In the first case, I've stated twice or three times, "science is a very useful way of looking at nature," the antithesis included being that "natural discovery is of a higher order than science."  So, liberally in the sense that it is the fourth instance here.

In the third case, "liberally foolish," meaning foolish to the degree of folly.

The second is self-explanatory.

Maybe I took too much offense.  Sorry.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is that the same inclination that stirs you to continue posting here on a science forum?

I was responding to his charge that I prefer not to know (something, science in particular).  I've stated quite liberally here, science fascinates me.  It doesn't fascinate me as much as living itself.  His charge was that I won't give liberal attention to science because I prefer ignorance, which statement I am judging, is liberally foolish.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Nobody said that. You don't want to learn science, that's all. Nobody said "any matter whatsoever". See how you are intellectually dishonest? Doesn't your Bible tell you not to bear false witness?

You put words in other people's mouths. Now, that doesn't surprise me, really.

Any matter whatsoever, as in, any particular matter, whatsoever.  There's not ever a matter I wouldn't love to know the whole truth about.  It's not dishonesty in any sense.  You're plain wrong.  I'm far more inclined to ponder and to study things majestic and of natural affections (nature itself) than of science, yes.

On 12/21/2020 at 7:36 AM, John Cuthber said:

Joigus may be many things, but I don't think "fool" is on the list.
On the other hand you condemn him for saying 

 

which is a paraphrase of

Jeremiah 5:21
‘Hear this now, O foolish people,
Without understanding,
Who have eyes and see not,
And who have ears and hear not:

It is utter folly to say that I don't want to know the truth about any matter whatsoever.  There is a vast difference between that, and choosing better battles.  You preoccupy yourselves with several things including largely science.  I dont; as much as, I've decided, as an accountant, there are better things to account for than money.

On 4/3/2019 at 12:23 PM, Intrigued said:

Since there is insufficient atmospheric water to provide the required volume of water where did the excess come from?

Whatever calculations science says they have of total atmospheric water are bogus; they can hardly tell if it's definitely going to rain the next day.

On 4/3/2019 at 12:23 PM, Intrigued said:

If it was sourced from the mantle, by what mechanism was it extracted from the minerals it was part of?

There had already been a constant mist going up from the earth.  (I know you're going to smack me for not giving your sacred scientific citation)

I have to say this.  I'm very impressed by your rating so far Christopher Andrew.  Your Champion said you'd be hated.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Which has nothing to do with Pascal’s principle, and isn’t what you had quoted from Strange. Stop trolling.

 

 

 

My first comment was about water shifting matter.  Pascals's law is about water shifting matter; which I offered per your mandate.  You're really just picking a fight because of truth.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

You see genius in a seed because there are billions of years of incremental improvement in this marvel of coordinated chemical actions.

However many marks of years are imprinted in a member of nature, it doesn't mean that the thing was here that many years.  When God made the earth, he made it as a work already in process.  Science works only on the basis of assuming otherwise.  God wasn't the assumption, but the axiom.  Science is assuming, and ignorant people, made so by biased educators, are assenting.

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

The worst kind of blindness is lack of will to see.

If you think you see by your own will you're foolish.  If you see, it's a gift.  If you have diligence it's a gift.  If you're lazy you're a fool.

20 minutes ago, joigus said:

You see genius in a seed because there are billions of years of incremental improvement in this marvel of coordinated chemical actions. Mountains of evidence is precisely what's helped us understand what a seed is. When it develops, it recapitulates the history of the Earth, so in a way, a seed has chapters of the history of the Earth written in it. It took centuries of human curiosity to end up in Darwin's great insight to explain that "genius of a seed" that you extol without understanding. There are hundreds of billions of planets in the universe where nothing like the genius of a seed has come to fruition, for reasons easy to understand, not because a petty god (obsessed with being worshipped by small vulnerable things above anything else) decided those planets weren't worthy of his handiwork.

You are blind indeed.

The worst kind of blindness is lack of will to see. It's not that you don't know. It's that you don't want to know.

Fools say such things of people of whom which they know nothing.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Partway there. (this is the simple part; anyone adept at first-year physics know’s Pascal’s principle)

The hard part is explaining how that would cause a flood. (hint: where does the water come from to displace the underground water?)

 

That's not what I was answering.  The question concerned an incidental deficiency in the sum total, that discrepancy being questioned as coming from underground.

So, there might have been vast chasms of water, and stone shafts underground.  Changes taking place all around certainly would produce masses more of upheavals; waters bursting forth from underground.

The water tables rising could provide downward pressures through said shafts.

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Side note; around here there are several churches built using bricks. Oldest one was opened in 1192. A more recent example opened in 1959. 

That's why in my view, the modern church is apostate.  In the whole history of God's people, in fact, the Bible betrays the apostate nature of all but a remnant of God's people.

That's why the flood.  That's why God chose one household, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.  That's why God chose Samuel, putting Eli's branch as priests to shame.  Etc.

41 minutes ago, joigus said:

(My emphasis.)

You've given no answer to any of my points. I've provided you with references and reasons why many of the things you hold as true about the past simply cannot be correct.

Then you engage in an argument about bricks by using 16/17th-century language. 

The fact that you desperately try to attack the man, "you're a cynic", while fleeing from the argument tells me I must be doing something right. People always do that when they're logically cornered.

"Debating is always cynical" is the bit that I've decided to leave uncommented because it needs no further comments from me. I don't know what to say. You might as well say "reason is always cynical". Maybe you simply don't know what "cynical" means.

Predisposed against the simplicity of faith.  Faith being demonstrated in the simplicity of a seed.

In other words, "mountains of evidence" doesn't measure up against the genius of a seed.

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I don’t know what you think the Bible might suggest, since there are about as many interpretations of the text as there are readers, and they are all quite different. This is true for most religions.
So if the Christian God is part of the material universe, as you seem to say here, can you then suggest a scientific experiment that might show his existence and characteristics, in a way that is repeatable and independently verifiable?

Yes.  Study two people groups, with similar qualifications, each with a comparable objective; one prayerful in the Christian sense.

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

On 12/19/2020 at 9:11 AM, Bartholomew Jones said:

But the Bible doesn't suggest that God is not of nature.

I don’t know what you think the Bible might suggest, since there are about as many interpretations of the text as there are readers, and they are all quite different.

They all say about the same thing here: 

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. --Genesis 1:2

"Moved," is motion, which is physical.  People confuse invisibility (as with certain areas of the light spectrum) with immateriality.  The Bible does say that God is invisible, without suggesting that he's immaterial.

7 hours ago, joigus said:

A message from the Bronze Age from an invisible being, compiled by people from the Iron Age, written in English from the 16th century. Not very illuminating to me, I'm sorry.

That's because you're a cynic and you debate cynically, rather than argue justly, since debating is always cynical.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Unless and until you provide salient details of the engineering/physics, this is speculation, and not permitted here. 

 

HomeSciencePhysicsMatter & Energy

Pascal's principle

physics

Cite Share More

 

WRITTEN BY

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree....

See Article History

Alternative Title: Pascal’s law

Pascal’s principle, also called Pascal’s law, in fluid (gas or liquid) mechanics, statement that, in a fluid at rest in a closed container, a pressure change in one part is transmitted without loss to every portion of the fluid and to the walls of the container. The principle was first enunciated by the French scientist Blaise Pascal.

Illustration of Pascal's principle at work in a hydraulic press. According to Pascal's principle, the original pressure (P₁) exerted on the small piston (A₁) will produce an equal pressure (P₂) on the large piston (A₂). However, because A₂ has 10 times the area of A₁, it will produce a force (F₂) that is 10 times greater than the original force (F₁). Through Pascal's principle, a relatively small force exerted on a hydraulic press can be magnified to the point where it will lift a car.

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

 

Pascal's principle

https://www.britannica.com/science/Pascals-principle

Pressure is equal to the force divided by the area on which it acts. According to Pascal’s principle, in a hydraulic system a pressure exerted on a piston produces an equal increase in pressure on another piston in the system. If the second piston has an area 10 times that of the first, the force on the second piston is 10 times greater, though the pressure is the same as that on the first piston. This effect is exemplified by the hydraulic press, based on Pascal’s principle, which is used in such applications as hydraulic brakes.

The principle would apply through every pore and cavity underground.

On 4/1/2019 at 3:22 PM, Bufofrog said:

The rainfall would be about 384,000 inches of rain in 40 days.  That is simply the height of mt Everest above sea level.  That would be a per day average of about 8,700 inches of rain.  This would probably require that you empty your rain gauge every day!

If you want to make 1/2 of the water come from the fountains of the deep you of course would only need 4,350 inches of rain a day. 

If you want to know the volume of that water just calculate the volume of the earth (r=3958.5) -  the volume of the sphere equal to the height of mt Everest (r=3964.0)

Edit:  I do not know why religious people try to use science to 'prove' religious stories.  It does not work - period.  This is religion we are talking about (ferchrisake!) use God to make it work, like this.  God made the excess water appear in the form of rain and stuff and then he made all the excess water disappear after the flood.  Problem solved....

We believe he does things decently and in order.

On 4/1/2019 at 3:39 PM, Strange said:

Quite. Even if the required quantity of water were hidden in the Earth (it isn't) then it would still require non-physical (magical/miraculous) processes to make it flood the Earth.

A tiny amount of water can shift a mass of matter, moving a mass of water; hydraulic motions.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

So, of earth

Yes.  I love you guys!  (I just don't like brick)

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The correct answer is clay- a form of earth.

Thanks for a nice clear example of your Bible being wrong.

One example is enough. Please don't bother to provide any more.
 

A proverb: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him.  Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."

Brick is made of mixtures of earth's materials.

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You failed to answer  the question.

Of human hands is brick made, against nature, of nature's materials.  See the Tower of Babel.

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

What do you think bricks are made from?

If you you read the Bible through with due care you see God's people becoming mere men; then you see God's people becoming mere men.  Then you see God's people becoming mere men.

All the while he sends servants, saying, 16Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.  --Jeremiah 6:16

Also: 24An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. 26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Compare "shalt," against "wilt," in 24 and 25.

--Exodus 20:24-26

For brick, see the Tower of Babel.

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

16 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Not fair!

Peer review is not meant to be “fair” (what does that even mean?) -

I was kidding, with the comic, not the context.

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

You are missing the salient point. Science has nothing at all to say as to the existence or supposed characteristics of anything that isn’t part of nature, including any and all notions of deities..

But the Bible doesn't suggest that God is not of nature.  There are errors in the church, including the notion of supernatural.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Evidence of what?

The testimony of the created order, and, the generations of the heavens and of the earth.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So you do want to tell a Mathematician what an equality is.

Wow and goodbye.

If a soul thinks he shouldn't ever be questioned he thinks too highly of himself.

Wisdom asks for judgment.

Your office doesn't make you someone.  Your office is your duty.

You ought to take pride that God made you in his image.

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Is this another attempt to bash mass production  ?

Suppose you wanted (to build) a house.

Would you make all the bricks individually one at a time or would you think mass production might be advantageous ?

Furthermore would you follow the brickmaking instructions in your Bible when you made them ?

The Bible actually frowns on bricks.

A mansion proper is built from earth.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Please don't try to tell a Mathematicain what a mathematical theorem or its proof is.

Probably the most famous counterexample (do you know and understand this word ?) is "The triangle inequality"  which is, by definition, not an equality and was known before Euclid.

FYI there are many uses of such mathematical structures in Physcs, for instance the Second Law and The Uncertainty Principle.

Okay.  But fundamentally isn't an inequality a negative equality.  For example, if the thing is false, that's the truth: that the thing is false.  If it's not equal, not, is negative.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m no Strange, but happy to oblige 

 

Not fair!

3 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s only fair that I pushback on you like I did on Bart. The evidence suggests these things beyond a reasonable doubt, but doesn’t “prove” them per se. 

Beyond reasonable doubt. Much like so much of science. Amazing that you accept these concepts in terms of law, but reject them in context of science. 

My point is that science, for example, rejects as evidence the entire unified testimony of the church called Christian, which always has a strong bearing against views science holds as principles.

The seed of vegetation, properly worked, produces a perfect, restful, productive ecology.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

But my point to you is that, once again your approach is an all-or-nothing (binary) approach to something which has a scale from good to bad or black to white with many many shades of grey in between.

It could be, it should be; it isn't.  Science is an institution; beyond that of a school, such as like it was.  It caters to modern commerce, which is consumptive, not productive, to the earth and the things earth produces freely.  At the end of all our production we've produced waste that hurts.

It's about debits and credits, where posterity suffers.  If the earth is left in disrepair, posterity pays with blood, sweat and tears.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

In technical terms  'Theory'

may include several 'Principles', which are the scientific equivalent of mathematical proofs.
An axiom or principle is a statement offered without proof but in the knowledge that it is not known to be contradicted within the conditions of application.

A mathematical proof must define an equality, a truth.  So then what are the conditions of application that warranted dismissal of a deity, (it does relate preeminently), as what was axiom when science was practiced as ancient philosophy?