Posted on 01/24/2009 5:28:02 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Links? Demonstrate that those are my beliefs or stop lying about me.
For your idea to work you have to have objects traveling faster than c and ignoring all the know laws of physics.
Tell that to the geniuses on your side that state that the known universe expanded in a trillion-trillionth of a second and excused explained it away by stating that while objects cannot travel faster than the speed of light, space can expand faster than that.
Hey! Welcome to FR.
I was thinking about asking you what your previous screen name was but I figured that I’d get slapped down for being rude to a newb, so I won’t.
Oh, I don’t think you even have to disagree very much with Evolution Theory to rate those glowing commendations, mom (actually, I don’t believe I’ve ever been accused of demented huckstering, but the others sound familiar). I can hardly quarrel with natural selection. It paid for five years’ college tuition. As for the rest of it: I think there is a ways to go before any serious value judgments can be drawn from Evolution Theory. I think the Masters of the Universe have a lot of work left to do on their theory, and, aside from the practical side of it (like genome sequencing – work that would have been done in any event), I don’t see where their precious theory has ever done me a lick of good.
But, it’s done all of Mankind a lot of harm. It’s lead otherwise reasonable men to conclude that it’s perfectly OK (morally imperative even) to kill the unborn, for any reason or no reason at all. And even the born, up to the age of one, two, three (what is the currently fashionable upper limit?) if they are bloody inconvenient or somehow incapacitated (it’s a “quality of life’ issue don’t you see). Next up on the hit list; the aged, of course, and the incapacitated, whatever age they have attained.
It doesn’t end there. Others have been impelled to conclude that dear old Mother Earth is over-populated and have given themselves, to the enthusiastic cheers and acclaim of colleagues and students, to public speculation over the most efficient method of exterminating 90% of the human population (the unleashing of highly infectious diseases on an unsuspecting populace being the most popular solution).
It’s caused others to posit a devaluation of human life leading to a greater equality with non-human life (hello PETA!). Leading another to declare that humans are no better than bacteria. Still others have developed a virtual laundry list of conclusions arising from their scientific investigations: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent; these declarations being so self-evident that no further discussion is required.
Charming lot, aren’t they.
ECO: thanks for the ping!
I sure hope DevNet wouldn't be so hypocritical as to use the terms *sunrise* and *sunset*.
Just for the record, DevNet, what terms DO you use to describe the apparent rising and setting of the sun as seen from earth?
Being on the earth and moving with it in any movement it has we have to view everything else as moving from our frame of reference on an unmoving earth.
Can you point to anything demonstrating the earth has an absolute movement?
If you’re riding on a train traveling at a steady speed (forget the side motion and rail effects) the landscape seems to move past your window.
How do you know whether it really is or if it is the train that is moving in the opposite direction? You can’t. And from your frame of reference you really don’t care so long as the right station moves into view or the train moves into the right station.
I suppose that if your train is pointing due west at the equator traveling at just over 1,000 mph......
;)
Of course jets have done something similar to that but no, you would have to look at the train from another position
outside the train.
But the fast train sounds like a good idea, go fast enough and you could reach your destination the day before you left.
liberalism...
cultism...
No, she's rejecting your modern cult.
If you look into getting yourself deprogrammed you might be remotely aware of this...so until you do, you'll just continue demanding to be foolish.
“modern science” has been hijacked by the atheist/humanist crowd as this series of articles demonstrates.
What I reject is the philosophical corruption that has entered science.
“But I guess if you didn’t have Borking and character assassination you wouldn’t have anything at all. What a joke!”
Character assassination? Like this?
Or doesn’t that count?
Programmed cultists ignore their projections and hypocrisy, metmom.
Like so many of us
Bite ‘em and don’t ever let go, Ethan!
Hey you guys won, didn't you hear Bama???
Darwin Fish?
Isn’t that the belly-up fish with legs and Xs for eyes that’s being swallowed by the Jesus Fish in the bumper sticker?
It’s hard to say, it keeps evolving into something else!
Kind of like a retread?
Retreads? Kind of recycling? Yeah, yeah, recycling garbage!
I like it!
They all practice from the same handbook as part of the scientific methodology...
Some of the best, most penetrating, and most straight-forward and useful analyses of communist mentality was published by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and also by the American Bar Association Special Committee on Communist Tactics. One recurring theme is truth, or rather, absence of it: "Whoever is touched with Communism loses his sense of truth as we know it." This, of course, is true. Another point of note is that people are suceptible to marxist propaganda because they don't know what it is. They hear a scientist talking a marxist line and they fail to recognize it for what it is because they simply don't know. And in this way we have allowed ourselves to become saturated with marxist dialectical materialism in science, the arts, literature, education, etc. People repeat opinions and ideas they have had drilled into them, ideas which are in fact marxist in origin, yet they remain oblivious to it (or act like they are oblivious.) Let's take an example.
A standard line you hear from evolutionists on FR is that "truth" doesn't belong in science. Science's conceptions of "truth" are always changing and in flux, so there is really no such thing as truth in science because truth is "fixed" and science isn't. Science does not sully its hands with such things. Everything evolves, nothing is static. Theories which contain fixed truths cannot be considered science, because such theories contain elements that are not subject to revision. So they must be classified as metaphysics or religion. This, of course, is standard Marxist doctrine. That will come as a surprise perhaps, to the dozens of dupes that have repeated it hundreds of times on FR.
Coyoteman has on his homepage the following blurb by a useful idiot:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.To this, Coyoteman adds:
"If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it.If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it. But the problem is, each will give you a different version of the TRVTH and defend it to your death. That's why the Religion Forum has such tight moderation rules. Thanks, science does just fine by seeking to be accurate. That's plenty good enough, don't you think?"But this philosophy is all old news..."You keep pushing the TRVTH, and you can fight it out with the world's 4,300 other religions each of which also claims to have the TRVTH. (And this doesn't even count the different branches within each denomination!)"
"No one's ever said there's no such thing as Truth, just that science isn't the place to look to find it."
Dialaectics tells us that nothing in the world is eternal, everything in the world is transient and mutable; nature changes, society changes, habits and customs change--that is why dialectics regards everything critically; that is why it denies the existence of a once-and-for-all established truth. Consequently, it also repudiates abstract dogmatic propositions... Metaphysics, however, tells us something altogether different. From its standpoint the world is something eternal and immutable, it has been once and for all determined by someone or something--that is why the metaphysicians always have "eternal justice" or "immutable truth" on their lips.Ponder this philosophy. Let's say you mowed your lawn on June 1st, 2008. Dialectical materialism says this cannot be a fixed truth. It may not be true in, say, 5 years. It will have to be revised. But anyway, you've heard all this before from evolutionists. IIRC they testified in courts that this is the nature of science.--Joseph Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism? Collected Works, volume 1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.