You're absolutely right, however, I was just citing a few real-world examples in order to support my position.. But, it's all relative in the end.. But my response wasn't broad like the original statement of "science can only explain observable events," which I must still disagree with.;)
Regards,
-W
ampmouse: "Remember that Science can only explain observable events."
Huuuuuuh? You're not a scientist, I hope. What do you think of the theoretical sciences? Many things we know about Space and Time we know without being able to OBSERVE them. Many things we know only because physics/mathematics tells us that it HAS TO BE SO. A good example would be the gravitational lensing of light as it passes massive objects on its way to earth.. That is exactly how we can detect the "black holes" and other super-massives out there, which, due to their very light-sucking nature*, cannot be observed.
That you actually made such a statement is almost as profound as the statement itself. Science explains a lot of things, past and present. I would hardly call the fossil formation of an ancient trilobyte an "observable event" yet, by various means of spectrometry and x-ray crystallography, etc, we can determine exactly how the fossil was formed, exactly how the mineral leaching occurred and replaced the organic substances with stone. Observable? No. Science? Yes.
In fact, many of these fossils are DIRECT EVIDENCE of your so-called "macroevolution" !! All the signs of macroevolution are here! Last time I looked, I didn't see any primordial soup puddled anywhere around here recently.. Those Cro-Magnon fossil bones mean that Cro-Magnon man must not have existed, since we cannot observe them in existence..? Oh wait, how about dinosaurs? Based on your philosophy, they never existed; the fossil bones are "Science" while the actual idea of dinosaurs is "Religion".. Huuuuuh?
Science is the search for knowledge. Nowhere does anything (except YOU!) state that "Science can only explain observable events." !!! Perhaps you're trying to tell us that science (and/or macroevolution) is faith-based??
Please, stop misleading people already. Just because it is not observable doesn't mean it's not true**. To quote Ed Wuncler III, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!"
-Weasel5i2
* Not to be confused with "dark-sucking" ** See another reader's "science = TRUTH, religion=FAITH" reply above
There's this company which makes little only-physically-detectable (the computer has no idea, and no means of detection) PS/2 connectors with keylogging capabilities and built-in RAM for storage: http://www.keelog.com/
They even sell kits to make your own if you're too much of a tightwad to pay for a pre-built one!
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right, however, I was just citing a few real-world examples in order to support my position.. But, it's all relative in the end.. But my response wasn't broad like the original statement of "science can only explain observable events," which I must still disagree with. ;)
Regards,
-W
ampmouse: "Remember that Science can only explain observable events."
.. Huuuuuh?
Huuuuuuh? You're not a scientist, I hope. What do you think of the theoretical sciences? Many things we know about Space and Time we know without being able to OBSERVE them. Many things we know only because physics/mathematics tells us that it HAS TO BE SO. A good example would be the gravitational lensing of light as it passes massive objects on its way to earth.. That is exactly how we can detect the "black holes" and other super-massives out there, which, due to their very light-sucking nature*, cannot be observed.
That you actually made such a statement is almost as profound as the statement itself. Science explains a lot of things, past and present. I would hardly call the fossil formation of an ancient trilobyte an "observable event" yet, by various means of spectrometry and x-ray crystallography, etc, we can determine exactly how the fossil was formed, exactly how the mineral leaching occurred and replaced the organic substances with stone. Observable? No. Science? Yes.
In fact, many of these fossils are DIRECT EVIDENCE of your so-called "macroevolution" !! All the signs of macroevolution are here! Last time I looked, I didn't see any primordial soup puddled anywhere around here recently.. Those Cro-Magnon fossil bones mean that Cro-Magnon man must not have existed, since we cannot observe them in existence..? Oh wait, how about dinosaurs? Based on your philosophy, they never existed; the fossil bones are "Science" while the actual idea of dinosaurs is "Religion"
Science is the search for knowledge. Nowhere does anything (except YOU!) state that "Science can only explain observable events." !!! Perhaps you're trying to tell us that science (and/or macroevolution) is faith-based??
Please, stop misleading people already. Just because it is not observable doesn't mean it's not true**. To quote Ed Wuncler III, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!"
-Weasel5i2
* Not to be confused with "dark-sucking"
** See another reader's "science = TRUTH, religion=FAITH" reply above
There's this company which makes little only-physically-detectable (the computer has no idea, and no means of detection) PS/2 connectors with keylogging capabilities and built-in RAM for storage: http://www.keelog.com/
They even sell kits to make your own if you're too much of a tightwad to pay for a pre-built one!
--A