Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think some people are looking for IRREFUTABLE PROOF (like a family album or something) that their direct biological ancestors were ape-like creatures.
THEN they'll finally say "okay, okay, you got me." But until then, nope. Fossils, genetic evidence, embryological evidence ... none of that matters.
He seems to be a conspiracy theorist with a criminal background who likes calling people idiots, using childish strawman arguments and hypocritically accusing others of doing things he does himself.... so I'm not surprised you think he's great.
I'm not a physicist but his website doesn't really inspire confidence in his level of maturity
I believe that all mathematical physicists should be hanged
from the highest trees and telephone poles available.
If the laws forbid this, or it messes up the landscape,
then we should institutionalize the whole lot of them.
But keep in mind that there aren't enough funny farms to hold so many idiots.
You mention his hypothesis "destroys Olber's paradox" like it's something amazing. Olber's paradox was 'destroyed' as soon we had evidence that the universe wasn't static.... like about 80 years ago.
As I said, I'm not a physicist so I can't really make educated comments on his 'rope' hypothesis but obviously neither can you.
Interesting that you have no problem with him using
Spoiler
COMPUTER MODELS.... oh noez!
But here is the thing....
I'm not making any educated comments on his rope hypothesis.
I think it's just a very interesting hypothesis. I'd like, if anything, to see it tested when the means to do so come about.
Well, it doesn't seem like you're that interested in learning what I have to share.
Share it. But I guarantee you that whatever you present in the realm of cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology has very little to no scientific evidence or testable theory.
Share it. But I guarantee you that whatever you present in the realm of cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology has very little to no scientific evidence or testable theory.
To take one example, there have been numerous successful instances of treating depression by placing electrodes inside a patient's brain. Doing so triggers immediate positive changes in emotion as soon the the electrodes are turned on.
To take one example, there have been numerous successful instances of treating depression by placing electrodes inside a patient's brain. Doing so triggers immediate positive changes in emotion as soon the the electrodes are turned on.
This is direct scientifically testable evidence that a specific part of the human brain is responsible for certain emotions.
This science is over 100 years old. it's what gave birth to lobotomies. What you have posted is just confirming what we have already known for a long time.
No I don't. I think however that they should teach that Evolution has not been proven
and that much of it is still unexplained. It's also think people should emphasis that Evolution isn't a threat to religion. I believe in God and evolution, it's just a tool that God uses.
Funny though, I see a lot of atheists treat evolution and science like a religion.
I also believe in God and evolution. Like you said, I believe it's a tool used by God to ensure that species can adapt and survive over time.
Your last sentence is spot on. The funny thing is, theories are sometimes discredited or "evolve" over time...lol.
I have the most respect for scientists that acknowledge that their theories may be wrong. IMO, anybody that's truly intelligent should allow for the possibility that new discoveries and evidence could change one's hypothesis or theory.
I literally can't stand it when scientists come out and say that their theories definitively prove anything (like Stephen Hawking for example). Anybody that has experience using the scientific method knows that there is always a margin of error in your findings, how ever so slight it may be. That same mathematical assumption should be extended to all theoretical assertions IMO.
I have no problem with teachers teaching evolution, however, they should let students know that evolution does not explain everything. For example, it doesn't explain how we all got here in the first place.
I also believe in God and evolution. Like you said, I believe it's a tool used by God to insure that species can adapt and survive over time.
Your last sentence is spot on. The funny thing is, theories are sometimes discredited or "evolve" over time...lol.
I have the most respect for scientists that acknowledge that their theories may be wrong. IMO, anybody that's truly intelligent should allow for the possibility that new discoveries and evidence could change one's hypothesis or theory.
I literally can't stand it when scientists come out and say that their theories definitively prove anything (like Stephen Hawking for example). Anybody that has experience using the scientific method knows that there is always a margin of error in your findings, how ever so slight it may be. That same mathematical assumption should be extended to all theoretical assertions IMO.
I have no problem with teachers teaching evolution, however, they should let students know that evolution does not explain everything. For example, it doesn't explain how we all got here in the first place.
Evolution isn't supposed to explain how we all got here in the first place.
Scientific theories are supposed to evolve. That's what science DOES. Science explains what we can see around us, and its responsibility is to offer an explanation that addresses ALL the evidence. As the ways we see the world around us have become more sophisticated, the amount of evidence we see and the quality of evidence has shown that previous scientific explanations were inadequate, that the theories have to be revised to meet the requirement that it address ALL the evidence.
Evolution itself is evidence. We can see various lifeforms actually change in the lab. We have DNA and fossils and other records that show that larger lifeforms have changed over time. Evolution is simply the statement that lifeforms change over time. The scientific theory of evolution tries to explain the how and why of evolution. We've advanced well beyond natural selection as technology and new discoveries have challenged the existing theory and demanded better answers. In EXACTLY the same way that we are learning more about gravity and time as the technology and new discoveries point out the inadequacies of the old explanations.
Scientific theories are supposed to evolve. That's what science DOES. Science explains what we can see around us, and its responsibility is to offer an explanation that addresses ALL the evidence. As the ways we see the world around us have become more sophisticated, the amount of evidence we see and the quality of evidence has shown that previous scientific explanations were inadequate, that the theories have to be revised to meet the requirement that it address ALL the evidence.
That is my whole point. Scientific theories are always evolving. As a result, no scientist should ever state that their theory is absolutely 100 percent accurate. No theory can ever be that accurate. What's known now will most likely change in the future as new evidence is acquired. And even then, there's still a chance it could be wrong (as I said above, margin of error is always there)
That is my whole point. Scientific theories are always evolving. As a result, no scientist should ever state that their theory is absolutely 100 percent accurate. No theory can ever be that accurate. What's known now will most likely change in the future as new evidence is acquired. And even then, there's still a chance it could be wrong (as I said above, margin of error, etc.)
So you're saying scientific consensus is just as reliable as a fairy tale written by bronze age fisherman?
If not, then you have no alternative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
