Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 10:51 AM
38 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,580 Year: 3,617/19,786 Month: 612/1,087 Week: 202/212 Day: 17/27 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   can science accept assertive law?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 76 of 78 (445432)
01-02-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by tesla
01-02-2008 10:52 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
tesla writes:

this concludes my debate.

I certainly hope so!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by tesla, posted 01-02-2008 10:52 AM tesla has not yet responded

    
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 3996 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 77 of 78 (445445)
01-02-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rahvin
01-01-2008 12:41 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
Rahvin writes:

Your logic is flawed - you assume that a cause is necessary for the existence of matter and energy.

The Big Bang does not in any way state that there was a "begining" moment that magically "poofed" everything in the Universe into exisetence

at the big bang, the universe and time itself came into existance, so this is the first cause. Steven Hawkins Cambridge, July 28, 1997

But is it any less credible than the picture of a universe exploding from nothing at all, expanding....because that is pretty much what all the calculations of modern science are asking you to accept. Steven Hawkin's Universe pg. 16

Apearently my logic isn't the only one in question then. Also apearent is that you missed the question at the end that energy cannot be created/destroyed paragraph where I asked Tesla if this was what he was tring to get at. Did you bother reading the messages between NWR and Percy? Percy pointed out (and I now point out to you) that I was attempting to find out where Tesla was coming from, without completely condemning him for not being clearer. Unlike some.


Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 12:41 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by tesla, posted 01-03-2008 8:26 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2135 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 78 of 78 (445763)
01-03-2008 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by imageinvisible
01-02-2008 1:38 PM


concluded.
concluded.

Edited by tesla, : providing argument preparation link.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by imageinvisible, posted 01-02-2008 1:38 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019