No one is more close minded than a devout fundamentalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
I probably know at least as much about the disingenuous goons who run around trying to "prove" creationism as you do.Quote:
obvious lack of information
Science itself is not based on authority at all. Personal authority is not something used to prove or disprove theories so I am not sure what you're getting at. If it is the supposed authority of findings these can be tested with an rigor that one chooses along the scientific method. We had a previous thread about this I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Bing bing bing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint of Killers
You win the prize for being able to point that out before anyone else that I saw.
....so I obviously agree.
Then you heard a loon. The Universe is not shaped. Perhaps he simply used a cylinder as an example that we can visualize. Your misinterpertation of what he said, as well as whats his face saying the Big Bang was a giant planet that exploded is the reason why alot of science is doubted in favor of ethinocentric/antropomorphic explainations involveing prophets and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
What do you mean? Its not presumptuous. You may value your authority moreso than any of the other arbitrary things that could be put in its place, but its actual value is equal to anything that is there. Realistically, you value it more even though anything else could be used to function equally in its place. Logically, anything else could be used to function equally in its place so it has no priority over anything. If something actually has more value as an argument over something that is based on faith then that thing with more value isn't based on faith or it is valued in a manner not relating to the value I am talking about regarding faith. The value you see in the authority, for instance, is seperate from the value I am speaking of regarding faith-based beliefs.Quote:
That's awefully presumptious of you.
This line of reasoning might follow logically, but it certainly doesn't follow realistically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
It was one of many theories. Perhaps the guy was trying to take a different veiw of it all, from what other scientists were saying. I did'nt misinterpret what he said, they had a computer generated diagram of it. What I could be misinterpreting though, is that this diagram and what he was saying, might have been about time and space, not the shape of the universe.
The universe does rotate, just as the Earth and the planets within it's solar system rotate around the sun. Theories suggest that the universe is expanding and once it's stopped expanding, will begin to collapse back to the center. Most scientists view the universe as being a giant sphere within an infinate void.
This is why stupid people should not be allowed in the field of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
Because stupidity seems to seek out science somehow and corrupt every last thread of it...
...and I believe that science, while can neither be proved nor disproved in most cases, should be protected, and only used by those with proper understanding and learned only by those ready to learn it.
Science is not perfect but it's rooted in a language of truth in absolutes. It is built on the principal that it is not perfect and can frequently be wrong which is why it is always tested, why it has the rigours it has and why this thread even exists. Because it is willing to constantly pioneer itself. To this day we have reached a point in theroretical physics hat very much blurs the lines between science and religion. Makeing an absolute claim about the alpha point of the universe is always based on -- get this -- faith. Science would call it a guess though. There's no way to know now, if ever there will be, but we must learn more of the heavens and the order it follows still. We're here, talking about doubt cast on the particulars of a theory that has long been in place and some see that as a weakness to the theory and that maybe science failed but it is only another example of why science works well. This revelation came from science - it is science testing itself and perhaps, pioneering itself. It is a strenth of the tool. Not a failing. It is only seen as a failing by people who prescribe to a faith because something comparable to that would undermine thier beliefs, I imagine. Science is not perfect, but it is the best tool we have.
Best argument I've seen in ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
It's not mine however. It was said by Albert Einstien.