Revolutionary Scientific Finding

[shrewsbury]

alex,
cable providers sensor?

I would have to see an article on this. being in the industry for most of my adult life I can say are contracts with our providers does not allow us to sensor. we receive the show via a signal and process it to a viewable format, no way to sensor it. think of it as streaming a movie rather than downloading it, you can't sensor a stream.

and what does religion bring to science? only what you allow it to. it is like a giant puzzle, if you refuse to look at all the pieces because you think some won't fit, you have already limited your chances of putting it together.

[duane1969]

Yeah, sure it does Duane.

You can't be serious.

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Yes. It is a theory whether you like it or not.

[duane1969]

Yeah, sure it does Duane.

I think you need to look up the meaning of a SCIENTIFIC Theory and you'll see that creationism has absolutely NOTHING to even be labeled scientific.

As time goes by science discovers more and more and god becomes smaller and smaller.

Well duh!! But since nobody said creationism was SCIENTIFIC theory then your rant about it not being SCIENTIFIC theory is both a waste of time and yet another fail to make a point or accomplish jack diddly.

A bit of advice. Try actually reading what people said and responding to that rather than going off on some pointless tangent about something that nobody said and that is a total waste of time.

[Good Ole Jim]

well,

nothing amazing or really that big, still too many unanswered questions. I do love the fact that it points to this


muliverse

it amazes me that with no way to ever prove this, it is an accepted theory, and expected by many of those who do not accept creationism.

I'm not going to address any of the creationism vs. science stuff...but to put this finding into perspective, it will most likely win the Nobel Peace Prize. That's a pretty big finding really.

[habsheaven]

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Yes. It is a theory whether you like it or not.

The reason I said "you can't be serious" is because I was clearly talking about Jay's comparison of "multiverse" to "creationism" both as accepted theories. The context and meaning of theory were obvious despite the overlap of science and religion. Your attempt to distract is amusing at best.

[Wickabee]

I'm not going to address any of the creationism vs. science stuff...but to put this finding into perspective, it will most likely win the Nobel Peace Prize. That's a pretty big finding really.

I read two articles that said this is brand new and has not actually been scrutinized whatsoever.

But hey, let's hand out the prize now!

See how even science is subject to human nature?

[centrehice]

religious scholars don't work with the same methods as science, their comes from the same as philosophy, which many say religion gave birth to philosophy.

I am more interested in what science can bring to religion and what religion can bring to science.

I love them both!

Fear gave birth to philosophy. Fear manifests itself in religion, so in essence you are partially correct. It's always been easier to run away from something than it has been to face the music and look for facts.

That is why religion is for cowards.

[Wickabee]

The reason I said "you can't be serious" is because I was clearly talking about Jay's comparison of "multiverse" to "creationism" both as accepted theories. The context and meaning of theory were obvious despite the overlap of science and religion. Your attempt to distract is amusing at best.

If you mean scientific theory, say so. It's confusing for really no reason and shows the level of discussion those causing the confusion actually want. It does nothing but cause an argument and you guys could really, really prevent a lot of distractions and stupidity if you would take the damn time to write "scientific". Not doing so says you want an argument about semantics.

Let me ask you guys this, what word do you use when you mean a colloquial theory? "Gurfarnsak"?

[Good Ole Jim]

I read two articles that said this is brand new and has not actually been scrutinized whatsoever.

But hey, let's hand out the prize now!

See how even science is subject to human nature?

The concept of "the smoking gun" has been scrutinized as a theory since Einstein developed it. It's only now that we have the technology to replicate it.

[Wickabee]

The concept of "the smoking gun" has been scrutinized as a theory since Einstein developed it. It's only now that we have the technology to replicate it.

The concept, sure. These findings, no chance. It was neat to hear that chimps in Africa are developing a system of written communication, but only one small group of people have seen it. So even though the theory has been scrutinized, I don't know it actually happened, until there is some sort of confirmation beyond "awarding" a prize for saying something that conforms to what is thought to be true.