marked
Atheists, here is a 'balls' question ---even for all---
by prologos 224 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Ruby456
you're welcome twitch.
thanks Caedes.
I've read quite a bit on this thread and ask myself the same question 'how do we know what we know?'. Scientists ask themselves the same question regarding theory and broadly fall into two camps -
1. scientists who say that theory must be be tested against the evidence and will admit nothing new until it has been tried and tested.
2. scientists who view theory as something to be continuously modified via new evidence and new arguments allowing theory, evidence and themselves to speak to each other. for me Einstein fell into this latter camp.
edit: over and out - migraine threatening
-
cofty
1 and 2 are the same.
-
Ruby456
no cofty they are not the same, believe me they are not.
-
Caedes
Ruby,
The first thing is to look at what scientists mean by the word theory, in layman's terms it just means an idea but to a scientist it means a proven hypothesis. So any scientist will tell you that for a hypothesis to become a theory it must be well proven, it must have been tested and must be falsifiable (in other words there must be a way of proving it false) No hypothesis can be proven and called a theory until it has been tested.
However any scientist will also always be looking to modify or falsify an existing theory (that is generally how scientists become well known in their fields of study)
An example of how this works is Newtonian mechanics, Einstein partly made his name by proving that Newton was wrong. However Newtonian mechanics still work, most of my work is based on Newtonian mechanics. It's just that they don't tell the whole story in as much detail as Einstein did.
So Cofty is correct, scientists do both, as long as they have the empirical evidence to make their case.
-
Caedes
Prologos,
Once more for the hard of understanding, I (and I suspect everyone else here) doesn't care exactly what age you are currently claiming to be. The inconsistancies in your own account is what I questioned. 'Pushing 90' means you are nearly 90, your exact age is neither here nor there. It doesn't mean anything else so stop wriggling. Incidently you do realise that fathering children when you are 'pushing 90' would make you one of the oldest fathers in the world?
No, your very bad sixth form poetry doesn't answer my questions, you have failed to answer anything.
The most important question is are you the sort of self centered moron who would have a two year old (your words) when you are pushing 90 (your words) and thus leave your child without a father in her formative years? Try to answer without lying, without resorting to word salad, without random use of the caps lock key and preferably with a dictionary in hand.
I also repeat my earlier question who exactly are you going to sue? Do you really think that when someone points out inconsistancies in your posts that you can sue them for libel? I will say it again you are a liar.
-
prologos
I read somewhere, and I did not here it on the Cosmos Series for sure, that any developing theory, or Hypothesis [ 1) or2) above] has to contain the term 'c" to be meaningfull.
If anyone would find the idea of an Gravity/ Resonances /Pulsation maintained order , ,stabilty in the planetary disk interesting, they have been directedto the links and also find the other scientific paper, the academics thaty contributed them in the google column ofcomments,
The little cut and paste that we showed, with no positive effect, was done by teenage son, helping his ancient father, betwenn scate-boarding sessions we have occasionally together, as our local newspaper has photo-documented.
If C&V would be able to nreak through their "I have to prove everybody wrong to be a somebody" mindset, they would realize all their objections have been answered. If in the real world, and if they had any substantial wealth, they would not repeated shout "LIAR" "LIAR" with a REAL names attached to it.
The "self-centered moron", nice choice of words bsw, real class!* has been answered by my ~Lunation connection. period. [if you could understand it.]
POINTING OUT INCONSISTENCIES, sounds like an attemt to educate, a far cray from shouting invectives.
perceived Inconsistencies better explained by limited READING skills, rather than conflicting claims of the writer.
fatherless boy, girl in formative years? think of the boost that an EVERPRESENT, retired father gives to his children in th EARLY formative years. Later?
I am sure,--IF I go first-- wiiling males will lne up to step into my shoes, given that the multi-digit estate is managed by an above averge beautiful, wise and caring lady. so:
Being well into your 9st decade gives you an interesting perspective on life, the security of your established, unalterable past record, the leasure to ponder 'Cosmic Balls' questions, looking for answers.
* it has an appropriate descriptive rhime
-
Viviane
I read somewhere, and I did not here it on the Cosmos Series for sure, that any developing theory, or Hypothesis [ 1) or2) above] has to contain the term 'c" to be meaningfull.
You heard wrong, wherever you heard it, unless you mean something different than what you wrote.
If C&V would be able to nreak through their "I have to prove everybody wrong to be a somebody" mindset
Don't be silly! You are proving you wrong, I am just making sure no one falls for the woo and misinformation!
they would realize all their objections have been answered.
Well, sure, but just with more misinformation and woo, not actual answers!
If in the real world, and if they had any substantial wealth, they would not repeated shout "LIAR" "LIAR" with a REAL names attached to it.
If I had wealth, I woudn't should liar liar with a REAL name attached? Not even sure what you mean there. I'm not poor, I make quite a good bit of money. What does that had to do with you getting caught lying?
Being well into your 9st decade gives you an interesting perspective on life, the security of your established, unalterable past record, the leasure to ponder 'Cosmic Balls' questions, looking for answers.
But not license to lie or presents misinformation as fact.
-
Ruby456
hmmm Caedes I do at least know the difference between hypothesis and theory but it would be boring to take issue with you and cofty on this - cofty you have already loftily said you find this boring anyway.
-
BackseatDevil
In child psychology, there is a time frame when a child becomes self-aware, it happens in various stages, but eventually it develops. When it does, the child thinks the entire world is ALL ABOUT THEM. From that point, they progress into the “terrible twos” (as this happens around 15-24 months of age, typically).
NOT any different is a group of mammals that, through various stages, eventually became self-aware. When that happened, they thought that the entire universe (god, son, redemption, the planet, and all of life) was ALL ABOUT THEM. From that point, they either developed into humans who understood how we came into existence without the use of a creator and those who still think the world is all about them.
So, essentially, religious people who keep trying to be “scientific” with their logic will never truly make sense of the universe around them since are nothing more than children stuck in the “terrible twos” stage of life unwilling to just f**king grow up.