Comments
1,701 - 1,720 of 3,443 Comments Last updated Aug 19, 2013

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1769
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am not saying this happens with dark matter. I am saying that isn't the only way to observe something. Observation is done by measuring the effects something has on something else. We have observed dark matter through its effects on light.
No, you analogized directly the "observance" of dark matter with the observance of a flower.

Now you say it's different.

No, observation of an entity is NOT DONE when observing effects on something else.

That is, by definition, observing something else.

Then you postulate some source of the effect.

You did not observe it.

Nobody has observed dark matter.

When people in science use phrases like this, they are intentionally exaggerating the scope of their findings.

Or sometimes, as in your case, they actually believe what they are saying when it is a blatant untruth.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1770
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sight isn't the only way to observe something.
Moving your goalposts.

You used observing a flower as analogous to observing dark matter.

Now you say it's different.

You employed a blatant exaggeration in service of a theory.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1771
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you analogized directly the "observance" of dark matter with the observance of a flower.
Now you say it's different.
No, observation of an entity is NOT DONE when observing effects on something else.
That is, by definition, observing something else.
Then you postulate some source of the effect.
You did not observe it.
Nobody has observed dark matter.
When people in science use phrases like this, they are intentionally exaggerating the scope of their findings.
Or sometimes, as in your case, they actually believe what they are saying when it is a blatant untruth.
Do you or have you ever observed the wind....
by it's effect on other things?
Have you ever observed the wind without it effects on other things?

Do you think it's possible to observe the wind by the effects it has on other things?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1772
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Moving your goalposts.
You used observing a flower as analogous to observing dark matter.
Now you say it's different.
You employed a blatant exaggeration in service of a theory.
I was very clear that we do not use light to observe dark matter. That's because dark matter doesn't interact with light strongly (if at all). We use the gravitational effects, as shown by the lensing of the light. It is very common to say we observe something when we actually see an effect of an effect.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1773
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you analogized directly the "observance" of dark matter with the observance of a flower.
Now you say it's different.
No, observation of an entity is NOT DONE when observing effects on something else.
On the contrary, it is quite common. Radioactivity is an example, electrons, atoms, etc are other examples.
That is, by definition, observing something else.
Then you postulate some source of the effect.
You did not observe it.
Nobody has observed dark matter.
On the contrary, we *have* observed dark matter. We do not observe it with light because that may well be impossible. But we do observe it through other effects it has. And that *is* an observation just like seeing a flower because of its effects on light is an observation.
When people in science use phrases like this, they are intentionally exaggerating the scope of their findings.
I disagree. It is a common and standard use of the term. That *you* misunderstand it doesn't mean everyone does.
Or sometimes, as in your case, they actually believe what they are saying when it is a blatant untruth.
You simply have a much more narrow definition of the term 'observation' than is typical in the sciences. That is because almost everything is observed through effects of effects. The causal sequence even for a flower is longer than most people think.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1774
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi there. This has really been a bit of a disappointment for me. You have now responded a couple of times but the answers you provided have not in even one case shown the Bible to be wrong.
It is not up to US to prove your silly (and ugly) book is wrong.

It *IS* up to *YOU* to prove it's not fiction.

Can you do that?

No?

We thought as much... if you HAD PROOF?

You would have long since presented it...!
Imhotep

Sevierville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1775
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not up to US to prove your silly (and ugly) book is wrong.
It *IS* up to *YOU* to prove it's not fiction.
Can you do that?
No?
We thought as much... if you HAD PROOF?
You would have long since presented it...!
I gave this mammal evidence that he ignores.
The sole 'source' of his knowledge is contained within that famous book of stirring fables, written decades after the fact,by common goat herders, with the temerity to call themselves... disciples of their own imaginations.

I Have to put out 'computer fires' in NC,SC,TN,VA area this all next week. aarrgghh

I am traveling again.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1776
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you or have you ever observed the wind....
by it's effect on other things?
Have you ever observed the wind without it effects on other things?
Do you think it's possible to observe the wind by the effects it has on other things?
Observing effects of wind is not observing wind.

Observing effects is observing effects.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1777
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was very clear that we do not use light to observe dark matter. That's because dark matter doesn't interact with light strongly (if at all). We use the gravitational effects, as shown by the lensing of the light. It is very common to say we observe something when we actually see an effect of an effect.
No, it is not common to say we observe something when we never observed it.

Nobody has ever observed dark matter.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1778
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it is quite common. Radioactivity is an example, electrons, atoms, etc are other examples.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, we *have* observed dark matter. We do not observe it with light because that may well be impossible. But we do observe it through other effects it has. And that *is* an observation just like seeing a flower because of its effects on light is an observation.
<quoted text>
I disagree. It is a common and standard use of the term. That *you* misunderstand it doesn't mean everyone does.
<quoted text>
You simply have a much more narrow definition of the term 'observation' than is typical in the sciences. That is because almost everything is observed through effects of effects. The causal sequence even for a flower is longer than most people think.
Nobody has ever observed dark matter.

You observe an effect of something, and attribute the effect to dark matter.

Nobody has ever observed dark matter.

It would be big news if they had.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1779
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has ever observed dark matter.
You observe an effect of something, and attribute the effect to dark matter.
Nobody has ever observed dark matter.
It would be big news if they had.
I had black beans and kale for dinner.

We'll find out soon. I'll alert the media.

Would you like a picture?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1780
May 25, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Observing effects of wind is not observing wind.
Observing effects is observing effects.
Claiming that god is real, when there's no evidence, means god isn't real.

But will you lying creationists ever face up to this fact?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1781
May 25, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not common to say we observe something when we never observed it.
Nobody has ever observed dark matter.
Nobody has every observed water turning into wine, or a homeless bearded man coming back to life and ascending into outerspace.

But creationists waltz around lying about this feats at every opportunity.

We'll never believe your story - its stupid and illogical.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1782
May 25, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has ever observed dark matter.
You observe an effect of something, and attribute the effect to dark matter.
Nobody has ever observed dark matter.
It would be big news if they had.
Scientific theories are based on observable evidence.

Creationism is based on hallucinations and mental illness.

Denial of evolution is a strong symptom of mental illness / religious child abuse.

Its a shame those infected with the virus of faith are taught to mistrust psychologists.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1783
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Observing effects of wind is not observing wind.
Observing effects is observing effects.

So a sailboat is waiting on the effects of wind, but not the win?.
You sound pretty stupid now.
A kite shows you the effect but not the wind?
You see you are now digging in a hole, trying to remove the hole.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1784
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not common to say we observe something when we never observed it.
Nobody has ever observed dark matter.

Be proud, the US flag is waving in the effects of wind.
Hahahah

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1785
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
So a sailboat is waiting on the effects of wind, but not the win?.
You sound pretty stupid now.
A kite shows you the effect but not the wind?
You see you are now digging in a hole, trying to remove the hole.
If you observe an effect, you observe an effect.

I'm on sold ground with that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1786
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Be proud, the US flag is waving in the effects of wind.
Hahahah
The flag can be waving "in the wind".

What you observe is a different story.

The question is not whether something like wind exists, it is whether you observe it.

Dark matter might exist. Nobody has observed it.

If you observe an effect, and attribute it to dark matter, you may be correct.

But if you say you observe dark matter, you are exaggerating.

If you say you observe a flower, it's a qualitatively different claim than saying you observe dark matter.

Polymath and company are wrong again.

Nobody has observed dark matter.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1787
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has every observed water turning into wine, or a homeless bearded man coming back to life and ascending into outerspace.
We have observed you talking through your ass.

Unsure if that counts as a miracle.

Since: Sep 10

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1788
May 25, 2013
 
Richardfs wrote:
Is the bible a fairy tale?
No, it is a horror story that Steven King would be proud of.
Given how shitty a writer is Stephen King, that's a fairly accurate comparison to the shitty "writing" of the buybull.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 55 min Tuco Blondie 226,141
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Patrick 394
100% Faith Free 2 hr Patrick 6
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 2 hr Patrick 5
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 3 hr NightSerf 6
Richard Dawkins in a nutshell 6 hr Patrick 24
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr ChristineM 898
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••