Scotty CTA Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 22 minutes ago, Toepoke said: Have a bash here... http://www.exploratorium.edu/venus/question4.html Could you have figured out those calculations by yourself? (They are definitely above my head.) How would you go about verifying those calculations? Could you?
Scotty CTA Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 But not part of the formal education system that I was referring to. So, which denomination was the Sunday school, and what translation (if any) was used?
DonnyTJS Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said: Could you have figured out those calculations by yourself? (They are definitely above my head.) How would you go about verifying those calculations? Could you? The calculations are basic trig. so unless you doubt that you can calculate the square on the hypotenuse from the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a triangle, then you're fine. The data points on which those calculations are based may have been a bit iffy (indeed they were, hence the inaccuracy), but the calculation itself is straightforward. That's the weird thing about Mathematics - it's an area of knowledge that contains self-evident truths, unlike the natural sciences, or faith-based beliefs. I admire those who have faith in a metaphysical entity (let's call her God), in way I rather envy them (provided it's a faith that doesn't harm others etc etc etc), but metaphysical faith and science are separate discourses and can't be discussed effectively using the same tools. Science (at least since Popper though many pointed this out long before) is based on doubt. If it doesn't throw up testable, predictive hypotheses then it's not science. The distance to the sun has been tested many times and in many different ways since the transit of Venus was used to gather trig points. Faith in God doesn't work like that (though faith in a book does leave itself open to bibliographical study which does have connections to science). 'Scientific truth' is always contingent and has to be falsifiable; 'faith-based truth' doesn't work like that so there's not a lot of point arguing about it. However, when folk confuse the two, argue way ... you won't get anywhere.
Scotty CTA Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said: Church of Scotland It was 40 years ago ......... King James English presumably with all the bad bits left out (I'm not sure what that means.) The King James was doctored? How?
Mindimoo Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said: You are either being obtuse or need to do a bit of research into the scriptures that were made into the bible and how the King James version differs "For a complete picture of what the earliest Christians “knew” about Jesus, the books of the New Testament are not enough. One also needs to read the books that did not make it into Scripture, books written by and for Christians to convey what, in the authors’ opinions, were the true views of the Christian faith. Some of these books contain ideas and perspectives that Christians today may regard as strange, or even heretical. Other readers will find them historically valuable and even scintillating. However they are judged today, at one time they were considered by some of Jesus’ followers to be sacred Scripture". Have your got a link to where you referenced that from? Would like to read more. (Apologies if you've linked before).
Scotty CTA Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 34 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said: The calculations are basic trig. The calculations assume 3 spheres. 43 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said: Science (at least since Popper though many pointed this out long before) is based on doubt. If only. Your scientism is based on assumed calculations that have been shoe-horned to fit the 'no one times nothing equals everything' propaganda. 47 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said: If it doesn't throw up testable, predictive hypotheses then it's not science. Like evolution. 37 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said: Scientific truth' is always contingent and has to be falsifiable; 'faith-based truth' doesn't work like that so there's not a lot of point arguing about it. However, when folk confuse the two, argue way ... you won't get anywhere. I know the difference. You are purposely trying to muddy the waters by introducing a strawman. Firstly, faux science, pseudoscience, and scientism try to pass themselves off as scientific truth. They say things are facts when they are not. Widely accepted by scientism does not a fact make. if it were a fact (provable) then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Scotty CTA Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 26 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said: You are either being obtuse or need to do a bit of research into the scriptures that were made into the bible and how the King James version differs Differs from what? Only canon made it into Scripture. I don't understand your point, regardless. So, if there were a few more books in the Bible then you would believe it? (How are the rejected books important to you?)
Scotty CTA Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 27 minutes ago, Mindimoo said: Have your got a link to where you referenced that from? Would like to read more. (Apologies if you've linked before). How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say which books belong in the Bible? https://www.gotquestions.org/canonicity-scriptural.html
Scotty CTA Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 30 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/didnt-make-the-bible_b_905076.html Seriously? "As it turns out, Jesus was a mischievous young fellow and had a bit of a temper. Whenever someone irritates him — a rough playmate or a strict teacher — he uses his supernatural power to wither him on the spot." (Viz?)
Eisegerwind Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 10 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: If there's a difference between what we think we know and what actually is, then it should be explored. "Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me." George Orwell And thats exactly the point. You know what actually is 100% without doubt and that's that the earth is stationary and you know that 100% without doubt because the bible tells you that. All the requests for evidence and proof of a rotating earth are entirely futile as they must be wrong and one of the wacko alternative theories must be right because the earth is stationary, the bible says it is. I presume all the satellite and the man on the moon questions are based on the same idea that the bible says it's impossible for satellites to orbit the earth and for man to put a man on the moon.
biffer Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 13 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Proof... with nothing to hide. You 'believe' the earth is spinning.... The Coriolis effect is just a theory (with only pseudoscience proclaiming it as 'fact'). What are your thoughts on an aether being responsible for 'movement'? The Coriolis effect is not just a theory, it's pretty straightforward to derive if you know the maths. It accounts for the fact that if you are in a rotating reference frame, an object does not move in an entirely straight line. If an aether was responsible for movement we would notice changes in the laws of motion depending on which direction we were moving relative to the aether, which we don't, so it's not there.
biffer Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 Incidentally, what do you mean when you say something isn't moving? Relative to what?
Eisegerwind Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 Rel 25 minutes ago, biffer said: Incidentally, what do you mean when you say something isn't moving? Relative to what? Relative to god!
Toepoke Posted February 4, 2017 Author Posted February 4, 2017 8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: The calculations assume 3 spheres.
biffer Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 13 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Could you have figured out those calculations by yourself? (They are definitely above my head.) How would you go about verifying those calculations? Could you? I've been through all of it from first principles. Anyone can do it if they're prepared to put the effort in, as the maths involved isn't actually anything beyond high school. But most people aren't prepared to do that and fall back on lazy metaphors instead.
biffer Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 10 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: The calculations assume 3 spheres. No they don't. You haven't read it properly and don't understand it if you think that.
Scotty CTA Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 6 hours ago, Eisegerwind said: And thats exactly the point. You know what actually is 100% without doubt and that's that the earth is stationary and you know that 100% without doubt because the bible tells you that. All the requests for evidence and proof of a rotating earth are entirely futile as they must be wrong and one of the wacko alternative theories must be right because the earth is stationary, the bible says it is. I presume all the satellite and the man on the moon questions are based on the same idea that the bible says it's impossible for satellites to orbit the earth and for man to put a man on the moon. I would recommend questioning everything, and thinking outside the box. One has a better chance of knowing whether or not they are being deceived if they ask that question. Are things as they seem? Are the 'facts' being presented actually facts?
Scotty CTA Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 5 hours ago, biffer said: Incidentally, what do you mean when you say something isn't moving? Relative to what? For example... geocentric instead of heliocentric.
Scotty CTA Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 4 hours ago, Toepoke said: The calculation shows 3 spheres.
Eisegerwind Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: I would recommend questioning everything, and thinking outside the box. One has a better chance of knowing whether or not they are being deceived if they ask that question. Are things as they seem? Are the 'facts' being presented actually facts? I don't give a flying fcuk to what you would recommend.
Scotty CTA Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 49 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said: Have you done this with your faith ? Constantly and repeatedly. 9 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said: I don't give a flying fcuk to what you would recommend. Feel free to continue to stumble in the dark then.
Orraloon Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 5 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Constantly and repeatedly. Feel free to continue to stumble in the dark then. What is your definition of "dark"?
Toepoke Posted February 4, 2017 Author Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Orraloon said: What is your definition of "dark"? Apparently not when your location on Earth is rotated away from the sun.
Scotty CTA Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Orraloon said: What is your definition of "dark"? Embracing ignorance... deception... lacking truth... happy with a 'don't want to know' attitude... 1 hour ago, Toepoke said: Apparently not when your location on Earth is rotated away from the sun. I've only put a couple of hundred hours into this (compared to the thousands and thousands of hours put into JFK and 9/11). I still have lots of questions... Apparently, we can book flights that fly over the North Pole, but we can't book flights that fly over 'a South Pole'. Flights from one point below the Equator (for example, Johanesburg) in South Africa to another point below the Equator (for example, Santiago, Chile) in South America always fly through distant points North of the Equator. Why is that? Why no direct non-stop shortcuts? Why not a straightforward 11 hour flight instead of an 18+ hour flight? There is no 'South Pole' in the masonic United Nations flag. (Truth hidden in plain sight?)
DonnyTJS Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Embracing ignorance... deception... lacking truth... happy with a 'don't want to know' attitude... I've only put a couple of hundred hours into this Maybe spend a few minutes looking at Eratosthenes - it would save you a lot of time ... On 04/02/2017 at 1:23 AM, Scotty CTA said: Like evolution. You are purposely trying to muddy the waters by introducing a strawman. Firstly, faux science, pseudoscience, and scientism try to pass themselves off as scientific truth. They say things are facts when they are not. Widely accepted by scientism does not a fact make. if it were a fact (provable) then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Evolutionary biology is riddled with doubts and there are real problems, in my view, with speciation. Competing models are being produced all the time. No one who understands the subject would make valid claims of "scientific truth" even in the broadest, contingent sense (which is the only sense that's valid). Genetics as a mechanism for the inheritance of traits, however, has been tested again and again. Evolutionary biology is falsifiable, Creationism is not. Hence, Creationism is a pseudo-science; Evolutionary biology is not. I've been accused of muddying waters on here before, in various contexts. I'm actually seeking clarity. The problem is, perhaps, that reality is 'muddy' and not the neat black-and-white dichotomy that some on here wish. If recent events have highlighted anything it's that the word 'fact' has no defined meaning. Like many important terms, semantic slippage undermines attempts at using it to further an argument. If the word 'fact' is used in an undefined sense, then it lacks any valid point. I mentioned earlier that I rather admire many who profess a faith. This is partly because an awareness of the metaphysical seems to me often to signify an open mind. Your stance, however, is one of closed-minded negation. Your position is that we are victims of a conspiracy to which the entire worldwide scientific community (and any school kid with a grasp of trigonometry) is party. This position is inherently absurd. Tennyson came up with this: "Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt, and cling to faith beyond the forms of faith." The former seems to me as important as the latter.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.