Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: Hawkman on 25 May 2010 21:10 Sorry for being the rain on the parade but Mitch Raemsch has a point. Evidence shows that God's spirit is the only fundamental reality. This means that most of what they teach in physics is simply false. They teach us that everything is physical or material but this is clearly not the case in life. Evidence points that there are also mental, spiritual, cognitive and Godly spirits in life and in the universe.
From: purple on 25 May 2010 21:24 On 5/25/2010 8:10 PM, Hawkman wrote: > Sorry for being the rain on the parade but Mitch Raemsch has a point. > > Evidence shows that God's spirit is the only fundamental reality. This > means that most of what they teach in physics is simply false. They > teach us that everything is physical or material but this is clearly > not the case in life. Evidence points that there are also mental, > spiritual, cognitive and Godly spirits in life and in the universe. How nice of you to speak for everyone!
From: BURT on 25 May 2010 21:42 On May 25, 6:24 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 5/25/2010 8:10 PM, Hawkman wrote: > > > Sorry for being the rain on the parade but Mitch Raemsch has a point. > > > Evidence shows that God's spirit is the only fundamental reality. This > > means that most of what they teach in physics is simply false. They > > teach us that everything is physical or material but this is clearly > > not the case in life. Evidence points that there are also mental, > > spiritual, cognitive and Godly spirits in life and in the universe. > > How nice of you to speak for everyone! You don't need evidence for spirit to show how young science really is. Any attitude that we know a lot is simply unfounded. Stephen Hawking was the dope that said we know a lot. We do not. What we have done is gather a lot of data and this doesn't qualify as knowledge or understanding. Give that millions years for science. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 27 May 2010 16:50 On May 25, 9:38 am, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > On May 24, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > > > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > > > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > > > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > > > that is very pesimistic view! > > > > > > i think that theory is just an add on to GR > > > > > > to merge it into QM and with d xperimental > > > > > > ways of observation of today it can be just around the corner. > > > > > > not more that 10 years ahead! > > > > > > > r.y > > > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > > > attitude that it knows a lot. > > > This is a little like saying that primates are not intelligent > > creatures on earth, compared to say sea cucumbers, because their > > intelligence pales in comparison with what will be exhibited in > > animals 5 million years from now. In other words, everything that > > exists right now is worthless. This makes Mitch feel a little better > > about himself. > > maybe we should stop learning to make mitch happy!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How pesimistic is the truth of how young science is? I am not making up its small age. The greatness of science is for millions of years in the future. Right now we have a lot of data but no knowledge or understanding. Mitch Raemsch
From: GogoJF on 27 May 2010 16:59
On May 27, 3:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 9:38 am, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 24, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > > > > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > > > > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > > > > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > > > > that is very pesimistic view! > > > > > > > i think that theory is just an add on to GR > > > > > > > to merge it into QM and with d xperimental > > > > > > > ways of observation of today it can be just around the corner.. > > > > > > > not more that 10 years ahead! > > > > > > > > r.y > > > > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > > > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > > > > attitude that it knows a lot. > > > > This is a little like saying that primates are not intelligent > > > creatures on earth, compared to say sea cucumbers, because their > > > intelligence pales in comparison with what will be exhibited in > > > animals 5 million years from now. In other words, everything that > > > exists right now is worthless. This makes Mitch feel a little better > > > about himself. > > > maybe we should stop learning to make mitch happy!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > How pesimistic is the truth of how young science is? > I am not making up its small age. The greatness of science is for > millions of years in the future. Right now we have a lot of data but > no knowledge or understanding. > > Mitch Raemsch Burt, I believe in the science of today that we are in the stage of what a phenomena is, and not yet why it is the way it is. |