farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:23 pm
NO NO NO NOOO, I DONT SMOKE DAT NO MO

IM TIRED A WAKIN UP ON D FLOOR

NO THANK YOU PLEEZE IT ONLY MAKE ME SNEEEZE
AND THEN IT MAKE IT HARD TO FIND DE DOOR
-- Ringo
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:23 pm
farmerman wrote:
Easy, I think that the science predates the science-fiction. All the Victorian writers that wrote about sci-fi (Doyle, Wells, Verne, Shelly etc) were actually writing fiction after hearing about science "theories" or discoveries.


We all borrow from the past but the past cannot really claim to be science if it's progeny was not fully realized until the present.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:26 pm
People overestimate what science is able to observe and understand...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:31 pm
you miss the point Rex. Science Fiction usually takes some infant science and novelizes it. Doyle wrote about dinosaurs in a world after studying darwin, Spencer and the field work of Edward Drinker Cope and C O Marsh.


The science came first.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:33 pm
RexRed wrote:
People overestimate what science is able to observe and understand...
Do "they" now:

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." (Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943)

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." (Ken Olsen, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977)

"The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." (Western Union internal memo, 1876)

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." (Marshal Ferdinand Foch, French commander of Allied forces during the closing months of World War I, 1918)

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" (David Sarnoff's associates, in response to his urgings for investment in radio in the 1920's)

"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." (New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work, 1921)

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" (Harry M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927)

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." (Charles H. Duell, commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:37 pm
Rex wrote:
People overestimate what science is able to observe and understand...

Without science, we wouldn't understand the whys of our environment in any meaningful way. Science also helps us live longer and healthier lives, provides many of the luxuries of life, various modes of transportation, improved modes of communication, and the internet.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:42 pm
farmerman wrote:
you miss the point Rex. Science Fiction usually takes some infant science and novelizes it. Doyle wrote about dinosaurs in a world after studying darwin, Spencer and the field work of Edward Drinker Cope and C O Marsh.


The science came first.
It would be more correct to say "Hard Science Fiction" extrapolates on potentially plausible science. "SF" for better or worse, encompasses a much wider perspective inclusive of "Speculative Fiction" and wholly or partly non-scientific future or alternate realty fictions.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Rex wrote:
People overestimate what science is able to observe and understand...

Without science, we wouldn't understand the whys of our environment in any meaningful way. Science also helps us live longer and healthier lives, provides many of the luxuries of life, various modes of transportation, improved modes of communication, and the internet.


But science has an inherent wall that there is utter darkness between what is known and unknown. Science has one blind eye. Faith bridges the gap between God where science leaves off.

Science is the observation and manipulation of the things that formed, made and created us...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:50 pm
Quote:
It would be more correct to say ?Hard Science Fiction? extrapolates on potentially plausible science. ?SF? for better or worse, encompasses a much wider perspective inclusive of ?Speculative Fiction? and wholly or partly non-scientific future or alternate realty fictions.

Well, lets explore that. Take some "SF", examples.Lets look at their time of composition, and lets see what we, as a civilization, knew.
Ill wager that the SF writer was internalizing some finding or knowledge that was , or was in the process of , being discovered.

The "science FAnstasy" realm included.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 08:52 pm
RexRed wrote:
But science has an inherent wall that there is utter darkness between what is known and unknown. Science has one blind eye. Faith bridges the gap between God where science leaves off.

Science is the observation and manipulation of the things that formed, made and created us...
Poppycock!
There is no "inherent wall" in fact science changes and grows all the time.
There is no "utter darkness between what is known and unknown", in fact there is a very broad band of progressively more to progressively less plausibility within science.

Your claims of being a self styled maven of science are wholly unfounded.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 09:00 pm
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
It would be more correct to say ?Hard Science Fiction? extrapolates on potentially plausible science. ?SF? for better or worse, encompasses a much wider perspective inclusive of ?Speculative Fiction? and wholly or partly non-scientific future or alternate realty fictions.

Well, lets explore that. Take some "SF", examples.Lets look at their time of composition, and lets see what we, as a civilization, knew.
Ill wager that the SF writer was internalizing some finding or knowledge that was , or was in the process of , being discovered.

The "science FAnstasy" realm included.
OK. Let's use Ray Bradbury or Ursula K. Le Guin. Both have been classified as an SF writers, yet both have written many stories found in the SF section of libraries bereft of the "Hard Science Fiction" extrapolation premise you refer to.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 09:01 pm
Chumly wrote:
RexRed wrote:
But science has an inherent wall that there is utter darkness between what is known and unknown. Science has one blind eye. Faith bridges the gap between God where science leaves off.

Science is the observation and manipulation of the things that formed, made and created us...
Poppycock!
There is no "inherent wall" in fact science changes and grows all the time.
There is no "utter darkness between what is known and unknown", in fact there is a very broad band of progressively more to progressively less plausibility within science.

Your claims of being a self styled maven of science are wholly unfounded.


See, people do overestimate what science can observe... point.

So are you saying that science can measure anything and that science is all knowing?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 09:10 pm
RexRed wrote:
See, people do overestimate what science can observe... point.
What precisely are you pointing to that I should "observe"?
RexRed wrote:
So are you saying that science can measure anything and that science is all knowing?
How did you come to the conclusion that I said "science can measure anything and that science is all knowing" given I said no such thing?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 09:14 pm
The only "utter darkness" are experienced by christians who think there's an afterlife called heaven. They fail to realize what nature is all about; life and death.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 09:58 pm
The limitations are in religion, not science. The Christian religion is set down in the limitations of mythology, things that have not been proven and cannot be proven. No evidence that any of Genesis is true is forthcoming. Mountains of evidence is being accumulated proving evolution. Those who are uneducated in science will always see it as scary, not quite so scary as there being no afterlife but scary none-the-less. Fearthful little creatures who can't let anything interupt their myopic little thoughts other than some off-the-wall, crazily speculative crap that clutters up their brains like cobwebs.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 10:26 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Fearthful little creatures who can't let anything interupt their myopic little thoughts other than some off-the-wall, crazily speculative crap that clutters up their brains like cobwebs.
I smell easy money!
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 11:13 pm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 11:14 pm
Funny stuff.

from http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/churchoffersclassesonscienceofevolution3639.shtml

Quote:
Church offers classes on science of evolution

In Kansas, where teaching evolution is contested, Unitarian Universalist church makes sure people know the facts.
By Donald E. Skinner
4.28.06

If religious conservatives can try to bring religion into the science classroom, can religious liberals bring science into the church?

Absolutely, says the Rev. Thom Belote of the 255-member Shawnee Mission Unitarian Universalist Church in Overland Park, Kans. Tired of seemingly never hearing anything positive about evolution from local churches in a state wracked by evolution controversy, Belote got an idea: Why not teach a course on evolution at his church? Belote shared the idea with a member, Dale Trott, who is manager of environmental studies for a large engineering firm. Trott, who has a master's degree in biology, ran with it.............

Trott said he organized the series because he's learned over the years that most people, even though they may support evolution, don't have a good understanding of it........

Another reason for holding the classes, Belote said, was to draw attention to the church and to UU values..........


Couple of interesting points.

The article candidly admits these folks addressing the issue are religious liberals. Refreshing honesty.

The biologist who organized it admits that most people who support evolution don't understand it.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 11:20 pm
As usual, you lie by omission and you can't even cover it up! It says, don't have a good understanding. There are some who believe in it that have not gone beyond what they learned in high school about evolution and have not studied the subject on their own for a good many years. I suspect RL is one of those. Sounds like we should take up a collection and buy you an airplane ticket to those lectures. NOT.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 11:28 pm
real life wrote:
The biologist who organized it admits that most people who support evolution don't understand it.
Name me one person on the planet who "understands" creationism.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 479
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 05:22:04