(September 1, 2014 at 12:39 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 31, 2014 at 12:49 pm)Drich Wrote: Did you ever once consider if God could be demonstrated or 'proofed' as gravity is proofed He would not be God?

By George, I think he's got it!

Drich, it's not our fault if what you are touting as "God" fails to meet basic standards of evidence. Maybe you need to reassess your claims, why you believe them to be true and certainly your reasons for foisting them onto others.

I don't think so. His grasp of the concept of providing proof apparently remains so tenuous that he doesn't seem to know the verb prove.

(August 31, 2014 at 4:33 pm)rasetsu Wrote: There's a difference here Drich. My faith in what science says about gravity can be confirmed by rational research, testing, and inspection. What you are asking us to have faith in is the truth of words in a two thousand year old book which we can't verify.

Which is also true about may of the theories and laws of science. Of those who hold to science as their God, how many are truly smart enough/have the resources to test all that they believe?

Quote:The two kinds of faith aren't in any way comparable. The rest is just window dressing.

when striped down to it's core, faith is faith. If and when you put Faith in God and were able to test Him in your own way with your own tests and not only did everyone expectation get meet your experience far exceeded what you were looking for, would you consider your faith in God any less valid that than your faith in Global climate change?

Quote:(And unfortunately for you, anyone with a fair knowledge of physics could see that Chuck handed you your ass. Average acceleration of gravity at the earth's surface is independent of any other forces which might act upon and interfere with the pull of gravity at the earth's surface, such as air drag. That you don't understand this basic fact is your failing, not his.)

Their were two arguements i was involved in concerning eart's gravity, one being the direct relation on acceleration of an object, (Which would include a drag coefficient, this is what chuck answered) and of the misrepersentation of the principle it self. The principle arguement addressed the fact that the formula presented was the acceleration rate @ sea level. This was repersented as the average acceleration 'g' on earth. This is incorrect, because that formula does not include a .9% variance at alititude. This means the average gravitational acceleration rate on earth as the orginal arguement stated is actually half way between the rate at sea level and the rate at alititude.
Which again the numbers provided in the orginal arguement is the known rate at sea level, and not the earth's average.

To which none of this really even matters because everything I said had to do with the illustration of the faith needed to believe what ever set of numbers and or interpertation of said number needed. The fact that neither chuck or R2 did not or could not provide supporting documentation to their side of the arguement supports my illustration of the faith they had in what they believed...


They were supporting my purposed arguement the whole time, one of them figured it out, and dropped out of the arguement while your hero is still chasing his tail.
[/quote]

---

(September 1, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 30, 2014 at 10:46 pm)Drich Wrote: God simply asks that you take a mustard seeds worth and place it where He tells us to place it.

And everyone here has, in one form or another, told you where to place it. Nobody's interested in buying your bridge without it first being established that there's even a bridge. Assertions piled on top of assertions will never become compelling evidence.

I have no doubt everyone has made an honest effort if they say they have (as you say) in one form or another.
In the OP I point out that your disbelief in your specific brand of christianity could be apart of an answered prayer. The other half of the answered prayer could be just on the other side of the bend if you continue to knock.

Again, God wiped away your corupt view of Him so you had the oppertunity to build a correct understanding. (Build you house on the rock rather than sand)

---

(September 1, 2014 at 12:39 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 31, 2014 at 12:49 pm)Drich Wrote: Did you ever once consider if God could be demonstrated or 'proofed' as gravity is proofed He would not be God?

By George, I think he's got it!

Drich, it's not our fault if what you are touting as "God" fails to meet basic standards of evidence. Maybe you need to reassess your claims, why you believe them to be true and certainly your reasons for foisting them onto others.

What god fails to do is submit to man's authority and evaluation. Meaning anything and everything we deem as scientific evidence, we must have complete control and mastery over other wise it is deem a theory. If you want 'evidence/proof' of God under the wisdom of science, means you want mastery over God. If one has Mastery over God in anyway God ceases to be the God of the bible.

Ignoring your inane phrasing of the question- anybody can do science Drich.

You don't have to be smart......or rich. There's this tendency to think of science as a bunch of geniuses in the room. Science is, in fact, something that "normal" people do all day. It's a 9-5. It's a system. Its the productive yield of buzzing little bees. More about consistency and work than moments of brilliance. "Eurekas" are few and far between. The majority of science is done by the rank and file (without whom, those "eureka" moments would be hard pressed). If you want to do some research, then start from first principles. You'll learn how to build whatever instrument you might be wishing for in the process of learning about the body of science. If you find that you can;t afford to build it - no worries, bet somebody (or a group of somebodies) already built one. Send them a proposal, if it has merit and they have availability - watch what happens.

I used to work with two very different researchers. One was an older immigrant 60ish, might have been a little younger -hard life-, Maria. The other a 20 something (moderately effeminate) dude in a nursing program who had moved to Florida from Arizona on the basis of tuition, Loren. Neither were geniuses. I don't say this as a dig to them. They're my friends, hell, I damn near love 'em - and they are average folks - same as myself. Neither were scientists. Nevertheless their work ethic facilitated state funded conservation research. Massive data farming -on a farm. I just wanted to offer you a view from the bottom, because I get the feeling that you have a sort of fairy tale workup of science in your head. That it's full of stuff that John Q just wouldn't (or couldn't) comprehend - a sort of modern Camelot with fancy toys and a tight guest list. It's not.

(September 2, 2014 at 11:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: Ignoring your inane phrasing of the question- anybody can do science Drich.

You don't have to be smart......or rich. There's this tendency to think of science as a bunch of geniuses in the room. Science is, in fact, something that "normal" people do all day. It's a 9-5. It's a system.

The average person may be able to do science, but not anybody.

For one thing, one has to have the wits, perceptiveness, and intellectual honesty to see and acknowledge that discovering reality requires a different set of techniques than wish thinking, and therefore one needs a verifiable set of techniques to exclude the pollution of wish thinking from one's procedures.

Drich is giving every indication that the wits, perceptiveness, and honesty, and therefore the nature of science, is forever beyond him.

(September 2, 2014 at 11:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: Ignoring your inane phrasing of the question- anybody can do science Drich.

You don't have to be smart......or rich. There's this tendency to think of science as a bunch of geniuses in the room. Science is, in fact, something that "normal" people do all day. It's a 9-5. It's a system. Its the productive yield of buzzing little bees. More about consistency and work than moments of brilliance. "Eurekas" are few and far between. The majority of science is done by the rank and file (without whom, those "eureka" moments would be hard pressed). If you want to do some research, then start from first principles. You'll learn how to build whatever instrument you might be wishing for in the process of learning about the body of science. If you find that you can;t afford to build it - no worries, bet somebody (or a group of somebodies) already built one. Send them a proposal, if it has merit and they have availability - watch what happens.

I used to work with two very different researchers. One was an older immigrant 60ish, might have been a little younger -hard life-, Maria. The other a 20 something (moderately effeminate) dude in a nursing program who had moved to Florida from Arizona on the basis of tuition, Loren. Neither were geniuses. I don't say this as a dig to them. They're my friends, hell, I damn near love 'em - and they are average folks - same as myself. Neither were scientists. Nevertheless their work ethic facilitated state funded conservation research. Massive data farming -on a farm. I just wanted to offer you a view from the bottom, because I get the feeling that you have a sort of fairy tale workup of science in your head. That it's full of stuff that John Q just wouldn't (or couldn't) comprehend - a sort of modern Camelot with fancy toys and a tight guest list. It's not.

I made a qualifier you seem to have missed. I said very few of us are smart enough or have the resources to test EVERYTHING One Believes in Science. For what you can good for you, for what you can't their is Faith.

(September 2, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Drich Wrote: I made a qualifier you seem to have missed. I said very few of us are smart enough or have the resources to test EVERYTHING One Believes in Science. For what you can good for you, for what you can't their is Faith.

Nah, and again ignoring your inane phrasing, I didn't miss it, I just explained why this is incorrect - and I see no need to repeat myself.

I'm confident that you'll figure it out Drich.

Drich stop rebelling against Talos

A/S/k and you will find Talos

(September 2, 2014 at 12:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm confident that you'll figure it out Drich.

Do you suppose the chance of that can be as high as the chance of drich's wish thinking happen to be right?

(September 2, 2014 at 12:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 2, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Drich Wrote: I made a qualifier you seem to have missed. I said very few of us are smart enough or have the resources to test EVERYTHING One Believes in Science. For what you can good for you, for what you can't their is Faith.

Nah, and again ignoring your inane phrasing, I didn't miss it, I just explained why this is incorrect - and I see no need to repeat myself.

I'm confident that you'll figure it out Drich.

'Insane phrasing' does two things. First it makes people think about what is being communicated rather than seeing a common phrase and simply going with a 'granted taken' meaning.

Second it works as a filter. It catches those skimming my work for faults so they can object to what ever I say and do, and allows who wish to speak to content an oppertunity to do so with fresh eyes.

Knock knock.