Science is Dead
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2012, 02:00 AM
RE: Science is Dead
Quote:Thanks Egor, I really appreciate the rep [Image: dodgy.gif] [Image: dodgy.gif]
Quote:You people confound me. You take a rep point from me, then when I take one from you, you act offended. You don't give me the rep point back and ask for yours back, oh no, you just expect me to take my censor from you as if I fully realize that you're good and I'm bad. What kind of deluded narcissism is that? You remind me of the little Toyota I once saw tailgaiting a huge tractor-trailer truck on the freeway who was in the fast lane--completely oblivious to the fact that if the truck were to brake, the car would be smashed and it's debateable whether the truck would even feel it when it happend--and so freakin close that the truck couldn't see the car in his mirror.

But hey, the truck was in his lane. That's all the driver could think. You think you're right in taking my rep point, and to you it only seems like common sense that I should agree with it.

Nah, dude. It isn't that I think I am right and you are wrong... I can fully understand why you would take a rep point from me, though I think it was a least a tiny bit unjustified. I don't really care of your opinion of me;you don't define me. I never said you should take back the rep point. I allow you to form your own opinions about me, regardless of what you think of me. I don't expect you to give back the rep point, nor did I say I wanted it back. I will change my rating of you when I think you deserve it, not because you took away a rep point from me.

Consider Never considered myself a narcissist because of that.... Well, to each his own.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2012, 05:33 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(29-06-2012 12:17 AM)Egor Wrote:  The big bang doesn’t fit with atheism, and science can’t be preeminent without atheism. Scientific theory has to eliminate any possibility of God, or it doesn’t survive. Even if all evidence leads to a Creator, and only a thread of possibility exists where a Creator isn’t needed, scientists will hail that thread as truth. It’s the greatest bias going, and it’s a joke. The fact is the big bang is simply undeniable and unacceptable.
Except that you're lying for Jesus, right there. That's not how science works. It's not what science is about. The rules of science don't say "no god", "no spirits", "no monsters", or any such things. Science is all about cataloguing real things and understanding their properties. If there was evidence for a God, science would be all over that.

Science is all about differentiating between false and true hypotheses. It doesn't deal with unfalsifiable hypotheses, but it doesn't differentiate between the natural and the supernatural. Science deals with things that have definable, testable properties. Anything that has definable, testable properties is the domain of science. Anything that has definable, testable properties is by definition natural - at least in relation to how science interacts with it.

Scientists are always brainstorming new ideas. That's the first step in the scientific process. Scientists are always looking the predictions their hypotheses imply. That's the second step. Scientists are always testing their predictions. That's the third step.

Ghost tried to argue in another thread that science is all about discovering mechanisms, and supernatural beings work with uninspectable mechanisms. That's not true either. Science works with models. A model of God can describe God without knowing how he works, just as we have had various models of gravity over the years without a complete understanding of its workings. We are always interested in the workings, but now knowing them doesn't lessen our scientific grasp of the observable behaviours.

Science does not deny God. It simply lacks someone who has been able to put forward a testable hypothesis of God that explains reality better than alternative hypotheses. Think about that. In all of the history of science noone has been able to come up with a description of god that has any predictive power that can explain any part of reality better than other hypotheses. Even the god of the gaps explanation of the beginning of the universe fails to produce any testable predictions about God. That's why "goddunnit" explanations are rejected by science: Not because they are necessarily wrong, but because they fail to produce any predictions that could be used to verify the claim.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
29-06-2012, 06:29 AM
RE: Science is Dead
The whole thing reminds me of this thread. It's a waste of time. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
29-06-2012, 07:03 AM
RE: Science is Dead
Know what's fucking annoying? People wasting space saying shit is a waste of space. Don't fucking read it then, jackass. Evil_monster

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
29-06-2012, 07:04 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2012 07:31 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Science is Dead
Seems that there are versions of origins theories emerging (Penrose's Cycles of Time), and the various multiverse theories, (which may or may not be verified by the data from the Wilkinson Micowave Anisotrophy Probe, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ . See Krauss/Greene). The thing is, science is far from dead, just because one theory is replaced by another. The replacement process "is what they do". They replace shit. When Neil Turok and his team presented the "brane" theory, (M-Theory), they were met with stoney silence. Science is far from monolithic. One of the problems with the current developments is that they are so phenomenally complex, (spinors, matricises, tensor conformal scales), they are almost out of reach, unless you happen to have an interest in advanced theoretical Math, and Physics. Just wait. The fundie Christians will no doubt use the "alternate" theories to justify their creationism business, (and I mean business).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
29-06-2012, 07:13 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(29-06-2012 07:03 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Know what's fucking annoying? People wasting space saying shit is a waste of space. Don't fucking read it then, jackass. Evil_monster

[Image: pke.jpg]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
29-06-2012, 07:21 AM
RE: Science is Dead
Here's another pile-up of good shit:

Beyond the Standard Model.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
29-06-2012, 07:23 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(29-06-2012 07:13 AM)Vosur Wrote:  [Image: pke.jpg]

[Image: fuckoff.gif]

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2012, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2012 07:46 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Science is Dead
(29-06-2012 07:23 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(29-06-2012 07:13 AM)Vosur Wrote:  [Image: pke.jpg]

[Image: fuckoff.gif]
[Image: 22701669.jpg]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
29-06-2012, 08:23 AM
RE: Science is Dead
No fair! I go cry now... Sadcryface2

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: