Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[john w]

x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.

Argue with Einstein.

^ ^ ^ One of your dumber comments, vernie!

I have known probably half-a-dozen people (one is one of my best
friends, one was a best friend [ he died ],) who belong to an
exclusive club (one you likely don't know about)

They make a hobby of "Correcting Einstein's Mistakes."

Likely, my own son (a budding engineer) will join that club in a few
years.

 

[No One]

The rest of your sentence was just noise. It contained nothing whatsoever
about what you think I was "lying" about. You're merely using the excuse of
snippage to avoid dealing with the self-evident truth of what I've been
saying.

That's another lie on your part.

From that same article:

"Polit and Beck (p730) define replication as 'the deliberate repetition of
research procedures in a second investigation for the purpose of determining
if earlier results can be repeated.'"

The experiment you cited was not a replication study. It was research in
the same area as other research, but it did not deliberately repeat anybody
else's procedure.

Another lie on your part as I cited over 20 experiments, quite a few of
which used the same technique, but all of which tested the same thing
(the equivalence principle). Of course, you really don't want to have
all of your tests of it use the same technique - just in case that there
is something that you don't know that prevents one type of experiment
from disproving the hypothesis.

Nor to you.

No, it is quite clear to me. And it is obvious that you don't know
what you are talking about.

 

[No One]

When did we collect it? A billion years ago? Or more recently?
Idiot.


It's a cliche. It's a metaphor. It's not expected to be interpreted
literally.

No, it is not a metaphor.

Not by stupidly claiming that you've been collecting information for a
billion years.

Not by lying about what people said, as you do.

 

[No One]

Get all that concrete out of your head.

Stop lying about what people say. You are doing that with lots of people
you reply to. It is childish.

 

[Bassos]

Idiot.

In this entire discussion (if so to be called) Tom's position has been about
the time we are collecting data.
The same entire time there was also a different position, mainly having to
do with the accuracy of current observations.

So someone claiming that our current observations of billions of years old
phenomenon are indeed interesting and usefull ones vs
Someone claiming that we have only recently started collectin said data.

Bless tom for bringing his message with such candour.

 

[No One]

In this entire discussion (if so to be called) Tom's position has been about
the time we are collecting data.

The usual name for such a "position" is "a red herring".
<snip>

 

[Dionisio]

You can say that looking at a fossilized dinosaur bone is looking into the
past, but what you're really looking at is a curiously shaped rock, in the
present, and trying to figure out as best you can, in the present, how it
got into that shape.

If one may ask, is this going anywhere?

If so, could ya hit the throttle?


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.
--Aesop

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Dionisio]

That's remarkably stupid of you. You should learn how to separate what I'm
saying from what you imagine I'm saying. Where did you get the ridiculous
notion that I don't think the universe exists?

Well, what I imagine you're trying to say is that the data is suspect somehow because it
wasn't collected the moment it happened. Pardon the observation that the ambient
temperature would sort have precluded that at the time.

The simple truth is that all data is suspect. That is why things are tested, observed,
prodded, tested some more, sliced, diced, and tested yet again, washed, rinsed, and
repeated ad infinitum. If you have issues with the methodology: Fine. Going on like a
broken record won't really help things though. (If for no other reason than someone else
in the conversation can do that too.)


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality."
-- Calvin

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Scruffy McScruffovitch]

In News [email protected],, Dionisio at
[email protected], typed this:

If one may ask, is this going anywhere?

If so, could ya hit the throttle?

How odd that an entire set of oddly shaped rocks could form in the shape of
a T-Rex, Brachiosaur,or Brontosaur.

 

[Dionisio]

When did we collect it? A billion years ago? Or more recently?

Since we were not around a billion years ago, it stands to reason that the collection was
done somewhat more recently than that.

Happy? You're all set up to make a point now. Please do so. (And if it's the "skewed
data-set argument" that's being taken care of.)



--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"People judge you by the way you talk, especially if you spit on them."
-- Dave Barry

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[No One]

In News [email protected],, Dionisio at
[email protected], typed this:


How odd that an entire set of oddly shaped rocks could form in the shape of
a T-Rex, Brachiosaur,or Brontosaur.

Or <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/03/ST2007120300591.html>

They recently found a dinosaur fossil that preserved soft tissue in
addition to bone. We don't know the color, but do know that it had
scales.

But hey, if I were on trial for murder and were guilty as hell, I'd
sure love to have someone like Tom on the jury if the body had been
discovered after the crime. The defense would just have to suggest
that the forensic analysis used the same techinques used to identify
dinosaurs and all it takes is one juror to avoid a conviction.

 

[donald]

Or <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/03/ST2007120300591.html>

They recently found a dinosaur fossil that preserved soft tissue in
addition to bone. We don't know the color, but do know that it had
scales.

But hey, if I were on trial for murder and were guilty as hell, I'd
sure love to have someone like Tom on the jury if the body had been
discovered after the crime. The defense would just have to suggest
that the forensic analysis used the same techinques used to identify
dinosaurs and all it takes is one juror to avoid a conviction.

Tom is going to say "its that way by design".

 

[No One]

Well, what I imagine you're trying to say is that the data is suspect
somehow because it wasn't collected the moment it happened. Pardon the
observation that the ambient temperature would sort have precluded
that at the time.

The simple truth is that all data is suspect. That is why things are
tested, observed, prodded, tested some more, sliced, diced, and tested
yet again, washed, rinsed, and repeated ad infinitum. If you have
issues with the methodology: Fine. Going on like a broken record won't
really help things though. (If for no other reason than someone else
in the conversation can do that too.)

His issue with "methodology" invovles the erroneous belief that you
should do a measurement the same way that someone else did to
replicate the result. It's pure nonsense. A good example of how
wrong Tom is is the rotation of Mercury. Up until about 40 years ago,
it was thought that one side of Mercury always faced the sun, a view
held for several hundred years. Why? Because around 40 years ago, we
could use radar to measure Mercury's rotation. You cannot watch
Mercury continually because the sun gets in the way (or if it is in
front of the sun, the glare makes seeing the planet, much less its
features, difficult).

See <http://cseligman.com/text/planets/mercuryrot.htm> and
<http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19660004284>. The later is one of
the original papers describing how the actual rate of rotation
was discovered and why it had that value.

Without using a new technique - radar measurements - it would have
taken much longer to find the error.

 

[Scruffy McScruffovitch]

In News [email protected],, donald at
[email protected], typed this:

Tom is going to say "its that way by design".

I think that Tom must be living proof of unintelligent design.

 

[Tom]

That's another lie on your part.

That's another unsupported claim on your part.

But do keep going. I wonder how many silly Usenet tantrum eptithets you'll
come up with. How about we count them?

"another lie on your part" That's one, so far.

 

[Tom]

Stop lying about what people say.

Ok, then, don't. I don't mind.

 

[Tom]

Idiot.

You don't want to answer that, I see. You said people had been collecting
data for a billion years and now you say that I'm an idiot for pointing out
that people have done no such thing.

No, it is not a metaphor.

OK, it's a really a saw. And there really is a lot of concrete in your
head..

Not by lying about what people said, as you do.

Bwaaahahaha! Yes! I am the Evil One! The Prince of Lies! I sneak into
your innocent little newsgroups and sow confusion for my own, private,
nefarious purposes. But I am foiled by the Gallant White Knight of Goodness
and Truth With No Name, who denounces my evil plots! He's a Hero.

I just love Usenet. It's got so many romantics.

 

[Tom]

If one may ask, is this going anywhere?

If so, could ya hit the throttle?

"Louder! Funnier!"

 

[Tom]

In News [email protected],, Dionisio at
[email protected], typed this:


How odd that an entire set of oddly shaped rocks could form in the shape
of a T-Rex, Brachiosaur,or Brontosaur.

Yes, that does seem odd, alright. Let's ask ourselves why it looks like a
skeleton of some sort of unknown animal and see if we can find any evidence
that might give us a clue. How about we use our magic powers to travel back
in time and start gathering data for the last couple hundred million years
and find out? Or maybe it would be simpler if we just gathered as much
information as is available in the *present* and made some reasonable
guesses about what might have caused them. As we find more and more of
these curious rocks, we could refine our guesses as we go along. I don't
know. I just can't decide. How about you?

 

[Tom]

But hey, if I were on trial for murder and were guilty as hell, I'd
sure love to have someone like Tom on the jury if the body had been
discovered after the crime.

Well, I wouldn't insist that you're innocent because I've been collecting
data on you for a billion years.