The Fake Creatures/Gods/Beasts Thread

[Tomcat]

Science isn't the "ultimate truth". Science proposes theories and models that explain the observed behaviour of a system. But those theories and models are just that; theories and models. You cannot find "truth" with science. Just think about what science was a couple of centuries ago: the earth is flat, there are only four elements, irrational numbers don't exist... the list goes on and on.

In a way, one could even say that religion is "science". After all, religion gives explanations to observations (it is raining because God is angry)

Again, someone who doesn't know the distinction between a scientific theory and a regular theory.

Scientific theory has been observed countless times and results will always be reproduced under certain circumstances.
Saying that is like saying that the fact we're all made out of cells might not be true.

[Ad Bot]

[Harm94]

[Cybersix]

A big roostersucker samsquanch

[King Leo]

Again, someone who doesn't know the distinction between a scientific theory and a regular theory.

Scientific theory has been observed countless times and results will always be reproduced under certain circumstances.
Saying that is like saying that the fact we're all made out of cells might not be true.

I know the difference quite well. But even though something has been tested out and reproduced countless times, that doesn't mean that the theory is fundamentally "true". The problem with scientific theories is the bolded out part. For example, near the speed of light, almost all theories collapse due to the relativistic effects. You can't call it "truth" unless it works under all circumstances.

No, they couldn't.

Saying it is raining because god is angry is not science, it is an assumption at worst and a hypothesis at best. For that to be scientific in any way, it would require experiments to determine whether it is a correct assumption or not. But as it stands, it's just a baseless claim.

That was just to spark discussion, lol. I know that statement was very far fetched. But if you go a couple of hundred years back, the difference between science and religion was very small. I mean, alchemy was considered science back in the day...

There's no "just" about scientific theories or models. It's the only way we find things out on this planet, and beyond. If there was a better system for finding the truth, we would use it.

"Just" as in: they have their limitations. Some theories are only applicable under certain conditions. Models are designed to only work under very limited conditions, and are basically junk.

Good thing we had more drugs, common sense, religion, and science to fix that.

Also, nobody believed the earth was flat a couple hundred years ago.

They believed it in the 1400's. Thats "only" 600 years ago.

[King Leo]

OT:

[Tomcat]

I know the difference quite well. But even though something has been tested out and reproduced countless times, that doesn't mean that the theory is fundamentally "true". The problem with scientific theories is the bolded out part. For example, near the speed of light, almost all theories collapse due to the relativistic effects. You can't call it "truth" unless it works under all circumstances.
That was just to spark discussion, lol. I know that statement was very far fetched. But if you go a couple of hundred years back, the difference between science and religion was very small. I mean, alchemy was considered science back in the day...
"Just" as in: they have their limitations. Some theories are only applicable under certain conditions. Models are designed to only work under very limited conditions, and are basically junk.
 
They believed it in the 1400's. Thats "only" 600 years ago.

Religion stifled all science that challenged it ie most astronomy or biology back then. We're also talking about Earth here, so in your mind God is true because it works under all circumstances? Oh wait, it doesn't. So much for being the supreme truth.

BTW, people already knew the Earth was round since the Classical Age. Colombus knew the Earth was round if you didn't get the memo.

[King Leo]

God is true because it works under all circumstances?

That's not what I said, lol. And just so you know: I'm an atheist (or agnostic, rather) and I'm actually studying "science" (chemistry). So you don't have to be all
"hurr durr stupid christian dude who thinks his religion is much better than my master race science" :p

Allow me to illustrate what I mean by using an example from my own field. Let's say you want to model the behaviour of a fluid system. Your variables are volume, pressure, temperature and number of atoms. As you've probably learnt in chemistry, Clapeyron came up with the ideal gas law in 1834, saying that . However, this model is absolute rubbish at high pressures, near-critical conditions or when applied on gases where the molecules interact with each other.
Van der Waals came along in 1873 and modified the model:
 
Still rubbish. Soave, Redlich and Kwong came up with this one in 1972:

SRK is used today, but it isn't very good either. Peng and Robinson came up with a better model in 1976. It can handle critical conditions and works well in Oil/Natural gas systems:

Peng-Robinson is widely used for modeling systems today, but the trend is that each unique system gets a unique equation of state. There are people I know who write their master thesis on a new equation of state for gas-oil multicomponent systems! And it's happening in 2013!

My point is that neither of the above equations is good enough, even though they were the best when they were first introduced. They don't work under all circumstances. In fact, the applications are rather limited. You cannot tell the "truth" by using either of these equations, and my bet is that we will continue to develop new equations of state forever. They will be a little bit more precise every time a new one is introduced, but they will never truly be able to tell the "absolute truth".

TLDR: Scientific models are rubbish. They get improved all the time, but none of them can fully capture the "truth".   


OT:
Sorry for derailing the topic.
Here're some pictures of the Norwegian Nøkken, a creature that lives in the sea and likes to lure women and children and drown them.

[kidplasma]

The Mystical Pudding God.

[AlsoSulfate]

Nope.

bump to remind everyone that King Leo is handicapped

[Harm94]

Radical Christians and Atheists will be the end of us all.
Behold, the man made giant electric eel from Big-O, created through science and blacked out the outer city.

[King Leo]

bump to remind everyone that King Leo is handicapped

Did you even read anything I wrote after that?

[Wheatley]

[King Leo]

[img width= 500]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3155/3069563135_b9739a5bba_o.jpg[/img]

Oh my! Scariest creature yet! But God-like at the same time!

[Cargøn]

Dem squirts
If you know what this is from I love you forever

[Nymethus]

-soap-

You bring up one example of a theory you claim is bad, therefore science is bad. Yeah OK. Why is anyone even talking to you.

Science isn't the "ultimate truth".

Nothing is. Science is however the absolutely best thing we've got. Now if this whole argument is based on taking Neil deGrasse Tyson's quote as literal fact then I really doubt the value of this discourse.

And no, the Neck is not Norwegian any more than red houses or flags with crosses are, however the paintings you posted are Norwegian paintings.