" this entry. If it had worked, you'd have simply read this and chuckled. Never mind eh...

H.

The beliefs stated in this entry are supported by facts, as they should be, if those facts are wrong then it makes the whole entry worthless IMHO. The corrections i made had nothing to do with beliefs, they were unquestionable facts that had been wrongly stated.

An arguement based on false facts has no chance of pursuading anyone, which is, or course, the point of an arguement. The author loses respect from the reader with these blantent errors.

Tango

Tango:

Think one level deeper.

"The beliefs stated in this entry are supported by facts, as they should be, if those facts are wrong then it makes the whole entry worthless IMHO."

Worthless as a factual argument about how the universe began, definitely. But that's NOT THE POINT. This entry is NOT a standalone treatise on physics of origins. It's a demonstration of Creationist belief.

The reason it's NOT worthless is that IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT it shows that Creationist arguments are worthless rubbish. The author was offered this platform, and carefully requested to marshal his best arguments. That this is the result speaks for itself, I think, and is far from worthless.

"The corrections i made had nothing to do with beliefs, they were unquestionable facts that had been wrongly stated."

I know, and thank you for pointing it out. But in the context of the project, it should be clear (and it obviously isn't, and that's my fault) that this is NOT being held up as the Truth. It's being given as an example of the way people who believe something will state outright wrong things to support what they say.

"An arguement based on false facts has no chance of pursuading anyone"

If only that were true. Sadly, Creationist arguments are based entirely on false "facts", and they demonstrably ARE persuading people. Admittedly, most of the people they're persuading aren't the sharpest tools in the box, but in a democracy the only thing that counts is numbers... depressing, but true.

" which is, or course, the point of an arguement. The author loses respect from the reader with these blantent errors."

If the author of this has lost your respect - GOOD! That was the POINT! It succeeds in my intent for it if that is the case. Of course, it fails in its authors intent - but it was MY project.

H.

"Worthless as a factual argument about how the universe began, definitely. But that's NOT THE POINT. This entry is NOT a standalone treatise on physics of origins. It's a demonstration of Creationist belief.

The reason it's NOT worthless is that IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT it shows that Creationist arguments are worthless rubbish. The author was offered this platform, and carefully requested to marshal his best arguments. That this is the result speaks for itself, I think, and is far from worthless."

Ah, now i think i've worked out why we don't agree. The reason this entry was written was to pursuade people that creationism is right, the reason you included in the project is to point out how stupid the ideas are. The entry is worthless for the reasons it was written, it is in fact this worthlessness that makes it a worthwhile part of your project. Is this getting too abstract?

"I know, and thank you for pointing it out. But in the context of the project, it should be clear (and it obviously isn't, and that's my fault) that this is NOT being held up as the Truth. It's being given as an example of the way people who believe something will state outright wrong things to support what they say."

You weren't holding it up as truth, the author on the other hand was. And it is the author that really should have read my comments.

""An arguement based on false facts has no chance of pursuading anyone"

If only that were true. Sadly, Creationist arguments are based entirely on false "facts", and they demonstrably ARE persuading people. Admittedly, most of the people they're persuading aren't the sharpest tools in the box, but in a democracy the only thing that counts is numbers... depressing, but true."

Ah, yes, you are of course right. I should have said "no chance of pursuading anyone that will actually think about it". It is sad, isn't it? Thats the reason why democracy will never work, 1/2 the people voting are below average the ability to know what is the best choice to vote for, this means you are going to get a goverment that is, at best, average, and a goverment should, of course, be the best, not just plain average. But i'm going off topic...

"" which is, or course, the point of an arguement. The author loses respect from the reader with these blantent errors."

If the author of this has lost your respect - GOOD! That was the POINT! It succeeds in my intent for it if that is the case. Of course, it fails in its authors intent - but it was MY project."

As i said above, my comments were aimed at the author, so the author failed, which is the point i was making. And in turn, because you are arguing against someone who appears to know so little about the subject, it makes you look bad. It's the same as an boxer beating a geek to a pulp, you don't notice that the geek was a useless fighter, you notice that the boxer wasn't being fair in fighting the geek. Does that make any sense? I think i should have spent longer on thinking of an analogy.

Tango

What if the geek has been petitioning the US courts for decades in order to get a shot at the title fight? Insisting that since he's just as good a fighter as the champ, the method of physical training he uses should be taught to schoolkids? Accusing the boxing world in general of a huge conspiracy to prevent him from winning the title? What is the champ supposed to do, refuse to fight?

It's not his fault if the geek can't even stand up on his own, let alone fight. It might be embarrasing for the champ to have to turn up and watch the little geek collapse unaided, but he's got to do it or the geek takes the title through lack of opposition.

It's a shame (though hardly a surprise) that Creationists can field hundreds of geeks, but no professional boxers.

Gif, metaphor-loving

Very nicely done. *shakes gif's hand* I love a well followed through metaphor.

Um... i'm stuck for a comeback actually... er...

Um, i'll get back to you on that one...

Tango

No need, I'm only being tongue-in-cheek.

And anyway, everyone knows that many, many leading scientists support Creationism, so they can't possibly be the underdogs anyway...

Gif

How about, they can't field boxers, but they can field stunt doubles, who act the part of boxers very well, but are in fact not?

Tango

Gif

To Tango:

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can be split up into smaller and smaller peices, but never actually taken out of existence as you say it can.


And how is this nonsense by the way? The Genesis creation account hasn't been disproven, because it can't be disproven. As i see it, you are all just automatically biased to ideas that you are not used to. Get over that imaturity and then perhaps one day you all will see the truth.

And you may think some question like "when was God created?" "When" doesn't apply to God, because he first thought of and created the flow of time itself, as well as matter itself and all of the laws that apply to it.

And it also seems that science cannot prove anything according to you. Then what should the human race base its discoveries on? Some nice preconceptions? You seem to like that.

Not to insult anybody, but every argument I've heard against Christianity has always been an imature attempt to say 1+1=3, which always ends up with the challenger backing out of a losing argument, and never admitting that they had actually lost it even to themselves. The world needs to be a little more opened minded towards things, because no matter how much evidence is in front of us, we always end up looking like idiots when we realize how stupid we were. That is just the world's idea of "progress" I guess. Just another case of mankind's collective immaturity.

Its so sad to see some truly intelligent people so horribly confused by such illogical ideas (and I mean you people). You say creationism doesn't make any sense, but then you don't give any evidence to support your theory (which I don't even think you have in the first place...)

You all are too imature to think about. It makes my head hurt just to think of people as terribly ignorant, arrogant, and blind as you all. Not to insult you, but I only say that because it is true of the entire human race, and it is a sad thing when we as a species deny our only chance of not killing each other in a nuclear war... sad... you all really should research this more, and perhaps one day you will have an argument that doesn't fall flat on its face so quickly... but they will always fall flat on the face as long as so many people stay hopelessly and voluntarily blind. It really boggles the mind that anybody should even attempt to challenge such rock solid arguments as that of christianity or even creationism...

This entire ebsite is full of users who think that they are smart (which they have the potential to be) and yet are so ignorant to the truth (of course adose of your vague "real world" will make up for that, right?).

You make me laugh, you really do. It saddens me that people can be so amazingly gullible and irrational.

Tango

Actually that is exactly what I meant to say about you...

I don't beleive something for no reason you know, I only use evidence to support what I believe. Do I really need to go into the evidence? I'd like to put it would take a while to get through it all. But maybe you should take some time to actually read some nonbiased (emphasis on NONbiased) books on the subject, and then perhaps you will one day be able to give some arguments, instead of just saying I'm dumb and trying to leave it at that.

Just like in The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis... "Don't let the humans argue, because then there is reason, and with reason we always lose. Make them think irrational thoughts..." and again "Make him think that he lives in the 'real world' and so none of the nonsense applies to him, but never let him ask what he means by the 'real worl'."

You are making a very common mistake here...

I gave up trying to have logical debates with people like you a long time ago. If you were capable of understanding simple logic, you wouldn't hold such stupid beliefs in the first place, so there is no hope of making you see sense.

Tango

'It really boggles the mind that anybody should even attempt to challenge such rock solid arguments as that of christianity or even creationism...'

That was entertaining...

Ste

The best bit is, he actually means it!

Tango

As usual, Tango has resorted to calling someone stupid. Seems to be a rather nasty habit you've got there.

"I gave up trying to have logical debates with people like you a long time ago. If you were capable of understanding simple logic, you wouldn't hold such stupid beliefs in the first place, so there is no hope of making you see sense."

Ouch. You blew me out of the water there. You really opened my eyes to the truth, and I can now see that the only one being irrational this whole time was me...

Seriously now, what "simple logic" are you referring to? The one that says that the universe came from nothing, and that logical scientific laws only apply to something if you want it to? Try not to take too much offence, but what on earth is this nonsense you keep on babling about? If all of my ideas are "nonsense" then why won't you come out and say why? Is it some big secret that millions of christians havn't seemed to notice over the past few thousand years?

But I see it doesn't matter what I think, because if I'm dumb enough to disagree with you, then I should be hung.

Seriously, what do you expect me to do? You through some random insults in the air, smile like you just realized again how much of a genius you are, and then you walk away more ignorant than ever.

But I guess ignorance is bliss, and that is why all you do is disagree with me instead of saying your views on the subject (do you have some to parade around with?).

Now time to read my post, smile, and then go on to prove that 1+1=3 to your children.

If you really want i can prove 1+1=3, it's not hard. I would be interested to see if you can actually spot the flaw in the logic. I'll work it out later today and post it.

Tango