[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
And lo, the National Weather Service leads Sunday prayers for the faithful. All hail the National Weather Service.
I ask again, what kind of bible literalist are you? Not a very consistent one it seems. Which means not at all. We never got to the end of the YEC professionally qualified bods. Not much to see there.
Yes, The National Weather Service is a govt program far shadier than NIST that's been around since forever.
I kind of wondered why Deuces thought the earth is a sphere when a much larger and less transparent govt organization is tossing out missed weather predictions left and right.
No, "day" does not have to be interpreted as a literal 24-hour period. The Hebrew word yom is translated 'day' in English. It can mean a literally 24-hour period or it can refer to an unspecified period of time. Context typically determines its meaning, and as such it usually indicates a 24-hour day.While I myself agree with the 6,000 years interpretation, many of my brethre
Ok so things seem fairly flexible and open to interpretation. In which case you won't mind me saying that 6000 years is not reasonable.
Not at all. 'The branch of science that deals with the properties of matter and energy, in so far as they are not dealt with by chemistry and biology; the science whose subject matter includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms. Also the physical properties and phenomena of a thing.' -- Shorter OED, 1993, Vol.II
I asked for a definition, not a syllabus.
The definition of a thing is that which differentiates it from other things. Natural science (including bits of what is called physics, chemistry and biology from your schema) requires experiment. This is what makes it different from say astronomy etc.
Niels Bohr invented modern chemistry, an offshoot from physics therefore.
Billy is correct; physics = natural science
Billy is, as usual, wrong. Physics is one branch of natural science, not the whole. For reasons best known to himself, Billy is using an archaic pre-Enlightenment definition hundreds of years out of date.
Oh right so apparently frankie bacon himself, THE English enlightenment, predated himself and then superseded his own method with... his own method.
I ask again, how are discoveries in science made?
Billy is, as usual, wrong. Physics is one branch of natural science, not the whole. For reasons best known to himself, Billy is using an archaic pre-Enlightenment definition hundreds of years out of date.
To quote Blackadder - "Enlightenment is something that happened to other people, isn't it, Baldrick?"
Let's ask d2 to e4.
How are discoveries made in science?
Ah what the heck he isnt going to answer. He knows nothing of science.
The answer is experiment.
This (flat earth debates) is a re-hash of Samuel Rowbotham's debates of the 19th century. His book, zetetic astronomy can be read here:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za...
This chapter discusses the distance to the Sun. See the first chapters for his "experiments" proving the flatness of the Earth. This is the best section in the book. Also the reviews at the end of the book are interesting. Samuel earned a great deal of respect from his opponents including respected astronomers of the day.
But let us turn attention to the chapter linked. We are told we must apply the laws of geometry to the sky. Upon doing this he found the distance to the Sun a mere 860 miles. The method is to measure the distance from London to Brighton as 50 miles. The angle of elevation to the Sun is 64 and 61 degrees from each town. These numbers seem reasonable. Then using trig we find the altitude of the Sun to be 751 miles. The distance to the Sun is then around 860 miles.
That wasn't an experiment*, therefore NOT science according to YOU.
*Which you tacitly acknowledged by flanking experiment with quote marks.
Billy, what experiment demonstrates the existence of the aether?
This (flat earth debates) is a re-hash of Samuel Rowbotham's debates of the 19th century. His book, zetetic astronomy can be read here:https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za...This chapter discusses the distance to the Sun. See the first chapters for his "experiments" proving the flatness of the Earth. This is the best section in the book. Also the reviews at the end of th
Yes, we are aware that you like to rely on antiquated, debunked and/or superseded (or, as in this case, completely puerile and moronic) arguments to support your so-called theories, but the distance to the sun wasn't the question. The question was "what experiment demonstrates the existence of the aether?"
Yes, we are aware that you like to rely on antiquated, debunked and/or superseded (or, as in this case, completely puerile and moronic) arguments to support your so-called theories, but the distance to the sun wasn't the question. The question was "what experiment demonstrates the existence of the aether?"
Zetetic Astronomy is apparently a 'sacred text.' Amazin'!
Hey billy what experiment demonstrates the existence of "the aether?"
How do we reproduce this experiment?
That wasn't an experiment*, therefore NOT science according to YOU.
*Which you tacitly acknowledged by flanking experiment with quote marks.
And I claimed it was science how exactly?
This is observational evidence. Note I am merely posting his argument. I disagree on the basis that the Sun cannot be objectified in this way. But heliocentric spinning ball zealots (that's you that is) must answer, because you believe the Sun is an object. You therefore have a serious contradiction. Reconcile it.
Yes, we are aware that you like to rely on antiquated, debunked and/or superseded (or, as in this case, completely puerile and moronic) arguments to support your so-called theories, but the distance to the sun wasn't the question. The question was "what experiment demonstrates the existence of the aether?"
No thoughts then. Figures.
And I claimed it was science how exactly?
This is observational evidence. Note I am merely posting his argument. I disagree on the basis that the Sun cannot be objectified in this way. But heliocentric spinning ball zealots (that's you that is) must answer, because you believe the Sun is an object. You therefore have a serious contradiction. Reconcile it.
So, you don't agree with his claim that the sun is less than 900 miles away? I'm confused.
