View Single Post
Old 12-13-2004, 09:57 AM   #139
OnyxCougar
Junior Master Dwellar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kingdom of Atlantia
Posts: 2,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitsune
So you're saying that scientists cannot examine the fossil record and draw conclusions based upon their findings?
They can examine the fossil record all they want. It's the "draw conclusions based upon thier findings" part I have a problem with. All you know based upon the fossil record is that something died. You can't prove that thing reproduced or in most cases, even died at that location. The rest is pure speculation. And speculation isn't science.

Quote:
You're saying that we cannot use particle accelerators to understand how energy and matter are interchanged and then use our findings to describe the dark matter and cosmic background radiation that we observe in space?
Sure we can. That's reproducable, observable science. I have no problem with science.

Quote:
And that we cannot take those generated theories and to generate a computer simulated model of how the universe began, how it will expand, and then how it could possibly contract?
No. Well, people CAN, and they have, but to me, that is not reproduable, observable science. You can have all the guesses you want, it's not science, regardless of the terms you use. I can guess that the sun won't come up tomorrow, and it's not science. You can guess your great grandparents were apes, but that's not science either.

Quote:
Some things in science cannot be contained or duplicated in a laboratory and are, instead, held to tests in simulations and mathematical descriptions of the event. Nuclear testing is now done this way, high energy experiments are now conducted in this manner, and just because we cannot recreate a blackhole in a chemistry lab or observe one in space does not mean that we cannot postulate what creates them, how they will progress, and how they will end.
Postulate all you want. That doesn't make it true, nor does it make it science.

Quote:
Its a way of working with things greater than can be handled or reproduced and its been done long before computers ever made complex simulations possible. Oppenheimer may have successfully exploded an atomic bomb, but it wasn't possible without using observations to formulate a theory to do something that no one had ever done before.
But an atomic bomb is reproducable and observable, isn't it?
__________________

Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt.

"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt
OnyxCougar is offline   Reply With Quote