Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
"One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact"
How can Dawkins maintain respectibility in this area? He is such an obvious zealot; he reminds me a little of Howard Dean. The more he states or yells something is true, a fact, the more fragile he appears. Poor guy!
You're excused. Mr. Goodwrench® uses empirical methods.
Pardon me for interrupting and ignoring the entire line of reasoning at this point. The symmetry of the void is perfect and total rather than lacking.
Therefore whether science is science is also the issue.
Insofar as science restricts itself to particular aspects of objects it should recognize its severe limitations as being "useful" for a human life.
LOL, It does not have the long history of, let's be honest, the appearance of science as evolutionary theory might enjoy in academics. Yet, I believe it brings scientific research that conflicts with some basic foundations of Darwin . I can state that atheistic evolution is NOT a science but a philosophy that manipulates scientific data and changes as new scientific research exposes the lies. I believe if just the hstory of atheistic philosophy was objectively examined in the classroom, students could draw their own conclusions. My bet? An even higher percentage of our population would reject it .
Somewhere along the line, perhaps about 1915, we left off the main line: which was the development of the science of science. Whether science is scientific is a valid question.
I'm not sure whether in these threads the void has been differentiated from a logical concept of non-being or non-existence and the more spacial reference to what the Greeks called the chorema or receptacle.
Well, if "Richard Dawkins, a world-renowned explicator of Darwinian evolution" says it, it has to be true. /s
I see.. maybe the speed of light is only the speed of a certain kind of light.. I'll call it 3rd dimensional light according to the 3 spatial dimensions kind of light as opposed to the 4 dimensions paradigm.. If there is a kind of light beyond what we can measure or know about.. Could explain the problems with string theory.. and Einsteins dilema too, the gravity one. Ya think?..
A point, OTOH, is perfectly symmetrical. The difference between a point and the void is much like the difference between zero and null.
The plurality is achieved by reduction of symmetry from total to something less. In the Big Bang, symmetry was total to begin with, all forces were one, all matter was one. As soon as the expansion began the loss of symmetry began. Not cause and effect, but the plurality of the four kinds of forces in the present universe is associated with the low order of symmetry.
The answer seems to be integral to human choice and preference, a feature not entirely dictated by the objects that science studies.
js1138 doesn't think it such a flapdoodle to talk about the development of science, but js1138 is quite adamament about the kind of results expected from science.
The one, the Big Bang, the void are three different donkeys, each one carrying a stupendous amount of peculiar historial baggage.
From of an earlier observation:
It cannot be inverted without a dimension of time, so the symmetry of inversion is lacking.
However, a point in a zero dimensional universe is simply the inversion of the infinitely dimensional totality, a simple symmetry operation possible under the illusion of time.
A black hole contains a singularity due to to the illusion of relativity, but a black hole need not be a point, and a singularity need not be a point. Also, the entropy of information is not the same as the entropy of thermodynamics even though it has a similar mathematical form.
And I can equally "state" that atheistic atomic theory is "NOT a science but a philosophy that manipulates scientific data and changes as new scientific research exposes the lies". Great.
Science is sophism. For this reason, there should be no effort to make a science of morality. A geometry, perhaps.
Quite deep Cornelis.. almost hynotizing.. Quite beyond me to grasp it all.. But what you you think about this snippet.?.. Can you simplify it for me.?.. Like brandy I can only take a little.. Little is good, more is too much..
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.