No, we have physical evidence of Neanderthals. No physical evidence of god. Another mistake. Exactly: what scientific evidence is there of "god"?
now that is honesty! physics don't rule mother nature; we the people created the physics to describe mother nature; mom's the boss (per freud; as i believe the summary can be said of his opinion...............'it's mom's fault")
Some random guy at a bar was trying to tell me about chemtrails, and the fact that there was some sort of huge govt conspiracy afoot. To make things worse, he would pile more and more absurd nonsense on top of it to defend it's validity. It was a Friday afternoon - I just wanted to relax, drink my beer, and eat my calamari in peace.
i have to agree.. if science aims to explain nature, then it can't contradict it.. that is where the conflict lies.. each side claims they represent nature.. and so, the term "woo woo" comes into existence, with the aid of bigotry and ill manners.
don't forget if you do present a quality argument that is literally "common sense"; the bigots may call you a "strawman" if science aims to explain nature, then it can't contradict it.. and with no uncertainty!
Just look at him friendly, then go blank and say in a deeper voice "damn it I think we are getting feedback on..." then cut back to your smile as if nothing happened. Practice a couple times in the mirror. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How exactly can science "contradict nature"? Furthermore, pointing out the failings of fools has nothing to do with bigotry.
WOW! chemical reductions versus evolution 2LoT imposes a direction (macro analogy imposed to atomic scale; greatest error in physics)
Oh gosh it must be wrong then, science hasnt found it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Contrary to what most people believe here, things do exist and happen without a scientific theory explaining it. Its only after an idea has been accepted that the science behind it is also accepted.
Of course things happen without a scientific theory! We haven't got time to run around having theories for every little thing that occurs. It's just that if you're proposing an anaturalistic explanation for things, you need to have some proof. If you or Bishadi could lay down some better explanation of his "chemical reductions versus evolution" argument, I'd be much obliged. Exactly what is the conflict?
bad bet ( eg.... see schroedingers work (What is life) (notice the term neg-entropy) life: abuses entropy (nothing theoretical about it; fact) there are more renditions to fix the errors of today's paradigm than the good offered within QM eg.............. the whole of physics is about to change! they left out the 'missing link' (the entanglement of energy between mass.) i.e...... that entanglement is your dark energy/gravity and has been verified as a real potential (nothing psuedo about it, except to them of the old school that forget to leave room for the next generation of change) eg....ptolemy had the handle on the math of the solar system for almost 1500 yrs and within the last 100 most all the rules have changed be certain, the last chapter changes most of what mankind has accepted; once again!
planck incorporated entropy into the math of the quanta/qubit see his 1901 pub h is the key constant created that has practically ruined physics
life not abuse entropy life absorb energy from high-energy node into closed system Confucious say "He who bets with train does not get to work on time after all."
Which is NOTHING to do with what you're saying it is. No, that's simply your ill-informed misunderstanding. Only for the crackpots. Wrong. Last 100? One thing we are certain of: you're wrong on nearly every count.
All right. Well, despite the best efforts of Bishadi (and a laudable shot from half-court by IceAgeCivilizations, in that long-ago time), Happeh still, still wins, hands down, as the Smack of Whack. I'd like to thank all the contestants for their contributions, and wish them better luck next year. I'm sure we'll be seeing the usual round of spirited attempts to claim the title, ohh, somewhere in the next five or six threads. Best regards, Geoff
