Welcome to Gaia! ::

haruki_jitsunin's avatar

Friendly Seeker

7,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Tycoon 200
Manirak

I think the main difference here is that by 'can measure' I mean 'are capable of measuring as a physical possibility' not 'are capable of measuring now'.


Aaand 500 years ago do you think anyone would ever have guess we'd be smashing particles together at superquick speeds to determine if there were a higgs boson?
Kaesoism's avatar

Conservative Codger

6,950 Points
  • Happy Birthday! 100
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Partygoer 500
I see no reason an Intelligent Design proponent has to reject evolutionary biology, the standard model, quantum mechanics or either theory of relativity.
Manirak's avatar

Dapper Dabbler

8,400 Points
  • Signature Look 250
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Generous 100
haruki_jitsunin
Manirak

I think the main difference here is that by 'can measure' I mean 'are capable of measuring as a physical possibility' not 'are capable of measuring now'.


Aaand 500 years ago do you think anyone would ever have guess we'd be smashing particles together at superquick speeds to determine if there were a higgs boson?

And that still doesn't change that we could do it, ultimately. You're arguing in FAVOR of me right now you realize. Since my point is that nothing is outside our ability to measure ultimately, how would "We can measure things we couldn't imagine before!" a counter to it?
haruki_jitsunin's avatar

Friendly Seeker

7,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Tycoon 200
Manirak
haruki_jitsunin
Manirak

I think the main difference here is that by 'can measure' I mean 'are capable of measuring as a physical possibility' not 'are capable of measuring now'.


Aaand 500 years ago do you think anyone would ever have guess we'd be smashing particles together at superquick speeds to determine if there were a higgs boson?

And that still doesn't change that we could do it, ultimately. You're arguing in FAVOR of me right now you realize. Since my point is that nothing is outside our ability to measure ultimately, how would "We can measure things we couldn't imagine before!" a counter to it?

Who says that I'm arguing? I'm discussing.

Also, it goes in my favor as well. Just because an idea may seem completely detached from reality at our time does not mean that it ultimately is. So to argue that some ideas aren't worth thinking or aren't valid because we cannot test them now is not a stable thought foundation, I don't feel.
Manirak's avatar

Dapper Dabbler

8,400 Points
  • Signature Look 250
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Generous 100
haruki_jitsunin
Manirak
haruki_jitsunin
Manirak

I think the main difference here is that by 'can measure' I mean 'are capable of measuring as a physical possibility' not 'are capable of measuring now'.


Aaand 500 years ago do you think anyone would ever have guess we'd be smashing particles together at superquick speeds to determine if there were a higgs boson?

And that still doesn't change that we could do it, ultimately. You're arguing in FAVOR of me right now you realize. Since my point is that nothing is outside our ability to measure ultimately, how would "We can measure things we couldn't imagine before!" a counter to it?

Who says that I'm arguing? I'm discussing.

Also, it goes in my favor as well. Just because an idea may seem completely detached from reality at our time does not mean that it ultimately is. So to argue that some ideas aren't worth thinking or aren't valid because we cannot test them now is not a stable thought foundation, I don't feel.

I meant argue in the sense of 'arguing in favor of' not in the sense of having an argument.
And the only thing I keep saying is inherently invalid is thinking things can never be explained or quantified. I don't know why you cannot comprehend that.
haruki_jitsunin's avatar

Friendly Seeker

7,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Tycoon 200
Manirak
haruki_jitsunin
Manirak
haruki_jitsunin
Manirak

I think the main difference here is that by 'can measure' I mean 'are capable of measuring as a physical possibility' not 'are capable of measuring now'.


Aaand 500 years ago do you think anyone would ever have guess we'd be smashing particles together at superquick speeds to determine if there were a higgs boson?

And that still doesn't change that we could do it, ultimately. You're arguing in FAVOR of me right now you realize. Since my point is that nothing is outside our ability to measure ultimately, how would "We can measure things we couldn't imagine before!" a counter to it?

Who says that I'm arguing? I'm discussing.

Also, it goes in my favor as well. Just because an idea may seem completely detached from reality at our time does not mean that it ultimately is. So to argue that some ideas aren't worth thinking or aren't valid because we cannot test them now is not a stable thought foundation, I don't feel.

I meant argue in the sense of 'arguing in favor of' not in the sense of having an argument.
And the only thing I keep saying is inherently invalid is thinking things can never be explained or quantified. I don't know why you cannot comprehend that.


I can And do comprehend your point. Everything I've really said has not been said to detract from your points (which throughout this discussion, I've definitely expressed my understanding of) but to elaborate my own point.

I discuss to be understood, not to prove you wrong.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games