Questions for Christopher Ball

[EqualAtheist]

So, you are saying no? I am not trying to replicate a seashore. I am trying to see which would go faster. A growing pebble, or an eroding one. What would take longer? For any part of your hypothesis to be clear, it would take some sort of testing. So I will ask again, would you like to help me come up with a test?

[Rising Sun]

I believe God created the Universe and everything, including all natural laws, within it. Science is merely a tool for methodically understanding and, pun intended, divining the mysteries of the Universe.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt God would lie to us by allowing things to appear which are not true, but it the evidence of the Big Bang or the erosion and geological forces which formed the Grand Canyon.

When it comes done to choosing between what a bunch of semi-literate desert nomads perceived as truth 4000 years ago and our greater understanding of God-created Universe today using our God-given brains, then I'm going with the latter. God gave us brains and the logical expectation is we'd put them to good use. To deny natural law is, IMO, to deny God.

[IMtM]

(06-08-2012 07:12 AM)Rising Sun Wrote:  When it comes done to choosing between what a bunch of semi-literate desert nomads perceived as truth 4000 years ago and our greater understanding of God-created Universe today using our God-given brains, then I'm going with the latter.

Wha...a well-reasoned response...from a theist no less? That's awesome.

[Rising Sun]

(06-08-2012 07:18 AM)IMtM Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 07:12 AM)Rising Sun Wrote:  When it comes done to choosing between what a bunch of semi-literate desert nomads perceived as truth 4000 years ago and our greater understanding of God-created Universe today using our God-given brains, then I'm going with the latter.

Wha...a well-reasoned response...from a theist no less? That's awesome.

Thanks.....and the good news is, I'm not alone. It's just that most reasoned theists as myself are too busy doing good works to spend time arguing online.

As it is, I have no kids, I'm up in years nearing retirement and spending time online is a minor hobby.

[Christopher Ball]

(06-08-2012 07:08 AM)EqualAtheist Wrote:  So, you are saying no? I am not trying to replicate a seashore. I am trying to see which would go faster. A growing pebble, or an eroding one. What would take longer? For any part of your hypothesis to be clear, it would take some sort of testing. So I will ask again, would you like to help me come up with a test?

Think positively =

I’m saying no’ because it's impossible to test, and anyway they get bigger.

It's taken twelve thousand years to form Brighton beach, whereas science says ‘it's taken millions of years to form sandy beaches.

By dunking a pebble in dirty water, and let it dry between each coat, gain a tenth of a gram every 300 dips … if memory serves!

[EqualAtheist]

So you are saying, that you have disproved all of science, but will not do an experiment to test it. That says something. If memory serves after a few months of continued dipping, the coat builds up on itself, and flakes off, sometimes taking parts of the original pebble with it, until it falls apart. Lets not take that into consideration, because you are right, there is no way to test it, because you would not be able to get the pebbles to grow, and continue to do so.

[Christopher Ball]

You can’t replicate a tidal shoreline’ you have natures ware and tear, what grime is within the water, surf, drying input, wind, rain and sunshine, and twelve hour delay between each layer.

The coat that fell away from your original pebble test would have been the last couple of coats that laid over the pebble from the last incoming tide(s). Each coat protects the previous coat, albeit roughed and scuffed at their edges.

I only way to prove’ is field observation, which becomes unnecessary when consider all the facts and add all the facts together, like the facts showing the buildup mechanism, and how easier it would be to build a pyramid if the stone was more manageable, etc etc …

[EqualAtheist]

It is ok Chris, I understand. Why would we want to use a test that might prove our observations are incorrect? Why would science want to do this. Worry not. Your hypothesis is safe, when you choose not to test it.

[Rising Sun]

(04-05-2012 03:48 AM)kevlar Wrote:  Everyone in the asylum thinks that they're the only sane one.

QFT

[Zagreus]

Thread locked.

Chris, please start your own blog thread where people can go over this to all your hearts' content, but I feel this thread has run its course.