|
arsenelupin123 (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
They could get around it by stating that at some time G was greater when c was greater, and so on. But hey, that really starts to sound like hole plugging at this point, and it is.
zach2408dk (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
you could lose energy in the form of kinetic energy, or gain it. That's their tachyonic proposition. But, if you have a machine, only its particles aspire to physics. Then, if you have a "universe" does it not function as differing machine at differing sizes? So, it only aspires to its smaller underlying subverse "control" mechanism which provides keen guasian equations. Does something power that? Of course, there has to be multiple universe to sustain equation. why work nicely?
wehavebiscuits (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
Umm, I'm an evolutionary atheist, just so you know. I think what I said maybe didn't come out right
sirnlawson (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
You're missing the clincher still:Creationists believe that if Science can't fulfill its claims of being able to explain EVERYTHING - the old "Haha you can't get god so we win" argument - then it therefore can't explain ANYTHING. I say therefore because they do - there is NO logic that can achieve the jump from EVERYTHING -> ANYTHING, they just believe it.Just because we can't explain a few things yet they automatically assume everything else we've said is wrong. Even unrelated stuff.
chrthiel (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
Hmm, that didn't come out right. I'll try again.Science is based on the idea that everything can be explained. We just haven't figured all those explanations out yet. Now, where Creationists typically go wrong is in assuming that if it can't explain anything, then it isn't worth anything. I hope I don't have to explain why that's ridiculous, but if you feel that you don't get why, either post here or send me a PM.
chrthiel (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
Actually, there is an explanation for everything, that's one of the cornerstones of science, we just don't know it yet.
grim523 (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
Yup, and its not so much we know where they are its probability. We can know where they are or how fast they are moving, not both. They really are not in more than one place at once.
chrthiel (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
And by technically, he means that they have the potential to be in both places and we have no way to determine which. The math says that the chance of it being in position A is the same as for it to be in position B.It's a case of Shrödinger's Cat.
IamtheVOICE123 (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
Also its not to say that other races don't act stupid, I've seen stupid Asians, stupid Whites, Stupid Hispanics, its just that where i live (which is Sacramento) that most people i've encountered were stupid (race whys) were mainly blacks.So please I'd appreciate it if ya wouldn't label me as a racist but if ya continue to it only shows your willingness to promote your ignorance
IamtheVOICE123 (January 1, 1970 at 11:59 am)
Wow, yah call me racist yet you call me a cracker, how hypocritical is that?Also I never did say i shared their views, i was just saying people that are defined as racism are put there as racist cause they exhibit hate and violence and whatnot...I do agree with that aspect but I disagree with what they say, although i do express my experience with a certain race i.e. blacks and most of which have been profoundly bad impressions |
