Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 16 of 1725 (500385)
02-25-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rahvin
02-24-2009 11:51 AM


Rahvin writes:
Please, feel free to continue posting, rat. You're providing far more entertainment than string at this point.
Well my responses sure have set you off. Just like I suspect creating a spectator thread for poor new comer String would do. Hypocrisy at it's best.
It's cool that you guys don't get it, really badass. The responses to my opinion are about as intelligent and offbeat as this thread. But what more should I expect. The rational being irrational, more hypocrisy.
Yea I am douche, spread your legs wide, and prepare for a cleansing. Done with this one.
Percy, I am glad you agree. God wants us to believe in Him by faith. That's the door that Jesus opened for us. Our bodies are temple now. Before Jesus, God gave us plenty of proof's, and that didn't work. So it is completely pointless to try and prove God. This whole forum is pointless when it comes down to it.
There is only one way to "prove" God, and that is by love. By sharing the love that God gave us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 02-24-2009 11:51 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 02-25-2009 9:02 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 10:49 AM riVeRraT has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 17 of 1725 (500389)
02-25-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by riVeRraT
02-25-2009 7:54 AM


Hi riVeRraT,
Is your current approach in this thread really communicating the message you intended? Or is it more revealing about yourself than anyone else?
We do agree generally about faith, but about this:
riVeRraT writes:
This whole forum is pointless when it comes down to it.
This forum exists to examine creationism's claim to be legitimate science deserving of a place along side all other science taught in public schools today.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by riVeRraT, posted 02-25-2009 7:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 03-05-2009 7:30 AM Percy has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 18 of 1725 (501213)
03-05-2009 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
02-25-2009 9:02 AM


=PercyThis forum exists to examine creationism's claim to be legitimate science deserving of a place along side all other science taught in public schools today.
This forum has too many sub-forums, and topics discussed to be summed up into such a brief description. Saying creation science (the current brand of) is illegitimate is fine with me, and I agree. I think there could be a "creation science" but they would have to do science, the way science is supposed to be done.
I say it is pointless, because too many times here, people use science to dis-prove God. That's were my problem lies. We have discussed "proving things" in depth several times on these forums. Plus if God wanted to, since He created the heavens and the earth, and everything in between, He could make Himself unprovable. Jesus telling us we need faith is an evidence of that.
If that's the case, then this forum is part useless. Creation science is useless. And people put a little too much faith in regular science sometimes.
*disclaimer* I will bet my paycheck some people here just won't get that last statement.
Edited by riVeRraT, : word missing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 02-25-2009 9:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 7:50 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 03-05-2009 8:43 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 03-05-2009 9:39 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 1725 (501216)
03-05-2009 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
03-05-2009 7:30 AM


Plus if God wanted to, since He created the heavens and the earth, and everything in between, He could make Himself unprovable. Jesus telling us we need faith is an evidence of that.
Yes - I think that's what we call an unfalsifiable and unverifiable position. We don't try and falsify unfalsifiable positions, we just try and point out the philosophical problems inherent in believing in them. What's more, when creationists try and verify unverifiable propositions, we explain the inherent flaw in doing so.
You know - there are lots of people out there that don't share your concept of God being unfalsifiable and unverifiable - ID proponents believe that there is verification of God's work here and there, creationists believe that there is verification of Yahweh's work in particular all around us. If you want you can debate with them on those points you can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 03-05-2009 7:30 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 20 of 1725 (501224)
03-05-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
03-05-2009 7:30 AM


riVeRraT writes:
I say it is pointless, because too many times here, people use science to dis-prove God.
The reality is that people here have posted time and again that God is outside the realm of science, and that in the absence of evidence science must remain silent.
What I believe you're thinking of is the response to claims that there is scientific evidence for the existence of God. Such claims will always draw objections from those who value the principles of science, not because they believe science disproves God, but because they believe it provides no evidence either way.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 03-05-2009 7:30 AM riVeRraT has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 21 of 1725 (501231)
03-05-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
03-05-2009 7:30 AM


people use science to dis-prove God
The fact is science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or gods. Such things are out of the realm of the natural, Deities are supernatural and thus in a separate realm.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 03-05-2009 7:30 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 22 of 1725 (501244)
03-05-2009 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by riVeRraT
02-25-2009 7:54 AM


Re: Evidence
riVeRaT writes:
Percy, I am glad you agree. God wants us to believe in Him by faith. That's the door that Jesus opened for us. Our bodies are temple now. Before Jesus, God gave us plenty of proof's, and that didn't work. So it is completely pointless to try and prove God. This whole forum is pointless when it comes down to it.
Good bud, I'm happy you're back. I've been citing significant evidence of the existence of God for years. Time will tell how much effect it has had on people. One knows not for sure what is going on in the minds of members, both active and inactive, not to mention the non-member readers.
The apostle Paul admonished to prove all things. I labor to do that because God has fully proven himself to me. Imo, the hard evidence of God is far greater than that of secularist science ideology.
As for string theory, I see much of it and much of quantum science as supersophisticative tiptoeing around the tulips in the reality garden so as to convince the sheeple who haven't a clue to delve into and get hooked on secularism. Some of the notable scientists who use it admit it's mysterious and controversial.
Hey man, stick around and join in on some of the evidence stuff we debate about God and the Biblical record.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by riVeRraT, posted 02-25-2009 7:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 03-06-2009 10:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 42 by riVeRraT, posted 03-10-2009 10:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 23 of 1725 (501435)
03-06-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
03-05-2009 10:49 AM


Re: Evidence
As for string theory, I see much of it and much of quantum science as supersophisticative tiptoeing around the tulips in the reality garden so as to convince the sheeple who haven't a clue to delve into and get hooked on secularism.
Yeah, string theory is asked to be taken on faith, just like religious mythology.
Some of the notable scientists who use it admit it's mysterious and controversial.
So was Lenny Bruce, who cares? Unfortunately most aspects of science are very difficult to understand, let alone fully comprehend. But, the method used by science is one of objective evidence -vs- subjective experiences, and as such proves to be, at the very least, un-bias in that sense.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 10:49 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2009 8:52 PM onifre has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 24 of 1725 (501590)
03-06-2009 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by onifre
03-06-2009 10:21 AM


Re: Evidence
Yeah, string theory is asked to be taken on faith, just like religious mythology.
But, the method used by science is one of objective evidence -vs- subjective experiences, and as such proves to be, at the very least, un-bias in that sense
Whilst it almost pains me to side with Buz I am going to play devils advocate here..........
What is the objective evidence in favour of string theory?
I am thinking of starting a thread that asks how maths and reality are (or are not) inter-entwined. Maybe we should take this there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 03-06-2009 10:21 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 9:30 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 29 by onifre, posted 03-07-2009 3:20 AM Straggler has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 25 of 1725 (501592)
03-06-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Straggler
03-06-2009 8:52 PM


Re: Evidence
Straggler writes:
What is the objective evidence in favour of string theory?
String theory explains the available evidence just as well as the standard model, and in addition it has the potential to one day become the long-sought after unified theory of physics. It does make some testable predictions, but they are beyond our technological means at present.
If the question was actually something simpler, like what is the evidence that matter is really made up of tiny vibrating strings, then there's no evidence of this that I'm aware of. The best one can say is that string theory builds upon this premise to provide a powerful model of the laws of physics.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2009 8:52 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 9:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 1725 (501593)
03-06-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
03-06-2009 9:30 PM


Re: Evidence
Sounds like there would be no problem if they called it the "String hypothesis" then.
The common usage of "theory" invades most all of the sciences.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 9:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 03-07-2009 2:53 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 03-07-2009 3:07 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 30 by cavediver, posted 03-07-2009 5:06 AM Coyote has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 27 of 1725 (501612)
03-07-2009 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
03-06-2009 9:45 PM


Re: Evidence
Sounds like there would be no problem if they called it the "String hypothesis" then.
Well, technically, it's sort of both. It's refered to as theoretical physics.
quote:
Theoretical physics employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics in an attempt to explain experimental data taken of the natural world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 9:45 PM Coyote has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 28 of 1725 (501613)
03-07-2009 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
03-06-2009 9:45 PM


Re: Evidence
Coyote writes:
Sounds like there would be no problem if they called it the "String hypothesis" then.
The common usage of "theory" invades most all of the sciences.
The problem I see is real science, like the real world, doesn't actually follow the format taught by academics. When I went through college, we learned the usual format of research that I'm sure everyone is familiar with. When I actually started doing research, I was told nobody actually follows the typical format.
We are taught one definition of "theory" in the classroom and then we apply another for the word in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 9:45 PM Coyote has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 29 of 1725 (501614)
03-07-2009 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Straggler
03-06-2009 8:52 PM


Re: Evidence
What is the objective evidence in favour of string theory?
Well, string theory is a theory that tries to explain gravity. Gravity is a known force so no faith is required to begin studying the phenomenon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2009 8:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2009 5:51 AM onifre has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 30 of 1725 (501619)
03-07-2009 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
03-06-2009 9:45 PM


Re: Evidence
Sounds like there would be no problem if they called it the "String hypothesis" then.
Not really, for there is no one hypothesis - the "theory" in String Theory simple means the body of associated work. We didn't come up with the term for public consumption - it is simply how we refer to the work being done. No one would argue that Quantum Field Theory is misnamed given its staggering success, but the real-world, experimentally verified elements of QFT form just one part of the whole body of work, with much of it highly theoretical and often more an exercise in pure mathematics - just like String Theory.
Anyone who claims (and I have ssen this often on the net) that String Theory has ideas above its station for using the word "Theory" compared with, say, Loop Quantum Gravity, is an idiot and/or does not know what they are talking about. We use whatever sounds reasonably "cool", "funny" or appropriate. Supergravity was so called because it sounds great, and calling it Supergravity Theory just takes something away. "String" doesn't quite cut it - although we would often use the diminutive "strings".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 9:45 PM Coyote 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