It has several disadvantages as well. First, it redefines universe. Second, you have zero evidence for the existence of, much less the interaction with, other "universes". Third, you have zero evidence for the existence of, much less the interaction of, 'shared' and 'distinct' dimensions.
Let us all not forget that the models generated by cosmologists, particle physicists, et.al. have repeatedly been tinkered with when they don't explain events.
"...it has the benefit of making more intuitive sense (if you're comfortable with flipping the time arrow back and forth)."
Well, is that all? Just assume one can reverse time? Crap. Neither is "elegant", both are shoddy, primitive attempts at explaining something we cannot (as yet) measure.
"As for intelligence I was refering to the ablitiy to see a probelm from multiple angles and solve it, something chimps can't do, and we haven't figured a way to test dolphins."
"are people any happier, or more fulfilled in their lives purely because of scientific progress"
Uh, yes. A healthier person is a happier person, a well-fed person is a happier person...
A society can decide all they want to "do something about malnutrition", but if they lack the tools (science) they cannot, so again, yes.
The hammer (read tool, read science) IS responsible for the fact that we have houses. One must have tools to build, elsewise you get mud huts. Oh, wait, even mud huts are a form of tool usage. Again, yes.
"Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking."
That paragraph, in and of itself, describes in exquisite detail how poorly you understand life on earth.
No, he was more likely modded down because he doesn't understand the scientific process, despite his claim to kinda so. It's neither relevant, nor accurate.
I note you don't mention any and don't provide any reasoning, just personal belief.
Wouldn't it be terrible if the do arrive, and it turns out that they hold nothing but scorn for any race low-level enough to slay millions for reasons based on fantasy?
Would put all those religious zealots in a different realm, for one. And it could serve to shine light on the rights of certain 'popular' groups as oppressive...
Neither your nor my post were anything other than argument. Big deal.
Since the "metaphorical" account of Genesis would be a personal, subjective story, big deal. One could 'interpret' anything. Does having man around when the first animals were coincide with geo-evo? No. Does having a single couple produce humanity (disregarding their trekking 'over there' to find wives)? No.
I agree with your post except for the last. It isn't quite so necessary to think about the "text" so much as the thought prior to typing. I write for a living; in software, documentation, consulting, and literature. I use a computer to do so. A typewriter is simply an extremely limited computer.
"Please, if you start giving your citizens the right to kill anybody they think looks suspicious..."
Nobody said that, don't exaggerate for effect, it makes you look shrill. The right to defend one's self or others does not include the right to "kill anybody...". One still has to answer the consequences of one's actions. It's not black/white, there's lots of gray.
You're also ignoring the fact that systems such as we enjoy now were developed by exactly those people defending themselves and others.
"Society would break down, there would be no law, any attempts to prosecute anybody would just end in more deaths."
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe yes, maybe no. We won't know until we look. We've already found structures that weren't supposed to be existing at their 'distance'.
It has several disadvantages as well. First, it redefines universe. Second, you have zero evidence for the existence of, much less the interaction with, other "universes". Third, you have zero evidence for the existence of, much less the interaction of, 'shared' and 'distinct' dimensions.
Other than that, it's brilliant.
Let us all not forget that the models generated by cosmologists, particle physicists, et.al. have repeatedly been tinkered with when they don't explain events.
Repeat: "This is just a model."
So, just change the definition of "universe"?
You are, however, presuming we *can* make observations of the previous cycle.
Indeed. And, like the Old Ones, it is all fiction, not science.
"...it has the benefit of making more intuitive sense (if you're comfortable with flipping the time arrow back and forth)."
Well, is that all? Just assume one can reverse time? Crap. Neither is "elegant", both are shoddy, primitive attempts at explaining something we cannot (as yet) measure.
"As for intelligence I was refering to the ablitiy to see a probelm from multiple angles and solve it, something chimps can't do, and we haven't figured a way to test dolphins."
Bzzzzzzzzt! You are incorrect on both counts.
You should read more.
"Oh really, why should that be?"
Because god is an abstract construct.
I noticed you didn't provide an experiment that can be executed in the real world which would provied a TRUE if god exists and a FALSE if god didn't.
Now, why was that?
"What is the proof that can be establish the truth of your own existence?"
I answer, therefore you and I exists. Yeesh, sophomoric logic on your behalf.
"you probably know what Karma is"
Yep, a superstituious belief.
"Religion doesn't try to bite the science..."
Fundamentalism.
"a war between science and religion is an evil game"
Then the religious should quit initiating the conflict, son.
"...it tries to deny the God..."
More self-centered delusion, science is *unconcerned* with god(s).
The breadth of your misunderstanding is amusing.
When one becomes pedantic to "win a point", it merely displays the lack of logic and evidence on the side of that person.
Pulling a child out from in front of an onrushing car is "saving the child from death".
You only blindsided yourself, mo'fo'.
"are people any happier, or more fulfilled in their lives purely because of scientific progress"
Uh, yes. A healthier person is a happier person, a well-fed person is a happier person...
A society can decide all they want to "do something about malnutrition", but if they lack the tools (science) they cannot, so again, yes.
The hammer (read tool, read science) IS responsible for the fact that we have houses. One must have tools to build, elsewise you get mud huts. Oh, wait, even mud huts are a form of tool usage. Again, yes.
Cute. But now you have to show the teapot and how and where you obtained it. Cute, but stupid.
You've done no more than make the empty claim that (a) god exists.
"Logic is the invention of man"
Hogwash. Logic is no more the invention of man than math is. Logic was "discovered" by man. It pre-existed, as did math.
"Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking."
That paragraph, in and of itself, describes in exquisite detail how poorly you understand life on earth.
50MYA? What the hell are you talking about?
No, he was more likely modded down because he doesn't understand the scientific process, despite his claim to kinda so. It's neither relevant, nor accurate.
I note you don't mention any and don't provide any reasoning, just personal belief.
Wouldn't it be terrible if the do arrive, and it turns out that they hold nothing but scorn for any race low-level enough to slay millions for reasons based on fantasy?
Would put all those religious zealots in a different realm, for one. And it could serve to shine light on the rights of certain 'popular' groups as oppressive...
Neither your nor my post were anything other than argument. Big deal.
Uh, interesting video. Some shots of dots.
Note the pattern? Overall, one, three, three, one. Detail, three and three are clones?
Looks like equipment anomaly.
Since the "metaphorical" account of Genesis would be a personal, subjective story, big deal. One could 'interpret' anything. Does having man around when the first animals were coincide with geo-evo? No. Does having a single couple produce humanity (disregarding their trekking 'over there' to find wives)? No.
Hardly an exact match. Hardly a match.
I agree with your post except for the last. It isn't quite so necessary to think about the "text" so much as the thought prior to typing. I write for a living; in software, documentation, consulting, and literature. I use a computer to do so. A typewriter is simply an extremely limited computer.
How the hell can this be described as insightful???
The very fact that the writer cannot form a meaningful sentence indicates the book has a point.
"Saddam...Bush..."
Yes, off topic, and stupid.
"Please, if you start giving your citizens the right to kill anybody they think looks suspicious..."
Nobody said that, don't exaggerate for effect, it makes you look shrill. The right to defend one's self or others does not include the right to "kill anybody...". One still has to answer the consequences of one's actions. It's not black/white, there's lots of gray.
You're also ignoring the fact that systems such as we enjoy now were developed by exactly those people defending themselves and others.
"Society would break down, there would be no law, any attempts to prosecute anybody would just end in more deaths."
Presumption, and a false one.
"...okay to shoot a rapist, or to tackle a purse snatcher..."
"...shoot an nigger, and to kick the small neighbour child, and to burn down abortion clinics..."
Uh, you *equate* the first two with the second three? You have a serious cause and effect discernation problem.
So, Bosnia and other hot-spots where they kill thousands of people don't count? Your question is predicated on a lie.