06-05-2012, 03:59 PM
"doesn't science have rules as to what is theory what is fact and what is bollocks" Science has restrictions on what it allows as acceptable, that is it must conform to the scientific method, however that only relates to proof. There is little restriction in terms of theory being constrained by empirical proof. From Einstein forward theory was unattached to proof as it had been in the past. Rather than a theory to explain the known facts, theory was now proposed as a guide to experimentation to find evidence to support the theory. The first of these for Einstein was the gravitational lensing, which was proved by an eclipse. Although Einstein's theories could be considered cold hard facts compared to such ideas as inflation, or especially "string theory", or any of the other ideas put forth that incorporate such things as other realities, dimensions, or branes.
Any rational person knows the Bible if taken literally cannot be valid (the earth was formed 6000 years ago)as there is too much observational evidence that invalidates it, however to say Evolution is the final word on all question related to origin, and to get frothy in the mouth when such an idea is challenge, is no different to me than religion, especially as the current proof does not support such blind adherence. The idea that life began in a soupy mix of long chain polymerase being struck by lightening and producing some form of self replicating molecules has as much chance of being true as the idea that a hundred monkeys with type writers will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. That is this idea which was once thought to be a sensible idea about the beginnings of life, has been for all intents and purposes disproved through experimentation. Currently there is no legitimate hypothesis that explains how life could have begun on earth, except to say it came here from elsewhere. If one is going to talk about the "Origin of the Species" one would need a valid idea about that ultimate origin. To say this thing we are looking at covers 600 million years, and we have a good theory for the last 60 million really doesn't inspire much confidence. Nor does all the missteps using DNA to determine such things as divergence. As it stands at the moment, we know damn little about man and his evolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a poem
I would suggest in terms of form it is not a good poem. It does however have rhyme and uses cadence and rhythm in conjunction with that rhyme to create a loose form that separates it from proses, and so it is not just reliant on the lineation to create a superficial resemblance to a poem when it is not. In terms of content is more along the lines of what one would call a aphorism, or maybe an extended aphorism, or maybe simply a proposition, observation. I could have made it more poetic, but decided to bypass cuteness for clarity.
What myth these days would suffice
for the scientific mind to consider,
of ample sustenance to sate it,
and call "such" a worthwhile endeavor?
I could have said about the same thing in this form, but it would have made it more difficult to understand. However I will accept a judgement of "non-poem" if you will write down the definition that delineates the line one must cross to become a poem instead of prose, so that I might use it in the future for proof against prose being called poetry. I say against prose being called poetry, as I have yet to run across a case of the opposite :p
Any rational person knows the Bible if taken literally cannot be valid (the earth was formed 6000 years ago)as there is too much observational evidence that invalidates it, however to say Evolution is the final word on all question related to origin, and to get frothy in the mouth when such an idea is challenge, is no different to me than religion, especially as the current proof does not support such blind adherence. The idea that life began in a soupy mix of long chain polymerase being struck by lightening and producing some form of self replicating molecules has as much chance of being true as the idea that a hundred monkeys with type writers will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. That is this idea which was once thought to be a sensible idea about the beginnings of life, has been for all intents and purposes disproved through experimentation. Currently there is no legitimate hypothesis that explains how life could have begun on earth, except to say it came here from elsewhere. If one is going to talk about the "Origin of the Species" one would need a valid idea about that ultimate origin. To say this thing we are looking at covers 600 million years, and we have a good theory for the last 60 million really doesn't inspire much confidence. Nor does all the missteps using DNA to determine such things as divergence. As it stands at the moment, we know damn little about man and his evolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a poem
I would suggest in terms of form it is not a good poem. It does however have rhyme and uses cadence and rhythm in conjunction with that rhyme to create a loose form that separates it from proses, and so it is not just reliant on the lineation to create a superficial resemblance to a poem when it is not. In terms of content is more along the lines of what one would call a aphorism, or maybe an extended aphorism, or maybe simply a proposition, observation. I could have made it more poetic, but decided to bypass cuteness for clarity.
What myth these days would suffice
for the scientific mind to consider,
of ample sustenance to sate it,
and call "such" a worthwhile endeavor?
I could have said about the same thing in this form, but it would have made it more difficult to understand. However I will accept a judgement of "non-poem" if you will write down the definition that delineates the line one must cross to become a poem instead of prose, so that I might use it in the future for proof against prose being called poetry. I say against prose being called poetry, as I have yet to run across a case of the opposite :p
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.