How do you explain science to an evolutionist or economics to a socailist?
Speak very very slowly and use very very small words.
61-69, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
VeronicaPrincess · 61-69
Did you mean "evangelist" @hippyjoe1955? Evolutionists often cite scientific theory to bolster their position.
View 22 more replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, I will not debate about politics
If you need to tie scientific positions to political ones, you betray science.
Is not an issue for scientist, that differ about politics while converge in doing science.
About "whose processes have never been observed, can not be duplicated, for which there is no evidence and whose premise is mathematically imposible", part by part.
- "processes have never been observed".
That is fair about processes that take relative short "human" time to develope.
What about b.e., the changes along Glaciar Ages? No modern human had been there observing. But there is more enough material evidence about how did it happen.
What about the Hertzsprung–Russell
Diagram that correlate the variety of stars with it´s changes along thousands of millions of years? The observation of stellar events (the observations are actual, the events are not) had partially confirmed what was previously inferred. But no one had witnessed the whole process. That makes Cosmic Physics a fake?
And so on.
- "can not be duplicated". Most of big scale true phenomens can´t.
Who can "duplicate" in lab the nature of Spacetime as described by Relativity (or, like said, Glaciar Ages or Star evolution)?
So Albert Einstein faked his theory just to piss you and your fellows?
- "there is no evidence". Oh boy!
What about geologic stratigraphy, Carbon 14 meassures related with the location and sequence of fossils? That amongst a lot of others.
- "whose premise is mathematically imposible". That may said only from a naive common sense view of Probability. The only fully developed objection known was Demmbski´s one and was proven wrong.
But, again is you who cling on something.
Evolution MAY, some day, be refuted, all in Science MAY be.
But you cling on the critics to Evolution.
Even if you were right...
Where is, hipy, the SCIENTIFIC theory, alternative and different to Evolution that you may offer?
There is not one.
Why not prove scientists wrong and show where is it seriously formulated?
Because you and fellows can´t say were is what never was there.
If you need to tie scientific positions to political ones, you betray science.
Is not an issue for scientist, that differ about politics while converge in doing science.
About "whose processes have never been observed, can not be duplicated, for which there is no evidence and whose premise is mathematically imposible", part by part.
- "processes have never been observed".
That is fair about processes that take relative short "human" time to develope.
What about b.e., the changes along Glaciar Ages? No modern human had been there observing. But there is more enough material evidence about how did it happen.
What about the Hertzsprung–Russell
Diagram that correlate the variety of stars with it´s changes along thousands of millions of years? The observation of stellar events (the observations are actual, the events are not) had partially confirmed what was previously inferred. But no one had witnessed the whole process. That makes Cosmic Physics a fake?
And so on.
- "can not be duplicated". Most of big scale true phenomens can´t.
Who can "duplicate" in lab the nature of Spacetime as described by Relativity (or, like said, Glaciar Ages or Star evolution)?
So Albert Einstein faked his theory just to piss you and your fellows?
- "there is no evidence". Oh boy!
What about geologic stratigraphy, Carbon 14 meassures related with the location and sequence of fossils? That amongst a lot of others.
- "whose premise is mathematically imposible". That may said only from a naive common sense view of Probability. The only fully developed objection known was Demmbski´s one and was proven wrong.
But, again is you who cling on something.
Evolution MAY, some day, be refuted, all in Science MAY be.
But you cling on the critics to Evolution.
Even if you were right...
Where is, hipy, the SCIENTIFIC theory, alternative and different to Evolution that you may offer?
There is not one.
Why not prove scientists wrong and show where is it seriously formulated?
Because you and fellows can´t say were is what never was there.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 "You fail completely to realize that natural causes is a religion and not science at all"
Natural causes inference is the core of Science bussiness.
What is not Science is First speculative Philosophy.
Nor Plato nor St. Agustine did Science.
Galileo did.
Descartes was a brilliant mathematician for his times. But his Meditations and Discourse on Method are not Science nor Math nor Logic.
Scholastic pseudo Aristotelian "reasoning" on the First Cause are philosophy. They are not Science
Science become to be Science when throw First Philosophy as an obstacle to knowledge.
That´s, hippy, what divide us.
I support Science as scientists did and do.
What you call Science is, not for me but neither for scientists, Science. Just pseudo science.
Natural causes inference is the core of Science bussiness.
What is not Science is First speculative Philosophy.
Nor Plato nor St. Agustine did Science.
Galileo did.
Descartes was a brilliant mathematician for his times. But his Meditations and Discourse on Method are not Science nor Math nor Logic.
Scholastic pseudo Aristotelian "reasoning" on the First Cause are philosophy. They are not Science
Science become to be Science when throw First Philosophy as an obstacle to knowledge.
That´s, hippy, what divide us.
I support Science as scientists did and do.
What you call Science is, not for me but neither for scientists, Science. Just pseudo science.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 "Too bad you have fooled yourself into thinking yourself educated. You were brainwashed not educated at all."
If an insult like this (and others previously said) had origin in a science related thinker, I would (perhaps) care.
But being insulted by an ignorant should be an honor, and it is.
If an insult like this (and others previously said) had origin in a science related thinker, I would (perhaps) care.
But being insulted by an ignorant should be an honor, and it is.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@basilfawlty89 "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity."
Please note that last part. "Citizen ownership of equity" Like a share market.. This is to distinguish it from the Feudal system or an Oligarchy where
"the people" are excluding from ownership.
I hope that settles the matter.
Please note that last part. "Citizen ownership of equity" Like a share market.. This is to distinguish it from the Feudal system or an Oligarchy where
"the people" are excluding from ownership.
I hope that settles the matter.
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
@whowasthatmaskedman which proved my point. What people call socialism is actually social democracy. It's still capitalism. Actual socialism is worker owned, worker managed.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@basilfawlty89 NO ITS NOT!! READ THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY!!
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Lucia Actually I base my theory on observation and deduction. The Bible happens to agree with my thoughts. Nice try though. Maybe you should try to think for a change. You might actually discover something.
MorbidCynic · F
Pfuzylogic · M
Subpoena Jr.
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 46-50, M
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
So have you ever had smegma stuck in your foreskin?
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@basilfawlty89 No do you?
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
@hippyjoe1955 no. But have you ever considered the possibility?