The Theory of Everything

[sooey]

The point of physics is to satisfy mankinds insatiable curiosity, simple as that.
Wonderful things have flowed from that. If we didn't have that drive we'd still be eating insects out of trees with sticks.

 

[Micilin]

Arguably We used physics to hunt animals, selecting weapons and missiles for weight and trajectory etc there would have been experimentation , passing on of knowledge etc.


If I say. ' I am therefore I think' , am I putting Descartes before the horse?

 

[Hysteresis]

The point of physics is to satisfy mankinds insatiable curiosity, simple as that.
Wonderful things have flowed from that. If we didn't have that drive we'd still be eating insects out of trees with sticks.

And living in caves, but I think Dexy disagrees.

 

[Hysteresis]

Arguably We used physics to hunt animals, selecting weapons and missiles for weight and trajectory etc there would have been experimentation , passing on of knowledge etc.


If I say. ' I am therefore I think' , am I putting Descartes before the horse?

I don't think your statement is arguable - it is without doubt totally correct and demonstrable.

Physics is Mechanics, Electrics, Cosmology. particle ballistics , Chemistry etc., etc, and the former is certainly applicable to throwing stones and spears.
QED

 

[Dextraneous]

The point of physics is to satisfy mankinds insatiable curiosity, simple as that.
Wonderful things have flowed from that. If we didn't have that drive we'd still be eating insects out of trees with sticks.

And living in caves, but I think Dexy disagrees.

Surely not.

You stated that the purpose of physics was so that we don't live in caves. I'm not convinced that that's the purpose of it, but a consequence .

You also think there's only one "truth". I don't, and suspect there are an infinite number of them. Just because we can't possibly comprehend their nature especially since they will contradict our own doesn't mean that they can't exist.

 

[Hysteresis]

Surely not.

You stated that the purpose of physics was so that we don't live in caves. I'm not convinced that that's the purpose of it, but a consequence .

You also think there's only one "truth". I don't, and suspect there are an infinite number of them. Just because we can't possibly comprehend their nature especially since they will contradict our own doesn't mean that they can't exist.

OK-if that is what you think, it is not the same view as mine though..

 

[Dextraneous]

Of course Out of idle curiosity, where did you do your degree!

 

[Dextraneous]

Where as Creationists, believe any old twaddle they are indoctrinated with as being the truth without any substantiated evidence, in my opinion

Oh,I don't know. A creationist friend of mine made a good observation that all of these models that purportedly demonstrate Darwinism tend to leap from one example to another and that there are no intermediate "gentle" differences which one would expect if there was a continuous miniscule evolution.

 

[sooey]

The fossil record is a series of random discontinuous snapshots covering hundreds of millions of years and thousands of different species.
In order to see the kind of slow gentle change you speak of you would need a continuous record of one particular species taken at very regular intervals.
I would have thought that you would understand that, you're not a stupid man.

 

[Dextraneous]

The fossil record is a series of random discontinuous snapshots covering hundreds of millions of years and thousands of different species.
In order to see the kind of slow gentle change you speak of you would need a continuous record of one particular species taken at very regular intervals.
I would have thought that you would understand that, you're not a stupid man.

Thanks, I think

The point is that one would have thought that such a footprint of minutael changes would surely have been found by now for at least one species. That's the thing my friend suggested and which does seem reasonable given the desire to "prove" a theory by evidence,I think

 

[sooey]

We'd be lucky if just two out of all known fossils from any particular species were from a hundred years or so of each other in all the millions of years that have passed.
How can anyone expect to see minute gradual change occurring in such a sporadic fragmented sample.

 

[Micilin]

Where as Creationists, believe any old twaddle they are indoctrinated with as being the truth without any substantiated evidence, in my opinion

Oh,I don't know. A creationist friend of mine made a good observation that all of these models that purportedly demonstrate Darwinism tend to leap from one example to another and that there are no intermediate "gentle" differences which one would expect if there was a continuous miniscule evolution.

Your friends understanding of the subject is as incomplete as the fossil record

 

[sooey]

That's the thing my friend suggested and which does seem reasonable given the desire to "prove" a theory by evidence,I think icon_eek.gif

I don't think you can ever prove a theory, just strengthen or disprove it.
But one thing's for sure, of all the theories trying to tie in with and explain the fossil and geological records Darwinism is by far the best.
Not just imo

 

[Dextraneous]

Indeed. But if all mankind can produce after a heck of a lot of looking over the last 150 years or so is a small number of fossils/skeletons which seem to fit a larger design, then this would appear to be somewhat shakey evidence, to say the least.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh,I don't know. A creationist friend of mine made a good observation that all of these models that purportedly demonstrate Darwinism tend to leap from one example to another and that there are no intermediate "gentle" differences which one would expect if there was a continuous miniscule evolution.

What is the alternative?

Is it the creationists view that a manufacturer, every few million years, kills off the previous models and substitutes new ones?