But it IS possible.You're very sarcastic, but you have not looked at modern literature or interpretations. Everything that is said can be looked at in different contexts. And if you want to go into it, you can look at the fact that early scientists stated that it was indeed possible to turn lead to gold.
Who is this science?Science claims all of their facts are unassailable... until they change their mind.
Indisputable? It was indisputable in the 10th century that alchemy was a valid form of science. Up until recently (around the 1950's, I believe) it was indisputable that it was impossible for creatures to survive certain heats, or live in certain chemicals. There is much that was "indisputable" that has been proven false.
And Mandos... showing only religious extremists gives rise to the belief that you believe there aren't extremists on both sides, nor errors in both sides reasoning.
But it IS possible.
Just not cost effective.
Who is this science?
Are you sure you don't mean that scientists hold that their theories are correct until new evidence allows us to re-examine them?
Are we sure we're not searching the words "not successfully disputed" in place of in"disputable"?
As for alchemy, We tend to call it by different names these days but the work goes on.
Would you prefer the term Chemistry or Biology?
Incorrect. Scientists hold things as laws that have been disproven. And Laws are supposed to be unassailable, by their nature. Epic Fail #1.
Chemistry and Biology? Apparently, you don't understand what the study of Alchemy was. it was the ability to change one Element into another, which is a factual impossibility.... according to scientists now. Both chemistry and biology explore the reaction between different elements, and ways to combine them (simplified). Saying Alchemy is the same as either of these is completely false. Alchemy gave rise to chemistry, true, but the goal and method of the two are completely different. Epic fail #2.
Tafkas, I've disproven your illogical arguments before, and have again done so. Find a hole, disappear into it. You are fail.
What kind of crack have you been smoking homey? The Earth doesn't rotate you say? Hmmm...:icon_rolleyes:
First thing's first...you can't call your 'faith' definitive proof. The bible isn't 'proof' of anything.
Science, however, has proven many things, such as: Space is a vacuum...thing's inside of a vacuum have nothing (no force or friction) to stop or start them. The planets spin from the collapse of a supernova.
Probably would have to have an astronauts opinion on this, or rather their eyewitness 'proof': throw something in space and it keeps going and going and going, no stopping until it hits something. This is why the earth rotates, according to science. The leftover energy from the supernova collapsing.
Of course, no one alive today was around for any of that, so it is technically heresay of some form, as is your bible.
Im assuming since the earth is stationary and doesnt move, then plate tectonics don't exist and the continents have never broken off from pangea, and havent moved ever and will never re-collide with each other; even though science proves they do exist, they have caused pangea to split, eventually forming the continents we have today and will eventually cause them to reunite again.
Riiiggghhhttt Scott...
Lay off the bong pipe yo.
Lets see now. Laws are unassailable? In what corner of the universe is that true, Our court systems disprove that almost every day. The so called "Laws of the universe" our our best models for how things operate, they are subject to change. Just as legal Laws are when situations change. Or do you fancy going back to hanging for suicide?
Hang on, aren't you AT law school? You think all laws are immutable for all time? A grade student?
Apparently you have a very narrow view of alchemy. Alchemy dealt with things other than the changing of Lead into Gold (Which has actually been achieved, changing one element into another is completely possible and happens millions of times a second in power stations in several countries). It also death with trying to cure all diseases to live forever (still going on those ones). Of course these days we use different methods to try these things but we are still trying all of them. With the difference that Gold isn;t expensive enough to want to transform lead into it.
Your idea of disproving seems to be to make inaccurate statements, They mostly contain entertainment value.
Hmmm... Can you be trolled by someone who's not trolling, or are you just an idiot?
Tafkas:
The Laws of science are defined as immutable. That is why there are theories versus laws. Context of words: It matters.
There has been lead to gold, my apologies, just checked. However, the very basis of what defined the sciences is the method, rather than the result. Alchemists did not use method. If you check into the study of alchemy, it involved mystical incantations, different techniques involving sacrifices of animals. It was not methodical, and therefore, not a science, by the very definition of the word.
I was wrong about transmutation, however, you were still wrong about both laws of science (as if you were a law student, you'd understand that context means everything) and alchemy being related to science. You're still epic fail.
The Law of gravity. The theory of gravity. Now most reputable scientists I know would use the word theory. Of course Newton used the word law, However I seriously doubt he immediately decided that he was 100% correct and had not been wrong in even the tiniest thing(If he did he was pretty wrong). These days Primary school teachers and the media tend to use the word law. If a reputable scientist uses it he's probably still not thinking it as anything more than a fairly well proved theory.
Method is everything and method is always changing. Think of alchemy as being the bridge between religious prayer and incantation to scientific reality. Sacrificing and incanting was used, as was mixing things together and heating stuff up. It depends on the practitioner in question. As for methodicalness again that would depend on the practitioner (you can be methodical and just plain silly at the same time) and anywise methodicalness didn't discover penicillin which I think we all agree counts as a scientific discovery.
Unless of course you can find a reputable scientific website using a phrase to the effect that the laws of science are immutable? No?
And so you can find a reputable religious website that says that our understanding of God hasn't changed?
Science recently has realized that it screws up most of the time. That doesn't mean that, for the majority of its existence, laws were not considered immutable. In fact, if you look towards the definition of scientific law, you'll see that it states that they are universal and inevitable.. unless proven otherwise. That caveat was added in the last 50 years.
Indeed it was, it was extremely flawed science It did invent many useful scientific tools though. It's not evidence that science is completely wrong though. After all with any new idea you wouldn't expect the very first effort to yield rewards.As for Alchemy, the point of Alchemy was spiritual to many, and the only real contribution (besides the desire to change) alchemy has given us was distillation... and that only to europe, it already having been discovered in China. Granted, distillation was important, but not scientific.
Where did I do that?So, yet again, you fail. You can't use one standard for one judgment and then turn around and use another for the other.
a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law
Yeah Tafkas, You Epic Fail :icon_razz:
I would class your request as being based on an oxymoron but regardless of my personal thoughts on religion I don't remember ever stating that Religious understanding had stood still. It's fairly well evident that it has since you lot eat shellfish and probably don't think of god as a big beard in the sky,
Exactly, "unless proven otherwise". Science requires proof. Until the weight of proof tips another way we rely on our current understanding based on experiment and observation. As for 50 years previously, Well Unless you are claiming that there was no new scientific discovery prior to 50 years ago or that no scientist ever proved another wrong I think you'll find it was merely an unwritten fact that science changes and adapts.
Indeed it was, it was extremely flawed science It did invent many useful scientific tools though. It's not evidence that science is completely wrong though. After all with any new idea you wouldn't expect the very first effort to yield rewards.
I really don't see what you find so wrong with Alchemy. Yes by today's standards it looks incredibly foolish but from a historical perspective it was a definite cut above simply praying for gold or calling a with doctor to dance and blow dust at sick people.
Where did I do that?
That sounds reasonable. Explain to me how that definition is at odds with adapting scientific wisdom. If it is proved NOT to invariably occur it ceases to be a "law".
1: Agreeing with this topic classifies you with those you agree with.
Again, Science has always changed. Sometimes it has changed back and sometimes it has changed slowly but when something has been proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt science adapts to it. Until then we all proceed with the best information available. Last year quantum physics wasn't fractal, this year it is.2: Science only has evolved these things you speak of relatively recently. For the longest time, Science was, and that was enough.
3:Science requires method. For heaven's sake, read the definition of science!
Lots of things are invariable, until they vary. Nothing lasts forever. Invariable means it has been tested repeatedly and the same result observed every time. If we discover that's not true then it's obviously not invariable and we have to change our opinions, again. I believe from past posts you understand the definition of proof as well as you do Invariability.5: When you state something is invariable, you state that it is unchanging. You contradict yourself.
As much as I've enjoyed this... I have 2 law classes tomorrow I must return to studying for. 3rd day of law school, can't be unprepared. I won't likely be here again until I have free time and it pops back into my mind to search for what's been said about me again.
What kind of crack have you been smoking homey? The Earth doesn't rotate you say? Hmmm...:icon_rolleyes:
First thing's first...you can't call your 'faith' definitive proof. The bible isn't 'proof' of anything.
Science, however, has proven many things, such as: Space is a vacuum...thing's inside of a vacuum have nothing (no force or friction) to stop or start them. The planets spin from the collapse of a supernova.
Probably would have to have an astronauts opinion on this, or rather their eyewitness 'proof': throw something in space and it keeps going and going and going, no stopping until it hits something. This is why the earth rotates, according to science. The leftover energy from the supernova collapsing.
Of course, no one alive today was around for any of that, so it is technically heresay of some form, as is your bible.
Im assuming since the earth is stationary and doesnt move, then plate tectonics don't exist and the continents have never broken off from pangea, and havent moved ever and will never re-collide with each other; even though science proves they do exist, they have caused pangea to split, eventually forming the continents we have today and will eventually cause them to reunite again.
Riiiggghhhttt Scott...
Lay off the bong pipe yo.
:lol:
'tards.
I was wrong about transmutation, however, you were still wrong about both laws of science (as if you were a law student, you'd understand that context means everything) and alchemy being related to science. You're still epic fail.
If there's one rule of off topica it's always feed the trolls.
Otherwise the RSPCT get you.
