Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
539 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Phat, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 531 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,330 Year: 4,442/6,534 Month: 656/900 Week: 180/182 Day: 13/47 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fountains of the deep, new evidence
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 46 of 106 (736288)
09-06-2014 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
09-06-2014 9:45 AM


Re: more utter bullshit and nonsense
Bet he's assuming that the alleged water didn't rotate along with the Earth. If so that should be submitted to FSTDT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 09-06-2014 9:45 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 47 of 106 (736289)
09-06-2014 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by JonF
09-06-2014 11:44 AM


Re: Water in the earth
I have failed, but I still dare to have an opinion. Such arrogance to claim to have one's own mind, independent of dependents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 09-06-2014 11:44 AM JonF has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 09-06-2014 12:58 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 09-06-2014 1:47 PM Colbard has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19539
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 48 of 106 (736299)
09-06-2014 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Colbard
09-06-2014 11:52 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

I have failed, but I still dare to have an opinion.


Opinions are for ice cream. Subjectively, nobody can prove that their favorite is better than mine.

Objectively, opinions don't trump facts. Holding an opinion that defies facts isn't daring; it's just foolish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Colbard, posted 09-06-2014 11:52 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Colbard, posted 11-02-2014 4:01 AM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 49 of 106 (736304)
09-06-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Colbard
09-06-2014 11:52 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

...I still dare to have an opinion.

You're anonymous on the Internet, hardly daring. Showing your family how you're behaving like an idiot on the Internet, now that would be daring.

Such arrogance to claim to have one's own mind, independent of dependents.

Again, you're anonymous on the Internet, there are no consequences for arrogance or idiocy. Jumping off a building because of your independent thinking on the subject of gravity, now that would be daring.

So can we assume that as far as the topic goes that you're done?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Colbard, posted 09-06-2014 11:52 AM Colbard has seen this message

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 50 of 106 (740162)
11-02-2014 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ringo
09-06-2014 12:58 PM


Re: Water in the earth
Ringo writes:

Opinions are for ice cream. Subjectively, nobody can prove that their favorite is better than mine.
Objectively, opinions don't trump facts. Holding an opinion that defies facts isn't daring; it's just foolish.

In real life, opinions do matter because your opinions are formed by who you are and your life experiences. To say that your opinions don't matter is to say that you don't matter, which is one of my primary objections to so called 'scientific method'

It reduces a person's value by counting their opinion as nothing better than hot air, and then it shoves a grotesque theory called evolution down their neck and tells them that if they don't swallow, they won't graduate.

Sounds like communistic education to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 09-06-2014 12:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 11-02-2014 8:01 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 11-02-2014 3:20 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 11-02-2014 9:49 PM Colbard has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 51 of 106 (740166)
11-02-2014 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Colbard
11-02-2014 4:01 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

Ringo writes:

Objectively, opinions don't trump facts. Holding an opinion that defies facts isn't daring; it's just foolish.

In real life, opinions do matter because your opinions are formed by who you are and your life experiences. To say that your opinions don't matter is to say that you don't matter, which is one of my primary objections to so called 'scientific method'

When you're ready to show us how your opinions can change facts (which is what Ringo was actually talking about) you let us know.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Colbard, posted 11-02-2014 4:01 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 7:32 AM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19539
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 52 of 106 (740197)
11-02-2014 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Colbard
11-02-2014 4:01 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

To say that your opinions don't matter is to say that you don't matter, which is one of my primary objections to so called 'scientific method'


Your opinions about ice cream do matter - just ask Ben or Jerry.

What I'm saying is that your opinions don't matter to science - and necesarily so. By trying to inject your opinions into science, you're the one who's devaluing everybody else's opinion. Science can only draw useful conclusions by coming to a consensus on what is "true" - i.e. by eliminating individual opinions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Colbard, posted 11-02-2014 4:01 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 7:25 AM ringo has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 106 (740210)
11-02-2014 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Colbard
11-02-2014 4:01 AM


Re: Water in the earth
It reduces a person's value by counting their opinion as nothing better than hot air, and then it shoves a grotesque theory called evolution down their neck and tells them that if they don't swallow, they won't graduate.

You don't have to accept evolution to graduate. It's possible that not being able to understand the theory of evolution well enough to answer a couple of test questions may impact your ability to graduate. But only if you missed a whole bunch of other stuff.

As for your opinion, in what field does your opinion actually mean anything? I submit that it is not just your science opinion that is likely worthless.

Sounds like communistic education to me.

Yikes. Prime example of a zero value opinion.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Colbard, posted 11-02-2014 4:01 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 54 of 106 (742572)
11-22-2014 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by ringo
11-02-2014 3:20 PM


Re: Water in the earth
Ringo writes:

Science can only draw useful conclusions by coming to a consensus on what is "true" - i.e. by eliminating individual opinions.

A process of elimination, yes it has value, but what if the majority of the consensus board are wrong?

That's my dislike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 11-02-2014 3:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 11-22-2014 11:00 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 55 of 106 (742573)
11-22-2014 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
11-02-2014 8:01 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Percy writes:

When you're ready to show us how your opinions can change facts (which is what Ringo was actually talking about) you let us know.

The facts accepted are those derived by the majority or whatever, but are they always facts because of that decision and review? No.

The same authority exercised over knowledge and education in the dark ages has crept back in to dominate the so called age of enlightenment, except instead of taking the false religion road, it has taken the 'scientific' road, which the world wants to save the future? Talk about false worship in both scenarios.
The antichrist, then atheism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 11-02-2014 8:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 11-22-2014 8:31 AM Colbard has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 56 of 106 (742579)
11-22-2014 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Colbard
11-22-2014 7:32 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

Percy writes:

When you're ready to show us how your opinions can change facts (which is what Ringo was actually talking about) you let us know.


The facts accepted are those derived by the majority or whatever, but are they always facts because of that decision and review? No.

Well, now you're saying something completely unrelated to what you started with. In Message 40 you said, "I took it for granted that you would know why the waters in the flood circulated around the globe from west to east?", and when I asked you to tell us why you answered in Message 45 that it was actually just your opinion, and you expanded on that just a little in Message 47. Ringo pointed out that opinions don't trump facts, and the facts say that there is absolutely no evidence for the Biblical flood, let alone that the non-existent flood waters circulated around the globe from west to east.

So now over the past couple days you've been letting the cat out of bag and revealing that the real source of your objections is that you're anti-science, but this thread is about new evidence for the fountains of the deep. Your belief that science is a false religion taking us down the road to the Antichrist and atheism isn't relevant.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 7:32 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 10:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 57 of 106 (742597)
11-22-2014 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
11-22-2014 8:31 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Percy writes:

So now over the past couple days you've been letting the cat out of bag and revealing that the real source of your objections is that you're anti-science, but this thread is about new evidence for the fountains of the deep. Your belief that science is a false religion taking us down the road to the Antichrist and atheism isn't relevant.

I let that argument about the direction of water flow go with the statement "It's just my opinion" because I knew it was pointless to go any further, since none of the responses showed any understanding of the basics of atmospheric air flow, ocean currents, etc

I am not anti science, but there are influences in the world which have created error both in the religious world and in the scientific world. If you are not aware of that, it would explain your general dismissal of what I post. And I am not prepared to argue on those points where there is no resolution close at hand.

Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 11-22-2014 8:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 11-22-2014 10:48 AM Colbard has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 58 of 106 (742601)
11-22-2014 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Colbard
11-22-2014 10:39 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

I let that argument about the direction of water flow go with the statement "It's just my opinion" because I knew it was pointless to go any further, since none of the responses showed any understanding of the basics of atmospheric air flow, ocean currents, etc

Well, that's a pretty weird thing to say. You haven't even mentioned the topics of "atmospheric air flow" and "ocean currents" in this thread. Why would you expect anyone to just randomly pipe up and say things about them?

I am not anti science, but there are influences in the world which have created error both in the religious world and in the scientific world. If you are not aware of that, it would explain your general dismissal of what I post. And I am not prepared to argue on those points where there is no resolution close at hand.

It really doesn't matter whether you're prepared to argue this or not, because it's not the topic of this thread. Do you have new evidence for the fountains of the deep or not? If not then I think you're done.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 10:39 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:44 AM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19539
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 59 of 106 (742605)
11-22-2014 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Colbard
11-22-2014 7:25 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

ringo writes:

Science can only draw useful conclusions by coming to a consensus on what is "true" - i.e. by eliminating individual opinions.

A process of elimination, yes it has value, but what if the majority of the consensus board are wrong?

You answered your own question: It's a process; it's ongoing.

Yes, the consensus might be wrong one day. Then the next day new evdence comes in and the consensus may still be wrong. But eventually, with enough new evidence, the concensus should move toward "truth".

What other method would you propose to improve it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 7:25 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:48 AM ringo has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 60 of 106 (742706)
11-23-2014 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
11-22-2014 10:48 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Percy writes:

It really doesn't matter whether you're prepared to argue this or not, because it's not the topic of this thread. Do you have new evidence for the fountains of the deep or not? If not then I think you're done.

I do have a lot to post, but you do not, and will not, acknowledge the truth in it by reasoning and working things out, neither will you give my sources any credit, so no, I will keep it for someone who is willing and able to understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 11-22-2014 10:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 11-23-2014 8:36 AM Colbard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022