Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits of Science
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 81 (303167)
04-11-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
04-11-2006 3:59 AM


Therefore it is NOT science to make claims about the future or far past using an assumption it was physical only, unless that could be solidly supported!
It doesn't matter if science is absolutely correct as long as its predictions hold true.
It cannot {be solidly supported}. I challenge anyone to do so.
I cannot. And I don't think your gonna find someone who can. It isn't necessary.
The assumption is that the past and the future also will be physical only as this present is.
Why would SCIENCE assume otherwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 3:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 81 (303536)
04-12-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by simple
04-12-2006 3:41 AM


Re: Pony Up
It does matter if science predicts something in the future it cannot prove that is opposed to the bible, and teach children that.
It matters to you but it doesn't matter to the scientific community. And whats with your hipocracy of telling me I have to support my claims while you aren't supporting yours? Why does it matter if science predicts something in the future it cannot prove that is opposed to the bible, and teach children that?
quote:
I cannot. And I don't think your gonna find someone who can. It isn't necessary.
Says you. I say you are wrong. You make a claim and call it science you must back it up. Really.
What am I wrong about? What claim did I make? (that it doesn't matter?) Rather than just saying you disagree, you should say why you disagree.
When I drop an anvil, I make an assumption that what has happened in the past is still going to happen. It isn't neccessary for me to support that assumption before I do my experiment. So I drop the anvil and it falls towards the ground. I can assume that every time I drop an anvil it will fall and that at no time in the past would it not have fallen. I don't have to support those assumptions. Lets say I'm wrong and at some point in the past an anvil was dropped and it did not fall towards the ground. So what? I'm still not gonna have my foot under it when I let it go. It doesn't matter if I'm absolutely correct about every anvil drop ever, as long as they keep falling my prediction holds true and everything is ok. No support for the assumtion is neccessary. Its only when the anvil does not drop that I need to question my assumtion.
quote:
Why would SCIENCE assume otherwise?
Why would it assume it was physical only?
Because that is all it can detect. It is limitied to things it can use and ignores the things it can't. Now, it may not be describing the 'absolute truth' of all this, but it has made wonderful advancements and if its predictions hold true, it does not matter (to science) if it is absolutely correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 3:41 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 5:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 81 (303632)
04-12-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by simple
04-12-2006 5:23 PM


Re: Pony Up
My claim is that any claims of the future or far past as being either merged or physical only are not supportable! You can't do it, no one can, it is a belief, an assumption only with no basis whatsoever in reality, except, 'gee, that's the way it now works, guess it always will'
You are correct.
It matters that it predicts things against the majority belief in some countries, with NO proof! This is new to you? If you want to say the sun will burn out, when the bible says it is forever, or our galaxy will crash, when the bible says God is going to move to earth to live forever, no, we don't want, many of us, children being taught baseless fantasies!
Well, they are not baseless. They are based on the assumption that what we see today is what has always been.
You said it was not necessary to back up the claim that the past was the same, and natural only as the present. If all old ages are based on the premise, you absolutely must.
Nope. Don't have to as long as the predictions continue to hold true. There's no reason to assume otherwise.
Now prove it was the same in Adam's day?!
Impossible. BTW, Adam didn't actually exist. Genesis is a fairy tale. Prove me wrong.
But they hold true for me as well, cause the real ones deal with the present. No one questions these. The future and far past is another matter.
Not when they are assumed to be the same. Science has no reason to assume otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 5:23 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 6:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 81 (303858)
04-13-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by simple
04-12-2006 6:29 PM


Re: Pony Up
I know, and that alone just doesn't cut it. An assumption and a dollar might get you a doughut.
You could take that line and apply it to your assumption that a spiritual world even existed at all.
I don't know what predictions you are talking about.
quit dodging.
And you disagree with the bible to boot!
There's a lot of ridiculous stuff in the Bible that I disagree with.
quote:
Not when they are assumed to be the same. Science has no reason to assume otherwise.
Ha. Thank you! Talk about a fishbowl, baseless philosophy! I get a kick out of people admitting it.
Do you even concider how valuable this {fishbowl, baseless} philosphy is! How much technological advancement has resulted from it! Thats the predictions I'm talking about. The assumption works. Science is kicking ass. It doesn't matter if it fails to recognize the spirit world. It isn't interested in it and it is doing fine without it. It has no reason to concider its existance.
The only reason you have a problem with it is because it conflicts with your personal beliefs. But science should not limit itself to one religions assumption about what might have existed in the distanct past. Why pick your religion? Why not pick the scenario form The Lord of the Rings? For that matter, instead of me proving that your proposed spirit/physical past occured, why don't you prove that it didn't happen the way Tolken described it? Or that your scenario didn't happened just last week? It is because you can't. Science will continue to ignore ridiculous explanations as long as the ones it is using continue to hold up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 6:29 PM simple has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 81 (304028)
04-13-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by simple
04-13-2006 5:27 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
The space between there and here I would think was still merged long enough to get the light here. The seperation process may have had areas that became PO first. For example, matter may have taken more time than light, or space, etc? The result being that the physical explosion, or reaction, or whatnot, was conveyed to earth in the still merged light! It realluy was a physical reation.
You're just making shit up as you go along with no support for it whatsoever. Its a raping of the science forum I tell ya!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 5:27 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024