The machine gun, the ironclad warship, the car, and the jet liner were all American inventions. That suggests to me that our education system has, at some point in the past, worked.
The machine gun, the ironclad warship, the car, and the jet liner were all American inventions. That suggests to me that our education system has, at some point in the past, worked.
QuoteThe machine gun, the ironclad warship, the car, and the jet liner were all American inventions. That suggests to me that our education system has, at some point in the past, worked.
But it doesn't work now as can be seen from the fact that the ironclad warship (french, 1859), the car (German, 1885), and jet liner (British, 1949) are not american inventions. However, the controllable aeroplane, production line, the motorbike, toilet paper and the telephone are.
jet liner (British, 1949)
Sheer crap. . . .
HMS warrior was the first Ironhulled warship. An Englishmans research inspired the V rocket program and without an internal combustion engine none of you would have any cars.
Now get back onto education before the admin hat comes off and my mr frown hat goes on.
Iron hulled and ironclad are not the same thing. Iron hulls were not at all unusual by that point in history, but they were not armor, just a wrapper to keep the water out. Warrior is usually described as the first ironclad, but nobody's ever going to remember Warrior for its service history, unlike the Merrimack/Virginia. There is much to be said for proving the concept.
An Englishmans research inspired the V rocket program
History channel lies
Just goes to show . . . (this) American is apparently (historically) illiterate.
The History channel really did say that the first Ironclads were from the American Civil War, I saw it on a video of theirs just today. It must be said though, that although Europe apparently developed the idea, the American Civil War did influence their design - according to the wiki.
History channel lies :(
Just goes to show . . . (this) American is apparently (historically) illiterate.
The History channel really did say that the first Ironclads were from the American Civil War, I saw it on a video of theirs just today. It must be said though, that although Europe apparently developed the idea, the American Civil War did influence their design - according to the wiki.
Personally, I don't give a damn who invented X.
:lol: :yes:Personally, I don't give a damn who invented X.
It's very important when you're engaged in a game of oneupmanship. ;)
Your first born children. Which we will feed into our demonic engine that boils down their raw materials and generates mortgage payments and Big Macs.Oh, just one of those. I was hoping for something new this time.
Well, its not really the usa's fault that it has to steal just about everything ever made to simply be able to exist. I wonder who or what wil they steal to fix the financial crisis they themselves made
*facepalm*
QuoteThe machine gun, the ironclad warship, the car, and the jet liner were all American inventions. That suggests to me that our education system has, at some point in the past, worked.
the telephone
the atom bomb
What's the definition of an ironclad? The Merrimack was nothing more than an iron/steel/whatever coated wooden ship, but the monitor was actually an all metal ship. Are they still both ironclads, or is one like a demi-ironclad?
QuoteThe machine gun, the ironclad warship, the car, and the jet liner were all American inventions. That suggests to me that our education system has, at some point in the past, worked.
the telephone
Sorry. The principles of the telephone were actually established by an Italian in Florence - Bell just held the later patent after altering the design.
Indeed...he was Scottish born, Canadian citizen, and did part of his work in the US. The Telephone invention sort of gets to be spread around a bit :)QuoteThe machine gun, the ironclad warship, the car, and the jet liner were all American inventions. That suggests to me that our education system has, at some point in the past, worked.
the telephone
Sorry. The principles of the telephone were actually established by an Italian in Florence - Bell just held the later patent after altering the design.
IIRC, Bell was also a Canadian citizen at the time.
Well, its not really the usa's fault that it has to steal just about everything ever made to simply be able to exist. I wonder who or what wil they steal to fix the financial crisis they themselves made
Besides, taking all the talent from other countries is a valid strategy :P
Besides, taking all the talent from other countries is a valid strategy :P
And, to be quite fair, it presumes intelligence.
I'd just like to point out that I was only trying to say that the US is not an intellectual wasteland when I said it invented those things. I wasn't trying to do a oneupmanship, I was trying to point out that it has some potential and
guess who invented neckties? :p
Regardless of the fact that the definition of the necktie in most dictionaries states "a large band of fabric worn around the neck under the collar and tied in front with the ends hanging down as a decoration", its history says a lot more. Men have always found it necessary to tie something around their necks. The earliest historical example is in ancient Egypt.
@T_E
Was it the apes from 2001 worshiping the Monolith? :confused:
dobro, onda neću pisati engleskim. :pSpoiler:throw that in a translator to find out the meaning
well, then do not? write in English
No two individual people can ever have exactly the same Religious Beliefs.
No two individual people can ever have exactly the same Religious Beliefs.
Maybe. But they can have the same lack of religious beliefs.
But your non-belief is not the same as the non-belief of another athesist.
To say that religious people all believe in different things really, and that atheists are all "uniform" is laughable.
But your non-belief is not the same as the non-belief of another athesist.
To say that religious people all believe in different things really, and that atheists are all "uniform" is laughable.
Atheists usually declare that there is no God. Is' nt that a belief ?
Incorrect. You're assuming that all atheists are what are called Strong Atheists. Most are actually what are called Weak Atheists. Only a Strong Atheist will say "There is no God" However they won't say that based on belief. They'll say it based on a logical inference that any God who created the universe must be more complex than the universe he created and therefore requires an even more complex explanation himself. If you're willing to accept that "God has always existed" is about as weak an argument as "The universe has always existed" then you're probably a Strong Atheist.
A Weak Atheist on the other hand will say "There is no evidence for the existence of God, so there is no point in believing in God"
Notice that neither position require any belief though. Both are derived logically.
Correct but to accept either one you have to accept logic (and the knowledge that comes from logic) as the ultimate measure.
Science it self doesn't in all occations (i refer particulary to the quantum theory).
I'm an agnostic, the only thing that I believe is that there's not enough information to make an informed decision on the existence, or lack thereof of anything transphysical or epistemological. And yet I've been told it's a "religion" how does anyone figure that?
Those who believe atheism is not a belief because it is derived from logic need to have their own logic examined. There is no logic on any side of the coin. The Big Bang violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity. Also the 'energy' had to come from somewhere. Therefor, by deductive reasoning, a god exists. See wat I did thar?I don't see, actually.
Those who believe atheism is not a belief because it is derived from logic need to have their own logic examined. There is no logic on any side of the coin. The Big Bang violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity. Also the 'energy' had to come from somewhere. Therefor, by deductive reasoning, a god exists. See wat I did thar?
That's not deductive reasoning. Not by a long shot. Taking your reasoning: By strict logic, the Big Bang violates thermodynamics theory and is therefore not true. How can you go from that to "therefore, a god exists". That's like saying that if i'm hungry, therefore Kara is orange.Eh, I was using flawed logic to show how the idea that atheism is logic based while monotheism, polytheism, and unitheism are belief based is flawed logic. I just didn't care enough to write a drawn-out post. I have better things to do. Like thinking about rocket ships!
Kara's demonstration of atheist logic on the previous page, that's valid logic. Your example is almost as fallacious as the average believer. :rolleyes:
Wait, I still don't get the Strong/Weak Atheism deal.If you really want to get deep into that, atheism the absence of theism of any kind. It doesn't derive from anything at all. People who never think about any god(s). When people have a belief of there being no god, it is antitheism. "There is no god" is an antitheistic view, not an atheistic one.
Are we just saying that "strong" atheists are the violent "THERE IS NO GOD!" type and "weak" atheists are just the passive "eh" types? Because both share a set of beliefs, one just more passionately than the other.
Wait, I still don't get the Strong/Weak Atheism deal.
Are we just saying that "strong" atheists are the violent "THERE IS NO GOD!" type and "weak" atheists are just the passive "eh" types? Because both share a set of beliefs, one just more passionately than the other.
If you really want to get deep into that, atheism the absence of theism of any kind. It doesn't derive from anything at all. People who never think about any god(s). When people have a belief of there being no god, it is antitheism. "There is no god" is an antitheistic view, not an atheistic one.
it's like black. the absence of colour is equal to the absence of religion. some people can't get that through their skulls.
The machine gun, the ironclad warship, the car, and the jet liner were all American inventions. That suggests to me that our education system has, at some point in the past, worked.
mmmm isnt balck just made up of red or blue pigments
at the end of the day all religions are just social controls there to seperate and devide the people
I'm an agnostic, the only thing that I believe is that there's not enough information to make an informed decision on the existence, or lack thereof of anything transphysical or epistemological. And yet I've been told it's a "religion" how does anyone figure that?
Where did God come from? He also violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity. All you've done is shifted back one remove, explaining nothing in the process. You'll now be forced to come up with some non-explanation like "God always existed" in order to cover your back. You've tried to explain complexity by coming up with something even more complex and then refusing to explain that.
I'm an agnostic, the only thing that I believe is that there's not enough information to make an informed decision on the existence, or lack thereof of anything transphysical or epistemological. And yet I've been told it's a "religion" how does anyone figure that?
Prolly because of the bolded part. :pQuoteWhere did God come from? He also violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity. All you've done is shifted back one remove, explaining nothing in the process. You'll now be forced to come up with some non-explanation like "God always existed" in order to cover your back. You've tried to explain complexity by coming up with something even more complex and then refusing to explain that.
There is a difference between God and universe, you know.
By some sort of definition, God is above the laws of Physics, above logic and above explanation - unlike the universe.
Therefore, that neatly circumvents the need to explain him or any physical inconcistencies (in fact, it's illogical to even try to explain him).
Logic perserved.
Atheism is a belief just like monotheism, polytheism, and unitheism. It just operates on different principles, just like monotheism, polytheism, and unitheism.
Those who believe atheism is not a belief because it is derived from logic need to have their own logic examined. There is no logic on any side of the coin. The Big Bang violates every law of thermodynamics, physics, and relativity. Also the 'energy' had to come from somewhere. Therefor, by deductive reasoning, a god exists. See wat I did thar?
I still don't quite understand how you can logically prove that a God can either exist or not exist. Can someone explain?
mmmm isnt balck just made up of red or blue pigments
I still don't quite understand how you can logically prove that a God can either exist or not exist. Can someone explain?
http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/
Explains it much better than I could. :)
I also believe that I live in the United States, on the planet Earth. I also have evidence for that. Does believing in the existence of the planet make it a religion? Religion requires more than belief.I'm an agnostic, the only thing that I believe is that there's not enough information to make an informed decision on the existence, or lack thereof of anything transphysical or epistemological. And yet I've been told it's a "religion" how does anyone figure that?
Prolly because of the bolded part. :p
http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/I lol'd.
Explains it much better than I could. :)
http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/I lol'd.
Explains it much better than I could. :)
That's not atheism, that's stupidity.
I also believe that I live in the United States, on the planet Earth. I also have evidence for that. Does believing in the existence of the planet make it a religion? Religion requires more than belief.
I have literally no FAITH, I have no community that revolves around agnosticism or atheism, there is no system that I look to for guidance concerning my beleif
But this religion whacking with logic starts to sound like religion all by itself.
Just to get pedantic, the Big Bang doesn't actually violate laws of thermodynamics, and it's certainly not 'something from nothing.' There are many physical mechanisms -- spontaneous symmetry breaking, M-brane theory, so on -- which have been advanced to explain the Horrendous Space Kablooie.
Note: Either I misunderstood Karas definition of Atheism, or I have to disagree.
I believe other physicists who point out the holes...
For example - the rubber universe theory (a universe is constantly expanding them coming together in one point, etc..) has been proven wrong by pointing out that the galaxies are moving away too fast for gravity to bring them back together.
Very few of whom would agree with your conclusions.
Incorrect. The theory of the Big Crunch is considered less likely now than it was 10 years ago but it most definitely has not been proved false. Given that dark matter is responsible for causing the acceleration and no one knows what exactly dark matter is, it's pretty stupid to state with any certainty that it will continue to be a driving force forever.
I found you to be wrong after 30 seconds on Wikipedia so I really do question how deeply you've looked into this.
Very few of whom would agree with your conclusions.
They don't have to. I bet that there's plenty of scientists who don't agree wiht some of your conclusions or another. That is irrelevant.
I agree with theirs - that is relevant.
They don't have to. I bet that there's plenty of scientists who don't agree wiht some of your conclusions or another. That is irrelevant.
I agree with theirs - that is relevant.
Wait, what?
When I say wrong I mean not right.
You admit it yourself that the big Crunch theory is not proven right, and things standing as they are now, it is wrong.
Some future scientific discoveries or breaktroughs that might change things are irrelevant at this time.
For now, according to current calculations, the universe will not come back together.
This is going to end badly.*Pulls up deckchair*
Very, very badly.
This is going to end badly.
Very, very badly.
I'll just drop it. It's easier.
Either way, the Big Bang is scientific problem because of the eternal questions - How? Why? What happened before?
Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs
1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.
2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.
3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1
6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.
9 An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet.10 An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good.
11 An Ceiling Cat sayed, DO WANT grass! so tehr wuz seedz An stufs, An fruitzors An vegbatels. An a Corm. It happen.12 An Ceiling Cat sawed that weedz ish good, so, letz there be weedz.13 An so teh threeth day jazzhands.
14 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has lightz in the skiez for splittin day An no day.15 It happen, lights everwear, like christmass, srsly.16 An Ceiling Cat doeth two grate lightz, teh most big for day, teh other for no day.17 An Ceiling Cat screw tehm on skiez, with big nails An stuff, to lite teh Urfs.18 An tehy rulez day An night. Ceiling Cat sawed. Iz good.19 An so teh furth day w00t.
20 An Ceiling Cat sayed, waterz bring me phishes, An burds, so kittehs can eat dem. But Ceiling Cat no eated dem.21 An Ceiling Cat maed big fishies An see monstrs, which wuz like big cows, except they no mood, An other stuffs dat mooves, An Ceiling Cat sawed iz good.22 An Ceiling Cat sed O hai, make bebehs kthx. An dont worry i wont watch u secksy, i not that kynd uf kitteh.23 An so teh...fith day. Ceiling Cat taek a wile 2 cawnt.
24 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has MOAR living stuff, mooes, An creepie tings, An otehr aminals. It happen so tehre.25 An Ceiling Cat doed moar living stuff, mooes, An creepies, An otehr animuls, An did not eated tehm.
26 An Ceiling Cat sayed, letz us do peeps like uz, becuz we ish teh qte, An let min p0wnz0r becuz tehy has can openers.
27 So Ceiling Cat createded teh peeps taht waz like him, can has can openers he maed tehm, min An womin wuz maeded, but he did not eated tehm.
28 An Ceiling Cat sed them O hai maek bebehs kthx, An p0wn teh waterz, no waterz An teh firmmint, An evry stufs.
29 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, the Urfs, I has it, An I has not eated it.30 For evry createded stufs tehre are the fuudz, to the burdies, teh creepiez, An teh mooes, so tehre. It happen. Iz good.
31 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, teh good enouf for releaze as version 0.8a. kthxbai.
Correct but to accept either one you have to accept logic (and the knowledge that comes from logic) as the ultimate measure.
Nope. You only have to accept logic as the best we've come up with so far.QuoteScience it self doesn't in all occations (i refer particulary to the quantum theory).
:confused: Where?
Um . . . tell me what we have other than logic exactly? There's no evidence that quantum theory doesn't follow some type of logic, just a process that we don't fully understand - yet. Quantum theory doesn't follow expectations we had prior to experimenting, but the experiments themselves would mean nothing without logic, now would they?
I suppose we have gut instincts, and feelings, but those are inherently NOT good toolds for anythings.
Luckily, we don't need people to get it.
So long as there are enough sane folks left in the world, the Trashmans of the Earth can continue to do their thing, and they'll still benefit from the progress of science.
The Wiki being the base for your thoughts doesn't spur my confidence in you either.
This is another confusing matter so let me rephrase my point:
As long as logic is not a perfect tool yet we can ceep our minds open to it's expantions. Quantum theory and quantum theory's logic came out off experiments that contradicted the logic we had by then and i am sure that you are aware off them.
Supposing that, a year ago, i decleared that it would be possible somewere in the w.w.w. to be a community whit high skills and able to create the best space combat simulator ever for free. I asure you i would hear many logical arguments that would prove logicaly that this is nothing but an optimist's dream. So now i'm dreaming and i'm not writing that it is at least inapproptiate to use logical arguments against beliefs if you can not prove them wrong beyond doubts.
Nope. Alltough I see Kaj is trying to lead it that way by throwing underhanded insults and hoping to irk me into a rash response, thus earning a ban.
How dissapointing. Pathetic really.
No they did not contradict the logic we had back then. They might have contradicted the theory we had back then but the same logic that led to the old one led to the new one.
There would have been no logical reason to state that. So given that there are much larger open source projects than FS2, it would have been a rather stupid thing to say. Any arguments against it existing would be based on flawed logic as there would be evidence of larger open source projects.
If I can prove you wrong simply from Wikipedia it must mean you are very wrong. I've not claimed to be an expert. In fact I know very little about astrophysics. And you despite your discussions with this expert you keep mentioning you keep making very basic errors so it's obvious you aren't an expert either.
Furthermore tell me something. Does this CERN expert of your claim the Big Bang Theory is false?
I never claimed the Big Bang didn't happen. You somkin' someting?
And b.t.w. - you never proven me wrong in the first place.
(a universe is constantly expanding them coming together in one point, etc..) has been proven wrong
Galaxies and stars are moving away at a certain speed. Now, the dark matter either exerts some constant influence that affects their speed, or starts exerting some influence when condition X is met.
There is NO evidence I've seen that dark matter can slow down the expansion of the universe.
But since you don't know what it is, then you can't really say what effect it has.
Luckily, we don't need people to get it.
So long as there are enough sane folks left in the world, the Trashmans of the Earth can continue to do their thing, and they'll still benefit from the progress of science.
I expected better from you, rather than throwing insults. :sigh:
b.t.w. - I get it. Better than most of you probably. The problem is I'm not good at explaining it..and neither do I feel like explaining it.
Not to mention that this thread isn't a debate anymore (according to the definition of a debate)
That is wrong. It's only been proved less likely. You can try to claim that it's been proven "Not right" as if that means something all you like but it only get more and more amusing to watch you refuse to admit you could possibly have been wrong.
Or it doesn't have a constant influence but had a maximum at some point (let's say during the Big Bang for arguments sake) and is now decreasing. Forgot that one didn't you? If dark matter's effect on the expansion of the universe is decaying then sooner or later it won't be able to overcome the effect of gravity and the universe will start shrinking.
It doesn't have to. It only has to stop accelerating the expansion. Given that a few years ago few people would have expected that it was causing an acceleration it's pretty silly for you to claim to know how long that acceleration will last for.
QuoteBut since you don't know what it is, then you can't really say what effect it has.Yep. So stop saying it can only act in the ways you want it to act in order to not be wrong. You are wrong. Accept it.
You'll find most reasonable scientific theories aren't proven, so scientists can save face should something come and prove it otherwise.
QuoteYou'll find most reasonable scientific theories aren't proven, so scientists can save face should something come and prove it otherwise.
My daily laughing quota was exceeded because of this particular comment.
It's the axioms that can't be proven, not the theories. Theories are proven from axioms.
It's quite hard to beat the dogma of Mary's virginity in terms of unplausibility... :nervous:
Again: It's the axioms that can't be proven, not the theories. Theories are proven from axioms.
Edit: I love sundays :lol:
No, even that was fun up until the point when TrashMan and kara started their usual thing again.
TM: blah blah blah big bang is wrong blah blah blah
Kara: blah blah blah big bang is not wrong blah blah your logic is flawed
TM: blah blah blah I never said big bang was wrong blah blah blah you're insulting me blah blah blah
Kara: blah blah blah blah yes you did blah blah blah blah smart remark with gratuitous ( :p )
TM: blah blah blah ualealelaleale blah blah
Kara: blah blah blah monkey!
Trashman, do you know what dark energy is?
Again: It's the axioms that can't be proven, not the theories. Theories are proven from axioms.
Edit: I love sundays :lol:
but I concur, this debate probably isn't going to go anywhere productive.
Remember that the scientific definition of 'theory' and the layman's definition of 'theory' are two completely different things.
A scientific theory is a model derived from observable and provable facts, with the remainder filled in by equations or models that, based on our current understanding, are correct but cannot yet be prooven or disprooven.
Just because a scientific model is labled a "theory" does not make it any less correct. All it means is that, at present, we are unable to disprove certain parts of it.
Many scientific theories will always be theories. Heck, 'flight', or rather how exactly an airfoil works, is still a theory (hence why it's called "Theory of Flight" and not the "Law of Flight"). We are still unable to prove, scientifically, how all aspects of flight occur. Doesn't mean "flight" is incorrect and an impossibility.
Trashman, do you know what dark energy is?
Oooh! Oooh!
I know I know, that's the **** the emperor was shooting Luke with. Damn that stuff's gotta hurt.
You mean Theorems are proven from axioms... whole different field.
Here's what you are confused about. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem#Relation_with_scientific_theories)
You mean Theorems are proven from axioms... whole different field.
Here's what you are confused about. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem#Relation_with_scientific_theories)
Axioms and theorems are subgroups of a theory. To describe a theory analytically you have to use them both.
However it is a confusing term because "theory" comes from a greek word whith many readings. I will not insist on this because i just read in wiki that "... even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context." :)
as for ibeing a virgin in the medical sence of the word only the easter bunny knows...what's your Easter Bunny about, then? :wtf:
as for ibeing a virgin in the medical sence of the word only the easter bunny knows
But in mathematics, theories are subdivisions of knowledge. You cannot prove or disprove theories anymore than you can prove/disprove numbers and operators. And the minute you pick the word axioms, science (physical sciences for those who are pedantic about it) is out of context.