08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyBy your society. What religion? As soon as I give it a name, you will play a word game.
"brainwashed" by whom? Or what religion? Or brainwashed to believe what, exactly? It is only you who is brainwashed.
The religion leads you to believe that there is no evidence for God, therfore God is not part of the equation, so everything has a natural explanation.
Pick nits and deny the general truth.
08 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladar
By your society. What religion? As soon as I give it a name, ..
The religion leads you to believe that there is no evidence for God, therfore God is not part of the equation, so everything has a natural explanation..
By your society.
HOW am I brainwashed by my 'society'? What does this 'society' encompass? Friends? Relatives? None of them ever say a word to me about god or gods or the absence of them. You make no sense. In fact, the only people that are demanding me to believe something is the likes of you and they are all demanding me to believe there IS a god. NOBODY is telling me or has ever told me to believe there is NO god.
As soon as I give it a name,
you didn't.
The religion leads you to believe that there is no evidence for God,
No. The absence of evidence does.
So you are now claiming there is evidence of a god?
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyEvidence is in the eye of the beholder.By your society.
HOW am I brainwashed by my 'society'? What does this 'society' encompass? Friends? Relatives? None of them ever say a word to me about god or gods or the absence of them. You make no sense. In fact, the only people that are demanding me to believe something is the likes of you and they are all demanding me to believe ther ...[text shortened]... /quote]
No. The absence of evidence does.
So you are now claiming there is evidence of a god?
Funny how lack of evidence for simply a natural solution doesn't bother you.
No evidence for abiogenesis. No evidence of energy or matter being created from nothing.
No evidence on this front means nothing to you, just something you can't explain.
08 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladar
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
Funny how lack of evidence for simply a natural solution doesn't bother you.
No evidence for abiogenesis. No evidence of energy or matter being created from nothing.
No evidence on this front means nothing to you, just something you can't explain.
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
are you saying no evidence can physically exist independently of the mind? If so, I say you are wrong.
Funny how lack of evidence for simply a natural solution doesn't bother you.
Funny how lack of evidence for a supernatural solution doesn't bother you.
No evidence for abiogenesis.
There is evidence for abiogenesis; If no abiogenesis then life including us wouldn't exist + we can deduce from the evidence conditions of early-Earth and, when those condition were simulated in the lab, the basic building blocks of life spontaneously formed and that is too much of a coincidence.
No evidence of energy or matter being created from nothing.
I don't believe energy or matter was created from "nothing" and neither does anyone else who fully understands modern physics&cosmology. Take this to the Ignorant forum.
08 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @humySo you believe in something that has always existed yet other than this you can see nothing that has always been in existence.Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
are you saying no evidence can physically exist independently of the mind? If so, I say you are wrong.
Funny how lack of evidence for simply a natural solution doesn't bother you.
Funny how lack of evidence for a supernatural solution doesn't bother you.
[quote] No evi ...[text shortened]... ated from "nothing" and neither does anyone else who fully understands modern physics&cosmology.
In other words there is no explanation, just accepted by faith.
As far as abiogenesis, perhaps that is your evidence for God.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarHey dude, you do know evidence in science is peer-reviewed.
So you have areas where you don't need an explanation, but accept a natural explanation exists by faith.
(you are in science)
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelSure it is perr reviewed by people who accept the same assumptions. Circular reasoning is circular no matter how many people do it.
Hey dude, you do know evidence in science is peer-reviewed.
(you are in science)
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarYou dont understand the scientific process.
Sure it is perr reviewed by people who accept the same assumptions. Circular reasoning is circular no matter how many people do it.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelSure I do. You don't understand the faulty assumptions being made.
You dont understand the scientific process.
Don't know if you read the example of the equation that models the height of a high jumper over time.
At time zero the height would be the height of a platform, yet if another person who saw the equation might try to figure out how much time the diver is in the air starting at the logical location, ground level.
08 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladarAnd this would change the results, say, kinetic energy as the person hits the ground how?
Sure I do. You don't understand the faulty assumptions being made.
Don't know if you read the example of the equation that models the height of a high jumper over time.
At time zero the height would be the height of a platform, yet if another person who saw the equation might try to figure out how much time the diver is in the air starting at the logical location, ground level.
What assumptions do you disagree with?
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseThe high diver would only be in the air from near the apex until the diver hits the water. If you calculate the time in the air based on jumping from the ground, the time would be nearly double the actual time.
And this would change the results, say, kinetic energy as the person hits the ground how?
What assumptions do you disagree with?
09 Oct 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @eladarNo it wouldn't. You simply take into account all the main relevant factors, such as springboard kinematics, air friction etc, until your calculation is about right, no problem. None of us here makes the assumption that those relevant factors don't exist so there is no such assumptions we make for you to disagree with; only delusional fictitious ones you made up and we don't have.
The high diver would only be in the air from near the apex until the diver hits the water. If you calculate the time in the air based on jumping from the ground, the time would be nearly double the actual time.
09 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarSo you have empirical proof with stopwatch that the formulae are wrong? You think a scientist watching a high jumper would just use the height of the board as where she would fall? You don't think they would take into account how much higher she would be after springing on the board? Do you really think physicists are that stupid?
The high diver would only be in the air from near the apex until the diver hits the water. If you calculate the time in the air based on jumping from the ground, the time would be nearly double the actual time.