Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #23895 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bohlenmacher@swe.com (Homunkulus vom Wedding) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-08-03 12:16 +0300 |
| Last post | 2014-08-05 21:34 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 193 — 54 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps
God Hates Apple! bohlenmacher@swe.com (Homunkulus vom Wedding) - 2014-08-03 12:16 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! pfj@doesn't.exist.com (Peter James) - 2014-08-04 07:23 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! john.smith@domain.invalid (John Smith) - 2014-08-04 11:03 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-04 12:57 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-05 04:23 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-05 11:33 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-05 06:30 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-05 13:53 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-05 08:31 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 08:53 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 08:52 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-05 06:56 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! irrwin@schmahlfuss.com (Irrwin Schmahlfuß) - 2014-08-05 18:10 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-05 17:25 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! holgerpresley@gmail.br (Holger Presley) - 2014-08-05 23:37 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-08-05 23:25 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 21:30 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-06 09:22 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 21:26 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-05 18:28 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 21:33 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> - 2014-08-06 07:08 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 23:21 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2014-08-06 10:41 -0500
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-06 18:35 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2014-08-06 16:20 -0500
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-06 14:40 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-06 23:09 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> - 2014-08-07 07:04 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2014-08-07 11:32 -0500
Re: God Hates Apple! Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> - 2014-08-07 18:58 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! ljunost@jmail.com (Laurel Junost) - 2014-08-07 23:44 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-07 19:17 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-07 22:57 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-08-08 16:30 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> - 2014-08-08 06:53 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> - 2014-08-08 07:10 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! bb@lactoseintolerants.com (Burkhard Beerenobst) - 2014-08-08 09:59 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-08 09:20 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-08 09:05 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-08 17:08 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! "F. Knauer" <frikna@sofortstart.de> - 2014-08-08 18:16 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Fritz <fritz@eso.nomail.invalid> - 2014-08-08 18:24 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! "Kai N. Schwein" <stefan.schneider@web.de> - 2014-08-08 18:26 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! "Kai N. Schwein" <stefan.schneider@web.de> - 2014-08-08 18:24 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> - 2014-08-08 11:36 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! landi@4x4ente.com (Landfried Holzente) - 2014-08-08 13:34 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-08 11:40 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> - 2014-08-08 13:07 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-08 16:44 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-08 18:09 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-08 18:42 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-08 14:40 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-08-07 19:41 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-06 12:09 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Lothar Kimmeringer <news200709@kimmeringer.de> - 2014-08-07 18:48 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-07 18:02 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-07 12:59 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! ljunost@jmail.com (Laurel Junost) - 2014-08-07 23:44 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Lothar Kimmeringer <news200709@kimmeringer.de> - 2014-08-08 16:13 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! fleischtomate3@gmx.de (Balduin Fleischtomate) - 2014-08-08 21:19 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-08 11:22 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Bruder Amadeus <amadeus@devnullmail.com> - 2014-08-08 20:41 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-08 11:47 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-08 22:19 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-08 18:16 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-09 13:11 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-09 07:29 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-09 14:32 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-09 09:02 -0700
Everyone hates off-topic dolts Darrin "Doc" O'Leary <droleary@3q2014.subsume.com> - 2014-08-09 15:22 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-09 18:09 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-09 14:10 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-08-09 18:57 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! adschloiders@mail.ata (Adolph Schloidersitz Jr.) - 2014-08-09 18:05 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-09 15:43 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-08-09 19:01 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-08-09 12:24 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! momo@las.com (Bruder Oxnleder) - 2014-08-10 01:23 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Bruder Amadeus <amadeus@devnullmail.com> - 2014-08-10 00:38 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-10 00:49 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-09 23:04 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-10 06:46 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-09 15:39 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-10 00:51 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 08:24 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-10 15:30 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 08:36 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-08-10 11:48 -0400
Re: God Loves Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 09:17 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-08-10 12:20 -0400
Re: God Loves Apple! bibelmann@mailinator.com (Der Bibelmann) - 2014-08-10 18:51 +0300
Re: God Loves Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-10 09:15 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-10 16:29 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 10:41 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-10 17:51 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-10 10:56 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-08-10 15:54 -0400
Re: God Loves Apple! am0112@local.div (Wider die verfluchte Gottlosigkeit) - 2014-08-11 09:13 +0300
Re: God Loves Apple! affe@66r54.com (Mich laust der Gottlose) - 2014-08-11 11:48 +0300
Re: God Loves Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-11 09:12 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! alpha@ome.ga (Heißer Höllenhorror für Gottlose) - 2014-08-11 13:50 +0300
Re: God Loves Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-11 14:53 +0000
Re: God Despises Apple! gbruckenwasser@gmx.de (Gojko Brückenwasser) - 2014-08-11 19:01 +0300
Re: God Despises Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-11 09:22 -0700
Re: God Despises Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-11 10:29 -0700
Re: God Despises Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-11 10:20 -0700
Re:Pear Despises Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-11 22:10 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Bruder Amadeus <amadeus@devnullmail.com> - 2014-08-11 11:22 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! android <here@there.was> - 2014-08-11 12:03 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Außerirdische@aussergalaktisch.invalid - 2014-08-11 12:24 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Bruder Amadeus <amadeus@devnullmail.com> - 2014-08-11 12:37 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! gunther@aus-sachsen-anha.lt (Gottlose außer Kontrolle geraten) - 2014-08-11 14:02 +0300
Re: God Loves Apple! android <here@there.was> - 2014-08-11 10:01 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-10 19:06 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! am0112@local.div (Wider die verfluchte Gottlosigkeit) - 2014-08-11 09:13 +0300
Re: God Loves Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-11 08:42 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! Jesus@Jesus.god (A bis Z nur Jesus) - 2014-08-11 12:31 +0300
Re: God Loves Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-11 09:37 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! gunther@aus-sachsen-anha.lt (Gottlose außer Kontrolle geraten) - 2014-08-11 14:02 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 08:02 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! bibelmann@mailinator.com (Der Bibelmann) - 2014-08-11 01:23 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-10 15:27 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 16:08 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-11 01:27 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-10 19:44 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! engel@hpt.sal (Gottlose Hunde zerren an ihren Ketten) - 2014-08-11 10:00 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-08-11 15:09 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! gbruckenwasser@gmx.de (Gojko Brückenwasser) - 2014-08-11 19:01 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-11 09:20 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-11 10:28 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 16:05 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-10 00:46 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-09 23:04 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-10 08:12 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Jim_Higgins <gordian238@gmail.com> - 2014-08-10 06:48 -0400
Re: God Loves Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-10 13:22 +0200
Re: God Loves Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-10 08:22 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-08-11 01:31 +0000
Re: God Loves Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 08:28 -0700
Re: God Loves Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-10 15:29 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Markus Elsken <markus.elsken@ewetel.net> - 2014-08-10 13:24 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-10 08:20 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 08:31 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-08-10 12:25 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 09:57 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-08-11 01:32 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-10 08:03 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-10 06:45 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-08-10 07:24 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! adschloiders@mail.ata (Adolph Schloidersitz Jr.) - 2014-08-08 23:36 +0300
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-08 13:50 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-08 17:18 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Lothar Kimmeringer <news200709@kimmeringer.de> - 2014-08-09 11:39 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Fritz <fritz@sea.nomail.invalid> - 2014-08-09 16:26 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> - 2014-08-08 18:45 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2014-08-06 21:15 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-06 02:34 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-08-06 15:02 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2014-08-07 10:57 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-05 18:25 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 08:54 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-05 17:27 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 09:41 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-08-05 17:16 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! William Yeo <wcyeo@shaw.ca> - 2014-08-06 18:43 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-08-07 01:57 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-07 02:01 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! William Yeo <wcyeo@shaw.ca> - 2014-08-07 19:28 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-08 03:05 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-08-09 00:10 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-09 01:14 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-08-05 18:37 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-08-05 23:16 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-05 18:31 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2014-08-05 09:37 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-08-05 18:37 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 12:47 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-05 18:29 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-08-05 23:15 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! pfj@doesn't.exist.com (Peter James) - 2014-08-04 12:20 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! Jim_Higgins <gordian238@gmail.com> - 2014-08-04 08:30 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-08-04 19:38 +0000
Re: God Hates Apple! Fritz <fritz@sea.nomail.invalid> - 2014-08-08 15:20 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> - 2014-08-08 15:32 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-08-04 09:47 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2014-08-05 16:10 -0600
Re: God Hates Apple! PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2014-08-06 17:03 -0400
Re: God Hates Apple! nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2014-08-07 08:11 -0600
Re: God Hates Apple! pfj@doesn't.exist.com (Peter James) - 2014-08-07 19:38 +0100
Re: God Hates Apple! befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-08-08 08:32 +0200
Re: God Hates Apple! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-08-05 18:42 -0700
Re: God Hates Apple! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-05 21:34 -0700
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 17:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <080820141708171704%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #24015 |
In article <080820140905339839%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <080820140920267391%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater > <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > > > Science is never "proved". There is always the possibility that a new > > experiment will overturn an established theory. Einstein overturned > > Newton, because Einstein does a better job than Newton of a predicting > > behaviour when in the proximity of a large mass. In the case in point, > > that of the Sun; Einstein could better predict the precession of the > > orbit of Mercury than Newton. The discrepancy was very small, but > > measurable. > > Einstein did not overturn Newton; newtonian physics is a subset of > einsteinian physics. Yeah, I know. I was trying to keep it simples. -- "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "F. Knauer" <frikna@sofortstart.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 18:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ls2t58$71r$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #24016 |
Am 08.08.2014 18:08, schrieb Tim Streater: > In article <080820140905339839%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner > <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > >> In article <080820140920267391%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater >> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >> >>> Science is never "proved". There is always the possibility that a new >>> experiment will overturn an established theory. Einstein overturned >>> Newton, because Einstein does a better job than Newton of a predicting >>> behaviour when in the proximity of a large mass. In the case in point, >>> that of the Sun; Einstein could better predict the precession of the >>> orbit of Mercury than Newton. The discrepancy was very small, but >>> measurable. >> Einstein did not overturn Newton; newtonian physics is a subset of >> einsteinian physics. > Yeah, I know. I was trying to keep it simples. > Ei, werklisch? -- Gruß Friz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fritz <fritz@eso.nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 18:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <53E4F9B0.407@fritzs.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #24017 |
Am 08.08.14 um 18:16 schrieb F. Knauer: > Am 08.08.2014 18:08, schrieb Tim Streater: >> In article <080820140905339839%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner >> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: >> >>> In article <080820140920267391%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater >>> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Science is never "proved". There is always the possibility that a new >>>> experiment will overturn an established theory. Einstein overturned >>>> Newton, because Einstein does a better job than Newton of a predicting >>>> behaviour when in the proximity of a large mass. In the case in point, >>>> that of the Sun; Einstein could better predict the precession of the >>>> orbit of Mercury than Newton. The discrepancy was very small, but >>>> measurable. >>> Einstein did not overturn Newton; newtonian physics is a subset of >>> einsteinian physics. >> Yeah, I know. I was trying to keep it simples. >> > > Ei, werklisch? > nur Geplänkel was da abgeht fup -- Fritz Es is´ alles Chimäre, aber mich unterhalt´s! Ironie, Satire, Farce, Persiflage, Metapher sind keinesfalls ausgeschlossen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kai N. Schwein" <stefan.schneider@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 18:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ls2tnn$oq0$5@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #24017 |
F. Knauer gab kund und zu wissen: […] > Ei, werklisch? Sag mal, hast Du Dir den Header mal angesehen? Was soll diese »Diskussion«? -s [f'up°] -- Gelbhaubenkakadus kratzen sich mit Stöckchen hinter den Ohren (Handbuch des nutzlosen Wissens, Band II)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kai N. Schwein" <stefan.schneider@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 18:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ls2tj2$oq0$4@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #24015 |
Michelle Steiner gab kund und zu wissen: […] > Einstein did not overturn Newton; newtonian physics is a subset of > einsteinian physics. This is most probable true. Anybody would be lucky, though, if this crosspost that isn't appropriate in any of the newsgroups contained in the header, continued in a more appropriate newsgroup. I set a f'up to a newsgroup I think to be most appropriate, as it's not very probable, that there will be any complaints about the discussion being in english, whereas most of the groups in the header link to german newsgroups. I have to do this, as my provider doesn't accept crossposts in any way. Something I appreciate very much. I guess this discussion is the most convincing proof for the fact that usenet is dead. Most probable reason: Nobody knows anything about the rules anymore and nobody is interested to know or obey them as well. -s P.S.: f'Up to de.alt.gruppenkasper, the one and only newsgroup for all loonies not knowing what they do any more. -- Tradition ist eine Laterne, der Dumme hält sich an ihr fest, dem Klugen leuchtet sie den Weg (G. B. Shaw)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 11:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20140808113624.0000113b@linuxmail.org> |
| In reply to | #24003 |
Am Fri, 8 Aug 2014 09:59:08 +0300 schrieb bb@lactoseintolerants.com (Burkhard Beerenobst): > Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> wrote: > > > > > No, you are right; there are a lot of religions and creation > > > > myths. > > > > > > And because there are "a lot of religions and creation myths" > > > they are all "not true". > > > > Thats for shure. And why do you assume that your personal > > religious belief ist the one and only right one? :-) > > God told me. You say so but a lot of other guys from other religions with different myths will claim that too. And propably you'll be able to find a lot of inhabitants of mental hospitals who instist on talking with god every day and beeing best frieds with him. Or being god themselves. :-) You _believe_ and want me to believe. But I dont want to believe but to know! > > > Scinece doesn't work via believing, but via methods like > > observations, developing hypotheses, testing them by experiments, > > analysing and checking the results and so providing proofs or > > refutations, refinement of the hypotheses and so on ... > > So then the evolution hypothesis is not science, because it cannot be > observed, Wrong. > cannot be tested by experiments, Also wrong. > cannot be proved. It is Shurly you can proof, wether predictions made by the evolution theory are found to be existent or not. > just a belief. Invented for the only reason that atheistic so-called > scientists need a replacement for creation. A lot of theological claims where found to be wrong and a lot of archaelogical records and findings of sciences where shown to be incompatible with for example the genesis written in bible. > > > > of all humanity in exchange for your "scientific" cult > > > belief. > > > > You seem to be a little confused about how science works and how > > religion works. > > I have no problem with science. All religions in the last 6,000 years > have no problem with science. 6000 years? At least short time creationists have a lot of problems with science. If they dont see that, its most propably because they have no idea of what sciene is and dont know the results of modern science. > But if you come with your evolution > hypothesis and tell me this is science, then you are like a little > child that believes in a fairy tale. T One of these fairy tales you can find in bible, book genesis. Invented and told by sheperds on the campfires some thousand years ago in an old-world-desert. Nice impressing story under such circumstances I admit. But just a campfirestory, telling us very very little about the real events. I dont blame them. the didn't know any better. But I do blame you! You *could* know better! But you refuse! Regards Der Habakuk. -- "Wenn Du Sühne willst: Das ist Rache. Nichts anderes." Qualitätstheologe und Religionslehrer Leps zeigt, was er so alles drauf hat und interpretiert den Sühnetod Christi am Kreuz völlig neu!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | landi@4x4ente.com (Landfried Holzente) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 13:34 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1lq2ay7.187840x1wbhkmiN%landi@4x4ente.com> |
| In reply to | #24005 |
Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> wrote: > > So then the evolution hypothesis is not science, because it cannot be > > observed, > > Wrong. > > > cannot be tested by experiments, > > Also wrong. > > > cannot be proved. It is > > Shurly you can proof, wether predictions made by the evolution theory > are found to be existent or not. BAD NEWS FOR BIG BANG The following is excerpted from "Bad News," Christian News Network, June 24, 2014: "Nearly two years after the highly-publicized discovery of the elusive 'God Particle,' scientists have determined that the current Big Bang model cannot account for the existence of the universe. ... However, in a major setback to the secular Big Bang theory, scientists with King's College in London announced this month that Higgs boson physics cannot account for the universe's existence. ... 'What [the scientists] found was bad news for, well, everything,' LiveScience reports. 'The newborn universe should have experienced an intense jittering in the energy field, known as quantum fluctuation. Those jitters, in turn, could have disrupted the Higgs field, in essence rolling the entire system into a much lower energy state that would make the collapse of the universe inevitable.' ... Dr. Danny Faulkner, an astronomer with Answers in Genesis, says the Big Bang theory has repeatedly conflicted with observational evidence. ... Likewise, Drs. Jake Hebert and Jason Lisle with the Institute for Creation Research propose that a belief in God--not the Big Bang theory--is ultimately foundational for understanding the universe's existence. ... 'The fact that such physics is possible or even meaningful would only make sense in a created universe that is controlled by the mind of God anyway. The study of how God upholds the universe today is the very essence of science.'" LH --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 11:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <080820141140392220%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #24006 |
In article <1lq2ay7.187840x1wbhkmiN%landi@4x4ente.com>, Landfried Holzente <landi@4x4ente.com> wrote: > Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> wrote: > > > > So then the evolution hypothesis is not science, because it cannot be > > > observed, > > > > Wrong. > > > > > cannot be tested by experiments, > > > > Also wrong. > > > > > cannot be proved. It is > > > > Shurly you can proof, wether predictions made by the evolution theory > > are found to be existent or not. > > > BAD NEWS FOR BIG BANG [snip] Yes? And so what. -- "I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill "Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston Churchill, in response.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 13:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20140808130707.00006415@linuxmail.org> |
| In reply to | #24006 |
Am Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:34:19 +0300 schrieb landi@4x4ente.com (Landfried Holzente): > Der Habakuk <habakuk@linuxmail.org> wrote: > > > > So then the evolution hypothesis is not science, because it > > > cannot be observed, > > > > Wrong. > > > > > cannot be tested by experiments, > > > > Also wrong. > > > > > cannot be proved. It is > > > > Shurly you can proof, wether predictions made by the evolution > > theory are found to be existent or not. > > > BAD NEWS FOR BIG BANG > > The following is excerpted from "Bad News," Christian News Network, Christian news? Christian science? lol > June 24, 2014: "Nearly two years after the highly-publicized > discovery of the elusive 'God Particle,' Maybe some journalists call it so. Its real name is Higgs boson and wether the particle having been found in CERN is indeed this Higgs-Boson is afaik still somehow unknown. Its role in cosmogony too. But you don't understand that the question how the universe came into existance is entirely independent from the question how biological evolution happened rsp. how and why the many different species on earth developed. Even if easter bunny created the universe or the biblical god or brahma: that doesn't matter at all for the question Darwin answered in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection ... Regards Der Habakuk. -- "Wenn Du Sühne willst: Das ist Rache. Nichts anderes." Qualitätstheologe und Religionslehrer Leps zeigt, was er so alles drauf hat und interpretiert den Sühnetod Christi am Kreuz völlig neu!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ls2uppUgqbgL1@news.in-ulm.de> |
| In reply to | #24006 |
In de.comp.sys.mac.misc Landfried Holzente <landi@4x4ente.com> wrote:
> The following is excerpted from "Bad News," Christian News Network, June
> 24, 2014: "Nearly two years after the highly-publicized discovery of the
> elusive 'God Particle,' scientists have determined that the current Big
> Bang model cannot account for the existence of the universe. ...
That's four errors in one sentence.
First: there is no “God particle” at all. That's an invention of
journalists who don't understand a word what they're writing about.
Higgs' work has nothing to do with any god at all.
Second: The “Big Bang Model” is a model describing the beginning of the
Universe, it isn't telling anything about the reason for its existence.
To understand the difference, the Big Bang Model says nothing about how
and why there was a Big Bang at all. It starts describing the evolving
universe some time /after/ the Big Bang.
Third: there is tons of evidence for a Big Bang you can easily see
yourself. All you have to understand is Fraunhofer lines and Doppler
effect. Then you can visit an observatory nearby and see yourself that
the galaxies are nearly all departing and nearly no galaxy (with the
exception of i.e. M31) is approaching. There is a paper from 1929 (!)
which is documenting observations and conclusions about that:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC522555/pdf/pnas01023-0009.pdf
Since then there is only evidence for an expanding universe, and that
means in the past the universe was very small – what we call the “Big
Bang”.
Fourth: It is not a scientific question why there is a universe and what
brought that into existence. It is not, because this is nothing which
can be answered by science. Today with relativity theory there is a
widespread model which implies that spacetime started with the Big Bang
– that means, even time startet with it. That denies the possibility to
talk about “what was before the Big Bang” using that model in a sensible
way, because that would imply talking about “what was before time”? But
this question makes no sense.
Yours,
VB.
--
“Vor Snowden war das ein Blog mit Verschwörungstheorien.
Nach Snowden ist das ein Security-Newsticker.
Bei unverändertem Inhalt...”
Marc Stibane über Fefes Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 18:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <080820141809352348%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #24023 |
In article <ls2uppUgqbgL1@news.in-ulm.de>, Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> wrote: > In de.comp.sys.mac.misc Landfried Holzente <landi@4x4ente.com> wrote: > > The following is excerpted from "Bad News," Christian News Network, June > > 24, 2014: "Nearly two years after the highly-publicized discovery of the > > elusive 'God Particle,' scientists have determined that the current Big > > Bang model cannot account for the existence of the universe. ... > > That's four errors in one sentence. > > First: there is no “God particle” at all. That's an invention of > journalists who don't understand a word what they're writing about. > Higgs' work has nothing to do with any god at all. > > Second: The “Big Bang Model” is a model describing the beginning of the > Universe, it isn't telling anything about the reason for its existence. > To understand the difference, the Big Bang Model says nothing about how > and why there was a Big Bang at all. It starts describing the evolving > universe some time /after/ the Big Bang. > > Third: there is tons of evidence for a Big Bang you can easily see > yourself. All you have to understand is Fraunhofer lines and Doppler > effect. Then you can visit an observatory nearby and see yourself that > the galaxies are nearly all departing and nearly no galaxy (with the > exception of i.e. M31) is approaching. There is a paper from 1929 (!) > which is documenting observations and conclusions about that: > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC522555/pdf/pnas01023-0009.pdf > > Since then there is only evidence for an expanding universe, and that > means in the past the universe was very small – what we call the “Big > Bang”. > > Fourth: It is not a scientific question why there is a universe and what > brought that into existence. It is not, because this is nothing which > can be answered by science. Today with relativity theory there is a > widespread model which implies that spacetime started with the Big Bang > – that means, even time startet with it. That denies the possibility to > talk about “what was before the Big Bang” using that model in a sensible > way, because that would imply talking about “what was before time”? But > this question makes no sense. Like asking "what is north of the north pole". Excellent post, thank you. This makes the points with great clarity. -- "If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid tripping your hair-trigger insecurities." - D M Procida, UCSM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ls35mkUh5r0L1@news.in-ulm.de> |
| In reply to | #24024 |
In de.comp.sys.mac.misc Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> This makes the points with great clarity.
The advantage of enlightenment is, that everyone who wants to understand
can check the arguments and the evidence herself/himself. All what is
needed is the investment of critical thinking. That's the reason why
Kant was talking about “self-inflicted immaturity” for those who're
refusing to do so.
F'up set.
Yours,
VB.
--
“Vor Snowden war das ein Blog mit Verschwörungstheorien.
Nach Snowden ist das ein Security-Newsticker.
Bei unverändertem Inhalt...”
Marc Stibane über Fefes Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ls2ng1Uge5pL1@news.in-ulm.de> |
| In reply to | #24003 |
In de.comp.sys.mac.misc Burkhard Beerenobst <bb@lactoseintolerants.com> wrote:
> God told me.
If this is not a lie, I would recommend visiting a doctor. There is good
treatment for most psychoses already.
> So then the evolution hypothesis is not science, because it cannot be
> observed, cannot be tested by experiments, cannot be proved. It is just
> a belief.
You're mistaken. There are predictions evolution theory is making, which
can be proofed or disproofed. And all experiments have the same result:
evolution theory is just working well. I can recommend visiting a
biological faculty of your choice at an university of your choice – you
will hardly find a single scientist who cannot provide you tons of
evidence for evolution theory.
So if your god – for which we have no proof at all – created universe,
then it created a universe with an evolution working in it for all what
we know. Because there is no way to proof or disproof the hypothesis of
creation, it's not a scientific one, and no scientific theory can be
based on creation. Because of Ockham's Razor every scientist has to
drop creation hypotheses or she or he is leaving science. That is no
subject to discuss, to make that clear: that's a mandatory result of
science theory – and it is a necessary conclusion, unavoidable.
That does not mean that universe is no creation BTW. It is possible that
this is the case – and it's possible, too, that it's not. It's just not
a question of science at all. There are scientists who believe in
creation, too. Those scientists are not mistaken, if they /believe/
that, and know, that for /knowing/ in science they have to ignore their
believe and try to find evidence – and avoid questions where this is not
possible at all.
That's the difference between (private) believe and (scientific)
knowledge.
>> You seem to be a little confused about how science works and how
>> religion works.
> I have no problem with science.
Beside you seem not to understand science at all. I hope that I was able
to help you a little.
Yours,
VB.
--
“Vor Snowden war das ein Blog mit Verschwörungstheorien.
Nach Snowden ist das ein Security-Newsticker.
Bei unverändertem Inhalt...”
Marc Stibane über Fefes Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-07 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ls0kp4$v5r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #23959 |
Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <060820141835045973%timstreater@greenbee.net>, > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > >> In article >> <mstorkamp-C42CF1.10414506082014@news.eternal-september.org>, Mark >> Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <050820142321104230%michelle@michelle.org>, >>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <20140806070848.00002f94@linuxmail.org>, Der Habakuk >>>> <habakuk@linuxmail.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> schrieb Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org>: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <lrrlqr$aga$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> But, seriously, you don't think cavemen rode dinosaurs? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've SEEN the proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://hateandanger.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/ >>>>> >>>>> Ah, creationism. Funny mental aberration of illiterate bible bashers! >>>>> Quite common in the US. >>>> >>>> Creationism is the brainchild of the Bible literalists. >>> >>> At least have the intellectual honesty to admit creationism predates the >>> bible, and existed in cultures entirely unfamiliar with the christian >>> bible, such as the peoples indigenous to the Americas. Throughout >>> history creation legends have been the norm, and it would seem that the >>> belief in the random interaction of various chemicals to form life is >>> the new kid on the block. >> >> For which there is some evidence. Unlike creationism. > > Where's the evidence that "Creationism is the brainchild of the Bible > literalists"? In their public claims, of course. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-06 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <060820141209077245%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #23950 |
In article <mstorkamp-C42CF1.10414506082014@news.eternal-september.org>, Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Ah, creationism. Funny mental aberration of illiterate bible bashers! > > > Quite common in the US. > > > > Creationism is the brainchild of the Bible literalists. > > At least have the intellectual honesty to admit creationism predates the > bible, and existed in cultures entirely unfamiliar with the christian > bible, such as the peoples indigenous to the Americas. Throughout > history creation legends have been the norm, That's one of the major problems with creationism; which creation story is true, if any of them are. > and it would seem that the belief in the random interaction of > various chemicals to form life is the new kid on the block. Which doesn't make it any less valid. Einsteinian physics is the new kid on the block compared to Newtonian physics; chemistry is the new kid on the block compared to alchemy. Pathogens are the new kid on the bock in medicine. (One thing, though about physics; Einstein didn't invalidate Newton. Newtonian physics is now a subset of Einsteinian physics.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lothar Kimmeringer <news200709@kimmeringer.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-07 18:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1k42ig15t5syx.dlg@kimmeringer.de> |
| In reply to | #23955 |
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> Einsteinian physics is the new
> kid on the block compared to Newtonian physics; chemistry is the new
> kid on the block compared to alchemy. Pathogens are the new kid on the
> bock in medicine.
>
> (One thing, though about physics; Einstein didn't invalidate Newton.
> Newtonian physics is now a subset of Einsteinian physics.)
and most important of all: If you find something that explains
nature better than Einstein's physics, this will be used in the
future. Nobody will start a war or try to kill people because
they don't belive in Einstein anymore.
To continue Michelle's point: Religion was the old way for people
to explain the world, science is the new kid on the block.
Cheers, Lothar
--
Lothar Kimmeringer E-Mail: spamfang@kimmeringer.de
PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)
Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
questions!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-07 18:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <070820141802192140%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #23984 |
In article <1k42ig15t5syx.dlg@kimmeringer.de>, Lothar Kimmeringer <news200709@kimmeringer.de> wrote: > Michelle Steiner wrote: > > > Einsteinian physics is the new > > kid on the block compared to Newtonian physics; chemistry is the new > > kid on the block compared to alchemy. Pathogens are the new kid on the > > bock in medicine. > > > > (One thing, though about physics; Einstein didn't invalidate Newton. > > Newtonian physics is now a subset of Einsteinian physics.) > > and most important of all: If you find something that explains > nature better than Einstein's physics, this will be used in the > future. Nobody will start a war or try to kill people because > they don't belive in Einstein anymore. > > To continue Michelle's point: Religion was the old way for people > to explain the world, science is the new kid on the block. Only been around 300 years or so and these days is under attack - from creationists, new age thinkers, and a myriad of others whose common point of departure from those of us with more than two brain cells to rub together is that they can't do sums. -- Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-07 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2014080712593055544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #23984 |
On 2014-08-07 16:48:58 +0000, Lothar Kimmeringer <news200709@kimmeringer.de> said: > Michelle Steiner wrote: > >> Einsteinian physics is the new >> kid on the block compared to Newtonian physics; chemistry is the new >> kid on the block compared to alchemy. Pathogens are the new kid on the >> bock in medicine. >> >> (One thing, though about physics; Einstein didn't invalidate Newton. >> Newtonian physics is now a subset of Einsteinian physics.) > > and most important of all: If you find something that explains > nature better than Einstein's physics, this will be used in the > future. Nobody will start a war or try to kill people because > they don't belive in Einstein anymore. > > To continue Michelle's point: Religion was the old way for people > to explain the world, science is the new kid on the block. Darn! So, you are telling us the Cargo Cultists got it all wrong? -- Regards, Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ljunost@jmail.com (Laurel Junost) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-07 23:44 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1lq18a8.fpxcbnc1nphcN%ljunost@jmail.com> |
| In reply to | #23984 |
Lothar Kimmeringer <news200709@kimmeringer.de> wrote: > Religion was the old way for people > to explain the world, science is the new kid on the block. Remember: the 'New Kids On The Block' were only a one day wonder. Laurel --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lothar Kimmeringer <news200709@kimmeringer.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-08 16:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <19n6es2uxgtcv.dlg@kimmeringer.de> |
| In reply to | #23993 |
Laurel Junost wrote:
> Lothar Kimmeringer <news200709@kimmeringer.de> wrote:
>
>> Religion was the old way for people
>> to explain the world, science is the new kid on the block.
>
> Remember: the 'New Kids On The Block' were only a one day wonder.
Compared to the whole age of the universe, humanity is only
five minutes old.
OTOH: Science is much older than the monoteistic religions,
people nowerdays are so happy to die for. Look e.g. at the Mayas
who were already doing astronomy research understanding the
rotation of the moon around the earth at a time where
people in Europe were astounded and horrfied avery time the
moon happened to be in from of the sun. The only things
the religious guys where capable of was setting fire to the
library of Alexandria.
Cheers, Lothar
--
Lothar Kimmeringer E-Mail: spamfang@kimmeringer.de
PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)
Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
questions!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps
csiph-web