GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:Quote:You keep referring to "the laws of science" and "this has been known for ages".
Can you provide citations of the science literature please. All I have thus far is your assertion that these things exist. Since you are the one is contantly telling me not simply to believe what others tell me, can you back it up with a citation from the science literature?
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:Don't you know that the whole "theory of evolution" is based on this idea of cause and effect?
Yes.
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:Either the white dear in the snow survives or the brown dear in the snow survives.
Exactly. That would be a selection pressure, the one best suited to the environment has the best chance of survival and thus the best chance of passing on its genes.
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:In physics we have a very basic law that runs all physical interaction. It is the law of cause and effect.
You refer to the idea that the Universe is deterministic, a position that is yet to be demonstrated, but which I happen to agree with. I don't say it's proven, because it isn't. In particular there are various aspects of quantum mechanics that are not well enough understood, virtual particles spring to mind immediately. The copenhagen interpreation (she shroedingers cat) and probability wave functions are not certainly not well enough understood to declare them to be deterministic. The dual slit experiment is probably the easiest way to observe this.
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:If you don't know this you are not a scientist. It is the first thing one learns in physics because ALL OF physics depends on it and it never fails!
Go tell it to the quantum physicists. I never claimed to be a scientist, but I do have qualifications in physics. Most of my formal training, as I started previously, was in maths.
You are yet to define what a scientist is. I defined it the other day, I suggested a scientist is one who has a paper published in a recognised journal that has been cited. Can you claim to have one, or are you not a scientist either?
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
You do realise that this is one of Newtons laws of motion, right? You also realise that this law actually fails in certain circumstances? That is, it is only a law under controlled conditions, much as Newtons law of gravity is a special case of general relativity? Oooh look, I just showed two laws that don't always hold true
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:The next law that destroys random is this one:
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed."
Ahh, now we are on with thermodynamics. No issues with this one.
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:When someone using a pile of garbage logic that does not fit what is actually happening in the entire world of physical phenomenon, covered by those two laws, you know they are really screwed up mentally.
I would postulate that when someone suggests that laws are proven despite these laws only working under predetermined conditions they don't have a clue what they are talking about.
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm: The only thing that causes this sort of delusional bovine garbage is religious beliefs that are fantasy and what is called "magical thinking".
Quite.
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:That last blithering idiot, living in denial of reality, left like a screaming angry bitch, because that is what a person is who lays down like a bitch dog to ever dumb ass authority.
So presumably you will retract the statements that I have shown to be in error?
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:24pm:Are you ready to learn or are you going to be one of those screaming bitches whom I have to destroy in order to teach them a lesson.
Oh keep up the "destruction", its fun to pick holes in it.