- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 03 2011,10:35) Quote Of course that is not really a helpful analogy for what is actually going on. Stuart
then what is ?
Why do you need an analogy? Why can't you just learn what it actually is?t8 needs an analogy because his form of creationism depends upon making a false analogy.
Stuart
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 03 2011,10:42) stu Quote OK. Give me some advice that is unquestionably helpful, that involves your god. And maybe you could also tell me what a god is while you are at it.
Stuart
sound familiar,evolution is a mystery of the unknown,remember ,
we has believers in God do not have that mystery of the unknown,but it take more than a IQ to understand it ,
it is just like this ;you try to figure out what to do with your car because you do not have the manual ,we(believers) have the manual but you refuse to accepted because you figure that you have more fun without it ,
right ??
No, I explained exactly what you asked, gave you all the references to know exactly what this very well understood and proven area of science is all about. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't right and you can just carry on exposing your ignorance to the world.Although of course, you still have not actually said anything relevant.
When you can tell me what a god is, and what it did, and what unambiguous evidence supports your claims then maybe you will have some credibility.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 03 2011,11:09) Stu, could you provide another person who shares your view, but also happens to be a worthy opponent.
Someone who actually gets to the bottom of what caused everything to happen.If someone cannot give an explanation as to how nothing can do something, or something with an IQ less than a pair of jandals can produce a universe, then such a person's condemnation of the existence of God is not only futile, but is foolish. And let's face it, debating with a person who allows foolishness in their argument is not a worthy opponent on the subject. Debating with a clueless person who doesn't bother to think deeply on a subject is a poor debate because logic and deduction is thrown out the window.
A worthy opponent would make it time well spent and not just Atheistic platitude with name calling or stone throwing.
Thanks.
t8, could you provide another person who shares your view, but also happens to be a worthy opponent.
Someone who actually gets to the bottom of what caused everything to happen.If someone cannot give an explanation as to how nothing can do something, or what a god is, then such a person's condemnation of reality is not only futile, but is absurd. And let's face it, debating with a person who allows Imaginary Friends in their argument is not a worthy opponent on the subject. Debating with a clueless person who doesn't bother to think deeply on a subject is a poor debate because logic and deduction is thrown out the window.
A worthy opponent would make it time well spent and not just spout religious platitudes with name calling or stone throwing.
Just what I was thinking!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 04 2011,01:02) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 03 2011,11:09) Stu, could you provide another person who shares your view, but also happens to be a worthy opponent.
Someone who actually gets to the bottom of what caused everything to happen.If someone cannot give an explanation as to how nothing can do something, or something with an IQ less than a pair of jandals can produce a universe, then such a person's condemnation of the existence of God is not only futile, but is foolish. And let's face it, debating with a person who allows foolishness in their argument is not a worthy opponent on the subject. Debating with a clueless person who doesn't bother to think deeply on a subject is a poor debate because logic and deduction is thrown out the window.
A worthy opponent would make it time well spent and not just Atheistic platitude with name calling or stone throwing.
Thanks.
t8, could you provide another person who shares your view, but also happens to be a worthy opponent.
Someone who actually gets to the bottom of what caused everything to happen.If someone cannot give an explanation as to how nothing can do something, or what a god is, then such a person's condemnation of reality is not only futile, but is absurd. And let's face it, debating with a person who allows Imaginary Friends in their argument is not a worthy opponent on the subject. Debating with a clueless person who doesn't bother to think deeply on a subject is a poor debate because logic and deduction is thrown out the window.
A worthy opponent would make it time well spent and not just spout religious platitudes with name calling or stone throwing.
Just what I was thinking!
Stuart
studid you ever read the allegory of the CAVE ?(Socrates)
Pierre
stu
Quote Debating with a clueless person who doesn't bother to think deeply on a subject is a poor debate because logic and deduction is thrown out the window. would this comment of yours, would not bring s our selves back at the level of monkeys ?
Pierre
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 04 2011,00:58) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 03 2011,10:42) stu Quote OK. Give me some advice that is unquestionably helpful, that involves your god. And maybe you could also tell me what a god is while you are at it.
Stuart
sound familiar,evolution is a mystery of the unknown,remember ,
we has believers in God do not have that mystery of the unknown,but it take more than a IQ to understand it ,
it is just like this ;you try to figure out what to do with your car because you do not have the manual ,we(believers) have the manual but you refuse to accepted because you figure that you have more fun without it ,
right ??
No, I explained exactly what you asked, gave you all the references to know exactly what this very well understood and proven area of science is all about. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't right and you can just carry on exposing your ignorance to the world.Although of course, you still have not actually said anything relevant.
When you can tell me what a god is, and what it did, and what unambiguous evidence supports your claims then maybe you will have some credibility.
Stuart
studo not get me wrong ,i know very well what science is all about ,
and i keep my self informed of all progress they make,but to be true science is the knowledge of what we have, see,or feel that it is their,
this is the reason why science could not do or make what we have today 2000 years ago,right ?
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 04 2011,06:41) stu Quote Debating with a clueless person who doesn't bother to think deeply on a subject is a poor debate because logic and deduction is thrown out the window. would this comment of yours, would not bring s our selves back at the level of monkeys ?
Pierre
It was not really my comment, I was just aping t8.Sorry, couldn't resist.
Stuart
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 04 2011,06:38) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 04 2011,01:02) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 03 2011,11:09) Stu, could you provide another person who shares your view, but also happens to be a worthy opponent.
Someone who actually gets to the bottom of what caused everything to happen.If someone cannot give an explanation as to how nothing can do something, or something with an IQ less than a pair of jandals can produce a universe, then such a person's condemnation of the existence of God is not only futile, but is foolish. And let's face it, debating with a person who allows foolishness in their argument is not a worthy opponent on the subject. Debating with a clueless person who doesn't bother to think deeply on a subject is a poor debate because logic and deduction is thrown out the window.
A worthy opponent would make it time well spent and not just Atheistic platitude with name calling or stone throwing.
Thanks.
t8, could you provide another person who shares your view, but also happens to be a worthy opponent.
Someone who actually gets to the bottom of what caused everything to happen.If someone cannot give an explanation as to how nothing can do something, or what a god is, then such a person's condemnation of reality is not only futile, but is absurd. And let's face it, debating with a person who allows Imaginary Friends in their argument is not a worthy opponent on the subject. Debating with a clueless person who doesn't bother to think deeply on a subject is a poor debate because logic and deduction is thrown out the window.
A worthy opponent would make it time well spent and not just spout religious platitudes with name calling or stone throwing.
Just what I was thinking!
Stuart
studid you ever read the allegory of the CAVE ?(Socrates)
Pierre
I have, and have discussed it online somewhere, sorry if it was not here. I think the allegory of the cave is really, essentially, a restatement of the assumption that what you see is what you get. In my experience, people who are enthusiastic about this idea tend to be religious and use it as a kind of “nuclear option” that might even go to the extent of denying observation and reason as legitimate ways of drawing conclusions about the world. Of course it would be hypocritical for such a person to then rely on observation or reason ever again.But you can bet they will!
There remains no way to prove even your own existence in absolute terms. To avoid hypocrisy myself now, I must also qualify every use of the word “proof” I have used recently (since I have not been discussing mathematics, where you really can prove things) as meaning “supported by so much unambiguous evidence that it would be perverse to deny it as a fact”.
Stuart
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 04 2011,06:50) stu do not get me wrong ,i know very well what science is all about ,
and i keep my self informed of all progress they make,but to be true science is the knowledge of what we have, see,or feel that it is their,
this is the reason why science could not do or make what we have today 2000 years ago,right ?
Pierre
I disagree. I don't think you know much, if anything about science.Modern science is a unique phenomenon, with no real parallel in the ancient world. I guess arguments could be made for ancient geometry, but as you rightly point out they couldn't do the stuff we can do.
So what changed? We instituted universities hundreds of years ago. We had an Enlightenment, which of course was complicated politically, but had the effect of rolling back centuries of religious hegemony and encouraged independent thought, an amateur then professional interest in nature, and then the development of rigorous and formal approaches to investigation, the scientific method.
You could reasonably peg modern science back to the end of the Eighteenth Century. An evolutionary process has been underway, with scientists “standing on the shoulders” of those who went before, and building on more fundamental discoveries. For example, you could not have made a scanning electron microscope before all the painstaking work had been done developing low pressure pumps, and of course electricity.
There is a good case to be made that christianity, and conservative islam together have stifled scientific progress severely.
As John Lennon said, imagine no religion. What if Medieval Europeans had listened to the few people who were desperately trying different possibilities for controlling the spread of the plague, who did make some progress, instead of mostly paying attention to the religious who were busy blaming disease on nonsense ideas like sin. Imagine how many people would have led longer and healthier lives if modern science had been encouraged earlier.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 04 2011,00:55) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 03 2011,10:35) Quote Of course that is not really a helpful analogy for what is actually going on. Stuart
then what is ?
Why do you need an analogy? Why can't you just learn what it actually is?t8 needs an analogy because his form of creationism depends upon making a false analogy.
Stuart
because your foundation are based on mystery and IFso this is why their are theories,
Pierre
stu
Quote I disagree. I don't think you know much, if anything about science. first how much do you know about the science in construction ?
see stuart ;their are many branches of science today ,because how more they dig in one subject they find it that their is more into it that first thought ,and so split it ,
but the science of exp;man would go deep in many different branches of science,and also reflect on other species,
but I do not have to know all of each science branches to understand what is going on or do I??
science as not invented anything in my opinion,it has only copied what was already existing,many of the science findings are by accident not by pure calculations,many have been found by looking for some thing else,
as for religion this is also a science like ;how to keep people out of the way of rulers and keep them to pay tribute to the rulers
at the most lower cost ,look what happen when it is no longer possible to do that in Arab countries,
look how Mao in China did to control 3/4 of a billion people inside his country and at peace,I believe that science by it selves is naked and needs the spiritual meaning of what it does ,just as corporate business ,
country's in this world are showing that they have no idea of how to govern ,they are more qualified to create disorder and kayos ,so we can rely on science to save the wealthy and powerful and kill the masses
so according to you i believe the equilibrium of all men will be achieved when their are only two people left on earth.
no need of science their ,or business,or religion, just a return to the mystery of the beginning ,
in this my God faith is supreme
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 05 2011,10:11) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 04 2011,00:55) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 03 2011,10:35) Quote Of course that is not really a helpful analogy for what is actually going on. Stuart
then what is ?
Why do you need an analogy? Why can't you just learn what it actually is?t8 needs an analogy because his form of creationism depends upon making a false analogy.
Stuart
because your foundation are based on mystery and IFso this is why their are theories,
Pierre
So we need analogies because of WHAT?What is “my foundation”? You've never said.
I don't wear makeup so it must be something else.
Scientific theories are based on fact.
Stuart
terraricca
Quote first how much do you know about the science in construction ?
I don’t know how much I know compared to other people. I am not a professional engineer, so I do not carry in my head tables of tensile strength values of various kinds of hydraulic concrete. Was that what you meant?Quote see stuart ;their are many branches of science today ,because how more they dig in one subject they find it that their is more into it that first thought ,and so split it ,
Could you name 10 scientific disciplines off the top of your head?Quote but the science of exp;man would go deep in many different branches of science,and also reflect on other species,
What?Quote but I do not have to know all of each science branches to understand what is going on or do I??
You don’t appear to know any science, let alone that from a variety of disciplines.Quote science as not invented anything in my opinion,it has only copied what was already existing,many of the science findings are by accident not by pure calculations,many have been found by looking for some thing else,
What point are you trying to make?Quote as for religion this is also a science like ;how to keep people out of the way of rulers and keep them to pay tribute to the rulers at the most lower cost ,look what happen when it is no longer possible to do that in Arab countries, look how Mao in China did to control 3/4 of a billion people inside his country and at peace,
Again, this time using English grammar?Quote I believe that science by it selves is naked and needs the spiritual meaning of what it does ,
For me science provides important information to feed my spirituality.Quote just as corporate business, country's in this world are showing that they have no idea of how to govern ,they are more qualified to create disorder and kayos ,
So you are not really making a serious point, you are just ranting.Quote so we can rely on science to save the wealthy and powerful and kill the masses
No, you can rely on science to provide knowledge and understanding. It is engineers that build bombs, not scientists.Quote so according to you i believe the equilibrium of all men will be achieved when their are only two people left on earth.
Huh?Quote no need of science their ,or business,or religion, just a return to the mystery of the beginning ,
Mystery feeds both science and religion. Science exposes mystery. Religion protects it because without it religion is dead.Quote in this my God faith is supreme
What is a god?Stuart
stu
Quote Could you name 10 scientific disciplines off the top of your head? Science (from Latin: scientia meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (see “History and etymology” section below).[5]
Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the two words, “science” and “philosophy”, were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, “natural philosophy” (which is today called “natural science”) had begun to be considered separately from “philosophy” in general.[6][7] However, “science” continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.
In modern use, science is “often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.”[8] This narrower sense of “science” developed as a part of science became a distinct enterprise of defining “laws of nature”, based on early examples such as Kepler's laws, Galileo's laws, and Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as “natural science”. Over the course of the 19th century, the word “science” became increasingly associated with the disciplined study of the natural world including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of “science”, such as formal science and applied science.[9]and so natural science are now divided,physics is now divided exp;nuclear physics,,chemistry is now divided ,biology is now divided ,exp general
,genetic biology,got the picture ?
Traditional chemistry starts with the study of Elementary_particles, atoms, molecules,[8] substances, metals, crystals, .. and other aggregates of matter. in solid, liquid, and gas states, whether in isolation or combination. The interactions, reactions and transformations that are studied in chemistry are a result of interaction either between different chemical substances or between matter and energy. Such behaviors are studied in a chemistry laboratory using various forms of laboratory glassware.
Laboratory, Institute of Biochemistry, University of Cologne
A chemical reaction is a transformation of some substances into one or more other substances.[9] It can be symbolically depicted through a chemical equation. The number of atoms on the left and the right in the equation for a chemical transformation is most often equal. The nature of chemical reactions a substance may undergo and the energy changes that may accompany it are constrained by certain basic rules, known as chemical laws.
Energy and entropy considerations are invariably important in almost all chemical studies. Chemical substances are classified in terms of their structure, phase as well as their chemical compositions. They can be analyzed using the tools of chemical analysis, e.g. spectroscopy and chromatography. Scientists engaged in chemical research are known as chemists.[10] Most chemists specialize in one or more sub-disciplines.got it ?
Pierre
stu
Quote Mystery feeds both science and religion. Science exposes mystery. Religion protects it because without it religion is dead. all sciences prove that their is a intelligence behind all what exist and so prove a creator,what ever is name may be,
the design speaks for it self. can you not understand it well that is not my problem it is yours.
so keep believing that all things came out of kayos explosion,
Pierre
stu
Quote No, you can rely on science to provide knowledge and understanding. It is engineers that build bombs, not scientists. it is science that provided the knowledge to make a bomb, are you not aware of this ?
Pierre
stu
Quote What is a god? Stuart
HE IS THE INTELLIGENCE THAT MADE ALL THINGS THAT WE CAN SEE AND THAT WE DO NOT SEE ,THE THINGS WE DO UNDERSTAND AND THE THINGS WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND,
THE MYSTERY S OF LIVE IS ONLY EQUAL TO OUR IGNORANCE.
Pierre
stu
Quote I don’t know how much I know compared to other people. I am not a professional engineer, so I do not carry in my head tables of tensile strength values of various kinds of hydraulic concrete. Was that what you meant? is this not also true to all other sciences disciplines ?
Pierre
stu
Quote Quote
just as corporate business, country's in this world are showing that they have no idea of how to govern ,they are more qualified to create disorder and kayos ,
=======================================
So you are not really making a serious point, you are just ranting.no i am not ranking,because they all are on the same level,one can not go without the other.
(see all my quotes)Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 06 2011,03:54) stu Quote Could you name 10 scientific disciplines off the top of your head? Science (from Latin: scientia meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (see “History and etymology” section below).[5]
Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the two words, “science” and “philosophy”, were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, “natural philosophy” (which is today called “natural science”) had begun to be considered separately from “philosophy” in general.[6][7] However, “science” continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.
In modern use, science is “often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.”[8] This narrower sense of “science” developed as a part of science became a distinct enterprise of defining “laws of nature”, based on early examples such as Kepler's laws, Galileo's laws, and Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as “natural science”. Over the course of the 19th century, the word “science” became increasingly associated with the disciplined study of the natural world including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of “science”, such as formal science and applied science.[9]and so natural science are now divided,physics is now divided exp;nuclear physics,,chemistry is now divided ,biology is now divided ,exp general
,genetic biology,got the picture ?
Traditional chemistry starts with the study of Elementary_particles, atoms, molecules,[8] substances, metals, crystals, .. and other aggregates of matter. in solid, liquid, and gas states, whether in isolation or combination. The interactions, reactions and transformations that are studied in chemistry are a result of interaction either between different chemical substances or between matter and energy. Such behaviors are studied in a chemistry laboratory using various forms of laboratory glassware.
Laboratory, Institute of Biochemistry, University of Cologne
A chemical reaction is a transformation of some substances into one or more other substances.[9] It can be symbolically depicted through a chemical equation. The number of atoms on the left and the right in the equation for a chemical transformation is most often equal. The nature of chemical reactions a substance may undergo and the energy changes that may accompany it are constrained by certain basic rules, known as chemical laws.
Energy and entropy considerations are invariably important in almost all chemical studies. Chemical substances are classified in terms of their structure, phase as well as their chemical compositions. They can be analyzed using the tools of chemical analysis, e.g. spectroscopy and chromatography. Scientists engaged in chemical research are known as chemists.[10] Most chemists specialize in one or more sub-disciplines.got it ?
Pierre
Yes, I see you cannot name 10 scientific disciplines off the top of your head.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
