Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AveChristusRex]

You've posted equations you clearly don't understand to people who do. Maybe fix that before posting them again, either by studying them well enough to understand them first, or by asking. Some of us teach this sort of thing.

This is not my work, but im happy to change it, but my position, until it is explain3d to me practically, is steadfast.

 

[Juvenal]

This is not my work, but im happy to change it, but my position, until it is explained to me practically, is steadfast.

I tried.

 

[AveChristusRex]

I tried.

Well, thank you for being kind about it

 

[Juvenal]

Well, thank you for being kind about it

You're welcome. I'd like to get a feel for how much you understand about what you posted. Could you explain what you know about the centrifugal and Coriolis forces in your own words?

 

[AV1611VET]

Could you explain what you know about the centrifugal and Coriolis forces in your own words?

Centrifugal is when you get thrown off the merry-go-round, when someone spins it too fast.

Coriolis determines what direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) the water spins in your commode when you flush it, relative to the hemisphere you're in.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Centrifugal is when you get thrown off the merry-go-round, when someone spins it too fast.

Coriolis determines what direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) the water spins in your commode when you flush it, relative to the hemisphere you're in.

So if we are in rand mcnally, the water spins backward?

 

[AveChristusRex]

You're welcome. I'd like to get a feel for how much you understand about what you posted. Could you explain what you know about the centrifugal and Coriolis forces in your own words?

Well, to my knowledge, centrifugal force is a pseudo-force coming in a rotating reference frame acting outward from the axis of rotation and is proportional to the mass of the object. It is [again to my knowledge] responsible for counteracting gravitational attraction at certain distances, such as a rotating universe. Im not as knowledgable about Coriolis force as you are, but I believe it is another pseudo-force that appears in rotating reference frames explaining objects in motion relative to the rotating system, causing a deflection that depends on the object's velocity and the angular velocity of the rotation.

Forgive my, as some of your contemporaries have claimed, 18-year-old-ness

 

[Kylie]

I have met many real atheists who don't believe in God, that wouldn't even discuss because they really believe there is no god or deities. Totally unlike the way you answer most of the posts written to you.

If they refuse to talk about it, how do you know they are atheists.

How do you know the majority of atheists just want evidence? Did you do a scientific poll?

I would be happy to, but there isn't really a place on this site to post such a thread.

I see the same person driving a bus monday to friday, but surely that is not all he does.

Exactly my point. So why do you say things like, "you are here arguing high and low, like not able to get God out of your head and trying hard not to believe He exists"?

 

[Kylie]

Of course not. What I am suggesting is that from examining the written material it is reasonable to conclude that the founders of the religion believed that something had occurred. The documents don't, in themselves, prove it. They only give us insight into what the authors believed about it.

That only shows that they believed it, not that the belief is true.

No, all you have to assume is that Mohammed and his followers thought Islam is true.

Exactly, and I'm perfectly happy to do that.

Likewise, I'm not debating that Christians honestly do believe in God and that Jesus was a real person who was the son of God who came to Earth and died for our sins. I know that Christians believe that, and I'm not debating that.

I'm just pointing out that records of people believing a religion is true does not mean the religion actually is true.

 

[Kylie]

I am strict King James only.
However we are talking about historical artifacts.

You are applying a different standard to the Bible. That indicates bias.

So you think that only the KJV counts, but if there's something that isn't in the KJV but it supports your point of view, you've decided that counts too? And let me guess--if there's one of these sources that disagrees with your beleifs, that doesn't count?

That's called "cherry picking." Naughty naughty.

The earliest surviving manuscript (scrap) we have of Plato's Dialogues is dated 400 AD, centuries after his death.
Yet you claim as absolute fact the document is a true account of Socrates written by Plato before or shortly after Socrate's death.

Hang on...

Where did I make this claim?

The earliest surviving manuscript (scrap) we have of the NT, written within 5 years of Jesus death, is the 1 Corinthian 15: 3-7 creed. It contains all the essential elements of Christianity. It is close enough and clear enough to qualify as an accurate and factual history of that time frame.

Have you got a source that says it was specifically dated to within five years of Jesus' death? My understanding is that 1 Corinthians was written around 50-60 AD. SOURCE

Call it the Ancient Israeli Times Newspaper. It is not what they believed but what the actual facts were on the ground.

Call WHAT the Ancient Israeli Times Newspaper? The KJV? The bit from 1 Corinthians?

It states, in part: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve,”

I want to know when it was written, not what it says.

 

[Kylie]

And that Adam spoke the same English as the King James Bible was written in.

Complete with words taken from French, German, and a whole bunch of different languages that would not exist for centuries.

 

[Fervent]

Y

AV: No seeker of God will fail to find him.
Kylie: There are lots of people who sought God but didn't find him.
AV: Ah, but no TRUE seeker of God will fail to find him!

There are no true seekers of God. We have all gone astray.

No, it's a logical fallacy called begging the question, also known as circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is almost inevitable in these sorts of discussions, because we're dealing with worldview issues that boil down to which solution to Agrippa's/Munchaussen's trilema we prefer. Religious folk take the dogmatic/axiomatic and circular solution, while non-religious folk tend to presume upon an infinite regress and circular solution.

The separating point isn't a lack of evidence, but how the data is interpreted into evidence.

And no amount of evidence will convince someone who is determined to be skeptical.

 

[QvQ]

So you think that only the KJV counts, but if there's something that isn't in the KJV but it supports your point of view, you've decided that counts too? And let me guess--if there's one of these sources that disagrees with your beleifs, that doesn't count?

I have motor manuels translated into Chinglish.
Because I understand basic mechanics and the objetive reality of motors, I can usually understand what the procedures are.

I Prefer the King James because I am particularly fond of Elizabethean English.

I can use other translations, the same as I can use a British motor manual, where the hood is a bonnet and a wrench is a spanner the same as I can use a Chinglish translation which defies description as a languge but still...
The basic objective reality is there and the procedures are in all the translations I have seen so far.

 

[AV1611VET]

Likewise, I'm not debating that Christians honestly do believe in God and that Jesus was a real person who was the son of God who came to Earth and died for our sins. I know that Christians believe that, and I'm not debating that.

I can understand why you wouldn't debate it.

It would entail having to deal with science-can-take-a-hike miracles.

 

[BCP1928]

That only shows that they believed it, not that the belief is true.

Exactly, and I'm perfectly happy to do that.

Likewise, I'm not debating that Christians honestly do believe in God and that Jesus was a real person who was the son of God who came to Earth and died for our sins. I know that Christians believe that, and I'm not debating that.

I'm just pointing out that records of people believing a religion is true does not mean the religion actually is true.

That's what the "Traditional" in "Traditional Christianity" means. Whatever actually happened, if anything, the companions of Christ believed that He died and then rose from the dead. QvQ quoted a passage from 1st Corinthians to that effect, probably the earliest statement we have of it. Scholars of all stripes generally agree that a person named Paul existed and wrote that letter to people in Corinth. Unless you suppose he was pulling their leg, he believed what he wrote and that was the beginning of the traditional belief that has been handed down to this day, that and the writings of others close to the original twelve. The documents themselves don't prove it, they only bear witness to the beliefs of the authors.

Alternatively, one could assert that the letter to the Corinthians was not written by Paul off his own bat but dictated in some way by God, in which case the resurrection is was not just Paul's belief but an objectively true statement. I have never cared very much for that point of view. After all, Christ's commission to us was "Preach the Gospel..."

 

[BCP1928]

I have motor manuels translated into Chinglish.
Because I understand basic mechanics and the objetive reality of motors, I can usually understand what the procedures are.

I Prefer the King James because I am particularly fond of Elizabethean English.

I can use other translations, the same as I can use a British motor manual, where the hood is a bonnet and a wrench is a spanner the same as I can use a Chinglish translation which defies description as a languge but still, the basic objective reality is there and the instructions.

I agree, although by long familiarity I prefer the readings and the Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer, which are actually Coverdale's. It seems to me that if one translation makes much difference over another you are chopping your doctrine way too fine.

 

[Kylie]

There are no true seekers of God. We have all gone astray.

Once again, different believers can't agree with each other.

How do you expect atheists to accept your claims when you guys can't even get your claims straight between you?

Circular reasoning is almost inevitable in these sorts of discussions, because we're dealing with worldview issues that boil down to which solution to Agrippa's/Munchaussen's trilema we prefer. Religious folk take the dogmatic/axiomatic and circular solution, while non-religious folk tend to presume upon an infinite regress and circular solution.

The separating point isn't a lack of evidence, but how the data is interpreted into evidence.

And no amount of evidence will convince someone who is determined to be skeptical.

First of all, there you go again, a believer who thinks that atheists are just determined to not believe. That just isn't the case, not for the most part.

Secondly, why not go with what can be tested and shown to be reliable?

I mean, it doesn't matter what your particular interpretation is. If something works, then you can't deny that it works. And if something works reliably, then any interpretation that disagrees with it is likely to be wrong.

 

[Kylie]

I have motor manuels translated into Chinglish.
Because I understand basic mechanics and the objetive reality of motors, I can usually understand what the procedures are.

I Prefer the King James because I am particularly fond of Elizabethean English.

I can use other translations, the same as I can use a British motor manual, where the hood is a bonnet and a wrench is a spanner the same as I can use a Chinglish translation which defies description as a languge but still...
The basic objective reality is there and the procedures are in all the translations I have seen so far.

Well, to be fair, you said you are "strict King James only."

Now you are saying you are KJV preferred.

 

[Kylie]

I can understand why you wouldn't debate it.

It would entail having to deal with science-can-take-a-hike miracles.

No, I don't debate it because I accept it.

"There are people who believe in God, Jesus and that the Bible is a record of historical events, with interpretations ranging from a combination of literal and metaphorical to strictly literal" is a claim I am perfectly happy to accept.

I don't debate it for the same reason that I won't debate the claim that the Earth is a Sphere. I accept that it's true.

You make it sound like I'm afraid to debate it because I'm afraid I'll lose.

Please don't use strawman arguments against me, AV.

 

[Kylie]

That's what the "Traditional" in "Traditional Christianity" means. Whatever actually happened, if anything, the companions of Christ believed that He died and then rose from the dead. QvQ quoted a passage from 1st Corinthians to that effect, probably the earliest statement we have of it. Scholars of all stripes generally agree that a person named Paul existed and wrote that letter to people in Corinth. Unless you suppose he was pulling their leg, he believed what he wrote and that was the beginning of the traditional belief that has been handed down to this day, that and the writings of others close to the original twelve. The documents themselves don't prove it, they only bear witness to the beliefs of the authors.

Alternatively, one could assert that the letter to the Corinthians was not written by Paul off his own bat but dictated in some way by God, in which case the resurrection is was not just Paul's belief but an objectively true statement. I have never cared very much for that point of view. After all, Christ's commission to us was "Preach the Gospel..."

And perhaps you bothered to read my reply to QvQ where I said I was interested in WHEN it was written, since they claimed it was written around 35AD and the sources I could find said it was more likely 50-60AD.