Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#1384 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends.
Have you ever had sex through a car window with a 6'7 football player while your boyfriend was passed out behind the wheel?
I'm lesbian, so....no. Has your sister?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#1385 May 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet before all that somebody probably took the chandelier and hung it on the ceiling.(shrug)
They were just so fast it took no time at all!
That's what I was going to say: the act of the cause creating the effect occurred IN TIME and could only happen IN TIME.

Likewise for the supposed "creation of the earth." It happened IN TIME, according to the Holy BuyBull.

And they should know, right? LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1386 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are simply wrong.
A dependence relation has NOTHING to do with time.
Two things can exist in an asymmetric causal relation simultaneously (asymmetic in that the ceiling and chain cause the suspension of the chandelier, not vice versa), and the same would be so in a timeless state.
Your argument is nothing but an intuitive objection.
This is coming from a person that believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and the fossils aren't "real".

Another imprisoned creationist nutjob who doesn't know when his cult has withered away back into the nothingness from which is came.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1387 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it did not.
We are not talking about the installation of the chandelier.
We are talking about the instant of now - with it hanging.
But to 'hang' means it has zero velocity relative to the ground, which requires comparison between two times.
The "tension force" is not the causality. The tension force describes the causality.
Exactly backwards. The cause is the tension in the chain.
The cause is the attached chain.
No, the cause is the tension in the chain acting opposed to gravity. The idea of 'hanging' requires time, so no matter what a 'cause' requires time.
The effect is suspension of the chandelier.
The effect is because of laws of physics acting between the chain and the chandelier. Suspension *means* zero velocity relative to the ground, which requires (at least) two times to verify.
The asymmetrical dependency relationship is simultaneous, and does not depend on time.
Wrong. It is vitally connected to time via Newton's law F=ma. If the forces cancel, then a=0, which means the velocity is constant. If the initial velocity is zero, then that velocity *stays* zero, which means the chandelier hangs. But to go from acceleration to velocity to position requires knowledge of time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1388 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Gave you the definition in #1366.
Because it takes you "time" to describe a cause has nothing to do with whether the cause relies on time.
It does not.
Of course it does. Even in your chandelier case, time is a crucial aspect. You cannot determine if a chandelier is 'hanging' from looking at it at only one time. You need to know the velocity is zero, which requires two times.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1389 May 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
This is coming from a person that believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and the fossils aren't "real".
Another imprisoned creationist nutjob who doesn't know when his cult has withered away back into the nothingness from which is came.
I'm not a creationist nor a christian.

Wise up, Septic.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1390 May 1, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But to 'hang' means it has zero velocity relative to the ground, which requires comparison between two times.
<quoted text>
Exactly backwards. The cause is the tension in the chain.
<quoted text>
No, the cause is the tension in the chain acting opposed to gravity. The idea of 'hanging' requires time, so no matter what a 'cause' requires time.
<quoted text>
The effect is because of laws of physics acting between the chain and the chandelier. Suspension *means* zero velocity relative to the ground, which requires (at least) two times to verify.
<quoted text>
Wrong. It is vitally connected to time via Newton's law F=ma. If the forces cancel, then a=0, which means the velocity is constant. If the initial velocity is zero, then that velocity *stays* zero, which means the chandelier hangs. But to go from acceleration to velocity to position requires knowledge of time.
You're nuts.

The velocity of the chandelier is the same as the velocity of the ceiling and the floor.

Time is a non-factor in the example. Velocity is a non-factor.

You are constructing DESCRIPTIONS of the events and substituting them for causality.

Causality does not depend on time.

Time itself requires causality.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1391 May 1, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it does. Even in your chandelier case, time is a crucial aspect. You cannot determine if a chandelier is 'hanging' from looking at it at only one time. You need to know the velocity is zero, which requires two times.
Again, you are nuts.

You do not even need to know velocity exists or that the term "velocity" exists, or that such a calculation can be accomplished to recognize the chandelier is suspended.

When you take a piss, do you have to calculate the velocity of your dick to know it's hanging (very slightly) below your crotch?

If you have no calculator with you, are you lost to know whether your dick is suspended?

You have lost this argument so badly, that you do what you always do when you lose an argument to me - you try to use calculations to muddy it up and sound technical at the same time.

It's quite amusing. I actually think it's clever.

That is a monumental compliment, coming from me to you.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#1392 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The velocity of the chandelier is the same as the velocity of the ceiling and the floor.
Time is a non-factor in the example.
Really? How do you know unless you look at it at least twice? The second look would be after (IN TIME) the first look, right?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1393 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a creationist nor a christian.
Wise up, Septic.
Delusional creationist troll who doesn't understand evolution

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1394 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are nuts.
You do not even need to know velocity exists or that the term "velocity" exists, or that such a calculation can be accomplished to recognize the chandelier is suspended.
When you take a piss, do you have to calculate the velocity of your dick to know it's hanging (very slightly) below your crotch?
If you have no calculator with you, are you lost to know whether your dick is suspended?
You have lost this argument so badly, that you do what you always do when you lose an argument to me - you try to use calculations to muddy it up and sound technical at the same time.
It's quite amusing. I actually think it's clever.
That is a monumental compliment, coming from me to you.
No proof of god, you need to p orve god is possible before you open your big fat mouth.
Lincoln

United States

#1395 May 1, 2013
A militant atheist is one who is unusually angry towards religion.

Militant atheism was an integral part of the French Revolution,Stalin's Soviet Union,China's Cultural Revolution and other violence.

Militant atheist: All religion does is bad, angry all the time .... Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1396 May 1, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it does. Even in your chandelier case, time is a crucial aspect. You cannot determine if a chandelier is 'hanging' from looking at it at only one time. You need to know the velocity is zero, which requires two times.
You are funny.

If the velocity is not zero, it is not suspended.

We are talking about a chandelier suspended from the ceiling by a chain.

"Suspended" means "suspended".

Are you unable to get that?

Velocity and time are irrelevant.

You should have stuck to arguing with someone who isn't smarter than you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1397 May 1, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? How do you know unless you look at it at least twice? The second look would be after (IN TIME) the first look, right?
"Suspended" is in the proposition.

"Suspended" means "suspended".

You don't have to look at it twice. You don't even have to look at it once.

You could have both eyes full of pigeon shit, rendering you blind, and unable to "look twice", or once, and "suspended" would still mean "suspended".

Sometimes I have to explain the simplest things.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1398 May 1, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

The effect is because of laws of physics acting between the chain and the chandelier. Suspension *means* zero velocity relative to the ground,...
Wrong and wrong.

1. The laws of physics do not "act". They are descriptions, sometimes in the form of equations, that describe physical phenomena. The laws of physics do not cause anything.

(I'm amazed I have to tutor a physics doctoral candidate on the laws of physics.)

2. "Suspension" DOES NOT mean zero velocity relative to the ground.

A chandelier could be suspended from a ceiling in a house that was sinking into the ground. The velocity relative to the ground would not be zero, but it is still suspended.

Clean up your thought process. I've done a trainload of cocaine and alcohol, and can see through that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1399 May 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Delusional creationist troll who doesn't understand evolution
You need somebody to stomp a mudhole in your ass, Septic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1400 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are funny.
If the velocity is not zero, it is not suspended.
We are talking about a chandelier suspended from the ceiling by a chain.
"Suspended" means "suspended".
Are you unable to get that?
Velocity and time are irrelevant.
You should have stuck to arguing with someone who isn't smarter than you.
No, velocity certainly *is* relevant. As you said, if the velocity is not zero, then the chandelier is not suspended. But you cannot tell if the velocity is zero from just a single point in time: you need at least two times to get a velocity. In particular, if all we have is the picture of the chandelier and the chain at one point, we cannot tell if the chandelier is suspended or not.

More to the point, the hanging of the chandelier is a sequence of events, not a single event. That sequence is started when the chandelier is hung, and that requires a change of state that requires time. Also, at that point, there is probably a lot of swinging and flexing of the chain, which is dampened by friction, etc. Whether the chandelier is suspended depends of a series of causes and effects over a period of time. it is the maintenance of the force over a period of time that keeps the chandelier hanging. In other words, it is an effect that requires time.

All cause and effect relationships require a time component. if we limit to single events (as opposed to sequences of events), then the cause of any event is prior to the effect. In a sequence of events, the cause of the first event is prior to that event and later events can work to support the status quo.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1401 May 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong and wrong.
1. The laws of physics do not "act". They are descriptions, sometimes in the form of equations, that describe physical phenomena. The laws of physics do not cause anything.
(I'm amazed I have to tutor a physics doctoral candidate on the laws of physics.)
This is a very strange use of the language. If we were to ask why the earth stays in orbit, we would immediately say the law of gravity. If we were to ask why a particular current is in a wire, we would immediate point to Ohm's law. If we want to know *why* something happens, we answer by stating the initial conditions and relevant laws of physics.
2. "Suspension" DOES NOT mean zero velocity relative to the ground.
A chandelier could be suspended from a ceiling in a house that was sinking into the ground. The velocity relative to the ground would not be zero, but it is still suspended.
OK, so zero velocity with respect to the ceiling.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1402 May 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
This is coming from a person that believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and the fossils aren't "real".
Another imprisoned creationist nutjob who doesn't know when his cult has withered away back into the nothingness from which is came.
No, in answer to my questions, Buck wrote a bit of a credo that surprised me a bit--it was much more sensible than I expected. He's not a young earther and accepts the basics of modern geology, cosmology, and evolution, but he also believes in a creative force that caused the universe to exist in its present form. He's been honest about the violence, crime , and imprisonment in his past, so there are probably some pretty realistic bases for attacking his character, but here, you're just making stuff up. That's unworthy of you.
William D-Fens Foster

Lake Butler, FL

#1403 May 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
So Harry Potter couldn't have killed Voldermort unless Harry Potter was ... real?
LMAO!
That IS EXACTLY the same "logic" you just used...!
Too funny!
Hang on.. are you implying that Harry Potter isn't real?
THAT, my friend is BLASPHEMY!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 53 min Eagle 12 239,040
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 1 hr NoahLovesU 97
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr NoahLovesU 7,259
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 6 hr NoahLovesU 7,442
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... Thu thetruth 29
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) May 20 thetruth 2,171
More from around the web