I believe that the importance of this discovery has absolutely no fucking anything to do with whether creationsims is valid or not.

Many ignorant people believe unconditionally in evolution and all the shit but, don't they realize that its one of the most mysterious and debated procesess in biology ever? there are SOOO many things where evolution is still to be consolidated. I believe that this experiment serves to understand the process better and clarify some of the things that have been debated.

I believe that one of the objects of most debate in the process of evolution is to define what exaclty are the events that determine the prevalence of one genetic trait over other, and when is that evolution leads to developement rather than mere conditioning.... To be honest I haven't been reading a lot about it since I left school so Idk if anything has been agreed but still, I believe these are the most interesting facets of the evolution theory.

And the other thing is ARGHHH WHYYYY WHYYYY I mean, alright... Science is definitely a whole lot better than whatever other faith there is in the world, but WHY DO PEOPLE SO BLINDFOLDEDLY BELIEVE IN IT!!!!! HAVEN'T YOU HEARD ABOUT THE PROBLEM BETWEEN STANDARD MODEL AND GRAVITY/GENERAL RELATIVITY? AND THE WAVE-PARTICLE PHENOMENA PROBLEM? THERE ARE SOOOO MANY PARADOXES THAT SCIENCE HAS NOT YET RESOLVED!!! asdfasdfasdfasdhcbaksdhbckbrywbrkcjhwbhfdcbskdjhfbvkhwberkhgv

Oh, and Intelligent design is stupid, because its not like the wrold is intelligently designed..... its us that understand the world intelligently LOL DUH!

There isn't really much to "blindfoldely believe" in science. Science is about making conclusions and hypothesis based on observation and logic. If further observation is made, old theories are rejected or corrected.
Because of this, science is always changing.

In short: Science doesn't even "believe" in itself. Science is about doubt, not about belief.

We could say "believing" in science is the exact opposite of "blindly believing" in anything, because "believing" in science pretty much means accepting you don't know anything, and accepting that everything you think you know could eventually be found to be untrue.

Mate, again I tell you that there is no logic behind the principle of induction and, although we build logical models to suit the real world, there is no logical conection between our hypothesis and the real occurrences. Once we form a logical hypothesis, we can only "hope" it will help us predict something. And it not always does, and thus we need modify our hypothesis until they have a better chance of describing the real world (although probability is not a good answer to the problem of induction, but I won't get into that).
We can only be certain about rational truths, because following their logic, we find no contradictions. But nature around us is not part of us and therefore does not follow the same basic logic (or we have no knowledge of that logic) therefore we cannot say anything about it with certainty.
I know I am being too sceptical for my own good, but these are concepts that as a scientist you must control, because it is easy to make a mistake and say that because you "by chance" predicted something, will mean that you know (and knew) eveything relating that something.

I think Twin Matrix is just wording himself horribly. He's saying that we couldn't know other planets had gravity like earth unless we know astrophysics and/or classic physics. You know, like in the good old days with heliocentrism. Before Newton's classical physics were widely accepted it was assumed that Earth was the only planet with gravity (of course with exceptions as I vaguely remember reading about in Greek philosophy).

So yeah, Twin Matrix is trying to make a point about this debate with a metaphor, it's just the rhetorical skills that are rather lacking.

I'm not quite sure what the point is though, that creationism might be ok once we have the basic tools for understanding how it works? I'd figure, if anything, it's evolutionism that gains ground as the biological counterparts to Newton's physics would (or have) eventually break through, but I'll let him speak for himself. Interesting debate nonetheless B)


You know, it took quite some time for Newton's physics to be confirmed, and to be confirmed to be valid outside of our planet as well! (confirmed doesnt mean proven but assumed to be true HEH HEH)

Are you saying that animals are even remotely as intelligent as humans, capable of learning and freedom of deciding things against survival nature?

It would seem . . . There is a sort of tendency in evolution, wouldn't you say? If you start with those ultrasimple critters in the ancient seas and move up step by step to everything we see here now--and beyond--then you have to observe a tendency toward . . . complexity. And toward self-awareness and intelligence. Wouldn't you agree?

That is, all sorts of creatures on this planet appear to be on the verge of attaining that self-awareness and intelligence. So it's definitely not just humans that the gods are after. We were never meant to be the only players on this stage. Apparently the gods intend this planet to be a garden filled with creatures that are self-aware and intelligent.

Also, Twin Matrix do you support Intelligent Falling? 

(ps. The world is flat)