everything has to be measured and compared, measured and compared
The dream is based on science to describe science but does not follow any principles of science. That's my take, anyway.
that's my take_1.dream allows the science based on dream to order/organize knowledge & use of principles of both (science & dream).
thigle wrote:looking now at the lenght of the above, i surely want and will to learn to condensate expressing. a formalism with math-like elegance would be helpful indeed.
also what relationship do anyone consider geometry & math to have?
Here is Newton's Law of Gravitation:
F = -G(m1)(m2)/r^2 * n-hat
where F is the gravitational force of particle 1 on particle 2, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of particle 1 and particle 2 respectively, r is the distance between the particles and n-hat is the unit vector that points from particle 1 to particle 2
Here is Coulomb's Law:
F = (q1)(q2)/4pi(epsilon-nought)r^2 * n-hat
these are from Kent Palmer's work. i personally think both poles are at the same point - the horizon, as i see consider projective lines. but that's another story. and too much branched
Batman3 wrote:Regarding Jinydu's definition, it sounds awfully close to the Old Testament criteria for determining if a prophet(i.e. a predictor and claimor to repesent God's Truth) is honest or not. If he is a true prophet his prediction will come true, if not then he is not from the One True Most High God.
But then even so, if he suggests to follow a false or wicked god(or God) he must be rejected.
All this is Biblical.
Batman3 wrote:Both evolution and creation-by-design are somewhat "science".
(1) Creation-by-design has evidence as does evolution.
Batman3 wrote:(2) Both assume some kind of relationship between observation and theory which is not tight. Evolution claims steps that can not be justified by experiment or unbiased reason. Evolutionists' bias is that God does not exist and claim the opposite for creationists. This(or these) bias(s) constitute a very large assumption, also prejudicing the mind. Very hot. Perhaps too hot for consciousness.
Batman3 wrote:(3) C-b-d can have more than one observation(proteins, eyes of various kinds) and evolution has more than one appearant sequence of physical phenomena in the bio. record(I assume.)
Batman3 wrote:All this would be well but Evolutionists(In general?) tolerate no alternative views in the school classroom and so are no better than the Totalitarian States which allow no alternative political parties.
Regarding Jinydu's definition of science, I would submit that both economic science and political science are "science":
All this would be well but Evolutionists(In general?) tolerate no alternative views in the school classroom and so are no better than the Totalitarian States which allow no alternative political parties.
thigle wrote:also what relationship do anyone consider geometry & math to have?
PWrong wrote:I think any science that doesn't use maths is a pseudoscience. I particularly can't stand chemists
Batman3 wrote:I would submit that both economic science and political science
Batman3 wrote:Both evolution and creation-by-design are somewhat "science".
Batman3 wrote:What is the future according to evolution theory?
it is not so difficult to dream (instead of predicting) what life forms will we tend towards in close future
what were the scientists claiming about life forms millions of years ahead
did they said that mother Earth prolly wont be habitable anymore ? if not, they were ethicless, and as such should not be voiced in public mediums
if not, their were prolly not real visionaries, but just some talking calculators and rigid egoists.
Chemistry is awash with higher math...I'm assuming you're still taking lower level courses?
I'm curious what level of math you feel is necessary for something to jump out of being a pseudoscience. Arithmetic is math. Statistics is math. Group theory is math. Gauge theory is math.
Why evolution and creation are even pitted against one another is beyond me...creationism should be fighting the physicists on how we came about (big bang, etc VS god/alien/FSM's will), not the evolutionists on where we are going.
and did they mentioned disembodies life forms ? if not, their were prolly not real visionaries, but just some talking calculators and rigid egoists.
Return to Where Should I Post This?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests