Science, Fiction Or Non-Fiction?

Krafty Quill

Banned
    • 609
    Posts
    19
    Years
    Okay, basically I'm asking you people what you make of science, you know stuff like this whole evolutionary concept and the big bang e.t.c. How much do you believe this stuff?

    Also, I was thinking...

    If you take a glass of water and add two cubes of ice, you should see the cup's water level slightly rise, right?

    Now, if you took every living animal out of the sea wouldn't the Earth's water level decrease? Couldn't this mean the planet wasn't three quarters water?
     
    Scientific fact is non-fiction, the two terms are synonymous. Scientific theories are educated speculation and some may prove fictional despite consensus. Evolution is watertight in my opinion and the Big Bang theory is more believable than the alternatives. For the former, "conclusive" (creationists disagree, likely from misinterpretation and stubborness) evidence has been discovered (laboratory observations of bacteria and viruses) but the latter remains as speculation despite widespread agreement of its credibility.

    If every other variable remains constant, then yes; the sea level will decrease if all living organisms are removed. Three quarters of the surface area of the globe is covered by water. Intuition and basic physics tell us that if sea levels drop, then the proportion of the surface area covered by water will similarly drop.
     
    Last edited:
    This topic is perplexing to me.

    I'm not the docter you'd see going to college at age 12 that's for sure.
     
    Krafty Quill said:
    Okay, basically I'm asking you people what you make of science, you know stuff like this whole evolutionary concept and the big bang e.t.c. How much do you believe this stuff?

    Also, I was thinking...

    If you take a glass of water and add two cubes of ice, you should see the cup's water level slightly rise, right?

    Now, if you took every living animal out of the sea wouldn't the Earth's water level decrease? Couldn't this mean the planet wasn't three quarters water?
    Click to expand...



    I could believe in Evolution or the Big Bang.

    But really...none of us were there to witness anything. But there is a lot of proof towards evidence. Thing is...is that proof being correctly?



    And about the sea animals in the ocean...I believe that no, the water level would not decrease, because animals and ice are totally different things and have different densitites.
    Animals swim through the water, when ice cubes lay on top.

    But that is just my opinion.
    But it is an interesting observation, I must say.
     
    Red530 said:
    And about the sea animals in the ocean...I believe that no, the water level would not decrease, because animals and ice are totally different things and have different densitites.
    Click to expand...

    Anything dense enough to float or be submerged, will displace water. Therefore, by removing it, sea levels will fall.
     
    Hm...I guess you're right then.


    How many of you guys are AGAINST Science theories?
     
    I believe in evolution. I can't really see how you can't believe in evolution, it seems pretty conclusive to me.

    The Big Bang though, I'm a bit iffy on. For me, it's a bit farfetched to just think that everything was created due to a chance explosion. I think there's more to it than that and I think in the future, possibly 100's of years into the future, we will have a better explanation than the "big bang".

    With the ocean thing, technically the water level would fall but it wouldn't be by any significant amount. And it wouldn't really adjust the 70/30 water-land ratio either.

    ...And that was a very peculiar thing to think about too.
     
    It does, but people can believe what they want.

    I hope this doesn't turn into a religious debeate.
     
    Dawson said:
    The Big Bang though, I'm a bit iffy on. For me, it's a bit farfetched to just think that everything was created due to a chance explosion. I think there's more to it than that and I think in the future, possibly 100's of years into the future, we will have a better explanation than the "big bang".
    Click to expand...
    The Big Bang though is not a confirmed theory itself. It is only the most accepted Universe-beginning theory.
     
    Lol. Educated hypothesis are debated about a lot these days. :)
     
    Dawson said:
    I didn't say it was, just that I was very sceptical of it. And I seriously disliked having to learn about it in Science class when I didn't believe most of it.
    Click to expand...

    Well yes, which is exactly why I made my point there. Why is it taught as if it was a confirmed theory?
     
    Lol. Reverse psychology. I guess science contains a lot of that. :)
     
    McGraw said:
    Anything dense enough to float or be submerged, will displace water. Therefore, by removing it, sea levels will fall.
    Click to expand...

    *nods*

    And I didn't think man was in possession of anything that could calculate the vast waters accurately. Probably just another statistic with a wide margin of error. Pssh ... Scientists.
     
    Lol. Technology is growing everyday. No wonder man knows all this stuff!
     
    Not really, he doesn't. He does what he does best and comes to concrete conclusions from a series of derived probabilities. Technology isn't a bad thing ... well, not most of the time, it can just be untrusting in some situations. A "wise" man once told me, that, with regard to our purpose on this planet, Science attempts to our questions of "How", while religion answers our "Why" questions.
     
    That is very true.
    I could believe in either evolution or the Big Bang.

    Who knows, maybe the Big Bang started first and THEN evolution began. *shrugs*
     
    Well, apparently there was nothing before the Big Bang, so that would've had to come first.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top