The world is blown away by your mastery of language.
Advertisement
by True Refuge » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:24 am
"One does not need to be surprised then, when 26 years later the outrageous slogan is repeated, which we Marxists burned all bridges with: to “pick up” the banner of the bourgeoisie. - International Communist Party, Dialogue with Stalin.
by Europa Undivided » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:25 am
by Albrenia » Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:26 am
by Europa Undivided » Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:31 am
by The Grims » Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:00 am
Europa Undivided wrote:The Grims wrote:
Yes ? The "insult" you spoke of is exactly what I said - Galileo told the world his discovery instead of leaving it to the Pope. That is why he was arrested and silenced.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/jamescungu ... anism/amp/
by Europa Undivided » Thu Dec 26, 2019 6:56 am
The Grims wrote:Europa Undivided wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/jamescungu ... anism/amp/
And what point are you trying to make, aside from agreeing with me ?
by Europa Undivided » Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:37 pm
by Auristania » Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:45 pm
Europa Undivided wrote:The Grims wrote:
Yes ? The "insult" you spoke of is exactly what I said - Galileo told the world his discovery instead of leaving it to the Pope. That is why he was arrested and silenced.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/jamescungu ... anism/amp/
by Country of CityTowne » Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:47 pm
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:58 am
Country of CityTowne wrote:No. Simple as that. You either have the opinions or the facts.
by The Alma Mater » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:02 am
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Country of CityTowne wrote:No. Simple as that. You either have the opinions or the facts.
Except "facts" are often driven from "opinions". Take young-Earth Creationism, both old-Earth Darwinists and Creationists have the same set of observable facts and data, however, those two groups interpret that data very differently. In both cases, bias is applied to their "facts", but it is then all a matter of what makes more sense or fits better with scientific data. You would say Evolution and Darwinism, I would say young-Earth creationism.
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:03 am
The Alma Mater wrote:The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Except "facts" are often driven from "opinions". Take young-Earth Creationism, both old-Earth Darwinists and Creationists have the same set of observable facts and data, however, those two groups interpret that data very differently. In both cases, bias is applied to their "facts", but it is then all a matter of what makes more sense or fits better with scientific data. You would say Evolution and Darwinism, I would say young-Earth creationism.
Why ? The physics underlying old earth works - e.g. it produces a working television.
The physics underlying young earth creationism claims that opening your microwave would release a deathray powerful enough to destroy the moon.
While cool, I do see a significant lack of exploding moons.
by Atheris » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:04 am
by Saint Nicholas and the Hussars » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:05 am
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:06 am
Atheris wrote:Yes. It's also possible to be moral without being religious and possible to be immoral while being religious.
by Saint Nicholas and the Hussars » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:07 am
116
by The Alma Mater » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:08 am
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
Why ? The physics underlying old earth works - e.g. it produces a working television.
The physics underlying young earth creationism claims that opening your microwave would release a deathray powerful enough to destroy the moon.
While cool, I do see a significant lack of exploding moons.
Oh? I haven't heard of such a claim before xP
But please explain this and where you've heard this.
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:17 am
The Alma Mater wrote:The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Oh? I haven't heard of such a claim before xP
But please explain this and where you've heard this.
It is the physics needed to make radiometric dating conform to a 6000 year old earth. It has implications for how atoms decay, how the sun ages, how the radiation from the universe impacts earth etc. It is not like you can say "the fundamental properties of atoms work like this when measuring ages not matter the method, and like that in every other case"
The math is left as an excercise to you. It is quite fun to do
by Valrifell » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:26 am
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:It is the physics needed to make radiometric dating conform to a 6000 year old earth. It has implications for how atoms decay, how the sun ages, how the radiation from the universe impacts earth etc. It is not like you can say "the fundamental properties of atoms work like this when measuring ages not matter the method, and like that in every other case"
The math is left as an excercise to you. It is quite fun to do
Oh ok. So, there are two types of science, historical and observable. We can observe the rate at which carbon-14 decays, yes we can. However, you then have to assume that it's always been that way and how pure that rock or artifact was. That is historical science and cannot be repeated, because you cannot recreate that rock or artifact in exactly the same way.
Also, if radiometric dating is so accurate, then why have numerous artifacts tested on different radiometric dating machines tested so different? Also, scientists say that the Earth is between 4.55-4.6 billion years old. If radiometric dating is so accurate, why the 50 million year difference??
Also, most other dating systems do date within about 6000 years.
(sorry ahead of time if I say something incredibly stupid, I just woke up, give me a little grace XD)
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:37 am
Valrifell wrote:The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Oh ok. So, there are two types of science, historical and observable. We can observe the rate at which carbon-14 decays, yes we can. However, you then have to assume that it's always been that way and how pure that rock or artifact was. That is historical science and cannot be repeated, because you cannot recreate that rock or artifact in exactly the same way.
The core tenets held near and dear to our hearts in Physics is that the Laws of Physics are maintained in all reference frames, regardless of location in spacetime. We have experimental confirmation of this, too, with the advent of relativity and every single experimentally-confirmed theory which relies on relativistic effects (e.g. quantum and nuclear sciences).
Sure, you could claim that physics was different in the past, but there would still be evidence of such to some extent. It seems remarkably unlikely that physics was different as soon as 6000 years ago and all evidence of that shift has evaporated.Also, if radiometric dating is so accurate, then why have numerous artifacts tested on different radiometric dating machines tested so different? Also, scientists say that the Earth is between 4.55-4.6 billion years old. If radiometric dating is so accurate, why the 50 million year difference??
Because with any measurement, uncertainty exists. The uncertainty in this case is about 1%, which is quite good. This is another very fundamental truth of the sciences, and one which has regularly annoyed me in lab assignments.Also, most other dating systems do date within about 6000 years.
(sorry ahead of time if I say something incredibly stupid, I just woke up, give me a little grace XD)
Which?
by Alvecia » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:43 am
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Atheris wrote:Yes. It's also possible to be moral without being religious and possible to be immoral while being religious.
Except atheists simply have no explanation of as to where morals come from. They would say it's a social construct, but that answer simply isn't good enough. If a human was abandoned on an island at a young age, assuming they were found years later alive, yeah they would act funny, but they would still have a fundamental knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Corporate Collective Salvation, Cyptopir, Dumb Ideologies, Eahland, El Lazaro, Ifreann, Imperializt Russia, Nu Elysium, Pale Dawn, Post War America, Saltidia, Sannyamathland, Tarsonis, The Community of Cascadia, The Lost Domain, Zetaopalatopia, Zurkerx
Advertisement