Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack Altitude has an effect on gravity.

Another assertion of fact, without providing any supporting evidence? :crackup: Sorry Jack, but you should realize that no free-thinker around here will accept a statement simply because you (or anyone else) states it. A simple link to a research web-site that has performed the appropriate time-based experiments would be sufficient.
I don't have any position on this particular subject (though I suspect some confusion may exist), but I would like to see you start the practice of supporting your declarations with something other than more declarations.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
No, "science" does not mean "knowledge."

Yes it does. Apparently, you don't know very much about languages.

Science is not a body of knowledge, it is a process - one which apparently you are not very familiar with.

Actually, I am quite familiar with science.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Yes they do. Atomic clocks in Denver, Colorado run about five millionths of a second per year faster than ones at Greenwich, England.

You're talking about special relativity. I'm talking about general relativity. Educate yourself, and learn the difference.

Sorry, educate yourself first before asking another to do so. You have at least strongly implied that this difference was due to ALTITUDE, which is completely incorrect. Unless, of course, you'd like to offer a much more precise explanation of just what you mean by "altitude". If you mean "depth with a gravity well", then say that, and explain the effect a bit better. But then, you're not saying anything that's news to anyone.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Another assertion of fact, without providing any supporting evidence? :crackup: Sorry Jack, but you should realize that no free-thinker around here will accept a statement simply because you (or anyone else) states it.

I don't care if you accept it or not.

A simple link to a research web-site that has performed the appropriate time-based experiments would be sufficient.
I don't have any position on this particular subject (though I suspect some confusion may exist), but I would like to see you start the practice of supporting your declarations with something other than more declarations.

I don't care what you'd like to see. I'm not gonna waste my time looking up stuff you guys could look up for yourselves.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Sorry, educate yourself first before asking another to do so.

I have educated myself.

You have at least strongly implied that this difference was due to ALTITUDE, which is completely incorrect.

No it isn't. Gravitational strength is slightly less at higher altitudes.

Unless, of course, you'd like to offer a much more precise explanation of just what you mean by "altitude". If you mean "depth with a gravity well", then say that, and explain the effect a bit better.

I did say altitude within a gravity well in my next post. Did you miss it?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I haven't observed it, but others have. Atomic clocks at different altitudes run at different rates. This is a testable, observable, and repeatable fact. They have to take this into account with satellites and stuff like that, because their clocks in orbit run faster than the ones on Earth.

But that's not due to location, it's due to velocity. You said "different parts of the universe," implying that the passage of time was dependent on specific locations. If you meant velocity, then say velocity.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack Jesus was pretty clear on the matter when he claimed "Before Abraham, I AM." There is no other way to interpret that statement.

The Jehovahs Witness sect interpret's it differently. The Mormon sect interpret's it differently.
Isn't it true that that phrase is only found in 1 of the Gospels (my memory may be in error, but I'm sure you can correct me if that's the case). John (the last of the 4 gospels written) 8? Interesting how more stuff kept getting added to the stories to "demonstrate" his deity as the religion evolved.
Did you know that there are also manuscript variations existent that un-deify Jesus in some of the key proof-texts? Of course, those manuscripts are automatically thrown out and ignored because they don't agree with the pre-conceived conclusions of Christian translators.

Do you believe He was the Son of God, or just some guy?

Since I've never read a single word he wrote, nor a single word conclusively written by anyone that actually knew him, that would be hard to say. We all know how myths develop and grow.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
But that's not due to location, it's due to velocity.

No, it isn't. It's due to the difference in gravitational strength.

You said "different parts of the universe," implying that the passage of time was dependent on specific locations. If you meant velocity, then say velocity.

That's not what I meant. You obviously don't know the difference between special and general relativity.

You guys jump into the conversation with the idea that you can contradict anything I say and be right, and all you do is make total fools of yourselves.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Yes it does. Apparently, you don't know very much about languages.

We're not discussing the etymology of the word - we are talking about its current meaning within the context of this discussion.
To be sure, the word "science" ultimately has its roots in Old English and Latin words relating to "knowledge" - but "science" as distinguished from other areas of human endeavour is distinguished by a specific methodology, not merely piling up assertions.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
We're not discussing the etymology of the word - we are talking about its current meaning within the context of this discussion.

You asked a simple question. I gave a simple answer. I also provided a link to a definition that you should be able to accept. Did you have a problem with that one too?

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack I don't care what you'd like to see. I'm not gonna waste my time looking up stuff you guys could look up for yourselves.

So I Peter 3:15 doesn't apply to you? Why even bother to post your assertions without any willingness to defend them with evidence? Do you really think such assertions have any impact on anyone reading this? If it does, then they're mere blind followers of Jack.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
So I Peter 3:15 doesn't apply to you?

It does, but that has to do with my religious beliefs, which isn't the issue here. We're discussing science now.

Why even bother to post your assertions without any willingness to defend them with evidence?

Because I know you can't prove me wrong on this issue. You're welcome to try though.

Do you really think such assertions have any impact on anyone reading this?

Maybe, maybe not. You guys just want to make me jump through hoops, and I'm not going to do it.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack Because I know you can't prove me wrong on this issue. You're welcome to try though.

A Sasquatch was spotted eating a peporoni pizza on September 15, 1842 in Texas. Prove me wrong!

The gas trapped near the surface of Pluto causes Atomic Clocks on that planet to run twice as fast. Prove me wrong!

You see Jack, your logic can lead to absolute foolishness.

Believe it or not, it's actually nothing more the common decency to provide evidence to support a claim when dialoging with people of differeing opinions.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Maybe I just like imagining the looks on your faces when you look up the answers for yourselves and find out I'm right.

 

[flash]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Maybe I just like imagining the looks on your faces when you look up the answers for yourselves and find out I'm right.

You do have quite an imagination. :ha:

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Why even bother to post your assertions without any willingness to defend them with evidence?

He has a point. OEJ, you've asked me for documentation/evidence multiple times, in our discussions. It's not like anyone is demanding a hyperlink with every post, we should just be willing to show something sometimes. And in logical discourse, it's

Reasons+conclusion=argument

That's the format. Either we make an appeal to reason or our own authority.

 

[D the Atheist]

Here are some words of wisdom from our dearly beloved One Eyed Jack.

I can't prove that God exists.

Here are some words of wisdom from David the Atheist.

Many brainwashed people are unaware of the principle that any argument, no matter how good, can be met with a counter argument, if psychology instead of credible reasoning is employed.

Jack, or for that matter, not any person, can prove that a god exists as there is no credible evidence for the statement, god does exist, to be a true statement.

It therefore follows that if credible evidence is not forthcoming in argument, then it is only guessing/psychological tactics that can be utilised to support any given proposition concerning this alleged god or its alleged actions.

The subjective cry that a god exist is really a false cry in the wilderness and is meaningless in any discussion, including the one concerning origins.

It is a shame that the ubiquitous non-fundamentalist “belief” in a god (Unproven as it is) indirectly supports the childish notions of the Evolution Denial crowd.

If the human race would wake up to this no god status, as is happening, world wide fundamentalism and its obvious problems to happiness and security would collapse forth with.

Put more simply, mainstream religions are the breeding grounds of Fundamentalist quackery.

This is one reason why I am an Atheist.

 

[SOTK]

I continue to find it amusing that atheists, ex-fundamentalists, or whatever else you call yourselves continue to hang out at a theology based forum website and have the audacity to claim we are brainwashers shoving our beliefs down others' throats.

I find your motivation in hanging out in here suspect. I don't know about any other Christian or theist here, but I will never be convinced by anything any of you have to say because of this, and more importantly because of my faith. I would never waste my time or yours going to an atheist specific web site to harrass the people socializing and engaging in specific belief related discussion. I would, however, go there if I was interested to learn about what you believe in and thought I
could maintain openmindedness. But I am not in the least bit interested which is why I choose to hang out in a theist online community.

I realize that I am new to TOL, but I have spent a great deal of time reading the arguments between theists and atheists, amongst other topics as well, and have concluded that you atheists go around and around, spouting the same stuff over and over again. For what? It can't be an honest attempt to understand the theist or be openminded to his beliefs as I have seen no evidence of this whatsoever. What is it? Hmmm...how about the enjoyment of ticking off theists??

If you are all so interested in discussing evolution, blah, blah, blah.....discuss it amongst yourselves. If I want to deepen and enlarge my knowledge of the faith I have in Christ, I talk, and even sometimes argue, with fellow believers. Doesn't that seem logical?

With all of this being said, I do want to emphasize that if any of you are legitimately, honestly interested in what a theist believes and have questions, by all means, fire away! I'd be more than happy to talk with any of you about my beliefs.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No, it isn't. It's due to the difference in gravitational strength.

And you think the difference between this and velocity, as it applies to relativity, is what, exactly?

You guys jump into the conversation with the idea that you can contradict anything I say and be right, and all you do is make total fools of yourselves.

Were anyone else to say this, it wouldn't be nearly as funny.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
It does, but that has to do with my religious beliefs, which isn't the issue here. We're discussing science now.

Some of us are, at least. It remains unclear exactly what you're discussing, but it becomes increasingly clear that you have no idea what "science" actually is in the first place.

Maybe, maybe not. You guys just want to make me jump through hoops, and I'm not going to do it.

Do you mean you're going to stop jumping through hoops at this point? Because so far, you've certainly put yourself through enough trying to support your absurd positions.