I can't believe it's 2013 and in a part of a first world country they're replacing science with creationism.
wutDilbert_X wrote:
Whats funny is the Old Testament isn't part of Christianity.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
ROGUEDD wrote:
wutDilbert_X wrote:
Whats funny is the Old Testament isn't part of Christianity.
Shouldn't they teach that sorta stuff along with the other religious myths? I wouldn't mind learning more about christianity, but not in a scientific class.
i knew a mexican that took spanish, and got a B
it was GS
NahhhhhhRTHKI wrote:
then take a religion class
Show me where Christ is in the OT.ROGUEDD wrote:
wutDilbert_X wrote:
Whats funny is the Old Testament isn't part of Christianity.
Most of the point of the NT is to show the OT is bunk.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Whatever you say Dilbert.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6694
Given what we know about the universe, is the fact that we exist proof enough of life spread throughout the universe?
Seeing as how all scientific models, theories, and paradigms are based on most-probabilistic-scenarios, not definite truths. Even the definite truths, the fundamental laws of the universe maybe subject to change at any given moment. The very existence of the universe and one's own being are remarkable enough of phenomena for us to not be able to rule out an absolute random turn of events. Although we think that things of this nature probably will not happen, there is a chance that anything could happen. Our notions of reality are a tiny sample size of observers compared to the size of the universe.
With this all encompassing uncertainty, why do the practices of science adhere to agreed upon standards of experimentation? No matter how bizarre anything we ever learn, dream, or imagine it must be true on some space of possible causality, because anything is possible. And so, as long as it can be experienced what makes some things more real than others?
I know this is pretty elementary stuff, but I'm interested in all of your opinions on these questions.
Seeing as how all scientific models, theories, and paradigms are based on most-probabilistic-scenarios, not definite truths. Even the definite truths, the fundamental laws of the universe maybe subject to change at any given moment. The very existence of the universe and one's own being are remarkable enough of phenomena for us to not be able to rule out an absolute random turn of events. Although we think that things of this nature probably will not happen, there is a chance that anything could happen. Our notions of reality are a tiny sample size of observers compared to the size of the universe.
With this all encompassing uncertainty, why do the practices of science adhere to agreed upon standards of experimentation? No matter how bizarre anything we ever learn, dream, or imagine it must be true on some space of possible causality, because anything is possible. And so, as long as it can be experienced what makes some things more real than others?
I know this is pretty elementary stuff, but I'm interested in all of your opinions on these questions.
Is anything possible?
Well, no. Of course not.
Eg: An immovable object cannot be hit by an unstoppable force.
"God" cannot create a rock so heavy he himself couldn't lift it (or a burrito so hot he cannot eat it).
The reason scientists agree to the standards of experimentation is because they are repeatable. If they aren't, you change your hypothesis or theory.
But that breaks down at a quantum scale, really.
Measure a particle of light, and it also has properties of a wave. You don't know until you measure it and the wave function collapses. Much like in computing, you don't call on a variable until you need one, otherwise you're just wasting ram.
We could be in a computer simulation... Why assign a variable to a quantum particle unless it is called upon?
Wake up, Neo. The Matrix has you.
Well, no. Of course not.
Eg: An immovable object cannot be hit by an unstoppable force.
"God" cannot create a rock so heavy he himself couldn't lift it (or a burrito so hot he cannot eat it).
The reason scientists agree to the standards of experimentation is because they are repeatable. If they aren't, you change your hypothesis or theory.
But that breaks down at a quantum scale, really.
Measure a particle of light, and it also has properties of a wave. You don't know until you measure it and the wave function collapses. Much like in computing, you don't call on a variable until you need one, otherwise you're just wasting ram.
We could be in a computer simulation... Why assign a variable to a quantum particle unless it is called upon?
Wake up, Neo. The Matrix has you.
Source? We know you ripped it off from somewhere else.AussieReaper wrote:
Is anything possible?
Well, no. Of course not.
Eg: An immovable object cannot be hit by an unstoppable force.
"God" cannot create a rock so heavy he himself couldn't lift it (or a burrito so hot he cannot eat it).
The reason scientists agree to the standards of experimentation is because they are repeatable. If they aren't, you change your hypothesis or theory.
But that breaks down at a quantum scale, really.
Measure a particle of light, and it also has properties of a wave. You don't know until you measure it and the wave function collapses. Much like in computing, you don't call on a variable until you need one, otherwise you're just wasting ram.
We could be in a computer simulation... Why assign a variable to a quantum particle unless it is called upon?
Wake up, Neo. The Matrix has you.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
God is dead
Macbeth wrote:
God is dead
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6694
wtf?Jay wrote:
Source? We know you ripped it off from somewhere else.AussieReaper wrote:
Is anything possible?
Well, no. Of course not.
Eg: An immovable object cannot be hit by an unstoppable force.
"God" cannot create a rock so heavy he himself couldn't lift it (or a burrito so hot he cannot eat it).
The reason scientists agree to the standards of experimentation is because they are repeatable. If they aren't, you change your hypothesis or theory.
But that breaks down at a quantum scale, really.
Measure a particle of light, and it also has properties of a wave. You don't know until you measure it and the wave function collapses. Much like in computing, you don't call on a variable until you need one, otherwise you're just wasting ram.
We could be in a computer simulation... Why assign a variable to a quantum particle unless it is called upon?
Wake up, Neo. The Matrix has you.
Just giving AR shit. It's obviously a repost (and stupid).Superior Mind wrote:
wtf?Jay wrote:
Source? We know you ripped it off from somewhere else.AussieReaper wrote:
Is anything possible?
Well, no. Of course not.
Eg: An immovable object cannot be hit by an unstoppable force.
"God" cannot create a rock so heavy he himself couldn't lift it (or a burrito so hot he cannot eat it).
The reason scientists agree to the standards of experimentation is because they are repeatable. If they aren't, you change your hypothesis or theory.
But that breaks down at a quantum scale, really.
Measure a particle of light, and it also has properties of a wave. You don't know until you measure it and the wave function collapses. Much like in computing, you don't call on a variable until you need one, otherwise you're just wasting ram.
We could be in a computer simulation... Why assign a variable to a quantum particle unless it is called upon?
Wake up, Neo. The Matrix has you.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6694
So, do you have anything to say about the proposed questions?
Um, no I didn't. So its not a repost. Try google if you think I just ripped the above.Jay wrote:
Just giving AR shit. It's obviously a repost (and stupid).Superior Mind wrote:
wtf?Jay wrote:
Source? We know you ripped it off from somewhere else.
Good fucking luck. You'll probably have success with the closing paragraph though.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6325|Graz, Austria
Gott ist tot.
--Friedrich Nietzsche, "Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft" (1882), Aphorismus 125
please dear god noAussieReaper wrote:
But that breaks down at a quantum scale, really.
Measure a particle of light, and it also has properties of a wave. You don't know until you measure it and the wave function collapses. Much like in computing, you don't call on a variable until you need one, otherwise you're just wasting ram.
We could be in a computer simulation... Why assign a variable to a quantum particle unless it is called upon?
Wake up, Neo. The Matrix has you.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6325|Graz, Austria
Meteorite shower over the Russia/Kazakhstan injured 400 people.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130215/17948 … hstan.html
Also, asteroid 2012 DA14 will pass Earth at 28,000km distance, closer than geostationary satellites.
It will be visible on Friday evening 19:00 GMT in Central Europe.
ESA says that there's no relation between those meteorites and the asteroid.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130215/17948 … hstan.html
Also, asteroid 2012 DA14 will pass Earth at 28,000km distance, closer than geostationary satellites.
It will be visible on Friday evening 19:00 GMT in Central Europe.
ESA says that there's no relation between those meteorites and the asteroid.
Dayum.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2013-02-15 08:53:56)
incredible. awe inspiring. the amount of force that sonic-boom / atmospheric wave put out. technically the most lethal meteor-based incident in human history (1000+ people injured as a result; previously the record was held by a rock that fell on a kids head one time in africa, or something, or a dog that got hit and killed [not kidding]).
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-02-15 09:09:30)