User Tag List

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3456789 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 189

Thread: The Thread Where You Link To Stripe's Best Evidence-Based Posts

  1. #76
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,348 Times in 2,268 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Stipe can quote-mine with the best to them.

    BTW, it doesn't matter if the moon has an imbalance:

    Tidal bulges

    A's gravity produces a tidal force on B which distorts its gravitational equilibrium shape slightly so that it becomes elongated along the axis oriented toward A, and conversely, is slightly reduced in dimension in directions perpendicular to this axis. These distortions are known as tidal bulges. When B is not yet tidally locked, the bulges travel over its surface, with one of the two "high" tidal bulges traveling close to the point where body A is overhead. For large astronomical bodies which are near-spherical due to self-gravitation, the tidal distortion produces a slightly prolate spheroid - i.e., an axially symmetric ellipsoid that is elongated along its major axis. Smaller bodies also experience distortion, but this distortion is less regular.

    Bulge dragging

    The material of B exerts resistance to this periodic reshaping caused by the tidal force. In effect, some time is required to reshape B to the gravitational equilibrium shape, by which time the forming bulges have already been carried some distance away from the A-B axis by B's rotation. Seen from a vantage point in space, the points of maximum bulge extension are displaced from the axis oriented towards A. If B's rotation period is shorter than its orbital period, the bulges are carried forward of the axis oriented towards A in the direction of rotation, whereas if B's rotation period is longer the bulges lag behind instead.

    Resulting torque

    Since the bulges are now displaced from the A-B axis, A's gravitational pull on the mass in them exerts a torque on B. The torque on the A-facing bulge acts to bring B's rotation in line with its orbital period, while the "back" bulge which faces away from A acts in the opposite sense. However, the bulge on the A-facing side is closer to A than the back bulge by a distance of approximately B's diameter, and so experiences a slightly stronger gravitational force and torque. The net resulting torque from both bulges, then, is always in the direction which acts to synchronize B's rotation with its orbital period, leading eventually to tidal locking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

    It's not any difference in density from side to side (Earth is slowly undergoing gravitational locking with the moon, with no great imbalance) Stipe just made up a story to cover his earlier error.
    This message is hidden because ...

  2. #77
    Over 750 post club Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    815
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2374
    Quote Originally Posted by Inzl Kett View Post
    This is a awesome thread.
    I agree. Don't forget to rate it "excellent"!

  3. #78
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,143
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 13,017 Times in 9,145 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147854
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  4. #79
    Titan of the Wasatch Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    13,520
    Thanks
    2,718
    Thanked 12,914 Times in 8,807 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)




    Rep Power
    2147725
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    That post is another tick mark for Stripe. I liked it too.
    "we do not argue that someone could possibly have an imaginary brain."
    Stripe--
    |||| ||||
    Athiests--

  5. #80
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,143
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 13,017 Times in 9,145 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147854
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  6. #81
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,143
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 13,017 Times in 9,145 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147854
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  7. #82
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,003
    Thanks
    9,925
    Thanked 7,769 Times in 5,219 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Hey, I don't claim to be an expert in science dude. Mainly because I'm not.....

    What I'd like to know is why I should ignore the plethora of peer reviewed and accepted evidence for an old earth in favour of YEC which is given practically zero credence in the scientific community at large. Just why is that Stripe?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    WizardofOz (January 26th, 2019)

  9. #83
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,143
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 13,017 Times in 9,145 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147854
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Hey, I don't claim to be an expert in science dude. Mainly because I'm not.....
    You need not be an expert to contribute to a discussion.

    What I'd like to know is why I should ignore the plethora of peer reviewed and accepted evidence for an old earth in favour of YEC which is given practically zero credence in the scientific community at large. Just why is that Stripe?
    I don't expect you to ignore it.

    You should, however, realise that the popularity of an idea is no evidence for the idea. Yes, what I say is mocked, marginalised and drowned out at every turn. But in order to engage honestly, what you need to do is address the ideas according to the standard by which they are presented.

    Atheists have a long history of relying upon dishonest debating tactics. I believe you could easily do better. A discussion with an honest man would be worth it's weight in gold as opposed to having to spend more time wading through Barbarian's mire.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  10. #84
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,348 Times in 2,268 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    You should, however, realise that the popularity of an idea is no evidence for the idea.
    There are two major errors people make in regards to experts. One is to assume experts know everything about their subject. The other is to assume that the consensus of knowledgeable people isn't a good indicator of truth.

    Yes, what I say is mocked, marginalised and drowned out at every turn.
    You need to show at least a marginal ability to learn about the subject, and to produce some checkable evidence. That would greatly reduce your problems here.

    But in order to engage honestly, what you need to do is address the ideas according to the standard by which they are presented.
    In science, the standard is evidence. It's not who can tell the best story; it's who can marshall the most evidence.

    Atheists have a long history of relying upon dishonest debating tactics.
    Are you telling us you're an atheist, Stipe?

    I believe you could easily do better. A discussion with an honest man would be worth it's weight in gold
    Actually, it's not a problem arguing with you. Even when you do something dishonest, it's easy to make you a bad example, and that serves the truth, too.

    as opposed to having to spend more time wading through Barbarian's mire.
    Evidence can be so - icky, um, Stipe? That's how the game is played. If you want to get to the truth, that "mire" is how it's done. If that bothers you, go back to your new religion.
    This message is hidden because ...

  11. #85
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,003
    Thanks
    9,925
    Thanked 7,769 Times in 5,219 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    You need not be an expert to contribute to a discussion.
    Agreed. Neither of us are experts so it'd be a bit hypocritical to disagree....

    I don't expect you to ignore it.
    Good.

    You should, however, realise that the popularity of an idea is no evidence for the idea. Yes, what I say is mocked, marginalised and drowned out at every turn. But in order to engage honestly, what you need to do is address the ideas according to the standard by which they are presented.
    Except the overwhelming consensus regarding the age of the earth isn't based on popularity but rather evidence. I may not be an expert in any given realm of science but I do know that theories aren't based on what sounds 'popular' but that which can be backed up and tested, hence the peer review process etc. So unless there's some type of agenda going on then what possible reason is there for what effectively mounts to a cover up regarding the age of this planet?

    Atheists have a long history of relying upon dishonest debating tactics. I believe you could easily do better. A discussion with an honest man would be worth it's weight in gold as opposed to having to spend more time wading through Barbarian's mire.
    Stereotyping people based on a personal opinion regarding belief or lack of is hardly honest in itself Stripe. You could do better yourself by dispensing with that approach. Plenty of theists and atheists act like jerks but that's no reason to blanket a bunch of folk either way. That way lies ignorance. It's pretty obvious to any outside and objective observer that Barbarian and Alate One (among others) are hardly novices where it comes to science. They're also both Christians. You don't get to be an assistant professor of biology etc on a whim.

  12. #86
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,143
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 13,017 Times in 9,145 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147854
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Except the overwhelming consensus regarding the age of the earth isn't based on popularity but rather evidence.
    Then discuss the evidence!

    Stereotyping people based on a personal opinion regarding belief or lack of is hardly honest in itself Stripe.
    Only if it's not true.

    It's pretty obvious to any outside and objective observer that Barbarian and Alate One (among others) are hardly novices where it comes to science.
    And yet they cannot discuss my ideas without resorting to mockery and lies.

    They're also both Christians.
    Then why do they reject the bible?

    You don't get to be an assistant professor of biology etc on a whim.
    No .. you get to be one by being an evolutionist.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  13. #87
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,003
    Thanks
    9,925
    Thanked 7,769 Times in 5,219 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Then discuss the evidence!
    After you? Why is it documented that Bryce Canyon originated and developed over 60 million years ago at least? I provided links that stated the reasons so why should that be discarded in favour of some article by Walt Brown?

    Only if it's not true.
    It isn't true. You might as well say that atheists in general have blonde hair for all the merit such a claim would have.

    And yet they cannot discuss my ideas without resorting to mockery and lies.
    Oh give me a break. How many times have you resorted to Barbie? as "response" or attempts to condescend someone for a lack of understanding in a field in which they're a specialist? This is just lame.

    Then why do they reject the bible?
    They don't. They just reject your literalist fundamentalism. Big difference.

    No .. you get to be one by being an evolutionist.
    Oh geez....stick to teaching English Stripe. At least that way you'll be able to teach your pupils what the word "ignorant" means.


  14. #88
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,833
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 9,966 Times in 6,976 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147813
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Except the overwhelming consensus regarding the age of the earth isn't based on popularity but rather evidence.
    Talk about a huge stretch. There isn't any evidence, it is "interpreted" to mean what you want it to mean.

    I may not be an expert in any given realm of science but I do know that theories aren't based on what sounds 'popular' but that which can be backed up and tested, hence the peer review process etc
    Wrong again. It took a long time to get around the political pressure for the global warming nonsense to get refuted by the experts in the field. It was popular without proof because of political pressure. Now it is gone since the email hacking, and charges of scientific misconduct. For example.
    So unless there's some type of agenda going on then what possible reason is there for what effectively mounts to a cover up regarding the age of this planet?
    Of course there is an agenda. They are Christ hating pigs just like you.

    Romans 1

    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,


    See, scientists discovered this thing called a 747. Then they saw the blueprints and schematics. But it was decided by peer review that the blueprints weren't drawn by anybody, the ink just lined up like that on the paper by random chance, then the parts of the plane came together in perfect order by sheer chance.

    Brainless moron....

    retard77
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  15. #89
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,143
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 13,017 Times in 9,145 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147854
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    After you? Why is it documented that Bryce Canyon originated and developed over 60 million years ago at least? I provided links that stated the reasons so why should that be discarded in favour of some article by Walt Brown?
    Because of the evidence.

    Why should we reject Dr. Brown's work in favour of your links?

    It isn't true.
    Sure, it is. Let's line up all the atheists and see how they get on in a discussion with a YEC. I think BJDavis and that radiology guy are the only ones who can go any length of time without resorting to name-calling and misdirection.

    Oh give me a break. How many times have you resorted to mock: Barbie? as "response" or attempts to condescend someone for a lack of understanding in a field in which they're a specialist? This is just lame. :Plain
    This is called a tu quoque fallacy. You should look it up and quit using it.

    There is a time and a place for mockery. Atheists tend to think it is when having a discussion with a YEC. I think it is for when people resort to dishonesty and silliness.

    They don't.
    Sure, they do. The bible says, "Six days" and "The whole Earth". They reject the plain meaning of the bible.

    Oh geez....stick to teaching English Stripe. At least that way you'll be able to teach your pupils what the word "ignorant" means.
    How was that ignorant?

    How many biologists do you know who are not evolutionists?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  16. #90
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,003
    Thanks
    9,925
    Thanked 7,769 Times in 5,219 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Because of the evidence.

    Why should we reject Dr. Brown's work in favour of your links?
    What evidence? Why isn't any of it up for peer review? Science doesn't work on personal agenda as any theory is held to stringent testing to hold water as viable. So why is Brown's work disregarded? You've yet to even attempt to answer this.

    Sure, it is. Let's line up all the atheists and see how they get on in a discussion with a YEC. I think BJDavis and that radiology guy are the only ones who can go any length of time without resorting to name-calling and misdirection.
    But of course you're Captain mature throughout these exchanges and never resort to anything so peurile such as atheists at all then right? You're a hypocrite Stripe. Fair enough, we all are to an extent but trying to exempt yourself considering the frequency you indulge in such is a complete joke. Double standards dude....

    This is called a tu quoque fallacy. You should look it up and quit using it
    Er, no it actually isn't dude.

    There is a time and a place for mockery. Atheists tend to think it is when having a discussion with a YEC. I think it is for when people resort to dishonesty and silliness.
    Stereotyping people as you do is deserving of mockery then. Plenty Christians think you're wrong and as example I've yet to see Alate one make one liner posts with a smiley attached as response. Have you? You do so regularly. So at least have the guts to man up to it. Double standards again, and transparent at that.


    Sure, they do. The bible says, "Six days" and "The whole Earth". They reject the plain meaning of the bible.
    Like I said. Rigid fundamental literalism. Sigh.

    How was that ignorant?

    How many biologists do you know who are not evolutionists?
    Um, because one has to have great aptitude and understanding in any given field to be an expert?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us