The Mariana Trench

[Kylie]

Right.

Two exceptions:

1. If it contradicts the Bible.
2. Thalidomide and the like.

Gee, with all the counting threads you post in, you'd think you'd be able to count to ONE...

 

[AV1611VET]

Gee, with all the counting threads you post in, you'd think you'd be able to count to ONE...

Just how many counting threads do I post in?

Hint: It's between zero and two.

 

[Kylie]

Just how many counting threads do I post in?

Hint: It's between zero and two.

So you are familiar with the concept of "one" then? because your response to my request for a one word answer had me thinking otherwise.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your points decribe the atheist "dawkinsian faith" that life is a biochemical accident precisely.

Your point 1 - dawkins has no evidence for abiogenesis, none.
he has no valid hypothesis for it, has never observed it, has no process for it, and has no way to reproduce it, so it certainly is not science, just conjecture.

Dawkins is clearly is
2/ absolutely certain about
and
3/ is emotionally attached to it

So by your definition his books are a "statement of faith"
He certainly uses pseudo science (and massive misundersandings of quantum chemistry) to defend them.

Indeed...so wary is he of the shaky ground on which he treads, he then uses sagans folly - the proof he is no scientist
"extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" which is the height of subjectivity, and as far away from science as you can get....
All claims have to get over the same bar. You cannot do a dawkins and raise it against things "you dont like"


You do not seem to understand science: it is a model of observation and a process for systematic observation in your limited awareness space and development of that model , it is not reality itself, so "fact" is a misrepresentation of it.



Now Let me ask you a question:
do you think the moon exists until and if you observe it?
is it a fact?

I have an evidence based belief (i.e. not faith) that science is a reliable method for determining truth. If there's a scientific consensus concerning something, it's therefore reasonable to accept it as fact. On top of that, I'm never even 100% sure, as christians often claim to be about their religious ideas. Also, regarding certain facts, like the depth of the Mariana Trench, I don't have any emotional attachment (i.e. couldn't care either way). Let's recap:

1.Evidence based
2.No absolute certainty
3.No emotional attachment

I think this is about as far from religious faith as one can get.

Peter

 

[Heissonear]

Just how many counting threads do I post in?

Hint: It's between zero and two.

Hey, maybe someone should go measure the depth of the Mariana Trench.

Maybe by rope, as the first measurement was made by.

And factor in all the engineering correction factors: number of cross currents, their thickness and flowrate, "wet" rope stretch coefficient, ........

The last few posts have went off OP.

 

[AV1611VET]

The last few posts have went off OP.

Ya think!?

 

[Heissonear]

Ya think!?

You were helped.

 

[TLK Valentine]

According to Wikipedia, the Mariana Trench reaches a maximum depth of 6.78 miles.If you accept this as factual, without going there and measuring it yourself --- even if everyone on earth goes there and measures it (except you) and comes back with the same figure --- then I contend that you're taking it on faith that the Mariana Trench has a maximum depth of 6.78 miles.

Faith in the written documentation and/or eyewitness testimony and/or anecdotal testimony --- either way --- it's still faith.

And I don't care if you're a taxi driver, a chef, a ballerina, or an oceanographer looking at computer printouts and sonar graphs; if you haven't gone there yourself, then you're [correctly] accepting the written documentation.

This is as it should be --- and it's called 'walking by faith'.

Indeed -- and as the depth of the Mariana Trench is utterly irrelevant to my life (If could be 6.78 miles or about a foot and a half; what's it to me?) it's not an issue of faith that I would lose much sleep over.

OTOH, I don't care how much faith you choose to walk by... you still look both ways before crossing the street...

 

[miknik5]

No. There is a little difference in these two "faiths" that you love to ignore.

You CAN verify this "Mariana trench" kind of faith... you cannot do that for the religious variant.

You are taking it at the testimony of another. How can you personally test or verify it?

 

[Kylie]

You are taking it at the testimony of another. How can you personally test or verify it?

Let's be clear here, we are taking the testimony of MANY others, all of whom documented their experience and methods so they can be examined by others.

If you get a lot of people to measure something and they all give you the same result, are you going to conclude that they are probably correct? I know I will.

Unfortunately, religion can't do the same. Even on here, I've seen Christians disagree over Biblical interpretations. When oceanographers start doing the same regarding the Marianas Trench, you'd have a point. But they don't, so you have no point.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You are taking it at the testimony of another. How can you personally test or verify it?

What effect does it have on my life?

 

[Freodin]

You are taking it at the testimony of another. How can you personally test or verify it?

Theoretically or practically?
This is the difference that the OP ignored and that you ignore here.

How can I personally test or verify it? Rent, buy or build a submarine, establish a reliable method of measuring depths, perhaps by measuring water pressure or reflective rays or simple a long line . Take my equipment, travel there, do what the other people who measured the depth did.

Do I have the means to do that, right now or in the foreseable future? Would I do it? Would I want to do it?

Perhaps no. Most likely no. But I CAN do it... there are no fundamental obstacles keeping me from doing it.

That, my friend, is the difference. You cannot do that for this other kind of "faith". There is no method to test it, regardless of how hard you want or try.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps no. Most likely no. But I CAN do it... there are no fundamental obstacles keeping me from doing it.

That, my friend, is the difference. You cannot do that for this other kind of "faith". There is no method to test it, regardless of how hard you want or try.

So whose faith is justified?

1. The one who can, but doesn't?
2. The one who can't, and doesnt?

 

[Heissonear]

So whose faith is justified?

1. The one who can, but doesn't?
2. The one who can't, and doesnt?

Another good analogy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Another good analogy.

Thank you, brother!

 

[Kylie]

According to Wikipedia, the Mariana Trench reaches a maximum depth of 6.78 miles.If you accept this as factual, without going there and measuring it yourself --- even if everyone on earth goes there and measures it (except you) and comes back with the same figure --- then I contend that you're taking it on faith that the Mariana Trench has a maximum depth of 6.78 miles.

Faith in the written documentation and/or eyewitness testimony and/or anecdotal testimony --- either way --- it's still faith.

And I don't care if you're a taxi driver, a chef, a ballerina, or an oceanographer looking at computer printouts and sonar graphs; if you haven't gone there yourself, then you're [correctly] accepting the written documentation.

This is as it should be --- and it's called 'walking by faith'.

Okay, well let's assume that all these people are wrong.

If they have all measured the depth independently (that is, they went by themselves and had no contact with anyone else who was measuring the depth), why would they all end up with the same mistaken result? What are the chances of that happening? Very low.

So concluding that they are correct is perfectly reasonable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, well let's assume that all these people are wrong.

If they have all measured the depth independently (that is, they went by themselves and had no contact with anyone else who was measuring the depth), why would they all end up with the same mistaken result? What are the chances of that happening? Very low.

So concluding that they are correct is perfectly reasonable.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Kylie]

Sounds good to me.

And if they all happen to be experts in oceanography, then it's even more likely that they are all correct, isn't it?

 

[Diamond72]

even if everyone on earth goes there and measures it (except you) and comes back with the same figure

That is impossible. I took a survey class in college and everyone had a different number. I messed up my math so I took an average of what other people had and turned that in. If two people had the same answer they would have been cheating and they would have flunked the class. But there was a ballpark figure.

We had optical and today the equipment is digital. So it would be more exact. Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment, which uses satellite signals to determine location, can have an accuracy of anywhere from a few meters to a few centimeters, depending on the type of receiver and the number of satellites being used. Musk does not want to use his satellites for that at the moment. But they can hack his system if they want.

 

[Diamond72]

The phrase the Truth is used in Scripture as a summary of the Godly life; for truth telling, and being truthful with oneself and God, is the epitome of the life which God intends.

The concept of "truth" can be difficult to define and can mean different things depending on the context. In general, truth refers to the state of being in agreement with fact or reality. It is often associated with honesty, accuracy, and authenticity. In many cases, the truth is based on evidence and can be verified through observation, investigation, or experimentation. However, there are also many philosophical and spiritual perspectives on truth that go beyond the physical world and are based on beliefs, values, or subjective experiences.