If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

While it is absolutely true that machines are able to collect data far more impartially and accurately than can our senses, we still rely on our senses and perception in order to evaluate data, which implies a gap in objectivity. Furthermore, we "trust" that our calibrations on machines are correct. Furthermore, YOU YOURSELF have NEVER actually done experiments to show the existence of quarks (ok, so you might have, but in that case, please assume that "you yourself" is in the generic third person), and not every scientist who needs to assume that quarks exist have empirical data that quarks exist. Even if EVERY SCIENTIST who practices science based on the existence of quarks do actually have empirical data of the existence of quarks, all of their data still passes through the sense/perception veil.

Not even close to true. Electronics can very accurately measure our results, no senses are required.
You are quibbling, and poorly.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not even close to true. Electronics can very accurately measure our results, no senses are required.
You are quibbling, and poorly.

It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world.

Ignore everything I said about how machines are very accurate and miss my point completely. GOOD JOB alarti, i'm sure everyone in TMO thinks you're just a leeeeeetle bit cooler for being opposed to me one more time.

[Reiker000]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I liked your 8 rages posts though which each post becoming progressively less cogent.

Hasbinbad is like those Rick Ross songs where he yell-raps a phrase over and over and it slowly becomes unintelligible monkey speak.

THESE *****S WONT HOLD ME BACK!

DESE *****S ONT HOLD M'BACK!

ESE NIGAZWA OLD MBAK!

EZE NIGAYOMA BAK!

EZENIGOAMABK!

EUAHYNABOMAK!

[Hasbinlulz]

Eyewitness testimony being what it is..........

[Hasbinlulz]

So explain to me again how scientists don't have complete trust and/or confidence in not only the data gathered by other scientists, but their very own results. Please.

[Hasbinlulz]

From the Oxford Dictionaries:

Definition of faith
noun
[mass noun]
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From the Oxford Dictionaries:

Definition of faith
noun
[mass noun]
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something

See you edit the salient portions.

1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

If you look up the definition of Confidence or Trust faith comes up as the 4th definition.

See in the english language words can have multiple meanings depending on how they are used. Trust or confidence when used in a scientific sense has no similarity to faith when used in a religious sense.

There are really only 2 options for your methods, You are either trying to change the scope of the debate to suit your needs, or you simply do not understand the basic syntax of the english language.

Your posts are rife with fallacy. Guard youself from fallacy and you might find logic.

[Splorf22]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20249753

More liquid-water exoplanets!

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20249753

More liquid-water exoplanets!

The universe is so incredibly interesting. To understand it is THE quest. The holy grail.

But like the holy grail, we'll probably never hold it in our hands...

A few days ago I read that our solar system has 139 moons. Pretty cool, eh? The fact that we've only landed on one extra-terrestrial body outside our planet is proof enough to me that we've barely begun to scratch at the first atoms on the surface layer of a great behemoth expanse. Consider that there're 200+ sextillion stars in the observable universe and numerous moons and planets and asteroids and comets for every star. And for each galaxy there're probably billions of rogue planets that're either drifting amongst them or in their wake. And who knows what's out beyond the observable universe, but it's too bad that there's a terminator point that prohibits us EVER seeing or reaching any point beyond it. There're areas of the universe we'll never see.

Never see, that's, assuming we're right about our central theories.

(btw, there're trillions of cells in the human body and billions of humans. if stars were the cells inside humans then the total number of stars is similar to the actual number of stars we calculate there to be.)

[Hasbinlulz]

OH SHIT IS THAT THE DEFINITION OF FAITH FROM OXFORD BEING EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID IT WASNT?!?!?

OH SHIT!!!