my pleasure babe. Just pointing out what I see and trying to remind us that we can know the past and the present but we can't know absolutely the future.
Actually we can, it's just improbable.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I see how the way you weave together your perceptions of me tells you this.
I don't ask scientists to believe my views, and I don't take their views on as my own. I don't see the hypocrisy.
I don't ask you to take on my worldview; I don't take on your worldview.
As far as objective study, I fully accept science, within it's parameters, done by fallible humans with human perception as the best thing we have going. In terms of the non-objective realms, it's free game and I respect and embrace all views.
Actually, early science conluded that teh world was round, dude called Copernicus. Later ignorance went back to teh flat Earth idea.
Science is quite hard to define, but a key element is that it is more than having a squiz at things and guessing what teh cause might be. Science involves forming an idea or hypothesis, then testing it REPEATEDLY, and getting teh same result, then someone else being able to run teh same experiment and still getting the same results.
Removal of or controlling what are called confounding variables, which are things that change and stuff the results is crucial. The two biggest confounders are observer bias and reporting bias, ie where the experimenter sees what they want to see, or a subject reports what they want to, usually in a subconscious attempt to polease the experimenter.
MAking basic assumptions which are incorrect is another good way to stuff your results, eg early attempts to meause teh speed of lightg using towers and lanterns etc werre based on teh assumption that hum,an relexes would be quick enough to produce meaningful results, which they weren't.
When you say "early science concluded the earth was flat", there was no science involved, just observation and speculation and deduction.
Exactly, I'm glad someone here understand that science makes every effort to eliminate observer bias. Any case where observer bias is suspect the findings are highly criticized.
What OLS and Angelica are suggesting is that we basically treat science as our own individual perceptions, which means that our own perceptions are just as good, they are not.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, but you didn't explain why your bias is better. Scientists have a hell of lot more knowledge about you than you do.
Oh, but I've explained it many times to you.
My way worked to "heal" me. Science asked me to stay mentally ill forever, because I was genetically flawed. It's an easy choice. I don't care how much "knowledge" they have if it's knowledge that does nothing to empower me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
please, allow me: "In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates electromagnetic interactions and makes up all forms of light. The photon has zero invariant mass and travels at the constant speed c, the speed of light in empty space. However, in the presence of matter, a photon can be absorbed, transferring energy and momentum proportional to its frequency. Like all quanta, the photon has both wave and particle properties, exhibiting wave–particle duality."--Wikipedia.
Actually, the solidity of a table is metaphysical then, because if we look at the atomic structure of the table it should fall apart, but it doesn't. There are qualities of things that are ontologically subjective, and are understood as such in the objective study of them. Such as fear is an ontologically subjective experience that results from activity within the brain. I don't consider the solidity of a table to metaphysical.
me either, because i trust my perception.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Right, and you are trying to separate the two to absolve religion of the cause, and then you are saying that it proves religion is right, or better because the tool it created to prove it's right actually proves it's wrong. I can barely wrap my head around that logic, just sounds like making excuses and trying to rationalize shit that doesn't make sense.
why do you keep bringing up religion? science is your religion; or; you could say your "replacement" for religion. so let's forget religion and get back to science. you're evading the subject. when we bring up things science can't explain you hide behind religion. God made science. God made us to opperate as independant beings. God created the chemical reactions that occur in the brain.
THERE; so we established you won't sway the minds of those who believe. NOW can we get back to science and the things it can't explain?
My way worked to "heal" me. Science asked me to stay mentally ill forever, because I was genetically flawed. It's an easy choice. I don't care how much "knowledge" they have if it's knowledge that does nothing to empower me.
No. One or two people gave you their interpretation of their results. You did not heal you anymore than science did. Besides you are not empowered, you've chosen a path of ignorance over truth. I can talk circles around you about pretty much any topic. I can learn in 60 seconds what will take you a day. I've got a long history of self-improvement through scientific understanding. I learned to touch-type 80 WPM without trying, it took me two weeks and I surpassed people that had been touch-typing for years. This is because I know how the brain works and I can program it to do what I want it to do.
You can preach all you want about healing yourself through ignorance. That's fine, but when it comes down to it. You aren't the only one that can self-improve. Many people do and most find science as the best method of obtaining the best results. Go and build a house, use your spirituality to figure it out, I'm going to find a good website that explains design concepts and structural elements.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Exactly, I'm glad someone here understand that science makes every effort to eliminate observer bias. Any case where observer bias is suspect the findings are highly criticized.
What OLS and Angelica are suggesting is that we basically treat science as our own individual perceptions, which means that our own perceptions are just as good, they are not.
Again, I've expressed I believe more than once in this thread alone that science needs to keep the parameters of the scientific method fully in place.
You obviously have a problem undertanding the value of a personal point of view. That, however, does not change the validity of each view.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No, I don't think so. If you ever watch experiemnts and read about the controls they use, there is little or no room for perception. For example, optical illusions where two object look different but are actually the same. Visual perception tells us that they are different, even if we know they are the same. A ruler tells us they are the same.
Ahnimus, please don't patronise me. I spent 13 years working in a laboratory for farks sake! I've spent plenty of time around science and scientists. And I have read and seen plenty of scientific data and experiments.
And I think you'll find that people are fallable. And that scientists are humans just like the rest of us. AND my point is that science has been proven wrong as well as "right" AND "right" is only what we or scientists know now.
I guess the thing that I'm struggling with most here is that you have been scornful of other people's perspectives and beliefs but you seem to me to be sounding just a wee bit evangelical about science and scientists and their bloody experiments. So how is your absolute belief in science any different to other people's beliefs in things that you just don't agree with?
why do you keep bringing up religion? science is your religion; or; you could say your "replacement" for religion. so let's forget religion and get back to science. you're evading the subject. when we bring up things science can't explain you hide behind religion. God made science. God made us to opperate as independant beings. God created the chemical reactions that occur in the brain.
THERE; so we established you won't sway the minds of those who believe. NOW can we get back to science and the things it can't explain?
Ahnimus is lonely. He shares more of himself with us than most. I like the guy. He's an overthinker.
Actually, early science conluded that teh world was round, dude called Copernicus. Later ignorance went back to teh flat Earth idea.
Science is quite hard to define, but a key element is that it is more than having a squiz at things and guessing what teh cause might be. Science involves forming an idea or hypothesis, then testing it REPEATEDLY, and getting teh same result, then someone else being able to run teh same experiment and still getting the same results.
Removal of or controlling what are called confounding variables, which are things that change and stuff the results is crucial. The two biggest confounders are observer bias and reporting bias, ie where the experimenter sees what they want to see, or a subject reports what they want to, usually in a subconscious attempt to polease the experimenter.
MAking basic assumptions which are incorrect is another good way to stuff your results, eg early attempts to meause teh speed of lightg using towers and lanterns etc werre based on teh assumption that hum,an relexes would be quick enough to produce meaningful results, which they weren't.
When you say "early science concluded the earth was flat", there was no science involved, just observation and speculation and deduction.
science is the study of [whatever].
the world was first thought to be round; BUT IT COULD NOT BE PROVEN. thus; it was percieved as flat until more evidence could be produced.
that is the essence of science.
i do agree with the rest. unless science can repeatedly reproduce something.....it cannot explain it.
please, allow me: "In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates electromagnetic interactions and makes up all forms of light. The photon has zero invariant mass and travels at the constant speed c, the speed of light in empty space. However, in the presence of matter, a photon can be absorbed, transferring energy and momentum proportional to its frequency. Like all quanta, the photon has both wave and particle properties, exhibiting wave–particle duality."--Wikipedia.
What is your point? It's a particle of light, that's what it says. "the photon is the elementary particle". "and makes up all forms of light". Did you want the full QM explanation of photons? Why did you ask what it is?
What is wave-particle duality?
In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality holds that all objects in our universe exhibit properties of both waves and of particles.[wikipedia]
This applies to consciousness, how? If something is a wave, what does that imply? If you drop a stone in a puddle with the exact same conditions every time, will it blow up the world one time? No. The waves will behave relatively the same way every time. I don't know where you people get this perception that QM implies anything about our lives. You can't affect the way things behave with your mind, you can only affect the way you interpret them.
me either, because i trust my perception.[/quote]
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I know it for the same reason you know human's can't trust their own perceptions. I know it because of Rats of Multa's signature. I know it because I've seen studies that have measured that scientists are normal and also have bias like all humans.
Also, if a scientist takes a look at my brain chemistry and tries to undertand why I am mentally ill, they show me where they are coming from--they show me their professionally agendaed (biased) position they are coming from.
If a scientist looks at my brain chemistry and tries to understand how to activate my natural innate healing, they show me the professionally agendaed (biased) position they are coming from. It's very easy to see with the plain eye. Just like on this board, it's simple to see what bias a person has: liberal or conservative.
A photon is a quantum of energy, more accurately.
I don't think it is simple to see whether I have a liberal or conservative bias. You could not tell my gender. I am very liberal on many issues, but extremely conservative on, for example, gun control. I used to think you were a right wing Christian nutter, but many of your posts over the last few days have had a much more open-minded flavour.
When people tell me that can can look inot their bodies and activate mystical systems, yes, my scientific cynicism gland kicks into overdrive. That's because, when you remove observer and reporting bias, there is no discernible effect or activation of anything. If you were to tell me that you can see my aura, or activate my inner healing, or re-pattern my DNA ( people around here actually claim that), that is ENTIRELY depenendent on your perception and your bias.
With regards to mental illness, a PET scanner can show whihc pasrtts of the brain are not functioning correctly, to the point that if we could get hold of Jesus' brain, we could settle the schizophrenia question. That is not a bias, that is a reproducible clinically useful and relevant test.
i didn't get that at all. i think she expressed an open mind to things unknown or not yet explainable. i can have the same experiences she does. and there's someone else here that can attest to that [if she cares to step forward]. people can link their minds too. the best example is twins; only because the study of people with altered brains is nil.
Ahnimus, please don't patronise me. I spent 13 years working in a laboratory for farks sake! I've spent plenty of time around science and scientists. And I have read and seen plenty of scientific data and experiments.
And I think you'll find that people are fallable. And that scientists are humans just like the rest of us. AND my point is that science has been proven wrong as well as "right" AND "right" is only what we or scientists know now.
I guess the thing that I'm struggling with most here is that you have been scornful of other people's perspectives and beliefs but you seem to me to be sounding just a wee bit evangelical about science and scientists and their bloody experiments. So how is your absolute belief in science any different to other people's beliefs in things that you just don't agree with?
Corroboration. Science is very systematic and weens out false claims. Personal opinion or perspective does nothing of the sort. It's complete nonsense.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Due to the wave-particle duality of matter, light simultaneously exhibits properties of both waves and particles. The precise nature of light is one of the key questions of modern physics."--Wikipedia.
see, science cant even grasp the basis for the physical realm that we see and "know", let alone the metaphysical aspects which allow us to think and "know",.....
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
No. One or two people gave you their interpretation of their results. You did not heal you anymore than science did. Besides you are not empowered, you've chosen a path of ignorance over truth. I can talk circles around you about pretty much any topic. I can learn in 60 seconds what will take you a day. I've got a long history of self-improvement through scientific understanding. I learned to touch-type 80 WPM without trying, it took me two weeks and I surpassed people that had been touch-typing for years. This is because I know how the brain works and I can program it to do what I want it to do.
You can preach all you want about healing yourself through ignorance. That's fine, but when it comes down to it. You aren't the only one that can self-improve. Many people do and most find science as the best method of obtaining the best results. Go and build a house, use your spirituality to figure it out, I'm going to find a good website that explains design concepts and structural elements.
It's interesting to see that you look at this like a contest.
You asked me : "Ok, but you didn't explain why your bias is better. Scientists have a hell of lot more knowledge about you than you do." I answered you why my bias is better for me, and you used that as an "excuse" to tell me how much better you are for yourself, but how much better than me you are.
This is my point about power imbalances. You are trying to minimize people's views. You are using science inappropriately as your weapon. Luckily this is being done within the scientism thread, as it illustrates my exact point about scientism. Scientism seeks to overpower and to abuse power. And yet it's really inauthentic power that keeps the cycles of inauthenticity in place. Authentic power stands alone, while the rest falls away. True science is in the authentic power category.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus is lonely. He shares more of himself with us than most. I like the guy. He's an overthinker.
I think you do a little overthinking yourself.
Umm, what makes you think I am lonely? Is that really appropriate?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
science is the study of [whatever].
the world was first thought to be round; BUT IT COULD NOT BE PROVEN. thus; it was percieved as flat until more evidence could be produced.
that is the essence of science.
i do agree with the rest. unless science can repeatedly reproduce something.....it cannot explain it.
NO. science is not just the study of (whatever). It's simplistic definitions like that that lead to bad science, poor science, or crap masquerading as science, and trying to hijack the credibility of legitimate science.
Crap like "Creatoin Science". WE are studying how the Earth was formed according to the Bible, thereofre we are doing science, according to your definition. Not so !!!!!
Copernicus produced a vild mathm,etical proof that teh Earth was round, it was just that no-one else could follow it at teh tijme. Hell, I couldn't follow his proof today, but that does not mean it was inadequate. The inadequacy is mine !!!
"Due to the wave-particle duality of matter, light simultaneously exhibits properties of both waves and particles. The precise nature of light is one of the key questions of modern physics."--Wikipedia.
see, science cant even grasp the basis for the physical realm that we see and "know", let alone the metaphysical aspects which allow us to think and "know",.....
What metaphysical aspects? There is no evidence of metaphysics.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no, science tries to go beneath human perception to objective reality, but reality is not entirely objective -- life exists, and therein emotions exist,.. and although emotions may have their roots in the intercourse of physical matter, their ends are not totally physical [hence the existence of the term "metaphysical"], and therefore science is endlessly trumped by the constant enquires of philosophy.
I don't think it is simple to see whether I have a liberal or conservative bias. You could not tell my gender. I am very liberal on many issues, but extremely conservative on, for example, gun control. I used to think you were a right wing Christian nutter, but many of your posts over the last few days have had a much more open-minded flavour.
When people tell me that can can look inot their bodies and activate mystical systems, yes, my scientific cynicism gland kicks into overdrive. That's because, when you remove observer and reporting bias, there is no discernible effect or activation of anything. If you were to tell me that you can see my aura, or activate my inner healing, or re-pattern my DNA ( people around here actually claim that), that is ENTIRELY depenendent on your perception and your bias.
With regards to mental illness, a PET scanner can show whihc pasrtts of the brain are not functioning correctly, to the point that if we could get hold of Jesus' brain, we could settle the schizophrenia question. That is not a bias, that is a reproducible clinically useful and relevant test.
You've got the wrong person on the photon issue.
Glad to hear your opinon on this other stuff.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
have i been able to make something in your house move from accross the earth?
Oh yeah, ask metsfan, I'm a fucking psychic.
Ask Angelica, I could pick that guy out in a gabbly chat under any alias.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I see how the way you weave together your perceptions of me tells you this.
I don't ask scientists to believe my views, and I don't take their views on as my own. I don't see the hypocrisy.
I don't ask you to take on my worldview; I don't take on your worldview.
As far as objective study, I fully accept science, within it's parameters, done by fallible humans with human perception as the best thing we have going. In terms of the non-objective realms, it's free game and I respect and embrace all views.
Comments
Actually we can, it's just improbable.
Peace, baby.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Exactly, I'm glad someone here understand that science makes every effort to eliminate observer bias. Any case where observer bias is suspect the findings are highly criticized.
What OLS and Angelica are suggesting is that we basically treat science as our own individual perceptions, which means that our own perceptions are just as good, they are not.
My way worked to "heal" me. Science asked me to stay mentally ill forever, because I was genetically flawed. It's an easy choice. I don't care how much "knowledge" they have if it's knowledge that does nothing to empower me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
is it?
please, allow me: "In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates electromagnetic interactions and makes up all forms of light. The photon has zero invariant mass and travels at the constant speed c, the speed of light in empty space. However, in the presence of matter, a photon can be absorbed, transferring energy and momentum proportional to its frequency. Like all quanta, the photon has both wave and particle properties, exhibiting wave–particle duality."--Wikipedia.
also, check this one out [it'll only take a moment]...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
me either, because i trust my perception.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
why do you keep bringing up religion? science is your religion; or; you could say your "replacement" for religion. so let's forget religion and get back to science. you're evading the subject. when we bring up things science can't explain you hide behind religion. God made science. God made us to opperate as independant beings. God created the chemical reactions that occur in the brain.
THERE; so we established you won't sway the minds of those who believe. NOW can we get back to science and the things it can't explain?
No. One or two people gave you their interpretation of their results. You did not heal you anymore than science did. Besides you are not empowered, you've chosen a path of ignorance over truth. I can talk circles around you about pretty much any topic. I can learn in 60 seconds what will take you a day. I've got a long history of self-improvement through scientific understanding. I learned to touch-type 80 WPM without trying, it took me two weeks and I surpassed people that had been touch-typing for years. This is because I know how the brain works and I can program it to do what I want it to do.
You can preach all you want about healing yourself through ignorance. That's fine, but when it comes down to it. You aren't the only one that can self-improve. Many people do and most find science as the best method of obtaining the best results. Go and build a house, use your spirituality to figure it out, I'm going to find a good website that explains design concepts and structural elements.
You obviously have a problem undertanding the value of a personal point of view. That, however, does not change the validity of each view.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ahnimus, please don't patronise me. I spent 13 years working in a laboratory for farks sake! I've spent plenty of time around science and scientists. And I have read and seen plenty of scientific data and experiments.
And I think you'll find that people are fallable. And that scientists are humans just like the rest of us. AND my point is that science has been proven wrong as well as "right" AND "right" is only what we or scientists know now.
I guess the thing that I'm struggling with most here is that you have been scornful of other people's perspectives and beliefs but you seem to me to be sounding just a wee bit evangelical about science and scientists and their bloody experiments. So how is your absolute belief in science any different to other people's beliefs in things that you just don't agree with?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Ahnimus is lonely. He shares more of himself with us than most. I like the guy. He's an overthinker.
I think you do a little overthinking yourself.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
science is the study of [whatever].
the world was first thought to be round; BUT IT COULD NOT BE PROVEN. thus; it was percieved as flat until more evidence could be produced.
that is the essence of science.
i do agree with the rest. unless science can repeatedly reproduce something.....it cannot explain it.
What is your point? It's a particle of light, that's what it says. "the photon is the elementary particle". "and makes up all forms of light". Did you want the full QM explanation of photons? Why did you ask what it is?
What is wave-particle duality?
In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality holds that all objects in our universe exhibit properties of both waves and of particles.[wikipedia]
This applies to consciousness, how? If something is a wave, what does that imply? If you drop a stone in a puddle with the exact same conditions every time, will it blow up the world one time? No. The waves will behave relatively the same way every time. I don't know where you people get this perception that QM implies anything about our lives. You can't affect the way things behave with your mind, you can only affect the way you interpret them.
me either, because i trust my perception.[/quote]
A photon is a quantum of energy, more accurately.
I don't think it is simple to see whether I have a liberal or conservative bias. You could not tell my gender. I am very liberal on many issues, but extremely conservative on, for example, gun control. I used to think you were a right wing Christian nutter, but many of your posts over the last few days have had a much more open-minded flavour.
When people tell me that can can look inot their bodies and activate mystical systems, yes, my scientific cynicism gland kicks into overdrive. That's because, when you remove observer and reporting bias, there is no discernible effect or activation of anything. If you were to tell me that you can see my aura, or activate my inner healing, or re-pattern my DNA ( people around here actually claim that), that is ENTIRELY depenendent on your perception and your bias.
With regards to mental illness, a PET scanner can show whihc pasrtts of the brain are not functioning correctly, to the point that if we could get hold of Jesus' brain, we could settle the schizophrenia question. That is not a bias, that is a reproducible clinically useful and relevant test.
***Jeanie steps forward***
ME!! ME!!! ME!!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
i like the guy too. he debates well.
yes i do a lot of over thinking myself. but i think sometimes you need to push something to the edge to really get to the bottom of it.
Corroboration. Science is very systematic and weens out false claims. Personal opinion or perspective does nothing of the sort. It's complete nonsense.
"Due to the wave-particle duality of matter, light simultaneously exhibits properties of both waves and particles. The precise nature of light is one of the key questions of modern physics."--Wikipedia.
see, science cant even grasp the basis for the physical realm that we see and "know", let alone the metaphysical aspects which allow us to think and "know",.....
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
You asked me : "Ok, but you didn't explain why your bias is better. Scientists have a hell of lot more knowledge about you than you do." I answered you why my bias is better for me, and you used that as an "excuse" to tell me how much better you are for yourself, but how much better than me you are.
This is my point about power imbalances. You are trying to minimize people's views. You are using science inappropriately as your weapon. Luckily this is being done within the scientism thread, as it illustrates my exact point about scientism. Scientism seeks to overpower and to abuse power. And yet it's really inauthentic power that keeps the cycles of inauthenticity in place. Authentic power stands alone, while the rest falls away. True science is in the authentic power category.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Umm, what makes you think I am lonely? Is that really appropriate?
have i been able to make something in your house move from accross the earth?
hehee.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
NO. science is not just the study of (whatever). It's simplistic definitions like that that lead to bad science, poor science, or crap masquerading as science, and trying to hijack the credibility of legitimate science.
Crap like "Creatoin Science". WE are studying how the Earth was formed according to the Bible, thereofre we are doing science, according to your definition. Not so !!!!!
Copernicus produced a vild mathm,etical proof that teh Earth was round, it was just that no-one else could follow it at teh tijme. Hell, I couldn't follow his proof today, but that does not mean it was inadequate. The inadequacy is mine !!!
What metaphysical aspects? There is no evidence of metaphysics.
Well said.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Glad to hear your opinon on this other stuff.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Oh yeah, ask metsfan, I'm a fucking psychic.
Ask Angelica, I could pick that guy out in a gabbly chat under any alias.
ha. try telling that to god.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Excellent!! Well said girl!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!