Time doesn't exist.

[Derf]

My comment about science and history was a thought about what happens in the future should there be a world wide catastrophe and civilization goes backwards, lets say to the bronze age. Going forward there is no reason to believe the future civilizations will look like ours today, but the science will since physics and chemistry will remain the same and eventually those who survive the catastrophe will discover that.

As @Clete pointed out, you're assuming what we know are facts, and not speculations that work for certain predictions.

the term "mainstream science" came for Clete's post, he used it.
Yes there is consensus in science, when it is based on facts. There is consensus about the germ theory of disease, consensus about the theory of gravity and consensus about the theory of evolution because they are all supported by facts and evidence.

Well, that third one is more supported by consensus.

But science is willing to change should new facts and evidence appear. Alfred Wegener posited the theory of continental drift in the 1910's. He based that on the fit of the continents and biogeography of plants and animals, extinct and extant. That theory was not well thought of until the mid 20th century when studies of the ocean bottom showed the spreading at the mid ocean ridges---viola the theory of plate tectonics built on Wegener's hypothesis and now there is pretty much another consensus.

So at any point in time, the consensus is likely wrong. So it would be less likely for the future generations to reproduce the bad science we might have today, since it is based on consensus.

If you have any particular issue with consensus in current scientific thinking on a particular topic feel free to discuss.

Like global cooling global warming climate change?

 

[Avajs]

So cute... but my ancestors are not monkeys. Maybe yours are.

That is cute as well. But we both have the same ancestors

By those who stand to benefit from it and who have a personal interest in how the money is spent.

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." - Thomas Sowell

Incidentally, I am not apposed to all government funded research but it should be limited to those areas that pertain directly to proper governmental roles such as the military, crime investigation and prevention, and infrastructure.

1. Source for Sowell quote?
2. In the early 1950;s there was a lot of basic research being done on the structure of DNA. How would you have funded that basic research?

 

[Avajs]

So at any point in time, the consensus is likely wrong. So it would be less likely for the future generations to reproduce the bad science we might have today, since it is based on consensus.

"Likely wrong", better wording would be "possibly wrong". That is why scientists continue to work.

 

[Derf]

"Likely wrong", better wording would be "possibly wrong". That is why scientists continue to work.

And why we don't claim scientist's explanations as "facts".

 

[Right Divider]

That is cute as well. But we both have the same ancestors

So we don't have apes/monkeys in our ancestry?
I thought that you agreed with "the theory of evolution" as claimed by "the facts of modern science".

 

[Right Divider]

2. In the early 1950;s there was a lot of basic research being done on the structure of DNA. How would you have funded that basic research?

Through any voluntary source and not from the government.
The government has very limited responsibilities and funding any and every science project is not one of them.

 

[Clete]

That is cute as well. But we both have the same ancestors

1. Source for Sowell quote?

Seriously? Would you like a refresher course on how to use Google?

"Wake Up, Parents!". Column at Jewish World Review, www.jewishworldreview.com. August 18, 2000

2. In the early 1950's there was a lot of basic research being done on the structure of DNA. How would you have funded that basic research?

Asked and answered.

 

[Avajs]

So we don't have apes/monkeys in our ancestry?
I thought that you agreed with "the theory of evolution" as claimed by "the facts of modern science".

Sorry, but we do and we are apes

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sorry, but we do

You might, but I certainly don't.

and we are apes.

You might be. I'm human, not an ape.

 

[Avajs]

You might, but I certainly don't.



You might be. I'm human, not an ape.

Are you suggesting there are different kinds of Homo sapiens? How do you distinguish between them?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you suggesting there are different kinds of Homo sapiens?

No. I'm insulting you to your face.

There is only one "kind" of human.

Apes are a different kind of creature altogether.

Even Neandertal is closer genetically to modern humans, than a chimpanzee is to another chimp, and those are supposed to be closely related to humans, according to evolutionary scientists. In other words, Neandertals were human, too, not some evolutionary precursor to humans.

 

[Right Divider]

Sorry, but we do and we are apes

My family is all humans. Perhaps yours is not.
My "original" parents are one man and one woman. Guess their names....

 

[Avajs]

No. I'm insulting you to your face.

There is only one "kind" of human.

Apes are a different kind of creature altogether.

Even Neandertal is closer genetically to modern humans, than a chimpanzee is to another chimp, and those are supposed to be closely related to humans, according to evolutionary scientists. In other words, Neandertals were human, too, not some evolutionary precursor to humans.

Oh cool we get to insult each other like 5th graders? Can't wait for "oh yeah, well your mother wears combat boots"
Neanderthal were same genus and apparently interbred with H sapiens. And one would expect, since they interbred and lived with modern humans within the last 50,000 years, there genome would be closer ours
than chimps whose last common
ancestor with Homo was 7 million years ago.

 

[Right Divider]

Oh cool we get to insult each other like 5th graders?

No, we do it like adults. Much similar to the way that our Lord did it while He was on earth.

Neanderthal were same genus and apparently interbred with H sapiens. And one would expect, since they interbred and lived with modern humans within the last 50,000 years, there genome would be closer ours
than chimps whose last common
ancestor with Homo was 7 million years ago.

Firstly, they were all humans and not apes.
Secondly, 7 million years ago is a myth.

This has all been off topic for this thread. There are some places where we can and have discussed this topic. @JudgeRightly do you have a suggested forum?

 

[Avajs]

Seriously? Would you like a refresher course on how to use Google?

"Wake Up, Parents!". Column at Jewish World Review, www.jewishworldreview.com. August 18, 2000


Asked and answered.

I read the Sowell article. It had nothing to do with research funding but was a complaint
about the over use of Ritalin etc in school systems and whining about Hilary Clinton. But I guess you could expand the complaint to govt funded research if that is the current bee in your bonnet.

 

[Derf]

No, we do it like adults. Much similar to the way that our Lord did it while He was on earth.

Firstly, they were all humans and not apes.
Secondly, 7 million years ago is a myth.

This has all been off topic for this thread. There are some places where we can and have discussed this topic. @JudgeRightly do you have a suggested forum?

I don't know about that. If time doesn't exist, then maybe 7 million years is in the ballpark.

 

[Avajs]

No, we do it like adults. Much similar to the way that our Lord did it while He was on earth.

Firstly, they were all humans and not apes.
Secondly, 7 million years ago is a myth.

This has all been off topic for this thread. There are some places where we can and have discussed this topic. @JudgeRightly do you have a suggested forum?

Nope. Your idea of a myth has no basis in reality so I'll leave you alone to insult others

 

[Right Divider]

I don't know about that. If time doesn't exist, then maybe 7 million years is in the ballpark.

I was speaking about 7 million years with regard to life on earth. That should have been obvious.

Time exists... But not the same way that physical things exist. Time is a concept.

 

[Clete]

I read the Sowell article. It had nothing to do with research funding but was a complaint
about the over use of Ritalin etc in school systems and whining about Hilary Clinton.

So what? The quote conveys a principle. Do you seriously not have any idea how such a principle can be applied in more than one situation?

But I guess you could expand the complaint to govt funded research if that is the current bee in your bonnet.

Yeah, or any other situation in which the principle applies!

You can't possibly be this stupid!

Then again, you don't seem to know how to use a search engine and believe that you're an ape, so...

 

[moonbeam]

The ontological existence of time is literally a logical impossibility.

I was thinking about what you said (typed)... the first thought was quite simple really it was just...... ( interesting ) ...... singular ....... kind of like one of those old steam locomotives chugging along... steam and fumes billowing... but as it went chugging on by (across my mind)... I perceived other carriages (thought)... which had been obscured by all that billowing steam... there was a whole line of them... each one dragging the next into view and so on... now my thought was no longer singular.... it was like....... ( that is very interesting indeed how intriguing ) ....... than I thought in retrospect (reflected)...... how multitudinous the thought that thought propagates....

It was then I noticed the time.... I had been mulling on that for ages and ages.... or so it seemed.

But the noise of the kettle whistling meant it had only been a few minutes.... anyways time for a cup of tea and biscuit.... and a little time to ponder on the perception of time... does time exist ontologically? or is it actually the perception of the person who does exist ontologically? - and if it is perception does that mean that time actually does exist?