Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2018 5:52 PM
270 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, ICANT, kjsimons, marc9000, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Taq (9 members, 261 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,898 Year: 18,721/29,783 Month: 666/2,043 Week: 218/386 Day: 77/44 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6970
71
7273
...
89NextFF
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1051 of 1323 (827582)
01-28-2018 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1030 by creation
01-22-2018 9:40 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
Really? You are that afraid to quote me? Really? How pathetically weak your position must be and you know it!

Here is what I had said in Message 1027:

DWise1 writes:

No, you have to prove your claim!

So far all our observations have correlated with each other in a manner that is consistent with the same laws of physics operating the same way in all the observable universe. We have not encountered evidence to contradict that nor to question it.

Now you and other creationists claim the contrary, but offer no evidence to support your position. Furthermore, you demand that we instead must prove our position to you. That is not how it works, Sunny Jim! You make a claim, so you need to support and provide evidence or cogent arguments for it.

And since your claim is so extraordinary, then your evidence for it must also be extraordinary. Yet so far you have presented nothing. Nor do you seem to understand any of the science that you want to wave aside with your unsupported claim. Same as starman (assuming you two are not one and the same).

That means that there is some creationist out there feeding you this nonsense that you are regurgitating here. Please identify your source.

Now, why is it that you were so shitting-in-your-drawers-scared about my reply that you had to delete it? Are you really that pathetic?
 

We already know that you are a mindless creationist troll. You don't have enough synapses to rub against each other to keep warm. You most certainly could not have created all that bullshit you've been slinging all on your own. You had to have gotten it from some creationist fraud. So who did you get those lies from? What is your creationist source?

I think it's Kent Hovind, the lowest of the low. A convicted fraud. He continues to hawk the stupidest false creationist claims and idiots like you continue to fall for his obvious lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1030 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:40 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1086 by creation, posted 10-03-2018 10:53 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 1052 of 1323 (827585)
01-28-2018 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1048 by Percy
01-27-2018 8:51 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
Public school science classes should continue to teach the scientific consensus on all subjects.

Bingo! The students need to understand science regardless of their actual beliefs. The purpose of education is understanding the concepts, not believing in them. The purpose of religious indoctrination is to compel the students to believe. The two ideas about education are diametrically opposed.

California Science Education Framework, 1989/1990:

quote:
"State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, adopted 13 Jan 1989 [emphasized in original]:
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
"

quote:
We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.

In comparison, we have practical experience in actual public school classroom which used creationist "balanced treatment" materials. Those materials were found to explicitly compel belief; after having misinformed the student, it repeatedly urges the student to choose between the Creator and "godless evolution". Not only is that inconsistent with the goals of education, but it also works against those goals. All that "balanced treatment" is trying to do is to proselytize. Furthermore, the principal tools in that proselytizing is the use of false claims and deception. And one of the effects of "balanced treatment" has been to turn some of those students into atheists.

I have mentioned this example repeatedly, so I will do so yet again. On active duty, I attended the Air Force Communications Command Leadership School, part of the USAF's NCO Academy (I have my ribbon). In that course, we were instructed in Marxism and in Communism. Now, in the creationist education model, that would mean that the US Air Force wanted to turn us into Marxists and Communists. Do creationists really want to insist that to have been the case?

Rather, the USAF wanted us to understand our enemy. We were expected to learn about the ideas of our enemies so that we could understand them better and be better able to fight them:

quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

Creationists are dedicated to fighting evolution. You'd think that they'd want to raise their kids to also fight evolution, though with some kind of chance of defeating evolution.

So what is creationists' primary goal? To keep everybody from learning anything about evolution. Especially their own kids. How could their kids ever possibly fight evolution if they had been kept completely ignorant of evolution their entire lives?

What a bunch of fucking idiots!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1048 by Percy, posted 01-27-2018 8:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1053 of 1323 (827598)
01-28-2018 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1041 by creation
01-27-2018 2:11 PM


Re: nature of time

NOT to the far universe.

Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.

Example of something predicted in deep space? Gravitational lensing won't do. You see that effect out there is not known in detail, since we have so many unknowns. Distances to the stars and how big whatever is seeming to bend the light...for example.

Those aren't unknowns.

So, what else you got?

Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, Black Holes, Redshift, the behaviour of binary pulsars, gravitational waves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1041 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:11 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1054 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:19 PM Modulous has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1054 of 1323 (827615)
01-28-2018 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Modulous
01-28-2018 11:21 AM


Re: nature of time
mod writes:

Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.


In your dreams. Prove it.

Those aren't unknowns.
Known by religious belief doesn't count even if you claim it is science falsely.

Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, Black Holes, Redshift, the behaviour of binary pulsars, gravitational waves.
None of those things matter or mean what you think unless time exists out in far space as it does here. Gong!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2018 11:21 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1056 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 4:27 PM creation has responded
 Message 1060 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2018 1:51 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1055 of 1323 (827616)
01-28-2018 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1049 by Percy
01-27-2018 9:15 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
percy writes:

If every day over the past 13.5 billion years (the age of the universe)

Imaginary time based on the belief time exists the same in the far universe.

you had placed a bet that the arrow of time would end the next day, you would have lost that bet about 5 trillion times.
Why would I do that? The issue is not that time progresses here now or not. The issue is whether our current nature complete with time as it is now will always exist and always has! From our present perspective time seems a certain way. You can't get beyond that fishbowl perspective.


If you would like to place a bet with me that the arrow of time will end tomorrow I will take that bet every single day from now on. We can double the bet each day so that if you eventually win then you'll make your money back, though ironically without an arrow of time I won't have the time to pay you.
There's no evidence to suggest that "the arrow of time may be a short shot". This is just another of your ill-advised ideas.

Nor the money to pay me since money is temporal also and a feature of this nature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1049 by Percy, posted 01-27-2018 9:15 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by Percy, posted 01-29-2018 11:12 AM creation has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 83 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1056 of 1323 (827617)
01-28-2018 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1054 by creation
01-28-2018 4:19 PM


Re: nature of time
Known by religious belief doesn't count...

Don't you see the contradiction here?

You badmouth science (falsely) as a "religious belief" yet all the silly things you are claiming are based on religious belief, and additionally are completely contradicted by huge amounts of real-world evidence.

Doesn't it sometimes bother you how much real-world evidence you have to deny in order to maintain your fantasies?

You put the White Queen in Alice to shame. She could only believe six impossible things before breakfast. You seem to be well beyond that.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1054 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:19 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1058 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 1066 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 12:28 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1057 of 1323 (827618)
01-28-2018 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1048 by Percy
01-27-2018 8:51 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
percy writes:

Time in physics has a clear and unambiguous definition. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of a radiating cesium atom.

No. How long an atom in the fishbowl takes here to do something is not time. That is a clock in the fishbowl!.

We can see it. We know. Your "fishbowl" is a fiction.
Since the fishbowl just refers to how far man has been and what he knows, it is not fiction in any way. What you see, whether an atom or light, is here in the fishbowl! Time here dictates it unfold or behave a certain way in time. That tells us diddly squat about what time is like far far from the fishbowl. That should be obvious.

In public school science classrooms we teach the scientific consensus. Evolution has so much evidence that a scientific consensus has formed around the theory.

They can teach whatever beliefs the local consensus may desire. They may not teach it as anything but beliefs!


There is overwhelming evidence that the natural physical laws of the universe have been unchanged for billions of years.
Great, so post it. You sure haven't yet.

Where is your evidence that evolution ever worked any differently? Given that evolution is based upon fundamental principles such as heredity and adaptation, how could it ever work differently?
All you are doing is confirming your present state bias. 'Gee, things always must have been as they are..'

Says who?

.
Human fossils over a couple hundred thousand years old have been found.
The flood was probably more like 70 million so called science same state past belief based years ago. You fossils are decidedly post flood therefore irrelevant to the issue.

So you accept evolution but believe it used to happen much faster? Any evidence of this, or is this just another idea you're making up.
Yes. I cannot see how all the species we now have were on the ark. I assume the rapid evolving of many kinds took place. Bus as for the evo idea we came from animals or are kin to potatoes..etc..phooey.

You're proposing that organisms evolved during their lifetime? How do you imagine this happening? There are all kinds of problems. How do all the cells in the organism change in the same way at the same time. When an organism evolves into a new species, there will be no organisms of the opposite sex to mate with. And so on.
Easy. Just lose the shackles of current physics. Now imagine a different set of forces acting on those atoms that made up those cells...!

There's a certain consistency in the vacuity of your ideas, and it's because you think them up without first seeking supporting evidence.
No. It is because they fit all scientific evidences as well as God's written record!

Yes, science does know what "laws were in place" in the past. There is no evidence they were ever any different.
Or that they were the same. Don't kid a kidder.

So when you want to say something bad about science you call it a religion? Way to go!
I never asked them to oppose God or base all past models on a belief. Don't blame me for their badness.

Public school science classes should continue to teach the scientific consensus on all subjects.
..As baseless beliefs that are diametrically opposed to Christ the creator...sure.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1048 by Percy, posted 01-27-2018 8:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1058 of 1323 (827619)
01-28-2018 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1056 by Coyote
01-28-2018 4:27 PM


Re: nature of time
coyote writes:

Don't you see the contradiction here?

You badmouth science (falsely) as a "religious belief" yet all the silly things you are claiming are based on religious belief, and additionally are completely contradicted by huge amounts of real-world evidence.

Doesn't it sometimes bother you how much real-world evidence you have to deny in order to maintain your fantasies?

You put the White Queen in Alice to shame. She could only believe six impossible things before breakfast. You seem to be well beyond that.

I deny no evidence ever. I simply expose the belief based methodology that you spray and dunk all evidence in, and still try to call the colored result evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2018 4:27 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17973
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1059 of 1323 (827662)
01-29-2018 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1055 by creation
01-28-2018 4:24 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
Replying to a number of your messages...

Regarding your Message 1054 to Modulous:

creation in Message 1054 writes:

mod writes:

Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.


In your dreams. Prove it.

It's appropriate that you say "in your dreams," because everything you say is in your dreams. You're asking for proof that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by distant objects is still the same (adjusted by the rules of relativity) when it arrives here.

But you're asking the question the wrong way around. The entire history of observation tells us that the electromagnetic radiation arriving here is a true representation of what is out there. We saw the moon, went there, and discovered that it really was the moon, something no one ever doubted. And we saw Mars, went there via probes, and discovered that it really was Mars, something no one ever doubted. The same for Mercury and Venus and Jupiter and Saturn and Pluto and the distant boundaries of the solar system where the Voyagers are now.

Your idea is that what we see in the form of electromagnetic radiation arriving here from distant objects beyond some distance (i.e., outside your "fishbowl") is not the same electromagnetic radiation emitted by those distant objects, that it is modified in some way. There are a several fatal problems with this:

  1. There is no evidence for your "fishbowl."
  2. Our observations of distant objects are completely consistent with the natural physical laws we uncovered here on Earth.
  3. You need some mechanism that takes whatever really happened with those distant objects (you don't say what that is) and transforms it into electromagnetic radiation completely and totally consistent with what we expect according to the natural physical laws uncovered here on Earth.

Until you address these fatal problems your "fishbowl" is just a dream of fantasy.

Another problem is that you're approaching the question of the "fishbowl" backwards, a fallacy of the first degree. One doesn't ask for proof that there *aren't* unicorns dancing on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Rather, one asks for evidence of these unicorns. In the same way, one doesn't ask for proof that there *isn't* a "fishbowl." Rather, one asks for evidence of this "fishbowl." So far you have no evidence, and your "fishbowl" is just a silly idea.

creation writes:

Example of something predicted in deep space? Gravitational lensing won't do. You see that effect out there is not known in detail, since we have so many unknowns. Distances to the stars and how big whatever is seeming to bend the light...for example.

Those aren't unknowns.

Known by religious belief doesn't count even if you claim it is science falsely.

This isn't a religious thread. Your religious beliefs are your religious beliefs, and they deserve to be respected, but this is a science thread where evidence for your position is a requirement.

Science will never know everything, but not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing, as has been explained to you several times. You're drawing a false equivalence between not possessing omnipotent knowledge and not knowing anything. As Modulous indicates when he comments, "Those aren't unknowns," there is much we do know about gravitational lensing, distances to stars, and the bending of light by gravitation.

Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, Black Holes, Redshift, the behaviour of binary pulsars, gravitational waves.

None of those things matter or mean what you think unless time exists out in far space as it does here. Gong!

Everything Modulous listed is evidence that space-time (not time, a mistake you keep repeating) is the same out there as it is here. If you have evidence to the contrary then this is your opportunity to present it.

Regarding your Message 1055 to me:

creation in Message 1055 writes:

The issue is not that time progresses here now or not.

You just said it was an issue. You said, "The arrow of time may be a short shot for all we know!"

The issue is whether our current nature complete with time as it is now will always exist and always has!

That's the same as what you said before, except you added a clause about whether time has always existed.

Once again, it is space-time, not time. Space can not be separated from time - they are completely interdependent. The space-time of our universe has not "always existed," and did have a beginning about 13.5 billion years ago.

Regarding your Message 1057 to me:

creation in Message 1057 writes:

percy writes:

Time in physics has a clear and unambiguous definition. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of a radiating cesium atom.

No. How long an atom in the fishbowl takes here to do something is not time. That is a clock in the fishbowl!.

I already distinguished between "time" and "the nature of time." You're asking about the nature of time, for which we do not a have a good answer. But as far as just plain old time, something clocks measure, we define the second according to the number of vibrations of a cesium atom. There is no evidence that cesium behaves any differently at distant locations than it does here.

There is no evidence for your "fishbowl."

Since the fishbowl just refers to how far man has been and what he knows, it is not fiction in any way.

Our knowledge is not limited by "how far man has been," so if you want to define your "fishbowl" by drawing a false equivalence, that makes it not just a fiction but a fallacy.

What you see, whether an atom or light, is here in the fishbowl! Time here dictates it unfold or behave a certain way in time. That tells us diddly squat about what time is like far far from the fishbowl. That should be obvious.

Who cares what time is like "far far" from a fictitious concept. You need evidence for your "fishbowl" before you begin building arguments around it.

In public school science classrooms we teach the scientific consensus. Evolution has so much evidence that a scientific consensus has formed around the theory.

They can teach whatever beliefs the local consensus may desire. They may not teach it as anything but beliefs!

We're talking about the consensus of science (not "local consensus"), which is frameworks of understanding constructed around bodies of evidence. Science has real world evidence and conceptual theory. It is you who have nothing but belief.

There is overwhelming evidence that the natural physical laws of the universe have been unchanged for billions of years.

Great, so post it. You sure haven't yet.

I, and others, have already posted a great deal of evidence. You had a single response to all of it, calling it just belief. Until you begin considering the evidence and/or presenting some of your own evidence, there can't really be any meaningful discussion.

One place you could start would be with the spectral lines of hydrogen. If what we observe here is not what actually happened at some distant star, then explain to us what really did happen, and explain how the original electromagnetic radiation from the distant star was modified in such a way as to directly reflect the same natural physical laws we observe here on Earth.

Where is your evidence that evolution ever worked any differently? Given that evolution is based upon fundamental principles such as heredity and adaptation, how could it ever work differently?

All you are doing is confirming your present state bias. 'Gee, things always must have been as they are..'

Our understanding of evolution as change over time is reflected in the fossil record going back billions of years. That's evidence, not bias. If you have evidence that something different happened then you need to present it. Otherwise you're still just making things up. The answer to your question, "Says who?", is not a who but a what, and that what is evidence, something you don't seem to have. All you have is unsupported belief that is strongly at odds with the evidence.

Human fossils over a couple hundred thousand years old have been found.

The flood was probably more like 70 million so called science same state past belief based years ago. You fossils are decidedly post flood therefore irrelevant to the issue.

If you have evidence for the flood and when it occurred, this is your opportunity to present it. Of course you won't do that. It is abundantly obvious that you're just stating your religious beliefs. But despite your emphasis on religious beliefs at the expense of science, don't you at least think it important that there be evidence behind what is taught in science class?

So you accept evolution but believe it used to happen much faster? Any evidence of this, or is this just another idea you're making up.

Yes. I cannot see how all the species we now have were on the ark. I assume the rapid evolving of many kinds took place. Bus as for the evo idea we came from animals or are kin to potatoes..etc..phooey.

"Phooey," huh. How incisive.

The relatedness of all life is what the evidence suggests, given that it's all based on DNA with commonality a function of relatedness. Your assumption about rapid evolution is driven by your religious beliefs, not evidence - you need evidence in this thread.

You're proposing that organisms evolved during their lifetime? How do you imagine this happening? There are all kinds of problems. How do all the cells in the organism change in the same way at the same time. When an organism evolves into a new species, there will be no organisms of the opposite sex to mate with. And so on.

Easy. Just lose the shackles of current physics. Now imagine a different set of forces acting on those atoms that made up those cells...!

You're making up physics to accommodate your religious beliefs. There is no evidence that physics in the past was any different from today. When we look out into the universe, which is a window into the past, we can see physical processes taking place billions of years ago that follow natural physical laws that are the same as those on Earth today. And your "forces acting on those atoms" is irrelevant - it is the structure of DNA that is important.

What you describe is not physics but a miracle, one you're making up. If you're going to insist on intruding religion into a science thread you might at least stay true to the Biblical narrative - there's nothing like you describe in the Bible.

And the problems remain. When a creature "evolves" into a new creature, it would need a creature of the opposite sex to "evolve" identically. Sounds like another miracle. And all the DNA in all the cells changing identically at the same time so the creature doesn't die sounds like another miracle. And what causes the creature to change physically, given that its altered cells are in a body they weren't intended for? Another miracle? And so on.

There's a certain consistency in the vacuity of your ideas, and it's because you think them up without first seeking supporting evidence.

No. It is because they fit all scientific evidences as well as God's written record!

Well now you're just lying. If your ridiculous ideas had any scientific evidence then a) You'd be gleefully describing this evidence for us; and b) Creationists wouldn't be forced to do pretend science in order to hoodwink those unfamiliar with science.

Yes, science does know what "laws were in place" in the past. There is no evidence they were ever any different.

Or that they were the same. Don't kid a kidder.

Much evidence has been presented to you that natural scientific laws were the same in the past as they are now. You've dismissed the evidence instead of considering and rebutting it. The best you've been able to come up with is this incredibly weak strategy of calling all evidence "belief." You're just avoiding discussion of what's really important, which is evidence. Whatever the evidence shows, that's what science builds consensus and theory around, and that's what gets taught in schools.

So when you want to say something bad about science you call it a religion? Way to go!

I never asked them to oppose God or base all past models on a belief. Don't blame me for their badness.

Don't blame who for their badness? The only one here making your ludicrous arguments is you. It was you who criticized science by calling it a religion, thereby invalidating your position's basis, which is religious.

Public school science classes should continue to teach the scientific consensus on all subjects.

As baseless beliefs that are diametrically opposed to Christ the creator...sure.

This is a science thread, and the science being taught in public school science classrooms is based upon evidence. It's clear that you would rather religion be taught in science class, and ignore the evidence.

Regarding your Message 1058 to Coyote:

creation in Message 1058 writes:

I deny no evidence ever.

That's all you've done is deny evidence. You call it belief.

I simply expose the belief based methodology that you spray and dunk all evidence in, and still try to call the colored result evidence.

Look, there you are denying evidence by calling it belief.

When you teach creation science in science class, wouldn't you like to have evidence so that you can say things like, "We know the flood happened because of this evidence I'm going to describe for you now," and then proceed on to describe the evidence? And like, "We know there was rapid evolution after the flood because of this evidence I'm going to describe for you now," and then proceed on to describe that evidence? And like, "We know the Earth is young because of this evidence I'm going to describe for you now," and then proceed on to describe that evidence?

Where's your evidence?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:24 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1064 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 2:01 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1060 of 1323 (827682)
01-29-2018 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1054 by creation
01-28-2018 4:19 PM


Re: nature of time
Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.
In your dreams. Prove it.

I don't need to - Einstein, Poincare, Minkowski et al took care of the mathematical proof and a century of scientists since have empirically confirmed it.

Known by religious belief doesn't count even if you claim it is science falsely.

Exactly right. Fortunately what I say is correctly termed science.

None of those things matter or mean what you think unless time exists out in far space as it does here. Gong!

Maybe, but then you'd need to explain why all the results of these independent lines of enquiry all point to the same conclusion. Otherwise you aren't engaging in science, just radical and selective scepticism - which can easily be shown to be absurdity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1054 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:19 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1061 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 4:17 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 1075 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 7:20 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19719
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1061 of 1323 (827692)
01-29-2018 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1060 by Modulous
01-29-2018 1:51 PM


Re: nature of time
please don't call denial skepticism.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1060 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2018 1:51 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1062 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2018 4:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1065 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 2:02 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1062 of 1323 (827693)
01-29-2018 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1061 by RAZD
01-29-2018 4:17 PM


Re: nature of time
just radical and selective scepticism

please don't call denial skepticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 4:17 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
KyleConno
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 04-28-2017


(1)
Message 1063 of 1323 (828253)
02-15-2018 4:46 AM


Doesn't matter. Why contradict? Keep religion out of schools. There's enough of that at home. Kids will grow up and choose what they feel is right.
    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1064 of 1323 (840549)
10-02-2018 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1059 by Percy
01-29-2018 11:12 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
The fishbowl simply refers to the area known by man in the universe. No probe has gone even one light day away.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by Percy, posted 01-29-2018 11:12 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1065 of 1323 (840550)
10-02-2018 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1061 by RAZD
01-29-2018 4:17 PM


Re: nature of time
Don't call religion or beliefs science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 4:17 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
6970
71
7273
...
89NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018