Replying to Does Science Answer All Our Questions?

not all questions but some i assume... science has some limititations till date. Science just believes in facts and proof but science fails in medical (the best example as i can think now) in medical field i dont think that science has much comand on a human considering todays scene. maybe in near future if we are alive science will surpass everything includin God. maybe we dont know but science do aswer some questions.. we believe anything and everything said by our elders but we do forget to find out as how and why are we saying this or that but in science you can say coz you have the proof. so i say science so asnwer some questions but not all

you can have your car any colour you want so any colour is the right answer.

The correct answer is "Today my car is blue". If I have $100 available, tomorrow it will be pink. So, the answer would not be "any color", the answer would be "any colour I could happen to have to money to have it painted and the time for waiting until the paint is wet".

science may be able to one day answer all of our questions but this topic does not say if they are the right answer. in that case you could ask a computer what is the sun made of, the computer tells you cookies but you know that is not right. in my opinion we could use science to answer our questions but then we need to check the answers to see if they are right. instead of saying cars are blue, that would be a right answer but you can have your car any colour you want so any colour is the right answer. what i mean in the previous sentence is that for some questions there are multiple answers.

Well, Sten's answer I agree with. When answering question and getting answer from other, make sure you know all of the facts. Are they religous? Do the keep up with technology? Do they really understand what the question's asking?
Just my oppinion.

"what will I have for breakfast?"

you can have anything you want provided you have the ingridents to make it. science can answer alot of questions but unlike people say it works on creating a theory on something and then testing it to see if it is right. what i have noticed about some relgious people is they take a book to be total a utter truth and block out anything else. i can guaruntee you that some relgious people who follow the bible literally might even think because the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs then dinosaurs never existed. and because no other planets with life are mentioned in the bible then they don't exist either in my opinion that is a backwards way of doing it, thinking of a theory and then testing if it is true is better. instead of creating your theory of apes can fly and not testing it.

Wow you certainly have a good skill of making long posts that seem to go on and on. Good for you. You've said a lot of things against me and my behaviour and although replying to each of them will give me a nice long post of my own, I won't give in to the temptation. For one, I don't think the world revolves around me - people who think that way talk in a very unique manner, and that's just not me. Next you are right about some of the things you said about me and I don't know whether you said those with an intention to help me improve myself or just to mock me, but in any case, thanks for trying

I've said in my introduction post that the only reason I was here is to earn myCENTs. I've tried to do it by participating in discussions like these. It's not of much use to continue discussing if I have nothing more sensible to add. All that "lame bird" stuff you said - it's true to some extent, but I'm not feigning anything. I just feel it's the right time to stop for me to stop so that the discussion can move on more sensibly.

I said previously, that I smell the god of the gaps around here. That odor hasn't yet diminished. I expect it to fade sometime after you make your final post. dry.gif

You got that right - this is my last post for this thread so you can enjoy a meaningful discussion from now onwards. Just a small suggestion - if you have anything more to say about how I'm "feigning" or "faking" anything, don't put it in this thread; it only deviates the topic. Start a thread in the Life Talk forum about this sort of behaviour and say all that you want to

You needed to build a series to bash my comments? Wow that's actually quite flattering.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I start writing sometimes and just cant stop. It´s an idiosyncrasy of mine, but don´t let that stop you from stroking your ego (and that other thing)

You actually took the time to write all of this, weaving complex sentences, just to prove my comments were lame?

NO! I had my own points in the discussion, that I was presenting and none of them were to prove your comments were lame. The fact that your comments were lame was incidental. If you were focused on the point of the discourse, you might realize the word does not revolve around you.

On the topic of Does Science Answer All Our Questions? , I've had my full. I mentioned this earlier and you should have at least held back your comments because I had made myself clear that I'm not going to talk more about it,..

Well I didn't get the memo until after I had written this, and besides that isn't going to stop me criticizing what you have already written. The discussion may continue whether you wish to engage in it or not.

Why do you keep focusing on the fragments?

Because they fail to convey an articulate, meaningful, question or statement.

They were in a list usually represented by bullets and it's common to use fragments.

Is common and it´s bad grammar in every case. It is not compulsory to use incomplete sentences in a bullet list, nor is it compulsory to use bullet lists at all, if there were some reason they might get in the way of contributing to meaningful discourse. Did somebody hold a gun loaded with a bullet list to your head?

You did focus on the meaning later (in detail) but all this pointing out about grammar was unnecessary.

No I didn't focus on the meaning of those sentence fragments. From where I stand, they have no meaning. They do however identify a subject matter. I pointed out the ambiguity in general and addressed the subject matter, pointing out also, where I might be reading between the lines and addressing several interpretations to illustrate the ambiguity. The purpose of pointing out bad grammar, in this case is not for the sheer pleasure of being pedantic. The questions you are alluding to, are representative of the case you were making, for science to answer with more useful research than it already does. Your commitment of meaningful questions in that context, makes the difference between ambiguous rhetoric and cogent debate.

This isn't a creative writing community! And in any case, English is my third language but I don't write something like "Me no know English", do I?

Precisely. If you will kindly look at the above sentence and note it´s structure and grammar, you will see the writer is quite capable of constructing a grammatically correct English sentence, with valid syntax and structure. You don´t write ¨Me no know English¨ because it isn't true. You are perfectly capable of constructing cogent, grammatically correct, English statements and questions. In fact. a person could be forgiven for assuming English is your first language. If it looked like you were struggling with English I wouldn't be so blunt.

(In the voice of David Attenborough...)
On the Serengeti savannas, there exists a species of bird (I forget the name), which, because it nests on the ground, has adapted to a very vulnerable environment, by luring predators away from it´s nest. It does this, by feigning sickness or injury. It pretends to be lame in order to entice the predator to give chase and thereby creates a diversion from the nest. At the very last moment, the healthy bird takes to the sky, leaving the predator to wander off hungry. You remind me of this bird, because I believe you are feigning your lameness both in your reason for abandoning the debate, and also here with this ¨crying wolf¨ about English skills.

it is highly suggestive of lazy, sloppy thinking, that you fail to articulate meaningful questions, based on any well informed understandings of current knowledge within the area of knowledge, in which you are suggesting we are lacking answers. Perhaps you might consider going back and rephrasing the question in light of existing research about the subject.

What was the intention behind constructing this mountain of words? You already made yourself clear that I wasn't using good English so why do you extend it with this?

What do you think the intention was? Unlike some of the discourse you have contributed, this statement CONTAINS it´s own meaning.The intention is to communicate this meaning. It´s very purpose is to convey that meaning. It means what it says. Apparently you are new to the idea that statements actually contain their own meaning. Yeah I know!! How incredibly convenient huh? The idea is that you look at the words, interpret their meaning and right there you can have instant comprehension of the thoughts expressed by another person. I call it COM-MUN-I-CAT-ING

In any case, I am not focusing on your perfectly adequate English skills in this comment, but rather pointing out the poverty of your claim that science lacks answers, based on what can be inferred from the sentence fragments you have contributed, as questions and the implications this brings to bare on your intellectual discipline. Instead of first understanding the research which you are second guessing and deliberating upon, you have ´shot from the hip´ as they say, and put your foot in your mouth. You don´t even know what the Large Hadron Collider is for, but you simultaneously want more research on the origins of the universe and less money for projects like the LHC. It is sloppy thinking I suggest, BOTH, that you have such an ill-conceived understanding of the subject you are deliberating upon AND that you do not make the effort, to properly articulate a well considered opinion based on such understanding.

Your saving grace is that you have the humility to admit that you don´t know something, but even then, you lack precision and use this as a ´lame bird´ defense, in order to excuse yourself from a debate you were more than happy to contribute to earlier. Rather than concede any particular points, stand corrected and learn, you pass in a vague and general ¨well I don´t know much about all that, so I´ll just bow out¨, kind of cop out. Thanking me for my considered points without responding to how they reflect upon your own, is paying insincere lip service IMHO. Admitting you don´t know about a particular subject is noble, as well as a necessary prerequisite to learn about that subject, but it´s doesn´t excuse pretending to know about that subject in the first place, nor is such an admission any consolation for admitting you were wrong. I hold little hope that your admission of ignorance is a prelude to a search for better understanding anyhow. So the possible benefit of admitting what you don´t know in order that you may find out, may be a totally redundant advantage.

I hope that I am wrong about this, but if you were sincere, I don´t think you would be running away from the debate, but staying in to ask questions and revise your understandings. Debate doesn't have to be about animosity and adversarial opposition. It can be about searching for common understandings, reaching agreement and finding the dialectic That of course depends on the participants having some measure of intellectual integrity and willingness to clearly state their position, make unambiguous claims, reason honestly and stand corrected if they must. That is how it is done in the peer review process of science, and that is what everybody should learn to do. It cant be done where dogmatic, superstitious or supernatural beliefs are concerned. They are anathema to honesty of all forms. I said previously, that I smell the god of the gaps around here. That odor hasn't yet diminished. I expect it to fade sometime after you make your final post.

And now before I end up writing more meaningless lines, I'll reach out for the period.

I think you also need to purchase a more compact keyboard.

Yeah, i think the sience is the only answer to our questions.

What was the intention behind constructing this mountain of words? You already made yourself clear that I wasn't using good English so why do you extend it with this?
And now before I end up writing more meaningless lines, I'll reach out for the period.

Looks like you're not in mood of discussion i guess :/
That is why you consider this quoting as bashing. You're considering quoting separately everytime as offense, which is not. This is how online debates and discussion goes. Cheer up mate...