Scifes,
Yes or no, do you believe in dinosaurs ?
If so, why ?
If not, why not ?
i choose.....
YES, MAN!
guess becase science said so, that's what we were taught..they have their bones and everything..
Scifes,
Yes or no, do you believe in dinosaurs ?
If so, why ?
If not, why not ?
That's the problem: the complaints are effectively "I can't be bothered to learn anything but it's YOUR fault for knowing something I don't".yes they do complain..and you have to deal with it..
Excuse me: which bit of "I'm now (and have been for some years) trying to get more than a basic knowledge of everything I can.aha, but don't you say that about somethings yourself?
those things being as dear and important as dinosaurology to you?
You're assuming, incorrectly, that I wouldn't listen and then try to learn something about the subject.they say it, there's no trying to it.
"you're stupid oli for not being interested to the meanings of dog names"
I'm sorry: what does that list show?lol, want me to give it a try?
invention of fire.
flat earth.
8 bit processors.
reaching a lower ground level to hydrogen.
Science never claims to be perfect (in knowledge): the church does - and tries to suppress investigation while ignoring observable facts..wrong then..wrong because you (scientists) say so.
his knowledge was as perfect as perfect can be (which isn't perfect)..AS perfect as science is perfect now..and science will be as imperfect in the future as that priest is imperfect now.
Okay: but dogma doesn't prevail, as shown by Galileo winning in the end.no no no, that's not what i mean..
you considered my statement "dogma prevails" as a sign of my ignorance of science(which opposes dogma)
I see, you mistake my misunderstanding of the poor way you expressed yourself as ignorance of ... something... on my part.and i considered your consideration of it as ignorance to science to your ignorance of dogma..
My excuse is that dogma prevents learning and maintains ignorance.we both know less of the other side..
Nope: see above.but me knowing of science more than you knowing of dogma makes my judgment more balanced...don't you agree?
:roflmao:
BIG misunderstanding..seems like i need to sleep..summer vacation screwed my sleeping time.
when you said:
"choose not to look for a reason"
did you mean:
having a reason not to look,
or not bother looking for a reason?
i meant the latter.
i choose.....
YES, MAN!
guess becase science said so, that's what we were taught..they have their bones and everything..
I once dated a girl who told me dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to trick people into losing faith in God. She was dead serious. When I questioned her a bit more she got hostile. Needless to say she was hot.I have a question for people who are religious.
Do you believe in Dinosaurs ?
If you do, why ?
If you don't, why not ?
Non-religious can of course chime in.
I once dated a girl who told me dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to trick people into losing faith in God. She was dead serious. When I questioned her a bit more she got hostile. Needless to say she was hot.
Are we talking short or longer term hereI have been there to some degree, the wrong head gets us in trouble every time.
What would you rather have ? The brainless hottie or the well thought out nottie.
Don't answer that.
Do you believe in Dinosaurs ?
If you do, why ?
i don't care for dinosaurs that much..I understand the sleep issue.
But, either way. You have chosen not to look.
Why ?
yupOk, thanks.
Yes it is.
So, if it is yes, you believe or accept that we have found the bones of these creatures that died out millions of years ago and that we have been able to replicate them, at least that they existed, based on the fossil record.
Correct ?
How can one "believe" in dinosaurs? They're proven to have existed. Belief implies faith in the existence of something that lacks physical evidence.
For example: I believe in the existence of multiple gods, but there is no empirical data for them. My belief is based on faith and reason.
However, I do not believe in dinosaurs, because faith is unnecessary in regards to physically demonstrative evidence, unless one means "faith in one's own senses".
It's a trick question.
i don't care for dinosaurs that much..
yup
this:Excuse me: which bit of "I'm now (and have been for some years) trying to get more than a basic knowledge of everything I can.
Regardless, while doing physics (and engineering) I managed to keep track of many other subjects simply out of interest..." did you miss?
the way you traet dogma, others treat science.Dogma promotes and maintains ignorance.
Science promotes and supports knowledge.
So how can you knowing about something that decries expansion of knowledge add to your judgement?
Dogma, no matter how much you know about it is still a single position.
Details of that position don't help.
yup, i guess i do fail..if you didn't accept the term woo woo.You're assuming, incorrectly, that I wouldn't listen and then try to learn something about the subject.
Fail.
I'm sorry: what does that list show?
Your comment: "1-today's crazy failures are tomorrows science. 2-today's science is tomorrow's old misconceptions. 3-a week and it's history." Betrays a general view (the ignorant one) of science and how it's developed.
3-invention of fire.
2-flat earth.
2-8 bit processors.
1-reaching a lower ground level to hydrogen.
science claims to be the best, so did the church.Science never claims to be perfect (in knowledge): the church does - and tries to suppress investigation while ignoring observable facts..
i leave room for the future to prove me wrong(or right).Okay: but dogma doesn't prevail, as shown by Galileo winning in the end.
So that displays your ignorance...
I see, you mistake my misunderstanding of the poor way you expressed yourself as ignorance of ... something... on my part.
i don't have an excuse, unlike you, i'm learning more of the other side to have my judgment even more balanced.My excuse is that dogma prevents learning and maintains ignorance.
What's your excuse?
science doesn't show you how things ARE, it explains why they are so, and keeps it down to predict similar happenings.Science is a range of disciplines that shows you how things ARE, not how someone wants them to be.
You mean ignorant people who have no idea what science is, what it does or how it works?the way you traet dogma, others treat science.
it's that simple.
The vast majority of my posts are in Pseudoscience and Parapsychology where I spend time and effort showing the woo woos where and why they are wrong: I know and read far far more about most woo woo "theories" than the bulk of woo woos that we get here.yup, i guess i do fail..if you didn't accept the term woo woo.
would sit to learn more about woo woo theories?
Wrong again.science claims to be the best, so did the church.
same thing, different time.
Galileo did win because he was shown to be correct.galilio didn't win in the end.
Despite the church you mean: it had to surrender when the evidence was widely disseminated enough to be unstoppable.science did.on the back of the church.
Unlikely.one day something will win on the back of science.
you can't see this coming.
No, you're not seeing the point.i don't have an excuse, unlike you, i'm learning more of the other side to have my judgment even more balanced.
Keeps what down?science doesn't show you how things ARE, it explains why they are so, and keeps it down to predict similar happenings.
Incorrect:dogma is not how someone* wants things to be..it is how things are, not much explanation.
Definitions of dogma on the Web:
* a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
* a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
God is a supposition.*dogma is how god wanted things to be..which science explains in a useful logical method..god wills things in a pattern, and gives us a brain to discover the pattern, to be able to live.
No.but proof that science is less than dogma
Science accepts that: and doesn't make authoritative announcements on them.is because somethings which ARE (like life), can't be explained by science.
AN answer is given by dogma, not THE answer.but the answer is given by dogma, and more or less an explanation enough to follow.
Are we talking short or longer term here
by nottie..... just how nottie are we talking here![]()
I once dated a girl who told me dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to trick people into losing faith in God. She was dead serious. When I questioned her a bit more she got hostile. Needless to say she was hot.
i leave room for the future to prove me wrong(or right).
he and darwin, won! their knowledge is alive within us and the progression of knowledge; i call that a homerun!galilio didn't win in the end.
the church murdered more alchemist, then ever supported them. (inquisitions)science did.on the back of the church.
one day something will win on the back of science.
you can't see this coming.
don't worry..people of the church didn't see it too
but proof that science is less than dogma, is because somethings which ARE (like life), can't be explained by science. but the answer is given by dogma, and more or less an explanation enough to follow.
I have a question for people who are religious.
Do you believe in Dinosaurs ?
If you do, why ?
If you don't, why not ?
Non-religious can of course chime in.
The Inquisitions were nothing to do with alchemists.the church murdered more alchemist, then ever supported them. (inquisitions)
This thread is about dinosaurs, not your personal delusions.and to this day, the scientific community cannot comprehend the energy between all mass is of or from electromagnetic energy
eg.... there is no electric potential without the 'right hand rule' in effect
Planck didn't institute the qubit.No they don't even as planck instituted the qubit based on an f, the majority across the globe still cannot 'see the light'