Creationists and those who believe in an afterlife

[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?

[Kaesoism]

I see no reason an Intelligent Design proponent has to reject evolutionary biology, the standard model, quantum mechanics or either theory of relativity.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[haruki_jitsunin]

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.