FMajcinek wrote:aheteros

I would go see this band.

doooom.

Gramsci wrote:Yes, and common sense tell us filling the gaps with imagined ideas, however how well thought out, are not arguments.

Thanks for resorting to 'common sense'.
Do you think 'common sense' covers the relativity of time and space and the peculiarities of quantum physics?
If so - you don't have a fucking clue and are plain lying to back your self up.
'Common sense' does not begin to cover the discoveries of modern physics.
But feel free to trim the bits of physics you want so your limited world view doesn't feel threatened.

Gramsci wrote:Wick, you really are living in a dream world .

Again - please prove to me anyone has ever had a dream. This is a serious request.
I would love you to do this. If you ignore the rest please try and prove to me that anyone has ever had a dream.

Your kind of 'common sense' would seem to say that no one has ever had one.

Gramsci wrote:your entire argument is based on semantic tricks not solid ideas.

All our arguments are based on 'semantic tricks'. It is only your blind arrogance that makes you unable to see that fact.

Gramsci wrote:I'm a little bored with pointing out the bus sized holes in your case...

It seems to me you are pointing at an imaginary bus of your own creation.
And you are driving your imaginary bus through imaginary holes of your own creation.
But what ever makes you feel good about your pathetic little self.

Gramsci wrote:"My God is the bestest, big God." is not an argument, you are setting the frame of debate and using semantics and conjecture, not arguments.

I don't have a 'big' God.
I have a conception of God that differs from yours.
The majority of people do.
Saying 'that is not an argument' is - if you don't mind me saying - not an argument.

Gramsci wrote:Anyone care to step in, Linus?

This is pathetic. You are - frankly - a fucking sad act.



I have conceded several times already that if I were to follow your semantic patterns I would be in agreement with you.

The fact that you cannot accept that some people see things differently to you makes you so like the religious people you hate it is frightening.


You are an ignorant, bigoted, fool.


Unless you have something worth saying I think i am through talking with you.

If you do have something worth saying I'm all ears.

Didn't you get the memo?

big_dave wrote:

How can a methodology have a limit?

Science isn't the sum total of scientific knowledge and writing, science is the method we used to get that information.

Science has yet to advance far enough to determine whether creation occured, so current science is prohibited from deciding the parameters of what is or is not a 'scientific' theory.

So the premise is that current science can't prove or disprove the existence of creation (i.e., God). And the conclusion from this is that scientists have no right to distinguish scientific theories from non-scientific theories (i.e., to define science on methodological grounds).

That's a non-sequitur, Rick.

Just because science isn't omniscient doesn't mean it must abandon the methodological distinctions which define it. When a theory arises that doesn't follow scientific methodology, it's not a scientific theory. I understand why you don't accept this: you don't understand what methodology is.

Non-scientific theories can still be important and persuasive. There are social theories, literary theories, historical theories, conspiracy theories, etc. Some are more speculative than others. None of these, however, is scientific. The methodologies involved - the kinds of experimentation, evidence, argumentation, vetting, and verification involved - differ from that of science.

I think what has you confused is precisely the false notion that scientific knowledge is without limit - that it can and eventually will account for every conceivable question. Some scientists might believe this, but when they put their belief into scientific practice, they produce bad science.

Rick Reuben wrote: Because there *is no* explanation for original matter, ALL theories for original matter are potentially either scientific or not scientific. Because none of them can be verified, no determination can be made about whether they fit into current science. In my view, humans will have to learn a new science that is much different from what we call science today in order to approach an understanding of how life began.

You can't be wrong about anything (b/c you play to "win"); so when you're not forced to revise wikipedia entries before citing them as evidence, or after your grasp for a dictionary can't save you, you move the goal posts. In this case, you speculate that a future science might develop a methodology different from the scientific method that currently defines science. But this doesn't change the fact that there are existing criteria by which a theory is evaluated to be scientific or not. Your position that creationism may be scientific, pending a future science, doesn't allow you to skirt this.

There's a meta-level to your incomprehension of methodology at work in this discussion that's kind of neat.