[_ Old Earth _] Humpty Dumpty Science ?

[twinc]

one of the greatest, if not the greatest, achievement/s of science was the dematerialisation of matter, but now some if not most scientists are trying to put it together again via 'dark matter'/hidden matter/Hicks bosun etc = no matter, no matter what ? - twinc

 

[Rick W]

An ever-expanding universe is problematic.

 

[Milk-Drops]

When did scientists learn to de-materialize matter?

 

[twinc]

When did scientists learn to de-materialize matter?

the mere fact that you ask the question means it is not widely known or taught or accepted - I thank you for your honest query - twinc

 

[Free]

one of the greatest, if not the greatest, achievement/s of science was the dematerialisation of matter

Do you have evidence of this?

 

[twinc]

Do you have evidence of this?

good keep them coming and ask why so many do not know or have not been told or taught about so important a matter[pun] - twinc

 

[Free]

good keep them coming and ask why so many do not know or have not been told or taught about so important a matter[pun] - twinc

I just want to see evidence. You made a claim and now I am asking for evidence that what you said is true.

 

[twinc]

I just want to see evidence. You made a claim and now I am asking for evidence that what you said is true.

for starters via google see [Matter ] by Bertrand Russell - twinc

 

[Free]

for starters via google see [Matter ] by Bertrand Russell - twinc

I'm not going to Google anything. You need to start providing evidence and show that you understand what it means.

 

[twinc]

I'm not going to Google anything. You need to start providing evidence and show that you understand what it means.

there is no matter as solid or stable only dust to dust and ashes to ashes - more later - twinc

 

[Milk-Drops]

there is no matter as solid or stable only dust to dust and ashes to ashes - more later - twinc

You do know that dust and ash are made of matter right?

 

[twinc]

You do know that dust and ash are made of matter right?

even dust and ash are not solid/substantial matter are only used to try and show and prove something materially before we move into what science once said matter was and what it is babbling now - more later - twinc

 

[Obadiah]

When did scientists learn to de-materialize matter?

the mere fact that you ask the question means it is not widely known or taught or accepted - I thank you for your honest query - twinc

Do you have evidence of this?

good keep them coming and ask why so many do not know or have not been told or taught about so important a matter[pun] - twinc

for starters via google see [Matter ] by Bertrand Russell - twinc

there is no matter as solid or stable only dust to dust and ashes to ashes - more later - twinc

How about backing up your seemingly wild claims with something logical and coherent when asked? Otherwise you're just continuing to troll.

 

[twinc]

How about backing up your seemingly wild claims with something logical and coherent when asked? Otherwise you're just continuing to troll.

at one time science said that the reality behind the world was made of atoms, later it said that the real stuff was made of molecules, still later it said things were really electrons - now it is beginning to stutter something else - more shortly - twinc

 

[lordkalvan]

at one time science said that the reality behind the world was made of atoms, later it said that the real stuff was made of molecules, still later it said things were really electrons - now it is beginning to stutter something else - more shortly - twinc

Do you have some citations for these rather singular claims? After all, molecules are made of atoms and electrons are an integral part of the atom.

 

[Drew]

at one time science said that the reality behind the world was made of atoms, later it said that the real stuff was made of molecules, still later it said things were really electrons - now it is beginning to stutter something else - more shortly - twinc

What you seem to characterize as a weakness of science is actually its strength. Yes, scientific models change and evolve - that is simply the nature of the challenge of trying to discover the sometimes complex and subtle laws of nature that govern our world. Do you expect it to all happen at a single stroke by magic?

It is, of course, true that many people will claim to have direct unmediated access to "truth" through religious texts (like the Bible or the Koran) and / or through direct personal revelation (e.g. by the Holy Spirit). But these claims have to be examined with care. All sorts of people can claim that God revealed all sorts of things to them. And my long experience shows that a reasonable fraction of such claims are manifestly false.

This idea that because science is flawed because it does not claim "direct revelation of truth" is misguided. The strength of the scientific enterprise is it's "public" nature - claims need to be supported by evidence that all people can see. No scientist would ever say "God revealed to me in a dream that the Universe is 15 billion years old" or "I discovered a text that says that dinosaurs lived 65 million years so that is what I believe".

It sounds like I am ridiculing the notion of "revelation" through texts or through experiences. This is not my intent, however I suggest it is clear that claims of such revelation are all over the map - they cannot all be true. So we need to be a little more respectful of what makes science so powerful - its power to discover truth through testing our ideas against "public" evidence. Everyone (who is properly trained, of course) can examine the evidence for the big bang.

 

[Obadiah]

What you seem to characterize as a weakness of science is actually its strength. Yes, scientific models change and evolve - that is simply the nature of the challenge of trying to discover the sometimes complex and subtle laws of nature that govern our world. Do you expect it to all happen at a single stroke by magic?

It is, of course, true that many people will claim to have direct unmediated access to "truth" through religious texts (like the Bible or the Koran) and / or through direct personal revelation (e.g. by the Holy Spirit). But these claims have to be examined with care. All sorts of people can claim that God revealed all sorts of things to them. And my long experience shows that a reasonable fraction of such claims are manifestly false.

This idea that because science is flawed because it does not claim "direct revelation of truth" is misguided. The strength of the scientific enterprise is it's "public" nature - claims need to be supported by evidence that all people can see. No scientist would ever say "God revealed to me in a dream that the Universe is 15 billion years old" or "I discovered a text that says that dinosaurs lived 65 million years so that is what I believe".

It sounds like I am ridiculing the notion of "revelation" through texts or through experiences. This is not my intent, however I suggest it is clear that claims of such revelation are all over the map - they cannot all be true. So we need to be a little more respectful of what makes science so powerful - its power to discover truth through testing our ideas against "public" evidence. Everyone (who is properly trained, of course) can examine the evidence for the big bang.

I find almost all of the time when someone claims to have some sort of new "direct revelation", whether from God, or science, or whatever that it's usually just a bully tactic to intimidate other people so they won't disagree and point out all the flaws in whatever the "reveleation" or "special knowledge" happens to be. Afterall you might not hesitate to challenge or disagree with me, but if I say "The Holy Spirit told me..." now if you disagree with me, you are also disagreeing with God himself! So don't you dare disagree with me and the Holy Spirit!!! Oh yeah, and if you question whether or not that was really God who gave me this special new insight for all of humanity... Well now I bring out that tired old verse about not judging me. Yeah, that'll shut everyone up real fast!

 

[Rick W]

I'm beginning to see a lot of "indirect" judgments and direct confrontation.
Beliefs are what they are no matter who has them or what they believe.

One side bashes "science" for whatever reason or part of it.
One side bashes "Creationism" for whatever reason or part of it.
One side bashes "Evolution" for whatever reason or part of it.

I don't see any reason to continue a debate of who is right or wrong or what is believed. All it leads to is ill-feelings and to a degree insult.