swansont

Not sure how agreeing with it makes it propaganda and ideology. Is it propaganda and ideology to agree that objects fall at an acceleration of about 9.8 m/s^2 at the earth’s surface, owing to gravity? (that’s a rhetorical question) But the wording concerns me, since rule 2.12 says “We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.” Thus far I see an agenda and an evidence-free appeal to science being dogmatic. Argument by etymology falls under the above objection, too (argument by distraction). Why should the origin of the word matter? What it means is what’s important.

That’s one advantage of dismantling the creationist stance that it's all literally true - there is no picking and choosing. As far as discussion here goes, a claim like “Plenty of room for Noah's family as well as for all the animals and their food.” can’t just be asserted - there’s plenty of science involved that can be used to analyze this (and the associated issues that have been pointed out). Not a problem, unless you’re somebody who isn’t interested in science and doesn’t defend the claim. Then it becomes soapboxing, which is against the rules.

Recommended budget percentage, maybe? Or budgeting guidelines? https://nomoredebts.org/budgeting/budgeting-guidelines But some numbers don’t translate well to that; some things cost what they cost, and you can’t do with e.g. less food or less heat if your income drops. (also, food under 6%? US median income is around $80k, which would be $400 a month for food. An average family of four spends at least twice that) There’s some point as income rises where you have disposable income, can add discretionary expenditures, and other percentages drop.

Any equation can be written that way. F=ma can be written as F/ma = 1 This is just preference; equality is a useful concept. In solving problems the equation might need to be rearranged anyway But nobody needs to indulge another’s preference or OCD or whatever. How do you measure beta? Pedagogy might be a separate question but it’s an important one. You’re giving ontology a greater emphasis but I don’t see what’s revealed by your approach.

Remember that you came here, i.e. nobody sought you out, and if any hints of this have popped up it’s because you instigated it. I think we’re waiting for the first confirmed & supported example of this. Nobody here can control what has been said elsewhere, nor do we have to answer for anyone’s else’s individual opinion or arguments.

The different order is the sticking point. You can’t e.g. have plants created before man, and after man. My experience is on the USENET group talk origins in the 1990s Don’t call them atheists. People, maybe?

Been there, done that. It’s kinda boring at this point. The basic creationism argument is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, and the “debate” is rarely in good faith, and that wears thin.

So which is - you can’t understand, or that it’s obvious? My experience has been that creationists spend a lot more time attacking straw-man arguments about evolution, and the topic of Genesis is pointing out that there are two accounts and they are inconsistent. But saying that these are necessarily atheists making the points is flawed; creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and there are religious scientists who don’t subscribe to that particular way of thinking.

That happens to me on occasion (Safari on ipad/iOS) but I suspect it’s a browser issue. Also with editing - I sometimes can’t save when I’m finished. Reloading the page often fixes the issues.

There’s more to the doctrine of creationism than creation.

Not everyone considers it a problem, nor, I suspect, is the problem with all of physics. Beta, your variable of choice, is not an invariant. I think you proved mine. Replacing the measurable variables x and t is the abstraction, and would be a pedagogical nightmare in trying to teach introductory physics, or teach relativity as an introductory topic, before Newtonian mechanics. This is backwards, though. Scientific proposals are tested by falsification, not by looking at trivial cases where the idea works.

A reminder that what happens on other sites stays on other sites, or at least out of here. Discussion should be about what’s posted here.

Moderator NoteA reminder that discussion of anything that happened on another site is off-topic here. Leave the sniping and the baggage at the door.

Short tutorial on the quote function. Please read

But it’s not how that happens

Moderator NoteA word document has been deleted from a recent post. These are not allowed.

Sorry, what? Where is this previous mention? What does a religious belief have to do with the placebo effect?

Nope

We prefer actual text rather than images of it, so that quoting is possible. Angular momentum and centripetal force (in this case, gravity) already adequately explain basic orbital mechanics, and have done so for some time. The tail rotor on a helicopter counters the tendency of the body to rotate as it applies a torque to the main rotor. I don’t see how such an action manifests itself in orbital systems. The earth e.g. doesn’t cause the moon (or any satellite) to rotate by exerting a torque on it as with a helicopter. So it’s not clear how this is a useful analogy

Science has a good track record as far as scientism goes. Religion, not so much. You can only speak for yourself. And that applies to science…how? Science is provisional; at any moment it’s the best explanation based on the data we have available. It’s not doctrinal, though scientists aren’t prone to wasting time with objections to something that has mounds of evidence to support it based on thin objections, often from people who lack understanding of it. Repeating this does not make it true. Equating science with knowledge is a flag that suggests not understanding what science is. This seems to suggest that your objection is to the atheist stance, and “science-minded” is just along for the pejorative ride. In which case the atheistic view is irrelevant, so why bring it up? If it was only spiritual then science is not a part of the equation. But the religious-minded have a habit of making claims that spill over into the physical (age of the earth, creation, etc.) and any physical claims should be testable. Religion co-opted the notion of the soul from philosophy. I don’t see that you’ve made any case for science having a hand in this transmogrification.

I was responding to your challenge to me. We were talking about evidence and I said “results of an experiment are available for all to see” and you asked for evidence of this. You claimed science has determined the soul’s nonexistence. You spoke for science but provided no source for the claim. And you did it again, right here. Which “science-minded atheists” claim this, and are these claims of science, or atheism? But this doesn’t address the other issue: you said you had evidence that the soul exists, but keep jumping between descriptions. Seems like this is just an exercise in equivocation.

If they are mathematically equivalent, then why does it matter? Seems like this is just personal preference. The utility in equations doesn’t rest on the “purity” of the expression; the ease of use and how it’s learned/taught matter as well. Other factors are what we measure in experiments and what we do to solve problems. Personally, I always disliked “compact” equations that had to be deciphered to put them in physical terms. Offering something up as “better” or “easier” is flawed. Much like relativity shows with various quantities, these are not absolutes. One has to say for whom it’s better or easier. You also cherry-picked an example that has unitless terms, related to your pet project, but not all physics is like that, unless you make the expressions more complicated. As far as adopting this goes: Hard pass

Where are they?

One point would be when faith causes one to deny empirical truths, i.e. when an article of faith about the physical world is asserted as a fact that contradicts objective evidence.

Words have meanings, and when you use non-standard definitions it tends to muddle things, in my experience. Do I have evidence that you can read reports of experiments? Sure. They’re called journals. There are ones for just about every discipline and sub-discipline of science. You made a claim where did actually speak for others and are expected to provide quotes/citations to back up claims. Quotes and citations are providing others’ words, so you show you aren’t saying things on their behalf or misspeaking. If you don’t, or can’t, then it leaves open the suspicion that there’s some kind of deception afoot. So soul is blood, and you think science claims that it doesn’t exist? Or did you misstate the claim?