Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Sure looks like they figured everything was known, with only four other 
> competing theories of the shape of the model at the time.

> You're beginning to sound rather fanatical, making up easily refuted 
> statements about scientists being just as religious as those who argue 
> from lack of evidence.

  You always sound so arrogant, but in this case you are simply wrong,
sorry, and this time I have quite clear references. For example:

http://amasci.com/weird/end.html

  It is a well-known fact that it was more or less a consensus in the
scientific community of the late 1800's that almost everything that there
is to know about physics is already known.

> > arrogant attitude they don't only extrapolated that, but they stated that
> > it must be the only Truth, and that physics is complete. We know everything
> > there is to know.

> Show me where they stated that? Or are you just making up crap or 
> repeating what ignorant friends have told you?

  I urled to quotes above.

> I probably know more about the Bible too, is the sad part.

  More than who?

> >   Many arrogant scientists struggled for decades, fighting against the new
> > evidence. They couldn't admit being wrong. 

> You're so full of crap.

  You are being unusually rude today.

> Bohr came up with the first workable(*) model of 
> how an atom is arranged internally in 1911. Einstein won a Nobel prize 
> ten years later for explaining that Bohr was wrong and quantum physics 
> was right.

  And that somehow disproves the claim that a large amount of scientists
strongly opposed Eintein's and others' theories at first?

> >   Finally they had to submit and admit that perhaps physics was not complete
> > and that there might be something else to it than what they thought.

> Unlike religious people, who never admit that.

  First you say that I'm full of crap, and now you write as if what I said
was indeed true. Make up your mind.

  And why do you bring up religion into this?

> > They were wrong. Nowadays scientists assume that they can simply deduce what
> > happened millions of years ago, without actually going there. But this must
> > be the Truth.

> So you propose, instead, that dinosaurs were around 6000 years ago, 
> living with man, and Adam eating the tree of knowledge led to the 
> creation of weeds and the changing of dinosaurs and lions into carnivores?

  Where have I proposed that? Why do you insist in bringing religion
into this?

> Yes, the infamous "Et tu" logic. My religious beliefs are arrogant and 
> make me think I am omniscient. My religious beliefs tell me what 
> happened back when the world was young. However, scientists also are 
> arrogant and think they're right, so they can't be any righter than I am.

> Like I said, illogical.

  You certainly sound arrogant.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message