Consider light, it is a constant.

Your particular criticism wasn’t science-based but creationist-based. What do you play battlefield on? pc of course. guys, thanks for the warm welcome back!And a special wink for babe: i am skeeeered now!! *l* We call the overall movement scientism. However, when in a blackhole, time dilation could be so great as to prevent light from overcoming it.Just a fun late night thought, maybe someone smarter than me can help me with this thought. I’m afraid there’s not much we can do about the public perception of pseudoscience, though creationists and their various allies are of course working on that.

Guys, thanks for the warm welcome back!And a special wink for babe: Are you big into games? It’s my main addiction. What do you play battlefield on? PC of course. Science can only describe the testable, the observable.

Related Discussions:Science and Creationism / Hypothetical ID QuestionThread Deletion in PoliticsMeta-Deactivator ?Mind MetaBook recommendation – EvolutionSpeed of light is exceededRising ocean levels create…world wide floodSPLIT : Glenn Jacobs’ Personal TheoryIs rat poison safe to eat?Making our name in space I understand that the site owner has still not shown his face and that the domain name will lapse soon. It has been around for more than a decade and it shouldn’t die now.Thanks. Thanks man!

Not really, more Battlefield 4 than anything else at the moment. That has been proven watching it curve through space, however its speed remains the same. Would have been awesome to team up with you on the battlefield. Yes, the ultimate put down when all else fails.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana Originally Posted by KALSTER Originally Posted by Flick Montana Welcome back, buddy. Was part of a 5v5 domination team for a few months and we have been doing pretty well in clannie matches. What’s being discussed is science vs. law essay writing
pseudoscience. The talk is long, but is another option for learning how it works.On Intelligence Excerpt – Prologue An excerpt from Hawkins’ book, which presents some non-complex problems with more conventional AI. I still love this place and what it stands for. Well, did you win anything yet?

I played BF3 a lot, but I couldn’t get BF4 because of the hours I poured into the third one. Are you big into games? It’s my main addiction. It takes longer to travel around the curved path than a straight line, but the speed is the same. Thanks man!

Not really, more Battlefield 4 than anything else at the moment. I hope that we can still do something to keep this forum alive. We have a subforum specifically intended for this.

Related Discussions:Hisome ideas about the brainElectronic Microscope, a simple question…Human DogmaI am worried Please help.genetic memoryelectronic devicesExisting foreverLife, consciousness and memorya simple question Originally Posted by mat5592 Welcome back, kalster. And this is what evolutionists (as a pajoritive) do consistently when faced with current valid challeges to the science of evolution. At no time did I offer any so called creationist alternative explanations. Why not have a category specifically designated for evolutionary discussion.

It’s fairly technical, so if you don’t want to learn how it works in detail, there are some links for excerpts of On Intelligence which are interesting and easier to understand.https://www.numenta.com/htm-overview…Algorithms.pdf An in-depth pdf.Numenta – YouTube A youtube channel, with a lot of information. Originally Posted by kalster Originally Posted by mat5592 welcome back, kalster. Originally Posted by KALSTER Originally Posted by mat5592 Welcome back, kalster.

I simply adore you!. I used to be involved in Halo competitions just out of high school (hope that doesn’t date me too much).Good to see you’re back and refreshed again. Evolution will stand or fall on its own merits not in the face of pro-creationism. Creationism will stand only as the default alternative. I think evolutionist may be considered a pajoritive term by some and can, perhaps be used that way, but it is generally just a combining shorthand to reference evolution enthusiasts.

Lol, not yet. I’m a conquest kind of guy The alternatives you’re implying are creationist, therefore pseudoscientific. What I hear you saying, skinwalker, is that any criticism of evolution, any non supportive facta, any non supportive opinion is automatically pseudo science. Our national competition starts in a few months. Looking forward to it.

I suppose of someone were actually talking, it would be much easier to tell how they were using the word although context may also be some indication.My approach was to challenge the math of the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian paradigm of “many incremental changes over long periods of time.” This is a paradigm which hides its problem behind the complete meaninglessness of terms such as “many” and “long periods.” My point was (and remains) that when you try to turn those into meaningful information such as “how many” changes and “how long” the periods of time, this paradigm runs into serious math problems when compared to the amount of time science says life has existed. I agree that the creationist alternative is implicit in such challeges if only because it is the only other explanation dealing with these issues. KALSTER!I ADORE YOU! I love how you answer questions, and your humanity, and everything about you.

And wrong …The reason light cannot escape from a black hole is the extreme curvature of space-time. So you know its 3am, insomnia has set in so perfect time to have strange thoughts on cosmology right?A thought on blackholes. Along with that, I have been fairly busy with a few things like work and being involved with a competition Battlefield 4 clan (that might surprise a few people ), but I can’t say that I really didn’t have enough time to stay around.I do feel though that I might be able to get involved again a bit more from now on. Supernatural events, by definition, are at least partially non-testable. This is, of course, what you must do when you cannot refute the argument — you attack the source rather than the argument.

Hey there!Here are some links for Jeff Hawkins’ hierarchial temporal memory, which is based on the neocortex. It unfortunate that you see this as some sort of slight to you. So being labelled as anything other than science, whatever the logic of it, is a threat.

Like creationists, you offer no natural solutions (i.e. scientific solutions) to the alleged problems you raise. When legitimate questions about evolution are asked and evolution cannot answer them, the questions must be labeled pseudo science and the questioners little more than idiotic buffoons. But the critical discussion of pseudoscientific concepts like creationism is a very important dialog that those interested in furthering science and science-education should be having. Are you big into games? It’s my main addiction.

The pseudoscience subforum is where the intersection of science and pseudoscience is discussed. Let’s discuss it.A Core Component Of Emotional Experience: A Conditioned Response Of The Affect ComponAbout quantum impulse h and h*.Higgs Bosona Cosmic Odysseyprincipal component analysis explainedAlternating-ish sequence…Has this theory ever been thought of? I am not advocating for creationism, but rather questioning the usefulness of such terms as “many” and a “long time.” But rather than to attempt to show that my estimates are outside the ballpark or try to show the math incorrect, skinwalker, summarily dismissed this approach as merely the rantings of creationist thinking.

Related Discussions:Blowing the nose안녕하새요I consider, that you are mistaken. And I also agree with TheBiologista that no matter how much such ridicule is cast upon an idea, the truth or of the idea is not thus rendered to be invalid.Heck, we have our pajoritive terms, too, such as scientistic as a reference to a person who we think has adopted a world view that is so science oriented that it cannot find significance in other studies such as history, philosophy, religion and the like. However, I am of the belief that evolution does not really have the science to back up all its premises. So, it appears, under this standard the only real test of a matter is whether science can provide an answer.

I believe it does everything fundamental which the neocortex does. The render it as non-scientific even though science cannot provide adequate answers. Thanks man! Not really, more Battlefield 4 than anything else at the moment. Well, did you win anything yet?

I played BF3 a lot, but I couldn’t get BF4 because of the hours I poured into the third one. Originally Posted by KALSTER Originally Posted by Flick Montana Welcome back, buddy. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. It only credits these changes as being meaningful and purposeful and the result of rational decisions by a creative agent. Are you big into games?

It’s my main addiction. The one with the grid-like image is best for learning the details, while the others are more general. Originally Posted by Flick Montana Welcome back, buddy. What do you play battlefield on? PC of course.

Just glancing over the forum makes me realise how much I have missed you guys and makes me feel ashamed for having been absent for so long. Welcome back, buddy. Originally Posted by SkinWalker Your particular criticism wasn’t science-based but creationist-based. Which is not a judgement on the truth of the proposition- it’s just that logically, if there’s a supernatural explanation for something, it’s a non-scientific explanation.

Ah, it wasn’t meant to be. I do not think creationism can win by attempting to use the Bible as an alternative explantion of the timing or mechanism of changes on Earth. My feeling is that any difficult to handle challenge to evolution would be categorically labeled creationist based pseudoscience even if it were advanced by a reknown scientist.

We all know the speed of light is a constant & light cannot escape blackholes. The alternatives you’re implying are creationist, therefore pseudoscientific. I am not the best player, but I enjoy the competition. Light is for the most part, without mass.I was thinking, Is it possible the reason light cannot escape is not because of gravity, but due to time?

Could time slow down light so much that once it enters a blackhole, it cannot travel fast enough to overcome the severe slowing of time?Space & time are connected, I hate the word infinite, but could time be so compressed to a point that light is unable to travel faster than the warping of time will allow?Consider light, it is a constant. it is of course effected by gravity. Guys, thanks for the warm welcome back!And a special wink for babe: Awh, shucks. Thanks man.Yeah Matt, would have been nice.

In a sense you are right. If not, it is not science. I assume that Michael Behe is considered a pseudoscientist because he does not follow the evolutionist agenda. Like creationists, you offer no natural solutions (i.e. scientific solutions) to the alleged problems you raise. And, apparently, so are responses to such questions.

Am I correct that, in your opinion, there is absolutely no legitimate criticism of the theory of evolution, that there are no legitimate scientific questions which can be raised? I am not sure what we can do about it, but I will see what can be done. I am now captain of a second team that was announced last night.

The creationist proposition might be entirely correct, but it is not fully testable and so it is not science.Creationists want to wield the credibility, the argument winning power, that they perceive that science has. I used to be involved in Halo competitions just out of high school (hope that doesn’t date me too much).Good to see you’re back and refreshed again. I am just happy to have Kalster BACK!!

OK, so I understand why skinwalker prefers to use the term pseudoscience as a pajoritive to cast ridicule upon anything he finds too challenging to respond to.

Leave a Reply