If you read back through the thread, you'll see that I've championed science as a great framework for understanding. It attempts to disprove it's theories in order to test their reliability. But ultimately it is just another belief system, subject to the context that it finds itself in - i.e. the interaction of the conscious human brain - in its environment. And - if up until yesterday, we thought that neutrinos were slower than the speed of light could it be reasonably surmised that we don't yet have a complete picture of the laws of physics? It's got nothing to do with 'old books'
Can I just say that, as protracted as this discussion seems - and I suspect that all parties involved will retain THEIR opinions ( As perfectly entitled ) I am quite impressed at the relatively low level of gratituous insults or deviation off topic - and not too many asterisks.-- Well done for a ' proper ' debate - very refreshing.. Keep up the good work.
I was being sincere --- What you said to me ( if it was intended personally ) was not very nice from a catholic person.
You don't exist outside of not606 - a virtual environment - only accessible via the interaction of my consciousness and this laptop
From a Solipsistic perspective - I would only exist within his own consciousness, and therefore he would have to go and '**** himself'
As I said earlier, we still don't know that neutrinos are faster than the speed of light. It's one test, which is possibly inaccurate. We clearly don't know everything though and it's doubtful that we ever will, but I think that the most sensible way to go is to be sceptical about things that are as yet unproven. There's an infinite range of things that could be possible, so how else do you decide what's probable?
Also I think science (and dare I say followers of science) generally tends to throw as much weight behind its 'beliefs' as do the 'old books' take global warming for an example, not long ago it was all about the earth cooling. I also think the 'old books' is only relevant if you accept what you are told as 'gospel' (pun intended). It is no secret that they have been 'cooked' as has been certain data for scientific theories FAITH is laughed at as a religious concept, but I would say that it is a matter of faith on the part of Darwinists to maintain that spontaneous generation occurred
Although their instruments may be a bit faulty, they tried it about 1,500 times before they announced it
