["There is far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution (and indeed it is a scientific theory) than gravitational theory. Do you deny that gravity exists?"]
Not to get off subject, but our lack of knowledge concerning gravity (and time for that matter) has always irked me. Shouldn't we know the MOST about the simpler things, and worry about the more complex later?
I mean, I have yet to hear a good explanation for particle/wave duality and if we don't even know what we're made of- sheeesh Why worry about DNA if you can't even agree on a good definition for light/energy or something "simple" like a dimension.
27 comments
So, your deeply considered opinion is that our global society should only investigate one thing, and until we get that one thing totally figured out, we should not investigate anything else. That's a recipe for wasting most scientists' time and making no progress at all. Congratulations! You win Happy Raoul's "I'm a fuckin' dipshit" pin.
"We can put a man on the moon but we cannot <insert seemingly simplistic thing here>" - You really cannot say one idea is invalid because another hasn't developed to an equal or greater level. The things you described are entirely different fields that are studied by different scientists and they come up with more or less information depending on how our technology develops. If the telescope wasn't used by Galileo and it took another hundred years or so before an astronomer thought to use it to look at celestial objects, our astronomy today wouldn't be as far advanced as it currently is. That has nothing to do with how other scientists are coming along in their study of DNA.
I do not want to know his definition of "simple". I think he flies by his intuition, which can be good, but is not really all that trustworthy when trying to decide which science you know nothing about is easier.
This is a backwards argument. By the same logic, one shouldn't use, say, thermofluid mechanics before first understanding the sub-molecular effects that, when integrated a few times, give the continuum behaviour of fluids. No jet engines for you until you give us a grand unified theory of everything!
Well, let´s go to the simple, do you deny that when we jump from a building as high as Empire State Building we fall down and crash against the earth?, second question, do you deny that there are lots of animals which have been discovered(dinosaurs just to mention some)who are not mentioned in the Bible?, if yes, end of the story.
Sounds like someone pulled Capn into a trap, seeing as how very few people refute gravity n'all.
I mean, I have yet to hear a good explanation for particle/wave duality Why it happens, who knows. But it's very easy to show that it's true. The photoelectric effect is very strong evidence for the particle nature of light, and electron-beam diffraction shows the wave nature of electrons.
Besides, who is to say which thing is simpler? Gravity seems simple on the surface, but relativity shows us that it isn't quite so simple. The same is true for time; we just never noticed for a very long time because we had no means of reaching the necessary speeds to notice a significant effect.
Yes, early humans should have first focused on figuring everything out about gravity before tackling that whole written language issue. I mean, it's not like one subject of something EVER intertwines with another, right?
I mean, I have yet to hear a good explanation for particle/wave duality and if we don't even know what we're made of- sheeesh Why worry about DNA if you can't even agree on a good definition for light/energy or something "simple" like a dimension. "
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
