Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Experimental Results Are Required

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on June 10, 2003 00:55:41 UTC

The flight of a ballistic missile is a good example. We can examine that and test our model for accuracy and validity. There is no way you can test something that cannot be examined.

And this following statement is idiocy:

"biological pipeline (Science) has shown that the model of reality it produces also conforms to the laws of physics. "

I have very carefully explained how science works by minimizing the biological pipeline effects. The pipeline does not produce a model. If it did, the model would be considered subjective and not scientific. Do not believe everything you hear.

And it is not a derivation from anything concerning biology. There is no biology in any of his writing or his derivation. His derivation is simply an assumption of various symmetries in data sets, plus the assumption that some of the data is not known, and then a clever derivation yielding laws that are already known to come from those symmetries. There is absolutely no biological basis for his work. Sorry about that.

Hot regards,


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins