- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,812
I'm sorry to say that I can!
All my opinions are derived from a very strong sense of wanting to gain knowlede. As such I have been reading science and non-science material. I know more of the occult than the majority of people and yet I am a scientist.
Science is not a belief. It is a way of explaining things in the most objective way. Of course if you mix such a powerful tool with human minds you get all sorts. The worst of which are orthodox scientists than will not change theories when new knowledge has come to light. That is not strictly speaking science.
What drives me almost insane is when someone has closed their eyes and ears to anything rational without even trying to see the amazing new details that are found in science. In my view they are doing exactly what orthodox scientists are doing. Riding a dead horse and telling me its the best thing I could use to get about.
Whilst I have even read the bible iknorder to find out what it is all about. Stagnand minds will not make the effort to educate themselves of the alternatives. Obviously knowing that if they do so, it might actually change their mind [if they still have one left that isn't tainted by a meme loop telling them that everything which makes sense is the work of the devil].
Yes I even agree that state education can be brainwashing[like in communism] but that is politics and not science. If science is treated the way it should, it is the most ogical tool we have to find answers to our inquisitive minds. Science is also never claiming to be the absolute "truth", it is only ever the best and most provable theories at any one time, always open to be changed with provable ideas. When a new theory can be ripped to shreds with hard evidence, it is discarded. If it brings new testable evidence it might override an old theory.
I mean how much more logic do you want it?
The theory that the earth is only 6000 years old doesn't hold up for reasons talked about on this thread. To say that carbon dating is faulty needs a paper that states why?
Did we make mistakes with the half-time of carbon? If so show me the error, come up with fact based readings done under scientifically planned methods. Are those readings reproducable by anyone etc...
If these religious morons could do any of this, they are free to challenge previous theories like everyone else.
Maybe even science will find a god someday but then it will be damn well supported by evidence. Until then he/she/it remains even less a possibility than "Schroedingers cat".
All my opinions are derived from a very strong sense of wanting to gain knowlede. As such I have been reading science and non-science material. I know more of the occult than the majority of people and yet I am a scientist.
Science is not a belief. It is a way of explaining things in the most objective way. Of course if you mix such a powerful tool with human minds you get all sorts. The worst of which are orthodox scientists than will not change theories when new knowledge has come to light. That is not strictly speaking science.
What drives me almost insane is when someone has closed their eyes and ears to anything rational without even trying to see the amazing new details that are found in science. In my view they are doing exactly what orthodox scientists are doing. Riding a dead horse and telling me its the best thing I could use to get about.
Whilst I have even read the bible iknorder to find out what it is all about. Stagnand minds will not make the effort to educate themselves of the alternatives. Obviously knowing that if they do so, it might actually change their mind [if they still have one left that isn't tainted by a meme loop telling them that everything which makes sense is the work of the devil].
Yes I even agree that state education can be brainwashing[like in communism] but that is politics and not science. If science is treated the way it should, it is the most ogical tool we have to find answers to our inquisitive minds. Science is also never claiming to be the absolute "truth", it is only ever the best and most provable theories at any one time, always open to be changed with provable ideas. When a new theory can be ripped to shreds with hard evidence, it is discarded. If it brings new testable evidence it might override an old theory.
I mean how much more logic do you want it?
The theory that the earth is only 6000 years old doesn't hold up for reasons talked about on this thread. To say that carbon dating is faulty needs a paper that states why?
Did we make mistakes with the half-time of carbon? If so show me the error, come up with fact based readings done under scientifically planned methods. Are those readings reproducable by anyone etc...
If these religious morons could do any of this, they are free to challenge previous theories like everyone else.
Maybe even science will find a god someday but then it will be damn well supported by evidence. Until then he/she/it remains even less a possibility than "Schroedingers cat".