Dark Clouds Gathering over America?

[Canton Kev]

I don’t believe in god. I’m not fussed about that debate - you say.
In other words, I'm uncomfortable thinking about Almighty God and I'd rather not focus on my faith, which I am certain isn't religious!
A familiar position, and the denial that comes with it.

As for the claim, "Claiming that god will cause an earthquake under a solar eclipse because the Americans chose the wrong president" is not the issue and it never was. This is more to do with a nation founded on Biblical principles turning against those principles and therefore against God.

I'm certain that you will think this has nothing whatsoever to do with yourself and it won't impact you in any way, and this is where we differ, greatly.

Lastly, why do you think this isssue related to 1999 is a 'wild claim' (?). The average amount of deaths across the WHOLE of Europe in the 20th Century from quakes was less then 39 people per week. Yet in less than one week 17,000 people perished due to a major quake in a country darkened by that total eclipse. If you are so willingly blind that you can't see anything out of the ordinary in that, then why should I spend more time trying to demonstrate something you wish to remain in denial about?

I don’t believe in god. You do. I probably never will and you will probably never relinquish your belief.

Why are you measuring deaths from earthquakes weekly? Do you think earthquakes with fatalities are a weekly occurrence? Why not daily? Why not monthly?

Of the 200,000 deaths in Europe in the 20th century, ~150,000 were from 3. Italy in 1908 and 1915 and Turkey in 1939. Add in the 1999 quake and that number rises to ~170,000.

In the 1999 there were 6 earthquakes globally with fatalities, only 2 of those were in Europe.

[jeepster]

I don’t believe in god. You do. I probably never will and you will probably never relinquish your belief.

Why are you measuring deaths from earthquakes weekly? Do you think earthquakes with fatalities are a weekly occurrence? Why not daily? Why not monthly?

Of the 200,000 deaths in Europe in the 20th century, ~150,000 were from 3. Italy in 1908 and 1915 and Turkey in 1939. Add in the 1999 quake and that number rises to ~170,000.

In the 1999 there were 6 earthquakes globally with fatalities, only 2 of those were in Europe.

Just like the book of fables he reads,all unreal.

[truthpaste]

I don’t believe in god. You do. I probably never will and you will probably never relinquish your belief.

Why are you measuring deaths from earthquakes weekly? Do you think earthquakes with fatalities are a weekly occurrence? Why not daily? Why not monthly?

Of the 200,000 deaths in Europe in the 20th century, ~150,000 were from 3. Italy in 1908 and 1915 and Turkey in 1939. Add in the 1999 quake and that number rises to ~170,000.

In the 1999 there were 6 earthquakes globally with fatalities, only 2 of those were in Europe.

So, do you think all science is a waste of time?

Of course not, however there was a time when science was actual science, ie all verified knowledge.
Today it can still be this, but the unverified speculation all gets thrown into the same pot, which is what makes up many of the regular science 'updates' - more accurately, corrections and retractions.

So what we have today is science that may be true, or may not. Documentaries on scientific issues are full of statements like, 'scientists believe* that..." / "scientists think this may* have...", and most of the gooey eyed public don't even notice such statements of belief or speculation, mainly because other genuine scientific advances have been so brilliant.

* These statements are accepted at the drop of a hat, but similar statements of belief from those who trust God (who has never had to issue apologies/ corrections etc) are seen as irrational?

[Canton Kev]

Of course not, however there was a time when science was actual science, ie all verified knowledge.
Today it can still be this, but the unverified speculation all gets thrown into the same pot, which is what makes up many of the regular science 'updates' - more accurately, corrections and retractions.

So what we have today is science that may be true, or may not. Documentaries on scientific issues are full of statements like, 'scientists believe* that..." / "scientists think this may* have...", and most of the gooey eyed public don't even notice such statements of belief or speculation, mainly because other genuine scientific advances have been so brilliant.

* These statements are accepted at the drop of a hat, but similar statements of belief from those who trust God (who has never had to issue apologies/ corrections etc) are seen as irrational?

Do you think there is a correlation between solar eclipses and earthquakes?

[jon1959]

Of course not, however there was a time when science was actual science, ie all verified knowledge.
Today it can still be this, but the unverified speculation all gets thrown into the same pot, which is what makes up many of the regular science 'updates' - more accurately, corrections and retractions.

So what we have today is science that may be true, or may not. Documentaries on scientific issues are full of statements like, 'scientists believe* that..." / "scientists think this may* have...", and most of the gooey eyed public don't even notice such statements of belief or speculation, mainly because other genuine scientific advances have been so brilliant.

* These statements are accepted at the drop of a hat, but similar statements of belief from those who trust God (who has never had to issue apologies/ corrections etc) are seen as irrational?

What a load of total cobblers. When was this time 'when science was.... all verified knowledge'?

There are observed or measured facts, and there are theories and hypotheses to explain them - theories that can be tested and revised and evolved to fit new data and emerging understanding. I want to hear what scientists 'believe' and what they think 'may' explain phenomena and natural processes. That is how science works and how knowledge grows.

If there was a God (or gods) then He (or she or it) would be issuing apologies every day, all day. Thankfully there isn't a supernatural being responsible for the wars diseases and suffering of the world.... because that would be one hell (!) of a guilt trip!

[truthpaste]

What a load of total cobblers. When was this time 'when science was.... all verified knowledge'?

There are observed or measured facts, and there are theories and hypotheses to explain them - theories that can be tested and revised and evolved to fit new data and emerging understanding. I want to hear what scientists 'believe' and what they think 'may' explain phenomena and natural processes. That is how science works and how knowledge grows.

If there was a God (or gods) then He (or she or it) would be issuing apologies every day, all day. Thankfully there isn't a supernatural being responsible for the wars diseases and suffering of the world.... because that would be one hell (!) of a guilt trip!

You have a short and selected memory, we were asked to "follow the science" not the theories. It was the 'science' that was in error, again and again starting in 2020. Sure there was some good science work too, which is worthy of note and saved many lives, but that has nothing to do with the other multiple failures.

You then stated, "There are observed or measured facts, and there are theories and hypotheses to explain them - theories that can be tested and revised and evolved to fit new data and emerging understanding" - how exactly can a theory be 'evolved'(?), or would you care to replace this word with one that is more fitting?

[lardy]

You have a short and selected memory, we were asked to "follow the science" not the theories. It was the 'science' that was in error, again and again starting in 2020. Sure there was some good science work too, which is worthy of note and saved many lives, but that has nothing to do with the other multiple failures.

You then stated, "There are observed or measured facts, and there are theories and hypotheses to explain them - theories that can be tested and revised and evolved to fit new data and emerging understanding" - how exactly can a theory be 'evolved'(?), or would you care to replace this word with one that is more fitting?

You can look into what 'theory' means in the context of a scientific theory. It's not what you think, as Jon is completely correct to use that word.

For example, there is a law of gravity, and I'm sure we'd all agree that gravity is real. But there's also a theory of gravity, which explains why it happens. Laws don't change (as gravity is not suddenly going to start acting differently) but theories do get revised as we have more evidence.

[Swiss Peter]

You can look into what 'theory' means in the context of a scientific theory. It's not what you think, as Jon is completely correct to use that word.

For example, there is a law of gravity, and I'm sure we'd all agree that gravity is real. But there's also a theory of gravity, which explains why it happens. Laws don't change (as gravity is not suddenly going to start acting differently) but theories do get revised as we have more evidence.

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

[Citizen's Nephew]

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

🙌 Those cracker jokes occasionally come up with a gem. 😛🤣

[jon1959]

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

[jeepster]

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

My first laugh today

[Taunton Blue Genie]

There is also a theory of anti-gravity. I bought my wife a book on it for Christmas. She hasn't been able to put it down.

I find the concept of gravity quite attractive.

[Citizen's Nephew]

I find the concept of gravity quite attractive.

I'm not falling for any gravity puns again.

[truthpaste]

I assume from your lack of a reply on your use of the word 'evolve' was simply a nod to your unconfirmed world view?

[truthpaste]

You can look into what 'theory' means in the context of a scientific theory. It's not what you think, as Jon is completely correct to use that word.

For example, there is a law of gravity, and I'm sure we'd all agree that gravity is real. But there's also a theory of gravity, which explains why it happens. Laws don't change (as gravity is not suddenly going to start acting differently) but theories do get revised as we have more evidence.

I wasn't querying his use of the word theory, although evolution while considered a theory isn't technically a theory (as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment) at all, it is more accurately an 'idea' - one that has yet to gain any verified traction. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative is for most people, unthinkable.

[jon1959]

I assume from your lack of a reply on your use of the word 'evolve' was simply a nod to your unconfirmed world view?

What?

I used the word 'evolved' because that was the word I wanted to use.

I didn't reply to your post because it was kinder not to. You were tying yourself into a semantic and philosophical knot again.

I have a world view, thanks. I can confirm it is not an unconfirmed world view.

OK?

[jon1959]

I wasn't querying his use of the word theory, although evolution while considered a theory isn't technically a theory (as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment) at all, it is more accurately an 'idea' - one that has yet to gain any verified traction. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative is for most people, unthinkable.

[truthpaste]

What?

I used the word 'evolved' because that was the word I wanted to use.

I didn't reply to your post because it was kinder not to. You were tying yourself into a semantic and philosophical knot again.

I have a world view, thanks. I can confirm it is not an unconfirmed world view.

OK?

Not really, I watch documentaries and many other types of programmes where 'evolution' is used instead of development, or 'evolve' is used instead of grow (for example), and the misuse of the word is always laughable. They seem to think that saying their word view even via poor english will somehow make it true, in reality that WV hasn't been confirmed and never will be.

[truthpaste]

The above should read "World View" (not word view)

[jon1959]

The above should read "World View" (not word view)

It makes no difference - still gibberish!

[lardy]

I wasn't querying his use of the word theory, although evolution while considered a theory isn't technically a theory (as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment) at all, it is more accurately an 'idea' - one that has yet to gain any verified traction. The reason it is so popular is because the alternative is for most people, unthinkable.

"as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment"

Can you explain a bit more about what you mean here, please?

[Canton Kev]

Do you think there is a correlation between solar eclipses and earthquakes?

Just to help you out.

Solar eclipses in the 21st century:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...e_21st_century

Earthquakes in the 21st century:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ry_earthquakes

[truthpaste]

"as a theory such as gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated in a controlled environment"

Can you explain a bit more about what you mean here, please?

Each formula contained in this ARTICLE has been discovered because gravity CAN be demonstrated, because it has a foundation in reality and fact.

Most people would be familiar with G-force, the article includes "In the first equation above, g is referred to as the acceleration of gravity. Its value is 9.8 m/s2 on Earth. That is to say, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2. When discussing the acceleration of gravity, it was mentioned that the value of g is dependent upon location".

In contrast, evolution (although also called a theory) cannot be demonstrated, or proven. Therefore in scientific terms it can only be classed as an idea, or concept. What CAN be seen is speciation which is a variety within cats, dogs etc etc Unfortunately the idea of evolution requires a number of other things, such as one species becoming another, and crucially a solution to the biggest problem, a lack of generational information. And even if you solve that problem, the required organisation of that new information.

[lardy]

Each formula contained in this ARTICLE has been discovered because gravity CAN be demonstrated, because it has a foundation in reality and fact.

Most people would be familiar with G-force, the article includes "In the first equation above, g is referred to as the acceleration of gravity. Its value is 9.8 m/s2 on Earth. That is to say, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2. When discussing the acceleration of gravity, it was mentioned that the value of g is dependent upon location".

In contrast, evolution (although also called a theory) cannot be demonstrated, or proven. Therefore in scientific terms it can only be classed as an idea, or concept. What CAN be seen is speciation which is a variety within cats, dogs etc etc Unfortunately the idea of evolution requires a number of other things, such as one species becoming another, and crucially a solution to the biggest problem, a lack of generational information. And even if you solve that problem, the required organisation of that new information.

You're talking about the law of gravity, not the theory.

[Canton Kev]

Each formula contained in this ARTICLE has been discovered because gravity CAN be demonstrated, because it has a foundation in reality and fact.

In contrast, evolution (although also called a theory) cannot be demonstrated, or proven. Therefore in scientific terms it can only be classed as an idea, or concept.

Sounds to me like you could replace “evolution” with “god” and that sentence would still be accurate. Hmmm

Unless there’s a god formula I missed in high school.