416
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + + − − :Modern atheist astronomy has brought us mostly absurdities, from black holes to quasars to relativity. − − :You could use your breath to continue breathing as you read up on these subjects at this quickly-expanding resource, Conservapedia! Beware, though: some of the things you learn may take your breath away! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:25, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
→This article is ironic, i hope.: do not interrupt
:I think it is your attitude that keeps getting you blocked. Nobody is perfect, though!
:I think it is your attitude that keeps getting you blocked. Nobody is perfect, though!
:I suggest you read the reference before spouting off. Many conservatives support constructive proof. See also "[[Axiom of Choice]]".
:I suggest you read the reference before spouting off. Many conservatives support constructive proof. See also "[[Axiom of Choice]]".
:Modern atheist astronomy has brought us mostly absurdities, from black holes to quasars to relativity.
:You could use your breath to continue breathing as you read up on these subjects at this quickly-expanding resource, Conservapedia! Beware, though: some of the things you learn may take your breath away! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:25, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Since I seem, despite holding a Phd in Physics and being not among the worst in mathematics among my fellow students, not being able to understand the 'conservative' mathematics, let me ask a simple question: in there any proof which can be carried out by contradiction, which can be shown to be wrong by other means? (i exclude Quines explicitely here). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Since I seem, despite holding a Phd in Physics and being not among the worst in mathematics among my fellow students, not being able to understand the 'conservative' mathematics, let me ask a simple question: in there any proof which can be carried out by contradiction, which can be shown to be wrong by other means? (i exclude Quines explicitely here). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
::We can discuss about black holes, but i would not see how relativity was found by astronomy alone. At least I was under the impression that relativity was needed to allow the Maxwell equations to exist. Finally the Michelson-Morley (and earth-bound interferometer) experiment suggested that aether does not exist. Last but not least the GPS systems constructed by the DoD and used heavily by the American armed Forces includes such obscure things as general relativity in its software. You surely don't suggest that the DoD and the American soldiers stick to atheistic snake oil? --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
::We can discuss about black holes, but i would not see how relativity was found by astronomy alone. At least I was under the impression that relativity was needed to allow the Maxwell equations to exist. Finally the Michelson-Morley (and earth-bound interferometer) experiment suggested that aether does not exist. Last but not least the GPS systems constructed by the DoD and used heavily by the American armed Forces includes such obscure things as general relativity in its software. You surely don't suggest that the DoD and the American soldiers stick to atheistic snake oil? --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
::: Ok since nobody contradicted the arguments on relativity, i suggest to stop excepting it from the exact sciences. Moreover i suggest to put "biology" instead of evolution. One is a science, the other a process. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 15:58, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
::: Ok since nobody contradicted the arguments on relativity, i suggest to stop excepting it from the exact sciences. Moreover i suggest to put "biology" instead of evolution. One is a science, the other a process. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 15:58, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
:: Thanks for the generous offer. Taken the average quality of the articles here about natural sciences i would be more on the side of improving them (which is what I do when i see an easy to correct definitive mistake). Up to that time i will rely on textbooks and the original articles in the libraries. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Thanks for the generous offer. Taken the average quality of the articles here about natural sciences i would be more on the side of improving them (which is what I do when i see an easy to correct definitive mistake). Up to that time i will rely on textbooks and the original articles in the libraries. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)