Biliskner said:
did you even read past the list? i explained why i thought those two things were where
they were. oh whatever. read what you want. skip what you want.
I sure read your list, and think your line of logic is quite flawed. You're ridiculously simplifying archaeology in order to try and prove a point, but it's not working. I'm curious as to what group is saying some fossil is 6 million years old and what group is saying 6000 years old. Does one of the groups have actual physical evidence and tested scientific methods behind its' conclusion? Better yet, is one of the groups ignoring data in favor of misguided religious ideas?
In fact, you managed to show I was right. I said you didn't like those sciences/whatever because they disagree with your view on the creation, and you didn't contest it one bit. If you're going to criticize a science, please do it on scientific basis, not religious.
by your logic Aristotelians were correct until the Scientific Revolution era, then all the laws of physics MUST HAVE CHANGED 'cos then the Aristotelians were seen as wrong and Newtonian mechanics took over.
Majority rules? History seems to show that the majority is quite gullible.
Uh...no? My point was that the people who whine most about archaeology, geology, geophysics, etc, are people whose beliefs are challenged by the constant new information gathered by those disciplines, not people who have legitimate complaints.
Chiropractic? Their patient's recovery far outwieghs physio's.
What. I don't understand what you mean, and you still haven't explained how chiropractice belongs in the same category as physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
Astronomy? prove to me dark matter exists.
you should refute things you at least have some knowledge of.
Ah, yes, we've come to the point in the thread where you show your lack of understanding of how science works. Scientific theories aren't proven by a lack of evidence to show them being wrong, but by evidence itself that shows it to be wrong. Scientific theories cannot be proven right, but only proven wrong. They also are written under the premise that they're the best result of the knowledge we have right now and to be consistantly accurate under their defined conditions.
Newton's laws of motion were pretty good for a long time, given what we knew then. They're also good until you start approaching the speed of light, where we run into...
Special/General relativity, works nearly all the time given what we know. The results from those theories can be applied to whole lot of situations, except when dealing with things like black holes, or motion at the quantum level, which leads into...
String theory. Since quantum mechanics and GR don't quite go together, we've been trying to find a theory that will unite both of them. String theory is still in its' early infancy and could very well be completely wrong. In fact, none of the string theories have even made firm predictions that allow them to be tested!
Do you see how this works? The theories are made with the best knowledge at the time, but are continually updated as experiments/theories/whatever show them to be wrong. String theory might be found to be wrong, but we'll move on to something else that is more accurate. This process will probably be repeated forever, at least until God decides to visit and explain the whole universe.
can you test the theory? = is this falsifiable?
Wrong! I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse, although I'm led to believe that you are. A idea/theory/etc is falsifiable if in principle it is is possible to make an oberservation that would show it to be false, even if the observation hasn't been made. An example of such would be the statement "All current American coins in circulation are made from silver colored metals" which is falsified by pennies. If it is not possible to show the theory can't be wrong, then it isn't falsifiable, and probably doesn't belong in science. Here's a better example, relating to above.
Aristotelian mechanics was falsified by Galileo's experiments, which were kind of replaced by Newton's laws of motion. The Youngian wave theory of light (the ether) then replaced Newton's ideas of light particles, but were falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Those were superceded by some of the greatest work in all of physics--the derivation of the speed of light by Maxwell's equations and natural constants, and those being incorporated into special (and later general) relativity.
so you're saying... we're at the pinnacle of these dudes? without them you would be an Aristotelian with your "advanced Aristotle... err... "physics.""
what's your point?
Again, no. I'm saying that it's a lot easier to be open-minded about monsters existing in your closet, until you go turn on the light and see they aren't there. Essentially it is easy to make all sorts of ideas and theories when you know next to nothing.
the point of reading Principia is to show you what real science is like, but since you're "far more advanced" then you should know what real science is like... or should you, since you are in the
majority.
I'll tell you what "real science" is
not:
Real science is not ignoring important discoveries and findings because you disagree with them.
Real science is not basing the majority of your arguments on straw men.
Real science is not trying to push religious theories of questionable origins into a science classroom where they doesn't belong.
Real science is not having the fundamental theory of creation be unfalsifiable.
kofg2u said:
He called the previous poster a "deist."
My bad, I was goofing around with the tags. I really like the little atom!
EXCEPT AT THE QUANTUM LEVEL.
Cause - Effect is no longer a clear Axiom. And, human Consciousness also influences material outcomes.
Cosmic Consciousness seems appropriately invested at the QM level.
I'd appreciate if you elaborate on this since it sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Also, this thread is for discussing evolution, not questioning the spirituality of other forum members. There are many subforums that would be much more appropriate for something of that nature.