GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-02-2013, 06:58   #326
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It is what it is. Gravity is something we experience, we have all tested it in one way or another, and know the effects. We drop things, we observe acceleration, most of us even timed a fall from a height with differently weighted objects in school. What we have been told and experienced of gravity fits. It makes sense. It's a reasonable explanation of what we observe and have been told.
Direct experience is the acceptable standard. Got it.
Quote:
Evolution is a little different. Most of us haven't really experienced evolution.
Yes we have. Ever had the flu or a cold two years in a row? That's evolution. Known anyone infected with MRSA or CRE? That's evolution.
Quote:
We've been told a lot a bout it, it seems very reasonable. Some seem to think the likely presence of evolution answers other questions, like how life began, but that's a different topic. Evolution is what happens here on this planet, and it happened after life began. It's reasonable to believe in evolution, but I wouldn't use it to extrapolate in an unsupported manner to different topics.
And is anyone advocating doing this? Could you produce some examples?
Quote:
AM, if you consistently apply a rule to every single situation, often, you're going to make mistakes.
Actually, that's exactly how science works. Gravitation isn't sometimes valid and other times invalid within the same frame of reference. Every time you drop an object on Earth, the acceleration as a result of gravitation is going to be 9.8 m/s^2
Quote:
Cookie Cutter responses don't work. Gravity, very well explained while not yet fully explained, but readily observable, and testable. What test would you propose to tell if life happened, or was made?
What test would you propose to eliminate Intelligent Falling as the cause of the observed phenomenon of gravity?
Quote:
ID and Natural Phenomena are competing ideas.
So are Intelligent Falling and Natural Phenomena
Quote:
Neither is well proven.
But only one offers any testable hypothesis or has a foundation in any evidence.
Quote:
Both are believed in very strongly. The non-polarized answer is that there is a reasonable way to present both ideas without indoctrinating children. If done right, they will be able to figure it out. Advocating for indoctrination of your position is no better than theists advocating for the same.
Which brings us back to the question you failed to address from my previous post. Would you advocate teaching both "natural" gravity and Intelligent Falling in physics classes?
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

Last edited by Animal Mother; 02-02-2013 at 07:00..
Animal Mother is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 07:30   #327
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by Animal Mother View Post
Direct experience is the acceptable standard. Got it.
Not always. It's OK, even recommended to look at each issue separately, and decide what is the best standard.

I'm pretty sure getting shot is not fun. I've seen a couple hundred people with holes in them from fast moving pieces of metal, but have never been shot. Not one of them was laughing and having fun. Every one of them I can think of right now looked like they were having a bad day.

I don't need to shoot myself to confirm this, I can just go with it.

Quote:
Yes we have. Ever had the flu or a cold two years in a row? That's evolution. Known anyone infected with MRSA or CRE? That's evolution.
True, have you personally sequenced the DNA? Or did someone else tell you they did it, and you accepted that? It's OK to accept some things easily. Others? Not so much.

Quote:
And is anyone advocating doing this? Could you produce some examples?
Yes and no. AM, I'm not going to do your google homework for you. No offense, but even when you are shown, you can't see, there is always a dis-qualifier in anything I collect for you. So please accept my apologies for not collecting data for you. Take it or leave it. Disagree, complain, whatever, it's OK. No hard feelings I hope.

Quote:
Actually, that's exactly how science works.
Not everything can be tested with litmus paper. Each question has a slightly different route to an answer.

Quote:
Gravitation isn't sometimes valid and other times invalid within the same frame of reference. Every time you drop an object on Earth, the acceleration as a result of gravitation is going to be 9.8 m/s^2
Not on Earth, or at least not under normal atmospheric conditions with every object in your front yard. Try the bowling ball and feather. But there is a good explanation for that.

Quote:
What test would you propose to eliminate Intelligent Falling as the cause of the observed phenomenon of gravity?
Anything you would like to try. Get back to us with that thesis paper when it's done.

Quote:
So are Intelligent Falling and Natural Phenomena
But only one offers any testable hypothesis or has a foundation in any evidence.
Which brings us back to the question you failed to address from my previous post. Would you advocate teaching both "natural" gravity and Intelligent Falling in physics classes?
It has been a mildly interesting argumentum ad absurdum that you have proposed. "If you are for this, then you have to be for that" is usually a failing of digital thinkers.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-02-2013 at 07:33..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 09:57   #328
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's a matter of believing what others have told you, in texts, video, verbally, and it all reasonably fits. Much of what we really think we "know" about science was simply told to us in one way or another. Even scientists build on previous work, and don't go back and verify everything, that would be unreasonable.

Belief without proof, which is OK, because proving every little detail about every little thing we have been taught would take many lifetimes. So, it's reasonable to believe in some things that seem reasonable.
Those are nice statements, but don't really address the issue at hand. Neither gravity nor evolution are in doubt and are therefore not matters of faith, and virtually anyone can confirm they are facts with a little effort.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 11:25   #329
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Those are nice statements, but don't really address the issue at hand. Neither gravity nor evolution are in doubt and are therefore not matters of faith, and virtually anyone can confirm they are facts with a little effort.
Neither have been completely explained either. I believe in gravity. I believe in evolution.

Gravity is more apparent to most of us every day.

Have you done any experiments yourself that confirms all life on the planet began as single celled organisms? How much effort was involved?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 13:12   #330
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
OK just to make sure I follow...

It seems to me what Doc is missing is the validity of what scientists tell us vs. the validity of what heads of religion tell us.

He seems to be hung up on the assumption that the fellas who will tell you what they believe is going on and be happy to explain the science behind it while encouraging you to do your own research...

that guy seems just as legit as the other fellas...

who will tell you what they believe and back it up with a bunch of loosely translated myths, rules for your wiener and a request for donations.

In other words he's assuming that science and theology have a pretty equal track record when it comes to explaining how and why things are.

Is that what's going on here?
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 13:13   #331
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Neither have been completely explained either.
That doesn't change the fact that they are know to be facts. There are lots of things which aren't completely explained which nevertheless are known to be factual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I believe in gravity. I believe in evolution.

Gravity is more apparent to most of us every day.
I don't have to believe in them; they're facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Have you done any experiments yourself that confirms all life on the planet began as single celled organisms? How much effort was involved?
Why would I need to?
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 13:16   #332
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
OK just to make sure I follow...

It seems to me what Doc is missing is the validity of what scientists tell us vs. the validity of what heads of religion tell us.

He seems to be hung up on the assumption that the fellas who will tell you what they believe is going on and be happy to explain the science behind it while encouraging you to do your own research...

that guy seems just as legit as the other fellas...

who will tell you what they believe and back it up with a bunch of loosely translated myths, rules for your wiener and a request for donations.

In other words he's assuming that science and theology have a pretty equal track record when it comes to explaining how and why things are.

Is that what's going on here?
Whenever there are two possibilities, the chance for either one to be correct is exactly 50/50.

Last edited by ksg0245; 02-02-2013 at 13:17..
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 14:23   #333
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Whenever there are two possibilities, the chance for either one to be correct is exactly 50/50.
So if we only take seriously the 20 major religions today that means the atheists/"just happendists" have an equal 1/21 shot at being correct.

Last edited by Gunhaver; 02-02-2013 at 14:24..
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 15:41   #334
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Whenever there are two possibilities, the chance for either one to be correct is exactly 50/50.
So I can extrapolate from your reasoning that all possibilities are equally likely,

that out of 3 possibilities of a coin toss

1) quarter lands on the floor heads up

2) quarter lands on the floor tails up or

3) quarter lands on the floor standing on edge

each outcome will happen 33.33333.....% of the time.

Yes, of course that is what happens.

Edit: I appear to have missed the sarcasm in your post when I first responded. Never mind ksg.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.

Last edited by G26S239; 02-02-2013 at 15:45..
G26S239 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 17:08   #335
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
That doesn't change the fact that they are know to be facts. There are lots of things which aren't completely explained which nevertheless are known to be factual.



I don't have to believe in them; they're facts.



Why would I need to?

You don't need to, you can just have faith that what you've been told is true. After all, scientists, at least in groups, are infallible, right?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 17:13   #336
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Whenever there are two possibilities, the chance for either one to be correct is exactly 50/50.
That's an odd assumption. Are the two possibilities come tell random?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 17:16   #337
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
So I can extrapolate from your reasoning that all possibilities are equally likely,

that out of 3 possibilities of a coin toss

1) quarter lands on the floor heads up

2) quarter lands on the floor tails up or

3) quarter lands on the floor standing on edge

each outcome will happen 33.33333.....% of the time.

Yes, of course that is what happens.

Edit: I appear to have missed the sarcasm in your post when I first responded. Never mind ksg.


Actually, a coin tossed into the air and allowed to land on the ground most frequently lands on its edge. It just rarely comes to rest on its edge. I've never seen it happen except on a movie.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 17:23   #338
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
OK just to make sure I follow...

It seems to me what Doc is missing is the validity of what scientists tell us vs. the validity of what heads of religion tell us.

.....
You've completely missed the point again. Where have I ever said any religious leader is equal to what scientists tell us. I'm just pointing out that most people really don't know as much as they think they do. A lot of what some think they know, they really just believe in. Which is not a bad thing at all, it's near impossible to do all of the background experiments to truly know enough to be an expert in most fields. Belief can be very reasonable, and disbelief can be very unreasonable in some things, like gravity.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 17:49   #339
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You've completely missed the point again. Where have I ever said any religious leader is equal to what scientists tell us. I'm just pointing out that most people really don't know as much as they think they do. A lot of what some think they know, they really just believe in. Which is not a bad thing at all, it's near impossible to do all of the background experiments to truly know enough to be an expert in most fields. Belief can be very reasonable, and disbelief can be very unreasonable in some things, like gravity.
Nobody misses the point with you Doc. We all know your point very well by now.

You keep pushing your "atheism is religion, everything is taken on faith so atheists are just believers like theists" BS with the constant reminder/argument/hangup/obsession that science is only taken on faith if the experiments aren't done specifically by the one claiming to believe. You're trying to equate the faith that theists have in their gods and their holy books and their stories of how everything was and will be with the faith I have in a scientists (group of scientists all specializing in the relevant field actually, before I'll believe it) that says something about the way things were and will be.

I've seen you say it many times, "Have you done the experiments yourself? Nobody is around now to tell us what was really going on (truly spoken like a man that has very little clue of the many accurate ways we have to look into the past) back then so who's to say?" You keep pushing an equality between religious claims and scientific claims and a claim of foolishness on the part of anyone that considers one a more reputable source of information than the other.

Or maybe you're just stuck in another debate that hinges on the definition of a single word. "Faith" is what theists have in god, not what atheists have in science. Science has completely replaced faith with an encouragement to go find out for yourself.

Last edited by Gunhaver; 02-02-2013 at 17:51..
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 18:27   #340
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You don't need to, you can just have faith that what you've been told is true. After all, scientists, at least in groups, are infallible, right?
What is it you think I've been told is true?
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 18:30   #341
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
That's an odd assumption. Are the two possibilities come tell random?
Good question. There are only two possibilities; either at least one deity has existed at some point, or not. Is there an equal probability for both?

Last edited by ksg0245; 02-02-2013 at 18:38..
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 18:34   #342
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
So I can extrapolate from your reasoning that all possibilities are equally likely,

that out of 3 possibilities of a coin toss

1) quarter lands on the floor heads up

2) quarter lands on the floor tails up or

3) quarter lands on the floor standing on edge

each outcome will happen 33.33333.....% of the time.

Yes, of course that is what happens.

Edit: I appear to have missed the sarcasm in your post when I first responded. Never mind ksg.
No problem; such arguments have been seriously put forth, so it's easy to think it was being made again.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 19:10   #343
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Actually, a coin tossed into the air and allowed to land on the ground most frequently lands on its edge. It just rarely comes to rest on its edge. I've never seen it happen except on a movie.
My use of the term land is correct.

Land used as a verb
2. To descend toward and settle onto the ground or another surface.
4. To come to rest in a certain way or place.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ary/entry/land
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.

Last edited by G26S239; 02-02-2013 at 19:11..
G26S239 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 19:31   #344
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
My use of the term land is correct.

Land used as a verb
2. To descend toward and settle onto the ground or another surface.
4. To come to rest in a certain way or place.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ary/entry/land
That's true. I'm thinking about the impact. My mistake.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-02-2013 at 19:41..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 19:38   #345
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
Nobody misses the point with you Doc. We all know your point very well by now.

You keep pushing your "atheism is religion, everything is taken on faith so atheists are just believers like theists" BS with the constant reminder/argument/hangup/obsession that science is only taken on faith if the experiments aren't done specifically by the one claiming to believe. You're trying to equate the faith that theists have in their gods and their holy books and their stories of how everything was and will be with the faith I have in a scientists (group of scientists all specializing in the relevant field actually, before I'll believe it) that says something about the way things were and will be.

I've seen you say it many times, "Have you done the experiments yourself? Nobody is around now to tell us what was really going on (truly spoken like a man that has very little clue of the many accurate ways we have to look into the past) back then so who's to say?" You keep pushing an equality between religious claims and scientific claims and a claim of foolishness on the part of anyone that considers one a more reputable source of information than the other.

Or maybe you're just stuck in another debate that hinges on the definition of a single word. "Faith" is what theists have in god, not what atheists have in science. Science has completely replaced faith with an encouragement to go find out for yourself.
Man, you sure are stuck in a rut. You're also off base and out of sync again. I have very frequently stated that its highly unlikely that if there is a deity, man has described it perfectly in any written text. Most of the different texts contradict themselves, and all of them contradict each other.

We are discussing the difference between knowledge and belief. Faith is only a firm belief without proof, it's related, that's all.

I thought we had agreed to disagree on atheism being a religion. But if you want to talk about that some more, start another thread and I'll show up. No need to disrupt this one with your fixation.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 19:44   #346
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Good question. There are only two possibilities; either at least one deity has existed at some point, or not. Is there an equal probability for both?
Without any real evidence one way the other, ignoring all of the strongly believed speculation both ways, in my opinion each is roughly equally possible. Others have different opinions on the subject, obviously.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 19:50   #347
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
What is it you think I've been told is true?
I think you'd have to tell me what you've been told.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 22:27   #348
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not always. It's OK, even recommended to look at each issue separately, and decide what is the best standard.
Your standards are variable based on context. Got it.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure getting shot is not fun.
But how can you be sure without actually experiencing it for yourself?
Quote:
I've seen a couple hundred people with holes in them from fast moving pieces of metal, but have never been shot. Not one of them was laughing and having fun. Every one of them I can think of right now looked like they were having a bad day.
Are non-comprehensive samples regularly acceptable in your investigations?
Quote:
I don't need to shoot myself to confirm this, I can just go with it.
Accept it on faith you mean? Is this something you believe with ardor?
Quote:
True, have you personally sequenced the DNA?
Have you personally analyzed all instances of gravitation?
Quote:
Or did someone else tell you they did it, and you accepted that? It's OK to accept some things easily. Others? Not so much.
There are those variable standards again. How do you determine which instance is which?
Quote:
Yes and no. AM, I'm not going to do your google homework for you.
You seem to have a problem with this. Making claims and then being asked to support them with evidence isn't doing my google homework for me, it's defending your claims.
Quote:
No offense, but even when you are shown, you can't see, there is always a dis-qualifier in anything I collect for you.
Often that it in no way supports the position you present it in defense of. I can hardly be blamed for that.
Quote:
So please accept my apologies for not collecting data for you. Take it or leave it. Disagree, complain, whatever, it's OK. No hard feelings I hope.
None at all. We'll simply ignore your assertion in the absence of supporting evidence.
Quote:
Not everything can be tested with litmus paper. Each question has a slightly different route to an answer.
No, the route is consistently the same. We could call it a method even, a scientific method.
Quote:
Not on Earth, or at least not under normal atmospheric conditions with every object in your front yard. Try the bowling ball and feather. But there is a good explanation for that.
You're mistaken, the acceleration due to gravitation is the same on both the feather and the bowling ball. The difference is the other forces acting on them.
Quote:
Anything you would like to try. Get back to us with that thesis paper when it's done.
You're the one making the proposal, but again, if you chose not to defend it we can simply discard it without further consideration.
Quote:
It has been a mildly interesting argumentum ad absurdum that you have proposed. "If you are for this, then you have to be for that" is usually a failing of digital thinkers.
I've proposed no such thing, I've asked a question. The curiosity is why you're so unwilling to address it.
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
Animal Mother is online now  
Old 02-02-2013, 22:50   #349
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Man, you sure are stuck in a rut. You're also off base and out of sync again. I have very frequently stated that its highly unlikely that if there is a deity, man has described it perfectly in any written text. Most of the different texts contradict themselves, and all of them contradict each other.
That's funny, because in your very next post you say,

"Without any real evidence one way the other, ignoring all of the strongly believed speculation both ways, in my opinion each is roughly equally possible."

So somewhere in the 6 min. between those 2 posts you changed your mind from one of the 2 possibilities being highly unlikely to both possibilities being equally possible. Maybe if you'd make up your mind and stick with it there wouldn't be so much confusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
We are discussing the difference between knowledge and belief. Faith is only a firm belief without proof, it's related, that's all.
And knowledge is a firm belief with proof. Sounds like one is clearly superior to the other. But not so much the people who trust knowledge more than faith?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I thought we had agreed to disagree on atheism being a religion. But if you want to talk about that some more, start another thread and I'll show up. No need to disrupt this one with your fixation.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:09   #350
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,151


Quote:
Originally Posted by Animal Mother View Post
Your standards are variable based on context. Got it.
But how can you be sure without actually experiencing it for yourself?
Are non-comprehensive samples regularly acceptable in your investigations?
Accept it on faith you mean? Is this something you believe with ardor?
Have you personally analyzed all instances of gravitation?
There are those variable standards again. How do you determine which instance is which?
You seem to have a problem with this. Making claims and then being asked to support them with evidence isn't doing my google homework for me, it's defending your claims.
Often that it in no way supports the position you present it in defense of. I can hardly be blamed for that.
None at all. We'll simply ignore your assertion in the absence of supporting evidence.
No, the route is consistently the same. We could call it a method even, a scientific method.
You're mistaken, the acceleration due to gravitation is the same on both the feather and the bowling ball. The difference is the other forces acting on them.
You're the one making the proposal, but again, if you chose not to defend it we can simply discard it without further consideration.
I've proposed no such thing, I've asked a question. The curiosity is why you're so unwilling to address it.

AM, you're the one making the proposal of intelligent falling, you, for some reason, think I should support it. It's only mildly humorous the first time, and sorta boring after that.

You seem to have a problem looking at issues in context. If you have the exact same standard for everything, what is the standard? If you read it in a text book? At least 3 peer reviewed articles? At least two morning shows on different networks? What is your standard, and are you really sure you apply it to everything? Oh, and while you are identifying your standard, can you go ahead and let me know if you have any children and just an approximate age they are now?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:02.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,364
410 Members
954 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42