Originally posted by BadzMaro:uh... what talk you?
Me no understand.
My logic is that if God were to send an earthquake, he needs to use the tectonics =)
Originally posted by Larryteo:My logic is that if God were to send an earthquake, he needs to use the tectonics =)
Yes... or he just increase the temp within the core, so it will destablise the tectonic plates.lol
Originally posted by BadzMaro:Yes... or he just increase the temp within the core, so it will destablise the tectonic plates.lol
But bible scoffers expect God to literally create an earthquake with his own hands by shaking the gound like you shake a table. How stupid. LOL.
Why is science not the search for truth ?NO Isn't discovering mechanics and how it works the truth ?NO Isn't discovering gravity and giving values again the search for truth ? Isn't discovering how the earth comes about or how life comes about a search for truth ? Isn't discovering how land eroded, how trees are thicker in the equator or why there r seasons all the search for truth ? Science searches for truth and discer wat is true or false. NO
Ans: Because science is not to search for the TRUTH but to explain WHY and HOW.
A single word answer explains nothing. Why
Isn't discovering gravity and giving values again the search for truth ?
Isn't discovering how the earth comes about or how life comes about a search for truth ?
Isn't discovering how land eroded, how trees are thicker in the equator or why there r seasons all the search for truth ?
All these r questions human does not know in the past, and the search for the answers is the search for truth. It is not about nitpicking but it seems u just refuse to acknowledge the basic fact tat one objective of science is simply to discover more about the univese. If tat is not the search for truth, wat is the search for truth ?
Let me give an example. John is a shepard. He look out for wolves, bring them to drink and eat, take notice of any sick sheeps and shears them after winter.
Then u come about and say John did not care for the sheeps. U say he look out for wolves, he bring them to drink, eat and shears but tat is not taking care of the sheeps. U just see the specific tasks he do but cannot see the final objective or its implication
Similarly to science, searching for answers, understanding how the environment works, answering why and how, know when and wat, the values of certain phenomenon etc etc are all searching for truth. They obviously not searching for lies isn't it ?
And as for the Theory of Evolution, i never and did not say u are wrong or it is wrong., did i ? All i am saying that these are not TRUTHs. Thats all. Opinions and postulation, like the explaination in wiki of Theory. Ur idea of truth differs from mine by the looks of it. U regard Evolution as the TRUTH, i regard Evolution as TRUE for now but NOT the truth. I am more open-minded thats all.
I think the problem between u and me over evolution is tat u never remotely accept it as the truth. My stand is, I regard evolution to be very likely the truth. I never say there is 0% chance it is wrong. I said it is 0+% wrong. There r overwhelming evidence tat support evolution. But u, it seems u never even thought of it as being possible to the truth. U believe one fine day evolution will be proven wrong. Wat if tat one day never arrive ? How long do u have to wait before accepting it as very likely to be the truth ? U will never accept it forever ?
My logic is that if God were to send an earthquake, he needs to use the tectonics =)
on the other hand if tectonics can explain the phenomenon of earthquake satisfactory, whyy add God into the picture ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
on the other hand if tectonics can explain the phenomenon of earthquake satisfactory, whyy add God into the picture ?
It explains HOW God created the Earthquake. Besides, tectonics are another form of design intelligence. Without tectonics, the Earth would be flooded with water instead, without any land.
It explains HOW God created the Earthquake. Besides, tectonics are another form of design intelligence. Without tectonics, the Earth would be flooded with water instead, without any land.
Why need to put god into the equation ? Why can't earthquake be created by tectonics themselves and tat no being control them. And why it must be designed ? Why can't it happened naturally ? Why can't it be natural tat tectonics occur without any will involved ? I also find it funny tat your idea of your god is a murderous being who kill thousands of people for no apparent reason
Originally posted by stupidissmart:A single word answer explains nothing. Why
Isn't discovering gravity and giving values again the search for truth ?
Isn't discovering how the earth comes about or how life comes about a search for truth ?
Isn't discovering how land eroded, how trees are thicker in the equator or why there r seasons all the search for truth ?
All these r questions human does not know in the past, and the search for the answers is the search for truth. It is not about nitpicking but it seems u just refuse to acknowledge the basic fact tat one objective of science is simply to discover more about the univese. If tat is not the search for truth, wat is the search for truth ?
Let me give an example. John is a shepard. He look out for wolves, bring them to drink and eat, take notice of any sick sheeps and shears them after winter.
Then u come about and say John did not care for the sheeps. U say he look out for wolves, he bring them to drink, eat and shears but tat is not taking care of the sheeps. U just see the specific tasks he do but cannot see the final objective or its implication
Similarly to science, searching for answers, understanding how the environment works, answering why and how, know when and wat, the values of certain phenomenon etc etc are all searching for truth. They obviously not searching for lies isn't it ?
I think the problem between u and me over evolution is tat u never remotely accept it as the truth. My stand is, I regard evolution to be very likely the truth. I never say there is 0% chance it is wrong. I said it is 0+% wrong. There r overwhelming evidence tat support evolution. But u, it seems u never even thought of it as being possible to the truth. U believe one fine day evolution will be proven wrong. Wat if tat one day never arrive ? How long do u have to wait before accepting it as very likely to be the truth ? U will never accept it forever ?
Searching for the truth is already a fact.. a truth. U are just searching for the reasons WHY. How hard is it to understand ?
U are talking garbage and in a different context. with ur wolfand Shephard example.
All i am saying... simple.. is WHY it happens. Thats why we have the theory. Why the phenomenon is like that, we try to explain it, and along the way finds the truth.. good for it! U see now ?
I never said they are searching for lies. Are u putting words into my mouth again ? Its not a search for truth or lies. It is trying to explain WHY certain things happen that way and explain. Thats all. Simple.
Science dont NEED to prove there is gravity. There IS gravity already, science trying to answering the question of how does it work. Simple.
I am ALWAYS open to the suggestion that it is the truth. But are you ?Even with your 0+% , its still a possibility thats all.
I ALREADY SAID I UNDERSTAND UR REASONING. Why u think the science is in search of the truth. I am giving my opinion on the purpose of science.
Its such a simple concept! Am i talking to morons ? Since u believe science is the search of the truth, thats your choice. I believe science is in search of the answers of unraveling of the universe.
Originally posted by Larryteo:My logic is that if God were to send an earthquake, he needs to use the tectonics =)
the word is 'if'
Originally posted by Larryteo:It explains HOW God created the Earthquake. Besides, tectonics are another form of design intelligence. Without tectonics, the Earth would be flooded with water instead, without any land.
you assume straightaway its god
i think how the earth works leave it to geologists
I have asked a lot of things but to u, it seems u just ignore all of them. U say they wanna search for the reason "why", but searching for tat reason is searching for the truth. If they r not searching ofr truth, isn't the only logical conclusion left is searching for falsehood ?
I am not talking rubbish with the shepard idea. It shows how u r playing around with words and phrases. U say scientist r searching for why, how and all those questions etc. But u fail to realise these r search for the truth. Same as u failing to realise tat feeding and letting sheeps drink is taking care of sheeps.
Science dont NEED to prove there is gravity. There IS gravity already, science trying to answering the question of how does it work. Simple.
Another facet is scientist wonder why things fall to the ground. They research and come to the conclusion of gravity. And tat answer why things fall to the ground and tat is the truth. They wonder why we see sun going up and down the sky. They research and the answer is again gravity and things going in orbits. Tat is the answer to the question why sun goes up and down in the sky. Tat is the truth. They want to know about the environment. They search for the right irrefutable answer. Tat is the search for the truth.
I am ALWAYS open to the suggestion that it is the truth. But are you ?Even with your 0+% , its still a possibility thats all.
so wat is your thinking of evolution now ? Likely to be truth or not ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:I have asked a lot of things but to u, it seems u just ignore all of them. U say they wanna search for the reason "why", but searching for tat reason is searching for the truth. If they r not searching ofr truth, isn't the only logical conclusion left is searching for falsehood ?
I am not talking rubbish with the shepard idea. It shows how u r playing around with words and phrases. U say scientist r searching for why, how and all those questions etc. But u fail to realise these r search for the truth. Same as u failing to realise tat feeding and letting sheeps drink is taking care of sheeps.
Another facet is scientist wonder why things fall to the ground. They research and come to the conclusion of gravity. And tat answer why things fall to the ground and tat is the truth. They wonder why we see sun going up and down the sky. They research and the answer is again gravity and things going in orbits. Tat is the answer to the question why sun goes up and down in the sky. Tat is the truth. They knew about the environment. They search for the right irrefutable answer. Tat is the search for the truth.
so wat is your thinking of evolution now ? Likely to be truth or not ?
They are not searching for truth. Its already the truth. Its finding out WHY its the truth. Thats all.
And i am not ignoring , because it will just drag this on to a more complicated matter. Because if u cant understand such a simple concept, there is no point in going any further with ur explainations. I could search for the understanding. Not falsehood. The truth is there, you dont need to prove it. Like blackhole. Its the truth, now, to find out WHY , HOW ! jeezez..
U are the one playing with words and phrases. Mr Sean made it so simple. Do u agree in what he is saying. Yes or No. Thats what i am trying to put forth MY understanding of what it means.
Let me ask u simple. Question: Gravity exists and is the truth before man even discover it , whether science can even quantify it or not YES ? NO ?
I just believe simple that science is search for the answers of unraveling the mysteries of the universe! On the way , they find the truth.. HOORAY. DO u understand ?
Once again, i have no problem understanding ur concept of science. But you.. on the other hand, do no understand mine. Mr Sean gets it. He understand what my point of view is. Thats all. The possiblity to contemplate on. I am not saying i am absolutely correct, and its the truth. NO.
*Another facet is scientist wonder why things fall to the ground. They research and come to the conclusion of gravity. And tat answer why things fall to the ground and tat is the truth.* WELL DONE ! You understand !
But THE SUN rises from the East and sets in the West..yes .. Truth. All they had to figure out was WHY.. they didnt find out WOW! Sun Rises East.. and sets West! Its already there ! Even if it existed before science ! That.. is the search.. FOR THE ANSWERS to the TRUTH.
Yes, by all definitions, all this information we have, i say, its likely, but my mind, is still in the possibility that its not the truth! Its a very good theory ! Solid evidence, logical explaination, i am quite inclined to side with it. But i think out of the square. I like to believe that there is still possibilities. New information, new theories. I dont go.. OH !! THIS HAS TO BE THE TRUTH ! I am no smart enough.. not omnipotent! Not GOD! I am just a simple man.. trying to grasp, the mysteries of life and the universe and creation.
And i understand that in this world.. ANYTHING is possible, there is nothing that is impossible. I do not limit myself. My imaginations. Perhaps u like to stay safe, in ur environment,fair enough. Personally, i like to believe in limitless possibilities.
They are not searching for truth. Its already the truth. Its finding out WHY its the truth. Thats all.
Everything is around but we do not know about them at all. We only know about them, or the truth, only after we study. Black hole is around, gravity is around but they r just black hole and gravity. Truth must relate to a statement or an understanding, and tat is where science and science getting knowledge coming in.
And wat does Mr Seah say ?
Science is ever-changing and just because science says something is true now, does not mean that in a few years someone won't discover that it was actually false. Basically science attempts to pinpoint with as much accuracy as possible what is LIKELY, but it cannot say with absolutely certainty that anything at all is 100% true, and it is merely an opinion based on evidence of what is likely to be true, and what is unlikely to be true.
It just says science could be wrong. And tat is not wat u r saying.
I could search for the understanding. Not falsehood. The truth is there, you dont need to prove it. Like blackhole. Its the truth, now, to find out WHY , HOW ! jeezez..
Understanding of some truth. These understanding r truths themselves. And tat is again something to do with truth.
Let me ask u simple. Question: Gravity exists and is the truth before man even discover it , whether science can even quantify it or not YES ? NO ?
Garvity exist but it is just gravity. Truth must relate to a statement or understanding. Science quantify it and tat bring knowledge, which is true and thus the truth.
But THE SUN rises from the East and sets in the West..yes .. Truth.
And why is earth orbiting around the sun not the truth ? Tat is the truth and is exist after science study it, Is tat your double standard ? Sun rising from east and set west is truth but earth revolving around sun nt the truth.
But i think out of the square. I like to believe that there is still possibilities. New information, new theories. I dont go.. OH !! THIS HAS TO BE THE TRUTH ! I am no smart enough.. not omnipotent! Not GOD! I am just a simple man.. trying to grasp, the mysteries of life and the universe and creation.
after al tis talk, again u avoid the question. Do u take evolution as likely to be the truth ? Thinking out of the square is good if u r brainstorming for creativity. However if u need to perform certain engineering or certain knowledge, u have to follow the established scientific foundations.
Originally posted by Larryteo:It explains HOW God created the Earthquake. Besides, tectonics are another form of design intelligence. Without tectonics, the Earth would be flooded with water instead, without any land.
I would expect God's design to be perfect, due to his supposed omnipotence, yet earthquakes and volcanoes still devastate the lands.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Everything is around but we do not know about them at all. We only know about them, or the truth, only after we study. Black hole is around, gravity is around but they r just black hole and gravity. Truth must relate to a statement or an understanding, and tat is where science and science getting knowledge coming in.
And wat does Mr Seah say ?
Science is ever-changing and just because science says something is true now, does not mean that in a few years someone won't discover that it was actually false. Basically science attempts to pinpoint with as much accuracy as possible what is LIKELY, but it cannot say with absolutely certainty that anything at all is 100% true, and it is merely an opinion based on evidence of what is likely to be true, and what is unlikely to be true.
It just says science could be wrong. And tat is not wat u r saying.
Understanding of some truth. These understanding r truths themselves. And tat is again something to do with truth.
Garvity exist but it is just gravity. Truth must relate to a statement or understanding. Science quantify it and tat bring knowledge, which is true and thus the truth.
And why is earth orbiting around the sun not the truth ? Tat is the truth and is exist after science study it, Is tat your double standard ? Sun rising from east and set west is truth but earth revolving around sun nt the truth.
after al tis talk, again u avoid the question. Do u take evolution as likely to be the truth ? Thinking out of the square is good if u r brainstorming for creativity. However if u need to perform certain engineering or certain knowledge, u have to follow the established scientific foundations.
What? Do u not know the sun rises and sets ? That what goes up must come down ? Are u so dense ? Once again, we have different definitions of truth. Cause that is UR truth.. like i said, mine is Actuality. I totally understand your truth. But truth doesnt have to relate to anything. What goes up.. MUST come down. Is the truth. U dont need to rely on a scientific statement.
Mr Sean got it. What i am trying to say. Are u stupid ? U must be. Thats why i said BRAVO. Obviosuly u dont. That is what i am saying. If he can.. why cant you ? I dont think u want my understanding. U just want my compliance. And u are never going to get it.
I could search for the understanding. Not falsehood. The truth is there, you dont need to prove it. Like blackhole. Its the truth, now, to find out WHY , HOW ! jeezez..
Understanding of some truth. These understanding r truths themselves. And tat is again something to do with truth.<---- EXACTLY
Let me ask u simple. Question: Gravity exists and is the truth before man even discover it , whether science can even quantify it or not YES ? NO ?
Garvity exist but it is just gravity. Truth must relate to a statement or understanding. Science quantify it and tat bring knowledge, which is true and thus the truth. Yes on gravity and NO... truth does not need to relate to a statement.
But THE SUN rises from the East and sets in the West..yes .. Truth.
And why is earth orbiting around the sun not the truth ? Tat is the truth and is exist after science study it, Is tat your double standard ? Sun rising from east and set west is truth but earth revolving around sun nt the truth. <-- What are u saying ?The truth is Rise East sets West, and i NEVER said Earth revolving around Sun is not truth. I SAID it is truth. Are AGAIN AGAIN putting words in my mouth ? Please read my statements carefully, are u trying to see what u want to see ? Perhaps u are stupid .
But i think out of the square. I like to believe that there is still possibilities. New information, new theories. I dont go.. OH !! THIS HAS TO BE THE TRUTH ! I am no smart enough.. not omnipotent! Not GOD! I am just a simple man.. trying to grasp, the mysteries of life and the universe and creation.
after al tis talk, again u avoid the question. Do u take evolution as likely to be the truth ? Thinking out of the square is good if u r brainstorming for creativity. However if u need to perform certain engineering stuff, u have to follow the established scientific foundations. <----------- I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
HERE ----> Yes, by all definitions, all this information we have, i say, its likely, but my mind, is still in the possibility that its not the truth! Its a very good theory ! Solid evidence, logical explaination, i am quite inclined to side with it. But i think out of the square. I like to believe that there is still possibilities. New information, new theories. I dont go.. OH !! THIS HAS TO BE THE TRUTH ! I am no smart enough.. not omnipotent! Not GOD! I am just a simple man.. trying to grasp, the mysteries of life and the universe and creation.
Once agian u misunderstand me. When i am thinking out of the square, i do no think within. I question, i think of the possibilities. To IMPROVE.. TO FURTHER OURSELVES . Thats how science progresses . No ? Like engineering. If it doesnt work, try the other ! U still have to think out of the square. Are u playing dumb ? But in the end of the day, how some people can get my point pretty quickly, i think u are just stupid. Even i dont know what u are talking about sometimes. Do u even udnerstand ? Are u making asssssumptions ? IF not sure.. PLEASE ASK. Evidently, you dont understand.
So its safe to say, either u are stupid, or u are running out of arguments. If u read carefully, you will know what i am saying. I really dont know, u tell me. I assume u must be playing stupid, but it is a possibility. A dumbo.. an idiot. But i am a man of possibilities, maybe u can give me an explaination to ur reasons of not understanding. I am open minded. I am willing to listen. I am open to all possibilities, that might explain, ur inadequacies.
Mr Sean got it.
Mr seah thought u r trying to say tat science could go wrong. However tat is not the point u r trying to say.It seems u feel seah understand u but u do not understand seah at all. R we talking about science being wrong now ? Nope. Then u r out of point
U r saying tat science only seek to explain how and why not not find the truth.
and again your english is really lacking. Actuality ? Black hole is one thing, an actuality so it is a truth ? So I am a human beng, I am actuality too so I am the truth too ? The table is am actual thing too so it is another truth. So all the nouns r truth ? Then an idiot like u is a noun too and tat is the truth.
Yes on gravity and NO... truth does not need to relate to a statement.
so u suggest truth relates to any noun ?
Yes, by all definitions, all this information we have, i say, its likely, but my mind, is still in the possibility that its not the truth!
Let me interprete, first i say it is likely then still another posiblity tat is not the truth. And I am asking u whether do u think it is likely (a possibility) tat it is the truth. U seems to phrase it as though u do not treat it as truth yet use probability tat says it is there is a chance it is true. Why don't u ask seah to see if he understand wat u r saying ? Why don't u just use simple language ? U just need to say yes or no.
Once agian u misunderstand me. When i am thinking out of the square, i do no think within. I question, i think of the possibilities. To IMPROVE.. TO FURTHER OURSELVES . Thats how science progresses . No ?
Yes tat is how science progresses but obviously u got to believe i some of them in order to proceed from fundamentals. Otherwise u r just working everything from scratch again. DO u believe in a bit of science ?
o its safe to say, either u are stupid, or u are running out of arguments. If u read carefully, you will know what i am saying.
I think u make a mistake, refuse to acknowledge it and just become stubborn and keep making more and more mistakes. Your idea of truth is not the english definition and u use it as though it is a noun. I don't know about u but I think u should improve on your english and vocab first.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Mr seah thought u r trying to say tat science could go wrong. However tat is not the point u r trying to say.It seems u feel seah understand u but u do not understand seah at all. R we talking about science being wrong now ? Nope. Then u r out of point
U r saying tat science only seek to explain how and why not not find the truth.
and again your english is really lacking. Actuality ? Black hole is one thing, an actuality so it is a truth ? So I am a human beng, I am actuality too so I am the truth too ? The table is am actual thing too so it is another truth. So all the nouns r truth ? Then an idiot like u is a noun too and tat is the truth.
so u suggest truth relates to any noun ?
Let me interprete, first i say it is likely then still another posiblity tat is not the truth. And I am asking u whether do u think it is likely (a possibility) tat it is the truth. U seems to phrase it as though u do not treat it as truth yet use probability tat says it is there is a chance it is true. Why don't u ask seah to see if he understand wat u r saying ? Why don't u just use simple language ? U just need to say yes or no.
Yes tat is how science progresses but obviously u got to believe i some of them in order to proceed from fundamentals. Otherwise u r just working everything from scratch again. DO u believe in a bit of science ?
I think u make a mistake, refuse to acknowledge it and just become stubborn and keep making more and more mistakes. Your idea of truth is not the english definition and u use it as though it is a noun. I don't know about u but I think u should improve on your english and vocab first.
First of all, i will not spread out the lines and respond the way you do. You will realise my reason as you read this post. Because you will try to deviate and nit pick when the answers are there, as i can see you are running out of arguments and now you are attacking me regarding Nouns... grammar... *clap clap*
Mr Sean has understood my posts and why cant you? It is very simple. Why would u think i dont understand Sean ? Why would i need to ask him again when he understood me? There is no need. And there no Mr Seah, i know a Mr Sean, and yes, he understood me, but i am not sure about ur Mr Seah. And i am not out of point. We are still taking about science.
And my english is lacking ? Actuality ? Yes, you are human and you are actual existence and you are truth. The table is truth. See u seem to get it. Nouns have nothing to do with the truth. I am not talking about nouns or vocabs now. I am just talking about the concept of truth. If u with to talk about grammar and vocab, i do not entertain... and plainly, just dont give a shit.
You say about idiot, No.. once again, u are wrong. My existence is a truth, but being an idiot, is a theory. A postulation. Conjecture. So... once again, i hope u get the point i am trying to get to you.
And yes, i phrase that its likely to be the truth even though it is true. Because like i said, with supporting evidence, the reasoning, and all that good stuff of that is science, makes me inclined to side with it, but its possible still, to not be the truth. Did not Mr Sean simplify it ? Please, refer and understand. Because if he understood, there is no problem with my english. Maybe there is a problem with YOUR english.
And since when did i say i did not believe in Science ? Are u AGAIN... putting words in my mouth when i stated post after post, regurgitating my belief in science. Is it not obvious that i believe in science for it to explain the truth like gravity?
Finally, my definition of truth is not english ? I am but a layman, i may not hold a PHD in English, but i have no problem communicating it with someone esle. Regarding how shitty my english is, a normal person can get it, and it should suffice. Maybe u have a PHD in English, perhaps you go over to DICTIONARY.COM and correct them of thier mistake, stating your reasons. I am sure, with ur superior intellect, you will be able to convince them.
I must make it clear, that u should not be putting words in my mouth, its previous clear where i stand, but if u are not sure, please refer to Mr Sean's simple post, as that is the GIST of it. If he can, so can you. And, dont say i dont understand, i said WELL DONE ! *BRAVO* , he got it.
And regarding mistakes, you seem to be making the mistakes,if u read ur reply, u will notice that, i never said there is a chance to be true, i said, there is a chance to be the truth regarding the evolution theory. Once again, you are just blind. And stupid. And saying i am the one, that is stubborn and ignorant, when clearly, i understood u perfectly, but u somehow, not one just misunderstood me, u twist the very statements.
So, there is no point for me to regurgitate. Please go through my posts, and refer to Mr Sean if u have any misunderstanding. Perhaps, u may understand one day. But just not today. There is only so much, a man can teach a monkey.
Mr Sean has understood my posts and why cant you? It is very simple. Why would u think i dont understand Sean ?
U r just talking rubbish here la. Seah have posted his view on the matter and it is simply saying tat science could be wrong. But tat is not wat u r saying now. If u wanna prove seah actually understood wat u had said, then cut and paste it out la
U r saying truth actually means any object such as telephone or a person or a table and twisted the whole english meaning of it. When u see the dictionary, it read 5. actuality, or actual existence, means the fact, reality, of it. Not the actual item. But to save your face, u keep saying the most ridiculous things, such as science cannot find any truth, only theologist can find truth, a person is a truth, a horse is a truth and an idiot is a truth (note I am saying the noun idiot is a truth previously). Can u give an example in the english language whereby people use the word truth to describe common object or item ? In the end wat is the meaning if u use it tat way ? The table is a truth. Wat is the point u r trying to relay ? Tis is basic english u know, and u fail miserably
Did not Mr Sean simplify it ?
Again Mr Seah. tat is funny but he did not make any comment on your knowledge of evolution. Where did he simplify your understanding of your evolution statement ? Cut and paste and show la.
i never said there is a chance to be true, i said, there is a chance to be the truth regarding the evolution theory.
Again another idiot statement from u. The word truth is derived from the word true. One is just used as a noun while the other an adjective etc. If u say evolution is true, it meant evolution is the truth. Tat is again basic english which u had failed miserably. U do not need a phd in english to see tat. Even other people like reservistsianz pointed up your very bad command of english
Originally posted by stupidissmart:U r just talking rubbish here la. Seah have posted his view on the matter and it is simply saying tat science could be wrong. But tat is not wat u r saying now. If u wanna prove seah actually understood wat u had said, then cut and paste it out la
U r saying truth actually means any object such as telephone or a person or a table and twisted the whole english meaning of it. When u see the dictionary, it read 5. actuality, or actual existence, means the fact, reality, of it. Not the actual item. But to save your face, u keep saying the most ridiculous things, such as science cannot find any truth, only theologist can find truth, a person is a truth, a horse is a truth and an idiot is a truth (note I am saying the noun idiot is a truth previously). Can u give an example in the english language whereby people use the word truth to describe common object or item ? In the end wat is the meaning if u use it tat way ? The table is a truth. Wat is the point u r trying to relay ? Tis is basic english u know, and u fail miserably
Again Mr Seah. tat is funny but he did not make any comment on your knowledge of evolution. Where did he simplify your understanding of your evolution statement ? Cut and paste and show la.
Again another idiot statement from u. The word truth is derived from the word true. One is just used as a noun while the other an adjective etc. If u say evolution is true, it meant evolution is the truth. Tat is again basic english which u had failed miserably. U do not need a phd in english to see tat. Even other people like reservistsianz pointed up your very bad command of english
IF u want to read or understand Mr SEAN.. please cut n paste it yourself. I dont need to. U can refer.
Me being an idiot, is not truth. Its a conjecture or observation u make. Thats all. My existence is a truth, and me being an idiot is a theory. Ur theory.
Horse is a truth, an idiot, is not a truth. Its a theory. Again , u fail to understand. U are jst plain stupid. Which is my theory, which is a theory, but is not the truth.Others may think u are smart, but its thier theory, thier observation.
The existence of the table, it the truth, what more u want me to say ? Is it not.. in actual existence ? The existence of gravity is a truth, it is in actual existence too.The fact of actual existence is it not the actual existence of the object itself ? Or the phenomenan itself? or whatever? It kind of defeat the purpose if the object itself is not in actual existence. Then the truth will no longer be valid.
AGAIN, i did not say about him regarding evolution. All i said was he GOT THE MESSAGE i was trying to say about science. Thats it. Are u just.. once again.. stupid ? Are u trying to prove my theory true ?
The word TRUTHderives from the word TRUE, but in actual fact, they are two different words two different meaning. If they are both the same, why two different words ?You just dont get it. Reservist and you obviosly have a problem with English.
Once again, u limit yourself. Truth and true has a few different meanings and represent different meanings. Whether they have nouns or adjectives is another thing.
Are u just too stupid to understand ? Why must i comply to YOUR one meaning of the truth and true, when there is obviously, other meanings used in different context.
Once again.. u are stupid.
And another supporting my theory of your idiocy, is Mr Sean exists. Mr Seah however, i do not know. If u cant even differentiate N and H , the most basic foundation of English, then all your posturing about nouns, verbs, adjectives, are pointless.
I guess its another evidence to back up my theory of your stupidity.
Have a look at Wiki of Truth. <----- REAAAAAAD.. PLEASE.
Here are men of science and intellectuals who have problem defining Truth. And here you are, trying to limit Truth to a noun... a word. U must have limited capactiy to digest new information, maybe thats why u will never be a renowned intellectual and a great scientist, because u do not think beyond the norm.
U think it as a word...
That is ur failure.
I already said i understood YOUR version and your understanding of the truth in ur context. What are u trying to say ? Are you just too stupid and ignorant ? How can i be ignorant when i am the one here that understands your truth but u are unable to understand mine ?
Thats why again i said i understand YOUR truth. All i ask is u understand mine. Thats all. Is it so hard ? And u say i am ignorant and stubborn ?
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:I would expect God's design to be perfect, due to his supposed omnipotence, yet earthquakes and volcanoes still devastate the lands.
And the worse part is, he tells us not to self indulge yet he is self indulging up there in heaven with those angels. If he even exists! =)
IF u want to read or understand Mr SEAN.. please cut n paste it yourself. I dont need to. U can refer.
I had cut paste, and comment saying tat it is completely different from wat u had said. And u refuse to comment on tat statement except repeating saying Seah understood wat u r saying when he is talking about another thing. If u really need want pseudo support, I can list down people like dead stroke or reservistsianz who felt your stand is totally lost. Mr Seah never say tat simple statement like 1+1=2 is not the truth. He never says tat blackhole or other nouns can be simply reworded as truth. He never say tat scientist cannot find truth. He just tat science could go wrong. And tat is not wat we have been taking about
Me being an idiot, is not truth. Its a conjecture or observation u make. Thats all. My existence is a truth, and me being an idiot is a theory. Ur theory.
There r idiots in tis world and according to your theory, since there r idiots, they r truth. And try to cut down on all those stupid riddles u r writing and trying to confuse the people.
The word TRUTHderives from the word TRUE, but in actual fact, they are two different words two different meaning. If they are both the same, why two different words ?
ehh... because one is a noun and the other is a adjective ? Tat is why there is 2 different words isn't it ? It is like false and falsehood, or dark and darkness, sex and sexy etc. They simply use two different words so u could use it as noun or adjective etc.
Here are men of science and intellectuals who have problem defining Truth. And here you are, trying to limit Truth to a noun... a word.
Tat article is irrelevant to the discussion here. They r saying the hypothesis surrounding truth, however u r saying silly things like 1+1=2 is not the truth.
Since u say tat only theologist can determine "truth" why not u elaborate why they could while science fails ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:I had cut paste, and comment saying tat it is completely different from wat u had said. And u refuse to comment on tat statement except repeating saying Seah understood wat u r saying when he is talking about another thing. If u really need want pseudo support, I can list down people like dead stroke or reservistsianz who felt your stand is totally lost. Mr Seah never say tat simple statement like 1+1=2 is not the truth. He never says tat blackhole or other nouns can be simply reworded as truth. He never say tat scientist cannot find truth. He just tat science could go wrong. And tat is not wat we have been taking about
There r idiots in tis world and according to your theory, since there r idiots, they r truth. And try to cut down on all those stupid riddles u r writing and trying to confuse the people.
ehh... because one is a noun and the other is a adjective ? Tat is why there is 2 different words isn't it ? It is like false and falsehood, or dark and darkness, sex and sexy etc. They simply use two different words so u could use it as noun or adjective etc.
Tat article is irrelevant to the discussion here. They r saying the hypothesis surrounding truth, however u r saying silly things like 1+1=2 is not the truth.
Since u say tat only theologist can determine "truth" why not u elaborate why they could while science fails ?
Those are just examples on the gravity, 1+1 = 2 all that stuff are just examples. If Mr Sean gets it, good for him. You , reservist, deadstroke, whoever that dont get it, u guys are just stupid. There is nothing more i can say. I am serious. Really.. because, u are just playing with my examples. What i sateted is very clear.
What riddles ? It is a truth that there are stupid people. Yes No ? Who are they, i dont know. The evidence suggest that u are one of the stupid people. So, I assume u could be one of them. Very likey true, but may not be the truth. U see now ? Am i talking in riddles ?
Yes, for ur nouns and adjectives with sex and sexy , dark and darkness. Sure, i got nothing against that. So.. whats the problem ? See, once again you are having problems thinking beyond the word. We have philosophers and scholars, trying to theorerize what is truth is. And all u can say is that its a word. Do u know how limited your imagination is ? Please once again refer to WIKI ARTICLE - TRUTH and see what it means, and hopefully u will be able to understand.
What do u mean that article is not relevant ? It is very relevant. Because it shows that, truth can have alot of meanings. We have theories hypothesizing the meaning of truth.
Refer to the article, 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical truth. I got no problem with that.AGAIN. Are u stuipid ? Please refer to posts. 1Ovum + 1Sperm = 1 Fertilised Egg. yes no ? That is reality but does not conform to mathematical truth. Correct ? Can your mind handle this ?
What Theologians are looking for is the TRUTH regarding the existence of God, they work in a different discipline than science. While science is based on logical deductions of the physical world, theologians on the other hand, deal mainly with the matter of the faith. Well, at times,science and theology do intersect, but they are still very different discipline. There are two totally different thing. Like total cure from sickness and there are no scientific explaination to it. They have been documented evidence. So its still on going. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT DISCIPLINE.
Yes, sometimes science is able to support certain beliefs in theology and sometimes it doesnt. Thats how it is. Science doesnt discriminate. Its what it is, on whatever information they can garner.
And please dont be stubborn, it u want to quote the person's nick, please do so correctly. E.g Mr Sean . NOT Mr Seah. IF such a simple truth of his existence and name, and you are unable to comprehend and correct that mistake, you are just extremely ignorant.
Unless you purposely deny the truth, and continue as Mr Seah instead of Mr Sean, then you are as ignorant and stubborn.
Even you may think he is Mr Seah, the TRUTH is, he is Mr Sean. Do u get it ? Even if u believe Mr Seah is true and all the people on this planet believes you and believes that the person u are refering to is Mr Seah, its not the truth. Because he is Mr Sean.