[Mongoose]

Originally posted by IceFire
Science is a guide to why a hammer drops drop on your toe and then explains is a very easy to demonstrate way why it hurts.

That's the best definition of science I've ever heard

As a side note, this thread title is the biggest oxymoron in all of recorded human history

[Janos]

Originally posted by Scottish
Don't get snippy, boy.

Hey now it's not my fault your attempted rebuttal was kinda stupid..

OLD MAN hahahaha take THAT ICE BURRRRRRN

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by IceFire

Science is a guide to why a hammer drops drop on your toe and then explains is a very easy to demonstrate way why it hurts.

Engineering is determining how to prevent this.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Engineering is determining how to prevent this.

I thought that was common sense.

[Grey Wolf]

Quiet. Engineering is far superior to your "common sense".

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Who says the big, fun questions have to have a point to them? Why are people so utilitarian all the time?

You, sir, get a cookie.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
Burning bush? Wall of fire? Two huge stone tablets with stuff written on them?

I can find you more people who will swear blind that they've been anally probed. Does that mean that aliens definately exist?

And they are actual people alive today.

Furthermore there are more people of other religions who can point to similar evidence for their faiths. Which means that your God is a lying bastard about that whole "no Gods apart from me" by your logic.

Originally posted by Scottish
All of which can be explained by simple probability. If you accelerate ****, it undergoes stresses. These stresses could very easily 'quirk' the [presumably] caesium clocks used.

By exactly the amount relativity predicted? That's one hell of a coincidence.

And how come experiments like that always result in time dilation as expected rather than time compression? Have you got a "simple" answer for that that isn't going to be a easily disprovable assertion like your earlier claim that it hadn't been tested at all?

[phatosealpha]

In order for god to be a theory, it has to be testable.  A theory is not merely disproven, it makes predictions which are repeatable and accurate.  Has this god 'theory' made any predictions?  Are they repeatable?  If no to the former, it's not a theory at all.  If no to the latter, it's a disproved hypothesis.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Scottish
Burning bush? Wall of fire? Two huge stone tablets with stuff written on them?

You might not be able to observe them, but someone did. So it fits.

The question there is - did they?

The other question is - what makes these things evidence of God, specifically?  Is this an observation - assuming they are - that is actual evidence of a/the 'divine'?  If someone hears the voice of God, is it actually the voice of God?  How do we know?  

Because eventually you get this chain of 'evidence' that leads to the definitively unknown, and moreso which is by nature intended to be known.

It's like... with science, we reach some sort of solidity point, some base level where we can be confident we have actual evidence, and then work forwards from that.  With religious 'evidence', we end up supposing meanings and origins that ultimately lead to the intangible.  

So the more we move that way, the less certainty we can have that we're moving 'correctly'.  When you go from 'bush', to 'bush speaking' to 'god speaking through bush'*, to 'god', you're moving quite far into the abstract, and doing so very quickly.

*no, not that Bush.......

[karajorma]

It isn't even a theory. If you remember a while back I specifically asked for someone to post the Intelligent Design theory and I got nothing more than a couple of sentences that amounted to nothing more than

"There are some things I don't understand. Science can explain them but I don't believe it so God must have done it"

That's not scientifically testable and that's the closest the ID proponents have ever come to a theory of God.

That's piss poor as a scientific theory. Science doesn't care what you can't wrap your puny little mind around.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma
It isn't even a theory. If you remember a while back I specifically asked for someone to post the Intelligent Design theory and I got nothing more than a couple of sentences that amounted to nothing more than

"There are some things I don't understand. Science can explain them but I don't believe it so God must have done it"

That's not scientifically testable and that's the closest the ID proponents have ever come to a theory of God.

That's piss poor as a scientific theory. Science doesn't care what you can't wrap your puny little mind around.

As an aside.....

During the ID trial in the States, one of the ID proponents was given the US National Academies of Sciences' definition of a scientific theory.  He conceded that ID not only didn't fit that, but proposed an alternate definition of a theory so broad as to admit astrology.  He also conceded that definition was essentially identical to the NAS' statement of a hypothesis.

Essentially, he admitted ID was not a scientific theory unless you redefined the meaning of a scientific theory.

[Kazan]

they have demostrated the time bendy part by putting an atonic clock in a low earth orbit and detecting EXACTLY the expected ammount of time descrepency between it and an identical atomic clock on the ground

pwnd

[Ace]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Incorrect. The predicted time dilation effects were recorded on board a Concorde jet using a pair of highly sensitive clocks.

This has been a public service announcement.

Modern communication satellites require corrections for relativistic effects. Time dialation is a very real and observable effect. If it did not occur the speed of light wouldn't be a constant and so electromagnetism wouldn't function. If that didn't work, you wouldn't be here talking about how time dialtion doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Scottish


But 'we' are right, so why would 'we' even want to change?

Which is why you are wrong. Going in with a preconceived notion means you have already failed. The scientific method is adaptive, dogma is merely reactive.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Scottish


But 'we' are right, so why would 'we' even want to change?

Hubris


how can you argue with someone who uses the logic "I say X, therefore X"

you don't - they're clinically delusional, you send the (wo)men with white jackets!

[Ford Prefect]

That would require sending the entire human race away with the people in white jackets, which presents two main problems:

1. We don't have any institution large enough to hold the entire human race.

2. The last person would have to incarcerate himself.

[Kazan]

not the _entire_ just a large chunk


1) Yes we do - it's called earth.. the intelligent ones of us develop efficient interstellar space travel, and blockaid all the crazies inside Sol System

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

1. We don't have any institution large enough to hold the entire human race.
 

Earth.

Would explain a lot if it was, too.........

[Grey Wolf]

The intelligent ones, however, will have children, a certain percentage of whom will be delusional.

[aldo_14]

99.9%.

With an error of +/- 0.1%

[Kazan]

Actually about 17% of americans are Atheist/agnostic

i bet those numbers are a bit higher in europe