If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Yeah...gods tend to do that sort of thing.
Are you saying that gods cannot do that...or are you saying that there are no gods.
I'm interesting in these kinds of blind guesses.
We can agree here, Zen. The evidence FOR a god or gods...is way insufficient, although I would prefer using the word ambiguous."
The evidence that there are no gods is also insufficient (or ambiguous).
Logically, neither assertion should be made.
At some point in time, almost everything we now see as commonplace...was considered as flying in the face of science.
At some point in the future...same thing may hold.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
No quark has ever been discovered. Just as subatomic particles are all theorized, so was the "discovery" of the quark. Did it ever occur to you to ask how, exactly, this "discovery" was supposedly made of something that cannot be observed or detected and is within any and all possible engineering tolerances and within any possible margin of error? You'll notice that your article doesn't want to go there.
There's a reason certain people with vested interests have for never mentioning this little dark secret, and they can get away with the big lie as long as there are gullible, scientifically illiterate desperates believing everything they read on the internet.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Can you give me an example?
A scientific discovery does not mean you have to see it with the naked eye. Subatomic particles are millions to trillions of times smaller than optical light wavelengths and can never be directly observed
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Exactly, go on. How was this "discovery" supposedly made?
Into the Night
Verified User
So...you think a circle is a LINE???
Into the Night
Verified User
Evidence is not a quantity.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
Into the Night
Verified User
Science is not a 'discovery'.
You have claimed quarks to be 'discovered', in other words, OBSERVED. Which is it, dude?
Monad Portal
Was it me?
we're trying to evolve the forum to something better.
please have higher quality posts.
I understand the desire to argue with cypress, but please have good argumetns.
he didn't really say "science is a discovery", so you're argument is just dumb, consequently.
science does often involve discoveries.
you are well known for spamming low quality posts.
you cooperatin in getting a mother fucking clue would be greatly appreciated in the our community.
signed affectionately,
all of us.
Into the Night
Verified User
Lie.
Go learn English.
RQAA
Yes he did. Don't try to deny his posts.
Science is not 'discovery'.
Inversion fallacy. You can't blame Democrats on me.
Denial of science.
Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone.
Quarks were theorized to exist in the early 1960s.
The first experimental confirmations of quarks came from particle accelerators demonstrating that protons and neutrons were made up of smaller elementary subatomic particles, aka the quarks.
It took two decades to find all six types of quarks.
As an atheist, you would be interested to know you are ultimately made up of nothing except top quarks, bottom quarks, and electrons which have no purpose, meaning, or goal in an atheist worldview
Monad Portal
Was it me?
fixed that for you.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nonetheless, it must be observed to be a discovery.
Subatomic particles cannot be detected by any instrumentation. No quark has ever been "discovered".
Monad Portal
Was it me?
I think they have detected them in the colliders.
Have you ever seen a gravitational field? No, you can only measure it's properties and effects.
We know and have measured precisely the mass, electrical charge, and quantum spin of the quarks.
Yes they can. They can be detected and their properties measured in high energy particle accelerators.