It is as emotional as it is vague. I state: Infinity is neither good nor bad. It exists in both mathematical and physical realms. It is partially defined as immeasurable and including all measurements.Originally Posted by Ikari
Is my statement true or false?
The obvious fact is that not any proof built from measurement automatically renders to be valid or scientific even if it meets your vague anti-scientific criteria to be concrete. Alchemists built their theories from measurement, as well as Sagan built his drifters and floaters ‘’The other aerial residents of Jupiter were known as floaters, which Sagan would later describe as being “kilometers across, enormously larger than the greatest whale that ever was, beings the size of cities.” Floaters were seen as drifting across the vast alien sky in great herds, looking like a collection of immense balloons, which in essence there were, using the lighter elements of Jupiter’s atmosphere to stay aloft.’ as well as his calculations of a small-scale nuclear winter in the first Iraq war and all his other scientific blunders from measurement.Originally Posted by Ikari
What is your criteria of good and bad? Do you have a slightest understanding of criteria science is operating under?Originally Posted by Ikari
[quote=Ikari] And what was the cause of the sun moving… It was gods which did it[/QUOTE=Ikari]
And how it is ever different from your methodology? They looked at the measurable sun and they saw it was moving. They knew if it was moving there should be something which was moving it. It couldn’t be wind because wind blows in all different directions, it couldn’t be water, but it had to be something not visible directly as atoms are not visible, so it had to be some occurrences which where not ‘’observed directly’’, and they called them gods. And if somebody said “I have to see the occurrences’’ they were saying the same as you say, - Do you have a better explanation? And they were treating the one who was asking to see gods and not having a “better explanation” with the same zealously as you treat those who have doubts in evolution here. There is absolutely no difference between your methodology of proving evolution and the methodology of the ancients proving gods moving the sun. The only difference could be is that ancients most likely did not take it seriously, but rather for entertaining purposes, because it was clear that gods wouldn’t spent their time for such a sweaty endeavor, while you believe your fantasies with all your heart.
‘’The next question was — what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth.’’ – Richard Feynman. The Character of Physical Laws (1964)
Originally Posted by Ikari
Says who? Found - who? According to the text of Newton’s theory God did it, - like everything else measurable.
Who and when did ascribe and who and when did prove God had nothing to do?Originally Posted by Ikari
Originally Posted by Ikari
If geocentric universe was wrong (it neither was wrong nor is wrong from the scientific POV), then I am wrong? and if Heliocentrism is correct evolution is correct? Oh, man, do you have a slightest understanding of criteria science is operating under? Do you have a slightest idea about logic?
Answer – what data, what is data? Is it Data from the starship on TV? Prove it was denied 1. by religious fanatics, 2. In the face of data.Originally Posted by Ikari
What data? What is data? Oh, my dear man, is it so bad in universities today? What is data? New occurrences were observed and experiments were made, the propositions (equations) inferred from these occurrences were made. The results of the equations were at last found to be CONFIRMING and/or be more accurate then the results of equations of the geocentric universe model, such as - the calculations were predicting planets and eclipses and star’s positions at least as accurate as in the geocentric universe model.Originally Posted by Ikari
The geocentric universe model is not ever hinted or described in the Bible, but it was described by Ptolemy, who in your system of beliefs is said to think that gods were moving the Sun. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy]Ptolemy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Seriously, this is what you are saying – 1. that he lived in ancient Rome and 2. he thought that gods were moving the Sun.
.Originally Posted by Ikari
Yeah, gods are wrong, you are right. Oh, man. What are your criteria of wrong and right?
Einstein goes to heaven and asks for an audience with God.
- OK, - says God, - what do you want?
- I want to know how you made the universe.
God goes to a chalk board and fills it with long formulas.
Einstein finishes moving his head following the chalk and says, - you have a mistake in the end of the 5th equation.
- I know, - says God humbly.
Oh man, neither you understand simple sentences, statements or questions, nor you understand what you are saying.