A question regarding "Fact and Theory"

[YJOB]

---

yup, thanks i agree with that sir.

[rodsky]

hmm... but @ least gi embraced n2 ang morals given by what religion we belong 2? even to an atheist, good morals ain't a hindrance to learning esp. science dibah? although God may never exist @ all, tnx to them religions, people can either live peacefully or live chaotically.. hehe

Exactly. The "morals" created by religion are designed for the feeble-minded, because if one is totally in-charge of his own self, one doesn't need a "check", and can act according to his own free will. In that aspect, I'm in favor of religion, if only to keep tabs of the behavior of those who do not have the ability to take full control of their will.

-RODION

[bcasabee]

I beg to disagree brod rods about your statement on morality, pero since this section here is not about morality and philosophy, dili nalang ko mo butt in.

Pero I can't help pointing out a contradiction to your statement regarding free will. You were basically saying "people can act according to his own free will" but said another thing in the end "people should control their free will". Unsa man jud bro, act according to his own free will, or control hiw own free will. Sorry brad, la ko kasabot kay usa man gud ko sa mga feeble-minded. Thanks nalang daan.

[lomotel]

no offense but I can sense Rodsky here as an atheist

[athiesta]

The reason why you're confused is because you're confusing facts with politics.

The Pluto issue is a Political one. It's just a NAMING ISSUE.

Here is an analogy of the Pluto issue nga hopefully ka-relate mo.

A beauty contest was held. The criteria/conditions of the contest said nga pwede moapil ang mestizas. So naay nag apil nga mestiza tapos nidaog. And THEN all of a sudden, a day after the event, the judges said "Ay we made a mistake, dili dapat diay apil ang mestiza kay unfair sa mga local talent"...and so, the winner was forced to surrender her crown.

Same case with Pluto. Before 2007, the criteria for being a "planet" was different. Unya after the 2006 IAU conference, gi-usab nila. Kay ngano man i-usab man dyud? Now here's where you'll have difficulty in chewing the food...kay dapat naa kay background in planetary geology to understand the issues involved, but one simple angle...if ang pre 2007 definition of a planet dawaton gihapon...na, ang total number of planets in the solar system kay molapas ug 30...so just think of all the planets that an elementary school kid would have to memorize? And to think they're barely visible (very small and very far, these are the so called Kuiper Belt objects).

SO, one of the solutions is to cut down the number of planets to 8, kay most of the other "planets" in the list of 30 candidates, mga gagmay man dyud. Did you know that some of these 30 are even LARGER than Pluto? So unsaon man na nimo bi? Mas dako pa sa Pluto, pero hiwi ang orbit in relation to the solar plane? Aber? Unsa man? Unya what about satellite-harboring? Aysus daghang kaayo intawon nga issue, so that the debate will last siguro mga 10 years...so para human na ang hisgut, since naming issue ra man ni, mas maayo nga 8 planets ra dyud para human na ang lalis. Sabot?

So don't automatically judge stuff kung wala mo'y nahibaw-an about the decisions involved.

-RODION

The Pluto issue is a Political one. It's just a NAMING ISSUE.
* I disagree as political one.
* we know science is a self correcting body of knowledge. This is not political.
* They change the planet definition

Pluto Not a Planet, Astronomers Rule
According to the new definition, a full-fledged planet is an object that orbits the sun and is large enough to have become round due to the force of its own gravity. In addition, a planet has to
dominate the neighborhood around its orbit.

If a body of scientist correcting what we understand about something and we call it politics then better we call it politics than to hide something under the banner of science. The correction of scientific names and definitions are always based on these groups of organization that are dedicated to support truth, foundation and integrity in the name os science.

Rod, yes you know well on this section, but do consider this fact... We don't know everything of this world.

[athiesta]

It all depends on whoever keeps on repeating the tests/experiments. Even ikaw, given the funding, and the proper training, who knows if you keep repeating the experiment, and one day, your findings might suggest that the results of the experiment have changed so then of course, the fact of today will no longer be considered as fact, kay nag-usab naman ang findings. Simple as that.

-RODION

that is the problem with theories!

if you are in-prison today because of this scientific evidence that found you guilty... then after 50 years it was found a flaw. Will we be happy to this circumstance? This is another side of story, but TRUTH does matter. If your truth today is different from tommorow, let us make sure it does not bear hate, war, famine or death.

[athiesta]

Exactly. The "morals" created by religion are designed for the feeble-minded, because if one is totally in-charge of his own self, one doesn't need a "check", and can act according to his own free will. In that aspect, I'm in favor of religion, if only to keep tabs of the behavior of those who do not have the ability to take full control of their will.

-RODION

lols! rod, don't ever under estimate believers.

I am an athiest like you rod. But I honor the law. Did you know that these laws are morals based on religion. Civil laws, tells us:

Don't Kill
Don't Steal

@Religion
We are not force to believe. It doesn't matter. If you think your religion is wrong, you are free to find one. But I believe we need religion. It is the only NATURAL LAW that stands in the test of time. I commend, go for religion over science. But don't persuade me.

@Science
This is our religion rod. Sometimes, we are definitely sure the answer is out there. We stand the same FAITH with religion. We understood that everything is governed by laws/information carries with it are numbers that governs life, we don't have the answer rod. Arrogance is what makes our science wrong. Religion told us walk on water happen, water burn into fire, and what did science told us? THESE ARE DAMN POSSIBLE. That is according to quantum mechanics and chemistry.

Science should support truth without the interest of lifting one's belief.

[rodsky]

lols! rod, don't ever under estimate believers.

I am an athiest like you rod. But I honor the law. Did you know that these laws are morals based on religion. Civil laws, tells us:

Don't Kill
Don't Steal

@Religion
We are not force to believe. It doesn't matter. If you think your religion is wrong, you are free to find one. But I believe we need religion. It is the only NATURAL LAW that stands in the test of time. I commend, go for religion over science. But don't persuade me.

@Science
This is our religion rod. Sometimes, we are definitely sure the answer is out there. We stand the same FAITH with religion. We understood that everything is governed by laws/information carries with it are numbers that governs life, we don't have the answer rod. Arrogance is what makes our science wrong. Religion told us walk on water happen, water burn into fire, and what did science told us? THESE ARE DAMN POSSIBLE. That is according to quantum mechanics and chemistry.

Science should support truth without the interest of lifting one's belief.

Laws are based on logic and reasoning, rather than religion, which is why there is universal/international law. Just think, if laws around the world were based ANY religion, then we should all be punished by the law here in Cebu for eating pork.

Science is not my religion. Science is only a tool. How many times should I be saying this in this subforum?

"I'm an atheist like you Rod." Ang galing mo naman. You automatically assume I'm an atheist. That is your assumption. Tapos anong gusto mo ipalabas sa statement mong "But I honor the law", that I don't honor it? *shakes head*

-RODION

[athiesta]

Laws are based on logic and reasoning, rather than religion, which is why there is universal/international law. Just think, if laws around the world were based ANY religion, then we should all be punished by the law here in Cebu for eating pork.

Science is not my religion. Science is only a tool. How many times should I be saying this in this subforum?

"I'm an atheist like you Rod." Ang galing mo naman. You automatically assume I'm an atheist. That is your assumption. Tapos anong gusto mo ipalabas sa statement mong "But I honor the law", that I don't honor it? *shakes head*

-RODION

Exactly. The "morals" created by religion are designed for the feeble-minded
* this is even worst. Does it mean rod that you are not athiest and your feeble-minded also?

feeble-minded
* as a loose description of a variety of mental deficiencies, including what would now be considered mental retardation
Feeble-minded - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Science is only a tool.
* serving our interest to uplift one's belief. This is the cause of conflict between science and religion. You don't have to bother talking about religion if it does not matter to you. Just don't call them RETARD$.


OT:
. Tapos anong gusto mo ipalabas sa statement mong "But I honor the law", that I don't honor it? *shakes head*
* did you? calling them RETAR* this is statement i don't like rod, you are using science to serve your interest. This is how science becomes the whor* of knowledge.
* if law will tell you eating pork will get you in trouble, then it is the law; stupid or not, if you don't observe, yes you will get into trouble.

[kebotDiNaMute]

interesting... no comment... bsin e ban ko...