Molecular biology

@treebee Said

what do you base this opinion on? what studies?

@ImTheTroubleIn421 Said

And he tries to piss me off because i piss him off.

@aquine Said

When I was studying at both Flinders and Adelaide Universities, I found the mentality and intellectual capacity of the vast majority to be incredibly lacking and somewhat stale.

Universities are nothing more than recruitment camps for the machine these days. University students have just become investment drones. It is realy quite pathetic.

I don't believe that anyone in their right miind could deny this reality. As Bob.fish has pointed out.


Blessed be the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

@catiebuggg Said

How would it be a sub branch of philosophy? Scientist work to prove everything they believe. Just curious because I don't understand that statement..

@catiebuggg Said

He tries to piss everyone off lol. He gets to me sometimes. Only because I hate people who preach about everything. I bet if I mentioned I was going to take a piss, he'd find something to preach about it. I hate bible thumpers. I respect religion, but not when it's being shoved down my throat!

@ImTheTroubleIn421 Said

Are you s***ting me???? We have advanced more in the last 10 years than we had from 1800 to 1950.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Well, someone who gets a doctorate in science has a doctorate saying "Doctor of Philosophy" because science is a sub-branch of philosophy... sadly, many people in the science fraternity like to delude themselves into thinking that science provides a special form of knowledge, but they cannot argue that scientifically and have to resort to philosophy to argue for it, and they do not see the stupidity of their argument (see "philosophy of science" for verification of this... The scientific method is a process, any implications they draw from that process, is philosophy.

@aquine Said

If you are able to swallow a PC, or a laptop, then I believe that you should take that show on the road. Humans would pay to see such amazing antics.

If you can't then you are complaining about nothing. You don't have to look if you don't want to communicate with me.

Jesus loves you.


Blessed be the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

that is relevant to my post how?

@treebee Said

so its just your opinion then.

@aquine Said

Not really. I am sure that as you consider yourself to be amongst the majority in that you appreciate only empirical evidence, you would be the first to acknowledge that emirical knowledge is gained through observation and measurement.

Although my measurements were somewhat crude and possibly influenced by my own subjectivity, there is no doubting they are based on my observations. As such, I believe that my conclusions are weightier than mere opinion. I consider my conclusions to be a working hypothesis.

One can also look to the decline of qualitative output over the course of the last two decades to deduce that there has indeed been a loss of intellectual prowess and originality in all scientific fields.


Blessed be the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

@catiebuggg Said

Oh gotcha. Makes sense. Kind of like, religious people have to rely on faith to prove everything?

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Well, in a sense yes. Science operates on the idea that, in practice, it is unbiased, but it isn't. Scientists are people, and they make sense of the world by operating from within a particular paradigm. So does everyone else. People working in actual science can be creationists, deists, atheists, agnostics, polytheists, monotheists and pretty much any other thing.

You can say that it is "faith" but whatever the paradigm a person operates from within, they are all bound by the same limitations of trying to make sense of the word based on assumptions that they cannot prove.

@ImTheTroubleIn421 Said

A theory in science is a hypothesis that has not been proven false in any circumstance, and can accurately predict a future outcome... You are correct that a scientist can ever prove anything, but they come pretty dam close.