Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #433880 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-04 13:04 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-11-05 11:07 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2016-11-04 13:04 -0500
Re: NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-04 20:23 +0000
Re: NASAs most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-11-04 18:24 -0400
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-05 11:34 -0400
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 09:51 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-08 14:59 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-09 02:33 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-09 18:03 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 08:08 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 09:29 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-10 10:03 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 10:27 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-10 03:54 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-10 14:23 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 14:41 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-10 16:06 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 12:53 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 13:40 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 19:24 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 19:33 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2016-11-11 13:23 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 17:12 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 12:48 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-11 18:17 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-11 13:20 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-11 13:29 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 01:57 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:26 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-11 18:41 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-11 13:42 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:33 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2016-11-12 14:21 -0600
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:38 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:52 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:49 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-11 17:59 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 09:05 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 09:41 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 14:57 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 10:03 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-12 18:46 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 13:46 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 19:30 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-13 00:56 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 17:19 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 22:44 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 18:47 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 08:29 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-13 12:00 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 18:29 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-13 13:52 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 19:22 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:36 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:47 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-15 04:47 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:06 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 23:53 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 19:59 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:53 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 08:31 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-13 09:25 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-13 17:29 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 17:36 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:08 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 08:49 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-13 01:10 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 19:47 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 17:56 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 17:20 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-11-13 00:50 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 20:06 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-11-13 01:50 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:08 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-13 17:34 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 18:44 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-13 09:20 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:09 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-14 08:44 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 09:36 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-14 12:21 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 16:55 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 13:44 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-13 09:00 +1100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 17:21 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 10:46 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:10 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:55 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:29 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 20:15 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:26 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-10 13:02 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 17:49 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-11 13:00 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:36 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 19:34 +0000
Re: NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 09:16 +0000
Re: NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2016-11-05 11:07 -0500
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 13:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o04d8e$nm1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #434765 |
On 2016-11-11 01:33, rickman wrote: > On 11/10/2016 2:24 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 10/11/16 18:40, rickman wrote: >>> On 11/10/2016 4:29 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>> On 10/11/16 08:08, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >>>>> likely have >>>>> US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. >>>> >>>> I have a distant relative married to a Russian woman. >>>> The woman's mother worked closely with Putin in the >>>> KGB and successors. Clearly neither can be dismissed >>>> as yokels. >>>> >>>> The woman and her mother are resolute that the US >>>> didn't go to the moon, and that it is a US media >>>> conspiracy. >>> >>> Your second paragraph contradicts the first... >> >> Unfortunately not! >> >> Otherwise intelligent people can have bizarre beliefs; >> I offer this usenet group as a proof of that :) > > "Otherwise"??? If you have a PhD in astrophysics and yet believe the > moon is made of green cheese, I think that says something about your > "otherwise" credentials. > You postulating a ridiculous example doesn't make the original statement false. I knew a capable engineer who believed in astrology. Many scientists are religious. Astrophysicists believe everything originated in a tremendous explosion of nothing. Physicists believe cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Bizarre beliefs, every one of them. Jeroen (who believes himself rational) Belleman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 17:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o04u6i$1m11$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #434826 |
On 11/11/2016 12:23, Jeroen Belleman wrote: > On 2016-11-11 01:33, rickman wrote: >> On 11/10/2016 2:24 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 10/11/16 18:40, rickman wrote: >>>> On 11/10/2016 4:29 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>> On 10/11/16 08:08, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >>>>>> likely have >>>>>> US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. >>>>> >>>>> I have a distant relative married to a Russian woman. >>>>> The woman's mother worked closely with Putin in the >>>>> KGB and successors. Clearly neither can be dismissed >>>>> as yokels. >>>>> >>>>> The woman and her mother are resolute that the US >>>>> didn't go to the moon, and that it is a US media >>>>> conspiracy. >>>> >>>> Your second paragraph contradicts the first... >>> >>> Unfortunately not! >>> >>> Otherwise intelligent people can have bizarre beliefs; >>> I offer this usenet group as a proof of that :) >> >> "Otherwise"??? If you have a PhD in astrophysics and yet believe the >> moon is made of green cheese, I think that says something about your >> "otherwise" credentials. >> > > You postulating a ridiculous example doesn't make the > original statement false. I knew a capable engineer > who believed in astrology. Many scientists are religious. The latter doesn't necessarily conflict with science although you might look unfavourably on a geologist who was also a Young Earth Creationist or worse still a Flat Earther. Supersititious scientists are another thing entirely. There was a famous name scientist with a horseshoe nailed to his lab door for good luck. A visiting scientist from another institution asked the first guy "You don't believe in that old superstition do you?" to which the first answered "No. But I'm told it works whether you believe in it or not!". Curiously the placebo effect in medicine actually does obey this rule. Though placebos that cause minor but noticeable side effects work slightly better than just pure sugar pills. > Astrophysicists believe everything originated in a > tremendous explosion of nothing. It is just a large scale quantum fluctuation. Casimir effect demonstrates things popping in and out of existence on borrowed energy provided that you stay inside the uncertainty rules it works out OK. > Physicists believe > cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Bizarre > beliefs, every one of them. Depends who you talk to. Until you collapse the wavefunction you don't know whether the cat is alive or dead but it will have been rotting away from the point when it expired when you do open the box. Schrodinger's cat is an example intended to highlight the absurdity of quantum physics - whose only real defence is that mathematically it and the later QCD work exceedingly well. Feynman summed it up very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ZRLllWgHI > > Jeroen (who believes himself rational) Belleman -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 12:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o05095$tbj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434826 |
On 11/11/2016 7:23 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote: > On 2016-11-11 01:33, rickman wrote: >> On 11/10/2016 2:24 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 10/11/16 18:40, rickman wrote: >>>> On 11/10/2016 4:29 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>> On 10/11/16 08:08, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >>>>>> likely have >>>>>> US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. >>>>> >>>>> I have a distant relative married to a Russian woman. >>>>> The woman's mother worked closely with Putin in the >>>>> KGB and successors. Clearly neither can be dismissed >>>>> as yokels. >>>>> >>>>> The woman and her mother are resolute that the US >>>>> didn't go to the moon, and that it is a US media >>>>> conspiracy. >>>> >>>> Your second paragraph contradicts the first... >>> >>> Unfortunately not! >>> >>> Otherwise intelligent people can have bizarre beliefs; >>> I offer this usenet group as a proof of that :) >> >> "Otherwise"??? If you have a PhD in astrophysics and yet believe the >> moon is made of green cheese, I think that says something about your >> "otherwise" credentials. >> > > You postulating a ridiculous example doesn't make the > original statement false. I knew a capable engineer > who believed in astrology. Many scientists are religious. > Astrophysicists believe everything originated in a > tremendous explosion of nothing. Physicists believe > cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Bizarre > beliefs, every one of them. No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make it "bizarre". An engineer who truly believes in astrology is a walking contradiction. This is an idea that can be tested and has been so. To believe in it is to dispute reality. Any scientist or engineer who believes in astrology would not be working for me. The big bang and cat issues are ways to explain observations. They may be real or not, but that isn't what they are about. If you can't understand those concepts then I can't help you with it. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 18:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <slrno2c2pn.7mo.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #434879 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/11/2016 7:23 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >> On 2016-11-11 01:33, rickman wrote: >>> On 11/10/2016 2:24 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>> On 10/11/16 18:40, rickman wrote: >>>>> On 11/10/2016 4:29 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>>> On 10/11/16 08:08, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>>> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >>>>>>> likely have >>>>>>> US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a distant relative married to a Russian woman. >>>>>> The woman's mother worked closely with Putin in the >>>>>> KGB and successors. Clearly neither can be dismissed >>>>>> as yokels. >>>>>> >>>>>> The woman and her mother are resolute that the US >>>>>> didn't go to the moon, and that it is a US media >>>>>> conspiracy. >>>>> >>>>> Your second paragraph contradicts the first... >>>> >>>> Unfortunately not! >>>> >>>> Otherwise intelligent people can have bizarre beliefs; >>>> I offer this usenet group as a proof of that :) >>> >>> "Otherwise"??? If you have a PhD in astrophysics and yet believe the >>> moon is made of green cheese, I think that says something about your >>> "otherwise" credentials. >>> >> >> You postulating a ridiculous example doesn't make the >> original statement false. I knew a capable engineer >> who believed in astrology. Many scientists are religious. >> Astrophysicists believe everything originated in a >> tremendous explosion of nothing. Physicists believe >> cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Bizarre >> beliefs, every one of them. > > No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be > proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make > it "bizarre". Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic as possible to explain the observed facts. Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not what a good scientist should strive for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 13:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <9s2c2c5cnk6vrtltgigjbkv0nhl81ga7j1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #434890 |
On 11 Nov 2016 18:17:27 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/11/2016 7:23 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >>> On 2016-11-11 01:33, rickman wrote: >>>> On 11/10/2016 2:24 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>> On 10/11/16 18:40, rickman wrote: >>>>>> On 11/10/2016 4:29 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/11/16 08:08, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>>>> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >>>>>>>> likely have >>>>>>>> US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a distant relative married to a Russian woman. >>>>>>> The woman's mother worked closely with Putin in the >>>>>>> KGB and successors. Clearly neither can be dismissed >>>>>>> as yokels. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The woman and her mother are resolute that the US >>>>>>> didn't go to the moon, and that it is a US media >>>>>>> conspiracy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your second paragraph contradicts the first... >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately not! >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise intelligent people can have bizarre beliefs; >>>>> I offer this usenet group as a proof of that :) >>>> >>>> "Otherwise"??? If you have a PhD in astrophysics and yet believe the >>>> moon is made of green cheese, I think that says something about your >>>> "otherwise" credentials. >>>> >>> >>> You postulating a ridiculous example doesn't make the >>> original statement false. I knew a capable engineer >>> who believed in astrology. Many scientists are religious. >>> Astrophysicists believe everything originated in a >>> tremendous explosion of nothing. Physicists believe >>> cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Bizarre >>> beliefs, every one of them. >> >> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >> it "bizarre". > >Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >as possible to explain the observed facts. >Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >what a good scientist should strive for. The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 13:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <Rc6dndAs2PSRk7vFnZ2dnUU7-U-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #434892 |
On 11/11/2016 01:20 PM, krw wrote: > On 11 Nov 2016 18:17:27 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/11/2016 7:23 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >>>> On 2016-11-11 01:33, rickman wrote: >>>>> On 11/10/2016 2:24 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>>> On 10/11/16 18:40, rickman wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/10/2016 4:29 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/11/16 08:08, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>>>>> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >>>>>>>>> likely have >>>>>>>>> US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have a distant relative married to a Russian woman. >>>>>>>> The woman's mother worked closely with Putin in the >>>>>>>> KGB and successors. Clearly neither can be dismissed >>>>>>>> as yokels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The woman and her mother are resolute that the US >>>>>>>> didn't go to the moon, and that it is a US media >>>>>>>> conspiracy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your second paragraph contradicts the first... >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately not! >>>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise intelligent people can have bizarre beliefs; >>>>>> I offer this usenet group as a proof of that :) >>>>> >>>>> "Otherwise"??? If you have a PhD in astrophysics and yet believe the >>>>> moon is made of green cheese, I think that says something about your >>>>> "otherwise" credentials. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You postulating a ridiculous example doesn't make the >>>> original statement false. I knew a capable engineer >>>> who believed in astrology. Many scientists are religious. >>>> Astrophysicists believe everything originated in a >>>> tremendous explosion of nothing. Physicists believe >>>> cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Bizarre >>>> beliefs, every one of them. >>> >>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>> it "bizarre". >> >> Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >> as possible to explain the observed facts. >> Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >> what a good scientist should strive for. > > The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, > explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a > time. > Not to mention the "many worlds" interpretation of QM, in which an uncountable infinity of whole universes is postulated in order to avoid the obvious similarity of the Big Bang to "Let there be light". Not exactly Occam's Razor there. ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 01:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o07fpt$c7k$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434895 |
Phil Hobbs wrote: > > Not to mention the "many worlds" interpretation of QM, in which an > uncountable infinity of whole universes is postulated in order to > avoid the obvious similarity of the Big Bang to "Let there be light". > Not exactly Occam's Razor there. ;) I see no reason to conclude that multiple universes exist simultaneously. I'm inclined to think the Big Bang happened repeatedly, and if the parameters are wrong then nobody evolves to question it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 11:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o0c71s$4om$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #434895 |
On 11/11/2016 18:29, Phil Hobbs wrote: > > Not to mention the "many worlds" interpretation of QM, in which an > uncountable infinity of whole universes is postulated in order to avoid > the obvious similarity of the Big Bang to "Let there be light". Not > exactly Occam's Razor there. ;) It is a handy way of allowing the universe to explore all possible parameters for the initial conditions. A posteriori it should come as no surprise that we are in a universe where the initial conditions were right for complexity, stars and intelligent life to evolve. In some ways it isn't much more that the simplification of the full diffraction treatment of photons with Fermat's principle of path of least time to the classic geometric raytracing optics rather than doing a lot of nasty oscillatory integrals and relying on everything except the shortest path and a few diffraction rings nearby cancelling out. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 18:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <slrno2c461.7mo.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #434892 |
krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>> it "bizarre". >> >>Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>as possible to explain the observed facts. >>Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>what a good scientist should strive for. > > The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, > explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a > time. But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the previously written religious explanations will be disproven. In the meantime, of course people still believe otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 13:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <VbudnedZld2XjLvFnZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #434897 |
On 11/11/2016 01:41 PM, Rob wrote: > krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>> it "bizarre". >>> >>> Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>> as possible to explain the observed facts. >>> Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>> what a good scientist should strive for. >> >> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >> time. > > But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation > of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that > that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given > enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the > previously written religious explanations will be disproven. > > In the meantime, of course people still believe otherwise. That "God of the gaps" bit is a canard. Knowing a bit about how God does things doesn't mean it isn't Him doing it. Even my Sunday school kids understood that. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 13:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o07n83$9a1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434898 |
On 11/11/2016 1:42 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > On 11/11/2016 01:41 PM, Rob wrote: >> krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>>> it "bizarre". >>>> >>>> Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>>> as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>> Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>> what a good scientist should strive for. >>> >>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>> time. >> >> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation >> of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >> that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >> enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >> previously written religious explanations will be disproven. >> >> In the meantime, of course people still believe otherwise. > > > That "God of the gaps" bit is a canard. Knowing a bit about how God > does things doesn't mean it isn't Him doing it. Even my Sunday school > kids understood that. As I said, God is constructed to be neither provable or disprovable. Anytime a proof that God doesn't exist is developed, the definition of God is adjusted to be again unprovable. This has happened enough times that there are no known proofs that God does not exist... except this one. If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so large that he can't lift it? If God can, then God is not all powerful because God can't lift it. If God can't, then God is not all powerful because he can't create it. This at least proves God is not all powerful. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 14:21 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o07tic$33e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #435149 |
On 11/12/2016 12:33 PM, rickman wrote: > On 11/11/2016 1:42 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> On 11/11/2016 01:41 PM, Rob wrote: >>> krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does >>>>>> not make >>>>>> it "bizarre". >>>>> >>>>> Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as >>>>> minimalistic >>>>> as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>>> Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>>> what a good scientist should strive for. >>>> >>>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>>> time. >>> >>> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific >>> explanation >>> of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >>> that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >>> enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >>> previously written religious explanations will be disproven. >>> >>> In the meantime, of course people still believe otherwise. >> >> >> That "God of the gaps" bit is a canard. Knowing a bit about how God >> does things doesn't mean it isn't Him doing it. Even my Sunday school >> kids understood that. > > As I said, God is constructed to be neither provable or disprovable. > Anytime a proof that God doesn't exist is developed, the definition of > God is adjusted to be again unprovable. This has happened enough times > that there are no known proofs that God does not exist... except this one. > > If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so large that he can't lift > it? If God can, then God is not all powerful because God can't lift it. > If God can't, then God is not all powerful because he can't create it. > This at least proves God is not all powerful. That's an old trick question. Can you yourself create an object so large that you can't lift it? Of course. Say like a ton of concrete. But then, you create a hoist that can lift it. What is the answer then? This is similar to the old irresistible force and the immovable object conundrum. BTW, I am an agnostic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 22:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o08n7f$8kh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #435170 |
On 11/12/2016 3:21 PM, John S wrote: > On 11/12/2016 12:33 PM, rickman wrote: >> On 11/11/2016 1:42 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>> On 11/11/2016 01:41 PM, Rob wrote: >>>> krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does >>>>>>> not make >>>>>>> it "bizarre". >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as >>>>>> minimalistic >>>>>> as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>>>> Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is >>>>>> not >>>>>> what a good scientist should strive for. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>>>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>>>> time. >>>> >>>> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific >>>> explanation >>>> of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out >>>> that >>>> that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >>>> enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >>>> previously written religious explanations will be disproven. >>>> >>>> In the meantime, of course people still believe otherwise. >>> >>> >>> That "God of the gaps" bit is a canard. Knowing a bit about how God >>> does things doesn't mean it isn't Him doing it. Even my Sunday school >>> kids understood that. >> >> As I said, God is constructed to be neither provable or disprovable. >> Anytime a proof that God doesn't exist is developed, the definition of >> God is adjusted to be again unprovable. This has happened enough times >> that there are no known proofs that God does not exist... except this >> one. >> >> If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so large that he can't lift >> it? If God can, then God is not all powerful because God can't lift it. >> If God can't, then God is not all powerful because he can't create it. >> This at least proves God is not all powerful. > > That's an old trick question. Can you yourself create an object so large > that you can't lift it? Of course. Say like a ton of concrete. But then, > you create a hoist that can lift it. What is the answer then? 42? > This is similar to the old irresistible force and the immovable object > conundrum. > > BTW, I am an agnostic. It's not a trick. It's a clear example that an all powerful god can not exist. It is a self contradiction that comes directly from the idea of an all powerful god. This was debated on a show called "Closer to Truth". One religious scholar rationalized this by saying that God had the power to create an object too heavy for himself to lift, but as long as he didn't create it, there was no contradiction. I think that is not a very good way to deal with this issue. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 13:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <9547b3f3-28af-44f6-be64-e9713fbe1d6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435149 |
>If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so large that he can't lift >it? If God can, then God is not all powerful because God can't lift it. > If God can't, then God is not all powerful because he can't create it. > This at least proves God is not all powerful. Can God create a four-sided triangle? If so, he's not all-powerful, and if not, he's not all-powerful. You've made an elementary error in logic. An object too large to be lifted by an all-powerful being cannot exist any more than a four-sided triangle can. Or as a famous theologian said, "A meaningless statement does not acquire meaning by being prefixed by 'God can'. Cheers Phil Hobbs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 22:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o08nrh$a17$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #435194 |
On 11/12/2016 4:52 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so large that he can't lift >> it? If God can, then God is not all powerful because God can't lift it. >> If God can't, then God is not all powerful because he can't create it. >> This at least proves God is not all powerful. > > Can God create a four-sided triangle? If so, he's not all-powerful, and if not, he's not all-powerful. > > You've made an elementary error in logic. An object too large to be lifted by an all-powerful being cannot exist any more than a four-sided triangle can. > > Or as a famous theologian said, "A meaningless statement does not acquire meaning by being prefixed by 'God can'. I think you are mistaken. There is no "four sided triangle" involved here. If god can't create an object so big he can't lift it, then he has this limitation. It is not a limitation of logic. At least I don't think so.... lol That one needs more thought I think. Still, if there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god, then god's existence can't make a difference in anyone's life. The *belief* in the existence of god *can* make a difference however, which is not at all related to the actual existence of god. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 17:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <d9jc2cdtrh4c6s3tidq8566di0o4lc5fsd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #434897 |
On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>> it "bizarre". >>> >>>Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>>as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>what a good scientist should strive for. >> >> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >> time. > >But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation >of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >previously written religious explanations will be disproven. OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? > >In the meantime, of course people still believe otherwise. No otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 09:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <slrno2dmrl.i0t.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #434981 |
krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>>> it "bizarre". >>>> >>>>Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>>>as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>>Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>>what a good scientist should strive for. >>> >>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>> time. >> >>But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation >>of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >>that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >>enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >>previously written religious explanations will be disproven. > > OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? There is not necessarily an answer to that question. Of course it is understandable that people try to define an answer to that question themselves, but that does not mean the answer has to be true. To scientists, when there is not the slightest proof that a theory is true, it is not common to include that theory in the ways of explaining things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 09:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <f9ae2c9rtrss3ttvusm97hlt0bubo3s31v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435046 |
On 12 Nov 2016 09:05:57 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>>>> it "bizarre". >>>>> >>>>>Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>>>>as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>>>Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>>>what a good scientist should strive for. >>>> >>>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>>> time. >>> >>>But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation >>>of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >>>that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >>>enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >>>previously written religious explanations will be disproven. >> >> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? > >There is not necessarily an answer to that question. Bingo! That is the big question that religion tries to answer. >Of course it is understandable that people try to define an answer to >that question themselves, but that does not mean the answer has to be >true. The above sentence makes no sense. If something is unknowable, "truth" is meaningless. >To scientists, when there is not the slightest proof that a >theory is true, it is not common to include that theory in the >ways of explaining things. Of course, like all militant atheists, you miss the entire point. The entire subject is completely beyond your comprehension.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 14:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <slrno2ebfj.4p4.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #435085 |
krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > On 12 Nov 2016 09:05:57 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >>> >>>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>>>>> it "bizarre". >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>>>>>as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>>>>Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>>>>what a good scientist should strive for. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>>>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>>>> time. >>>> >>>>But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation >>>>of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >>>>that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >>>>enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >>>>previously written religious explanations will be disproven. >>> >>> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? >> >>There is not necessarily an answer to that question. > > Bingo! That is the big question that religion tries to answer. Sure, but there is also the question "where do all those presents at christmas come from" that parents answer because their kids want to hear it. That does not make the answer true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 10:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <mnbe2cher2ep9rev0icqbdto5cmrv6miiu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435088 |
On 12 Nov 2016 14:57:55 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >> On 12 Nov 2016 09:05:57 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>>>>>> it "bizarre". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>>>>>>as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>>>>>Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>>>>>what a good scientist should strive for. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>>>>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>>But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation >>>>>of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >>>>>that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >>>>>enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >>>>>previously written religious explanations will be disproven. >>>> >>>> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? >>> >>>There is not necessarily an answer to that question. >> >> Bingo! That is the big question that religion tries to answer. > >Sure, but there is also the question "where do all those presents >at christmas come from" that parents answer because their kids want >to hear it. That does not make the answer true. Snipping the rest shows that you're not even interested in learning. Rather, you're interested in hating the religious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web