Limits of Science

[Iacchus]

However, I'm sure when it's convenient for us to do so, we will use theory of evolution won't we? By the way, I don't particularly have a problem with the theory of evolution myself. In fact I believe it's a perfectly valid theory, for the most part anyway.

 

[uruk]

Theory is a hypothesis with supporting evidence.
A hypothesis is a conjecture based on an observation (educated guess)
Most people confuse theory with hypothesis. When science says "Theory of evolution" they mean it is an idea based on not only observation but hard suporting evidence.
Fact: life is evolving. Fact: there has been documented speciation.
fact: there is fossil evidence showing a development and changing of species. Put all these together and you get a theory of evolution.

it's just like the thoery of gravity. fact: Gravity exists. what is gravity?- we got ideas on that with some observational evidence.(very little). What causes gravity?- Got some ideas on that too.

 

[Z]

You're wasting your breath - the Bible crowd here doesn't BELIEVE in facts, evidence, or truth.

Though, I would suggest calling Evolution a theory... Still a LOT of holes in that one.

Nonetheless, most of Iacchus' nonsense is waaaaay out there - he's lost any grasp on reality he had. As for Rad...

Well, there's no hope there.

 

[kittynh]

For conflicting Christian viewpoints see MLynn and myself!

 

[dmarker]

Is it possible for a computer to operate more than one peripheral device at a time, and even remotely at that? Or, how about the signal which is broadcast through the cable company? Certainly everybody can tune in to their preferred channel, right? Sounds to me like the possibilities are endless.

So you're claiming ESP now? How amusing. Sorry what is in your head is still yours alone.

 

[dmarker]

Why does Science merely call it a theory then?

From the site:
http://wilstar.net/theories.htm

"Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. "



There are the laws of gravity and the theory of gravity. The laws of physics, the theory of relativity, and quantam theory. There are laws of evolution (individuals vary) and the theory of evolution.

Science strives to take laws and make theories from them. Each theory is continually tested and even laws have been revised from time to time.

 

[thaiboxerken]

However, I'm sure when it's convenient for us to do so, we will use theory of evolution won't we? By the way, I don't particularly have a problem with the theory of evolution myself. In fact I believe it's a perfectly valid theory, for the most part anyway.

You are a MORON. There is the fact that gravity exists, and then there is the Theory of Gravity. Just like there is the fact that evolution exists and the Theory of Evolution. Why the freak can't you understand that? Oh, it's because youare a moron.

 

[Radrook]

You are a MORON. There is the fact that gravity exists, and then there is the Theory of Gravity. Just like there is the fact that evolution exists and the Theory of Evolution. Why the freak can't you understand that? Oh, it's because youare a moron.

That's a very robust reply!

 

[Iacchus]

You are a MORON. There is the fact that gravity exists, and then there is the Theory of Gravity. Just like there is the fact that evolution exists and the Theory of Evolution. Why the freak can't you understand that? Oh, it's because youare a moron.

Yes, but why call me stupid?

 

[Iacchus]

But the way, the only thing that's truely discernable is the fact that we exist. And that's an internal experience I'm afraid.

 

[dmarker]

But the way, the only thing that's truely discernable is the fact that we exist. And that's an internal experience I'm afraid.

I discern that my coffee table exists when I stub my toe on it.

 

[Iacchus]

I discern that my coffee table exists when I stub my toe on it.

But, if there was no you internally to experience it, what difference does it make? Does a dead body experience pain? So what is it about the body that's missing that allows it to do so? In religious terms, this would be called a soul.

 

[kittynh]

wow, your viewpoint is very much like that of Shirley MacLean. She said that she actually believed that we could all just be her dream (well, she was more detailed than that). She also said all that she was sure of was her own internal feelings....that nothing physical was proven real. I mean she was deeper than the Matrix. Every once in a while I just joke we are all just Shirleys dream. To me, I rather go with going out of myself and not focusing too much on the me me me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But the way, the only thing that's truely discernable is the fact that we exist. And that's an internal experience I'm afraid.

This is just more speculative BS on your part.

 

[Iacchus]

This is just more speculative BS on your part.

If you didn't know that you exist or, at the very least were aware, what would you base everything else (externally) upon. This is the only thing, the fact that we're aware, that tells us anything by the way.

 

[Wudang]

And the fact that we aware of the fact that there is at least something to be aware of tells us that there is more to the universe than just the single point of our awareness. Then we just have to decide which way we go - idealist or materialist or dualist. This much is trivially obvious and most of us got past it in our teens. Even solipsists have to concede that they must have something like an unconscious to provide themselves with surprises.
After that we have to decide which has the best "mechanism" for explaining our perceptions. Nobody but materialists seem able to explain shared perceptions. Ho hum. But you're not interested in any form of discussion are you? Boring.

 

[Iacchus]

wow, your viewpoint is very much like that of Shirley MacLean. She said that she actually believed that we could all just be her dream (well, she was more detailed than that). She also said all that she was sure of was her own internal feelings....that nothing physical was proven real. I mean she was deeper than the Matrix. Every once in a while I just joke we are all just Shirleys dream. To me, I rather go with going out of myself and not focusing too much on the me me me.

I had a dream about her once. In fact it was pretty much outlined along the same lines. Neither had I given much thought to her views until after the dream occurred. While in the dream I was telling this young woman how when I sneezed I sneezed about ten times. And the young woman said, "Oh you're Dennis, here I have somebody I would like you to meet. Here is Shirley Maclaine!" Of course it was just about that time that I woke up, so I never really got the chance to meet her. But who knows, maybe it would have actually been her? Isn't that weird?

Of course it was about this time that I was thinking about getting somebody to help me publish my book. Maybe I should have pursued it?

 

[Iacchus]

After that we have to decide which has the best "mechanism" for explaining our perceptions. Nobody but materialists seem able to explain shared perceptions. Ho hum. But you're not interested in any form of discussion are you? Boring.

Are you referring to the material world here or, the spiritual world? Because the materialists fail miserably when it comes to explaining the latter.

 

[Z]

Go ahead and publish it (if you can find someone willing to do so). No matter if it's total bunk or something profound, you can at least get a buck or two for it, eh?

PERSONAL OPINION: Every book is worth something, even if only to be a counter-example of some sort. All knowledge is good, even 'bad' knowledge.

What could it hurt?

 

[thaiboxerken]

If you didn't know that you exist or, at the very least were aware, what would you base everything else (externally) upon. This is the only thing, the fact that we're aware, that tells us anything by the way.

With completely idiotic statements like this, it's obvious that having a reasoned discussion with you is nigh-impossible. YOu are simply too stupid or too argumentative to reason with, either way... welcome to my ignore list, moron.