@luke1v42 @MarioNawfal Ok, then please explain how the pendulum requiring human hands to start moving and human hands to keep moving does anything to prove the rotation of the earth.
English
Jarek
1.4K posts
@9_in_7 @MarioNawfal I was responding to you. You said proof of the earth moving would be if the pendulum started moving on its own. That’s the false claim I was targeting. I was comparing that to a person sitting stagnant in a car yet they are moving with the car. We are all moving with the earth
English
In 1851, physicist Léon Foucault hung a pendulum from the ceiling of the Panthéon in Paris and proved the Earth was rotating, just by watching it swing.
No satellites or computers needed. Just a weight on a wire.
English
I’m happy to test all things, including this theory. I’m just not going to play the ‘prove God is real’ game. It’s a non-starter.
Re: evolution, let me clarify before making my case. Are we defining the process as ‘small, genetic mutations that give that specific member of the species a survivalist edge, allowing it to produce more offspring and solidifying the mutation as the new species standard’?
Would you consider that ‘evolution in a nutshell’? Quibble, clarify, redefine if necessary, I just want to make sure that we’re on the same page before continuing.
English
@9_in_7 @YouWorkHereHuh @FELibrary_ What's not logical about the assumptions made (based on scientific experimentation and/or observation) re: evolution?
It also says "Test all things. Hold fast to what is good". So, how do ya square that circle?
Show your work on how you get to it being statistically impossible.
English
In my opinion (and that’s the way of things with beliefs), your assumptions are anything but logical.
As for your question, it’s fair, but I don’t have experiments that I can run on God. The Bible says ‘you will not put the Lord, your God, to the test’, so I don’t.
But when thinking purely logically, purely in numbers and probabilities, your version of evolution (again, to me and my beliefs) would be statistically impossible.
English
@9_in_7 @YouWorkHereHuh @FELibrary_ It is redundant when discussing strength of evidence.
Belief based on logical assumptions from experimental evidence.
What replicable experimental evidence supports or even suggests the existence of God? Or how do you logically get there from experimental evidence?
English
@luke1v42 @MarioNawfal Your comment doesn’t make any sense regarding the OP.
The initial claim was that the Foucault pendulum was proof of Earth’s movement. How? The pendulum doesn’t move on its own. It has to be pushed, it winds down, it stops, it has to be pushed again.
English
@9_in_7 @MarioNawfal What? So when you’re traveling 75mph down the highway, sitting still in your seat, this proves you’re not moving? Based on your theory, being fastened, absolutely still in your car seat, this proves your not in motion. 😶🤨
English
@thingsbrandosay @YouWorkHereHuh @FELibrary_ 'Anecdotal' can be from others. 'Experiential' is personal. Not directly redundant.
Your evidence is replicable, but it's not conclusive. You make assumptions about what could, eventually, given enough time and probability, happen. In other words, you believe it will happen.
English
@9_in_7 @YouWorkHereHuh @FELibrary_ Oh my apologies, I misread, being as saying anecdotal and experiential is redundant. And no, the evidence I rely on is replicable.
English
@thingsbrandosay @YouWorkHereHuh @FELibrary_ That’s ‘experientially’. And I agree with you, my ‘evidence’ means as little as yours. It’s about where we choose to put our belief.
English
@9_in_7 @YouWorkHereHuh @FELibrary_ Anecdotally and biblically mean nothing, my guy. However, I'd like to here this experimental proof of a divine being.
English
@YouWorkHereHuh @thingsbrandosay @FELibrary_ You misappropriate ‘prove’.
You can only ‘prove’ that a portion of a portion of a process that you assume happened can happen under extremely rigid circumstances, and from there, you extrapolate the rest of your unobservable and unprovable theory.
English
@thingsbrandosay @9_in_7 @FELibrary_ THIS, we can prove the process does happen. we just cant replicate millions of years in a reasonable time, it is physically impossible to watch those test tubes for millions of years, you dont live that long.
English
Your point makes my point - both Christianity and Evolution are religions. They are both systems of belief built on preconception. Neither can be empirically proven. Both rely on assumption.
Of the two, I choose to believe in the bearded space wizard. Experientially, anecdotally, and Biblically, He has been ‘proven’ time and again.
You guys lined up some proteins, made your own wild assumptions, used your secret ingredients, squinted, and said ‘maybe? Wildly improbable, but…good enough for me!’ And that’s where you chose to put your belief.
I’m good with this, but can you admit that you’re just as religious as I am?
English
@9_in_7 @YouWorkHereHuh @FELibrary_ Here's what I don't understand. We can replicate portions of the process, so that at least gives some experimental basis to rely on, yet those who claim it's not proven will blindly believe there was a divine being who created humans from nothing with no experimental basis.
English
@YouWorkHereHuh @FELibrary_ Consumption and energy conversion occurs everywhere, and in no cases do we assume life can or will result.
English
@9_in_7 @FELibrary_ the "boom" is Self Assembling Molecules. they are not yet life, but are further than normal supermolecules. they already "consume" in a way leading a path towards complexity gain and at some point, microbes.
English
@YouWorkHereHuh @FELibrary_ And I hear you, for sure, but that ‘boom’ that you’re looking for is the key. It hasn’t happened in lab tests and it’s currently only an assumption (from a preconception) that it ever happened in the wild.
English
@9_in_7 @FELibrary_ in produced organic compounds.
only thing that needs to happen in nature is encapsulation and boom, we have microbes.
English
@HamasmyAss @FELibrary_ I’m going to politely push back on the last claim here. Fossil records not only don’t prove macro evolution, they don’t even point to it. Pick your best evidence - let’s steel man your argument - and then we can break it down together.
English
@FELibrary_ That’s why it’s a theory, his first claim is correct, we don’t have evidence of life coming from non life yet.
Saying we don’t have evidence of single cells working together is completely false we do have one, two, Three celled organisms.
Fossil records prove macro evolution
English
I don’t know you so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re acting in good faith. But the Miller-Urey experiment did not exhibit life from non-life, nor could it be used to definitively prove the first postulate of the theory of evolution. You might should check it again.
English
@FELibrary_ "life coming from non-life" has actually been proven. its just too new knowledge to have sprea dinto school books, maybe in 2040's
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenes…
and its proven with test tubes in a lab. in these conditions, with time, life will exist.
English
@foundring1 @Raton_Laveux Steady on, chap. You’re still making friends, still young, and still talented.
English
@Raton_Laveux The story is that it's over. The bad guys won. There are no humans left willing to fight.
English
@foundring1 Wow, that’s some shit right there. Queue the ‘sTaRt YoUr OwN yOuTuBe’ crowd…
English
Last week this guy made a video denouncing me, I got doxxed and sent death threats (against my kid too), and then I lost my job and youtube deleted my entire channel.
Foundring 🇺🇸@foundring1
dunno this guy but he made a video about me and all of the sudden my channel is getting flooded with death threats.
English
En mi tienda hay una Switch 2 con la que la gente puede jugar cuando quiera.
El otro día vino un niño, tendría unos 7 años, con sus abuelos.
La abuela me preguntó si el niño podía jugar al juego de las carreras (el Mario Kart). Yo le dije que sí, pero que era un juego para
Español