Bible Vs Scientism

MAGENTA:
As this is a public forum, Magenta is free to participate in whatever manner she pleases.
Also, I'm not aware of any forum rules that obligate her to explain herself.


ANIMOSITY IN THIS DEBATE:
The OP began with a set of propositions, and a direct challenge to the forum to debate them.
The forum has taken up that challenge, and has debated those propositions... just as the OP desired.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how the OP can be anything but happy.
: )





Take care all.
Have a lovely weekend.
.

Do you feel better now?

Misrepresenting that another said for the purpose of dismissing (which it appears that you did) it is employing a strawman fallacy.

Misrepresenting what you did is lying. You didn't ask valid questions.

Politeness after employing a logical fallacy does not undo the logical fallacy.

Where is this stated? What is your source? Does the source identify itself as "Scientism" or as an adherent to "Scientism"?

Your understanding is wrong. Gravity does not require physical contact.

No, gas molecules are not "held fast to the earth and each other".

Gravity functions by means of proximal masses attracting one another. The Earth is incredibly massive when compared with individual gas molecules, and exerts significant "downward" force on those molecules. The force is greater the lower in the atmosphere such molecules are, but they are also subject to movement by adjacent molecules ("wind"). In localized areas, the wind is stronger than gravity, but over a large area, gravity is stronger and tends to hold the gas molecules down, preventing them from "floating away".

Again, your understanding is wrong.

There are several reasons. One is gravity. The second is that the centrifugal force is tiny compared to gravity.

You are welcome to your misunderstanding. I've done enough explaining for now.

Temper, temper....

Hi Gary. When it happens to me, I usually just hit "Close All" and shut down all the apps and browser pages that were opened. A few days after my phone gave the sad face to Dino, I pulled it out of my pocket to see Christian Chat opened up, front and center. I was thinking, "I wonder whose post I commented on this time." 😁

Yes. But I didn't want it to look like I was covering up my mistaken claim that I didn't emoji his post by "destroying the evidence". 😉
I was wrong, and the evidence to that effect will remain for all to see.

I enjoyed your posts. I hope you keep offering your insights here. Cheers.

Agreed. I particularly like that the artist included the "floodgates of heaven" - which God opened to let the waters above heaven pour through to flood the earth in Noah's day, and then closed. (Gen 7:11, 8:2)

That's another very tough one for defenders of Scientism to explain. Anyway, thanks for your comments. 👍

But it is specifically communicated in the Bible. Just from Genesis we know that:

The earth was 6 days old when Adam began to exist.
130 years old when Seth was born.
235 when Enosh was born.
325 when Kenan was born.
395 when Mahalalel was born.
460 when Jared was born.
622 when Enoch was born.
687 when Methuselah was born.
874 when Lamech was born.
1056 when Noah was born.
1556 when Noah's sons were born.
1656 when the flood came.
1658 when Arphaxad was born.
1693 when Shelah was born.
1723 when Eber was born.
1757 when Peleg was born.
1787 when Reu was born.
1819 when Serug was born.
1849 when Nahor was born.
1878 when Terah was born.
1948 when Abraham was born.
2048 when Isaac was born.
2108 when Jacob was born.
2199 when Joseph was born... which corresponds to around 1709 BC.

So the earth was approximately 3908 years old when Jesus was born of Mary. And that was a little over 2000 years ago. That would make the age of the earth right now about 5930 years old.

After the birth of Joseph, it requires a little more guesswork. But we can know with certainty that, according to the Bible, both the heaven and the earth are somewhere around 6000 years old - and nowhere even close to the 14 billion and 4.5 billion ages attributed to them respectively by the priests of Scientism.

How about me? Am I also free to participate in whatever manner I please? And if so, then it seems we have a series of events in which Magenta participated in the manner of her choosing, and then I participated in the manner of my choosing by calling her "snipe and hide" tactics out.

So far, so good. I just can't understand why you would then jump into a situation where no wrong was committed, and post what I feel is a biased attempt to protect Magenta, and correct me, for the same allowable forum behavior.

Now if you could only show me where anyone told her that she was obligated...

It appears that you have made yet another unnecessary and biased comment, in which you once again presume to protect Magenta from, and scold me about, a wrong that hasn't even been committed in the first place.

Is it possible that your judgement is one-sided because those single-lens glasses in your avatar prevent you from seeing both sides of the story? 😉

If I may speak for the OP... it is very happy with the results of this thread thus far. It is the discussion the OP wanted, and the discussion the OP is very much enjoying right now.

Thank you. You as well.

I actually do, since your response was not another tiring attempt at diversion, but what seems to be your best attempt to quietly acknowledge the validity of my argument, without actually doing that.

Now you only need to show that I actually did misrepresent what Magenta said. Here's what she said: "Velcro? It's called gravity."

How did the questions I asked, or my polite request for further explanation, misrepresent anything she said? And if you cannot present proof of me actually misrepresenting anything that she stated for the purpose of dismissing it...

1. Your accusation of me employing a strawman is a baseless and false accusation.
2. Your apology to me should be forthcoming.

Whoa! Now you know my heart and my mind - and are able to know unequivocally that I'm currently lying by saying I simply asked questions and politely requested further explanation - when the evidence is right there for anyone to see that this is exactly what I did do?

Dude, you've been biting off way more than you can chew since you joined this discussion. But this? Accusing me of INTENTIONALLY claiming what I know to be false in an attempt to PURPOSELY deceive others? As if you have any idea of what goes through my heart and my mind? Wow. Just wow.

As with the above, since such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I shall assume that one of the following is forthcoming...

1. Your extraordinary PROOF that I have INTENTIONALLY claimed what I KNOW to be false in an attempt to PURPOSELY deceive others.
2. A very repentant and heartfelt apology for bearing false witness against me and defaming my name by accusing me of something I most certainly haven't done - and that which you couldn't possibly KNOW or PROVE even if I had.

That is yet another false accusation against me. My questions were absolutely valid, and remain valid still. A blind-faith believer in Scientism cannot reasonably expect to just parrot the claim, "Gravity did it!", without a truth seeker asking HOW exactly they believe gravity actually did that thing. Keep in mind that Magenta didn't offer any explanation at all for HOW gravity keeps the atmosphere rotating along with the earth, right? She just made the blanket claim.

So asking how that actually works (Does gravity hold the air molecules firm to the earth - and to each other?) is exactly what a Bible-believing truth seeker who is able to think logically for himself SHOULD do. And those exact questions STILL remain just as valid as they did when I first asked them.

And yes, they are indeed simple valid questions asked to someone who made an authoritative - but clearly not explanatory - claim. Those simple and valid questions could not possibly be construed as an argument at all (let alone a strawman argument that somehow misrepresented some "explanation" by someone who didn't actually explain anything in the first place) by any rational mind.

This is how I've (jokingly) worked it out in my own mind:

Magenta: Uh oh. I said the magic word 'gravity', but Mike didn't just bow down and accept it. He's asking valid questions! What should we do?
Dino: Tell him that you're not required by forum rules to actually explain that which you've authoritatively claimed as fact.
Magenta: Great idea! I'm going to do that in the snarkiest manner possible that I can think of. And I think I'll even thrown in a strawman accusation - just to muddy up the waters.
Dino: Fantastic! I'll also call his valid questions a strawman to add support. Maybe if a few more members pipe in using the term 'strawman', there'll be enough of us to make it 'true' - even though it's clearly not. Btw, do you mind if I borrow your phrase 'muddy up the waters' when I make my accusation? That way I can project onto him what we're actually doing.
Magenta: Perfect! Let's make it happen Cap'n.

Yep, in my mind, Magenta says things like, "Make it happen, cap'n".

😅😂🤣

All joking aside, one would have to be a very ignorant person to think that asking questions about an authoritative (but certainly not explanatory) claim made by someone else was "making a strawman argument".

One would have to be insecure/unknowledgeable about the claim that they themselves made with authority to immediately find ways to NOT explain their own claim - as opposed to simply answering some questions and actually explaining it.

And one would have to be more bent on diversion than respectable discourse to keep on making post after post about their baseless strawman accusation instead of just answering some questions and doing a little bit of explaining.

But, as one-eyed maxwel pointed out, the rules of the forum apparently don't forbid anyone from making an incredible claim, and then hiding behind things like, "You committed some logical fallacy so I'm not going to explain my claim", and, "I'm not required by law to actually explain the thing I've just claimed as a fact".

To each their own. The OP is still having a fantastic time in this thread nonetheless. 🙂

Then I suggest you get busy digging up your proof that I actually did employ a logical fallacy. And when you finally admit that you can't provide any such proof, your statement above boils down to, "Well Mike, you asked some questions and politely asked for further explanation for the authoritative claim made by Magenta."

Of course, I'm certain that a God-fearing and honest man such as yourself will follow that acknowledgement up with a sincere apology, right? 😉

Okay, now to address the part where you FINALLY attempt to actually ANSWER my simple questions (aka: my 'strawman argument' 😎), and EXPLAIN the authoritative statement about gravity that you and Magenta made. I'll address that in another post.

Hey Michael, Hope you're having a great day.

Thank you for such long responses to my comments, and for showing me so much attention.
I can only assume that you really like me.

I find that very encouraging.
God Bless.

.

Maybe your life is questionable........and just who gave you a social police dogooder badge..to tell people what they should do..including running this forum?

Whatsamatter...afraid that artisto magneta may not be able to handle it?

Hi Peldom.

You quoted a post from me.
If you read it more carefully, you'll find a grand total of zero imperatives where I tell anyone what to do.



God Bless, and have a lovely Sunday.

-

Too many sources to count. Here are just a few...





Notice the claim that gravity BINDS the atmosphere to the earth in that third example. Now why would any reasonable person, confronted with a claim that gravity causes our atmosphere to rotate along with the earth, bring up the concept that it must therefore be STUCK to the earth - and ask simple and polite questions about this logical conclusion to the claim?

And how did you treat me, Dino, for making this logical conclusion, and for asking simple questions about it? Hmm...


I didn't look, but I'm quite certain that the priests of Scientism don't publicly identify themselves as such. Dr. Fauci might be pompous enough to claim, "I AM science" - but he would never diminish his coveted priestly position by admitting that he is actually only Scientism - not science.

John 8:44... You belong to your father, the devil... He was a murderer from the beginning... he is a liar and the father of lies.

But Jesus, does the source identify himself as the devil, or as an adherent to murder and lies? 😉

Hi Max. My day is going splendidly, thanks. So far, I don't have any reason to not like you. Besides, how could an unlikeable guy come up with such a hilarious avatar? 😂

I just assumed, as peldom10 has also pointed out, that you overstepped your bounds in an attempt to protect the chick with the purple hair. I just pushed you back in bounds. No offense was taken by me, and none should be taken by you.

May God bless you as well.

So this is the new you?

A chick protector who errors in environment use?

Do you also plan to use normal glasses....two lens...not one? That could be a contributing factor of being out of bounds.
Please use new ones...with.

Trying to find out who you are ...as an interloper...to represent another?

How many imperatives did you find before you scolded me? 🙂 Max, you have successfully strained the gnat by picking out a snippet of Peldom's statement that you could refute on a technicality, but you have swallowed the camel in that you didn't acknowledge to him that his overall assessment of the situation was spot on.

Since my understanding is consistent with the claims made in the screenshots I posted above, are they all wrong too? Those sources say that it is FRICTION between the earth and the atmosphere that BINDS the atmosphere to the earth, right? Does FRICTION require physical contact, Dino?

Your argument is debunked, while my initial understanding of an atmosphere BOUND or STUCK to the earth proves valid - at least at a non-technical cursory level.

But wait... what would the ramifications of such an enlightenment entail? Let's see...

But now we can see that my questions WERE valid, right? And since that is clearly the case...
... I DID simply ask VALID questions and politely ask for further clarification after all. Which means I did NOT create a strawman by dismissing something that Magenta never even claimed in the first place, right? Which can only mean...
... that I DIDN'T lie when insisting that all I did was ask valid questions about an authoritative claim that Magenta made, right? Which logically means...
... that my politeness was just plain old politeness, and not an attempt to undo a logical fallacy that I didn't actually ever commit!

Oh no, Dino! What will you do now? Will you and Magenta offer sincere apologies and beg my forgiveness? I'm holding my breath in anticipation.

Goodness... regarding my ability to politely speak my mind here, I honestly don't recall having any bounds.
I certainly didn't assent to any.


Have a beautiful day.

.

But the sources I showed you say that they are... and the very idea of an atmosphere rotating along with a spinning ball would require it. Those sources say it is physical friction between the earth and the air molecules - due to the molecules being bound to the earth via gravity - that cause the lower atmosphere to move with the earth. And they say it is friction between the various layers of the atmosphere that cause each higher layer to move along with the lower adjacent one.

Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with you that "gas molecules are not held fast to the earth and each other". Nor are there truly "layers" of atmosphere - as if there is some hard dividing line between the troposphere and the stratosphere, etc, allowing one "layer" to be frictionally held fast to another.

But this is the basic gist of what would be required if a huge mass of gas molecules could indeed rotate right along with a ball that was spinning underneath it - and the very words one would have to use if they were to try to EXPLAIN their blind-faith claim, "Velcro? It's called gravity."

My valid questions were only foreshadowing what you and Magenta would have had to eventually claim if you ever got around to EXPLAINING that blind-faith claim. In other words, your honest answers to all of my valid questions (my "strawman argument" 🙄) would have eventually been, "Yes Mike, that is correct." 😉

Yet you presume to place boundaries on me for politely speaking my mind?

If not, what exactly was the purpose of you butting into this thread to address me concerning Magenta and the OP?