Jump to content

munoz

The Pointless Third Quarter Points Prediction

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:
1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:
And I replied 

You posted something. I don't know if it could be, in all good faith, be called a reply.

Ah well. You might well say that. Let me summarise. If Sweeper believes in the literal word of the Bible then he will feel that his belief is soundly based. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
1 hour ago, StanleySaint said:
Slarti, I can understand your views on religion but by dragging the good name of copper bracelets in to it I feel you have gone too far sir!

You've lost me there. Copper bracelets?

Easily confused? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StanleySaint said:
12 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
You've lost me there. Copper bracelets?

My apologies, it was Sweeper, I should have known you wouldn't be so dismissive of such a well founded scientific phenomenon.

Or indeed the written word which, it appears, supports sweepers belief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

I think everyone thinks that their beliefs are soundly based. It's when you ask someone to explain the basis of a belief that you find out if it really is soundly based. The "evidence" that christians tend to give fall into these sorts of things:-

1. The bible is the infallible word of god because, eh, well, because the bible says it is.

2. I prayed for something mundane or some everyday occurrence to happen and it happened.

3. A miracle, usually something that has less corroborating evidence than alien abduction stories.

4. I was having a hard time, I prayed and when I tried to make things better they got better, so the prayer must have worked.

5. He spoke to me.

6. A feeling.

7. How can you explain "x" without a god?

Did you not notice that he disappeared when I asked him to prove that even one supernatural thing existed? He has a history of doing that. Threatens someone with eternal torture then runs away. Very christian of him, eh?

I'm not taking sides. Explain the scientific principle for me that matter can neither be created or destroyed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

There is no such principle.

There is one about energy, though.

It's amazing how scientific belief changes over time or has it......... I think you will find it here and that both are related. 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=active&sxsrf=ACYBGNTsKhFzgDINLS3sxyhAfwEzXG_pOQ%3A1581967490975&source=hp&ei=guhKXpSmOYOTlwS0-YyACQ&q=matter+can+neither+be+created+nor+destroyed&oq=Matter+can+neither&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.1.0.0l5.2451.9543..11087...1.0..0.263.2614.0j17j1......0....1.......8..35i362i39j46i362i39j35i39j0i131j46i39j46i131j46j46i131i275j46i275j0i10.KUq6FxLTHps

Edited by St.Ricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can actually save money and use copper coloured plastic bracelets. Apparently they have exactly the same amazing powers as the real thing.
Very true but they don't give you that attractive green colouring on your skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

There is no such principle.

There is one about energy, though.

There is actually.

The Law of Conservation of Mass. Things like chemical equilibrium depend on it.

You are right about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in relation to energy.

Not sure why he's bringing it up but let's see.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

There is actually.

The Law of Conservation of Mass. Things like chemical equilibrium depend on it.

You are right about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in relation to energy.

Not sure why he's bringing it up but let's see.

Thank you Mr Oaksoft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slartibartfast said:
15 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
There is actually.
The Law of Conservation of Mass. Things like chemical equilibrium depend on it.
You are right about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in relation to energy.
Not sure why he's bringing it up but let's see.

That law only applies to an isolated system and is only about the mass before and after a chemical reaction. It doesn't say what Ricky was claiming.

I suggest you check the link I posted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:
16 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
There is actually.
The Law of Conservation of Mass. Things like chemical equilibrium depend on it.
You are right about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in relation to energy.
Not sure why he's bringing it up but let's see.

That law only applies to an isolated system and is only about the mass before and after a chemical reaction. It doesn't say what Ricky was claiming.

I suggest you check the link I posted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
13 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:
I suggest you check the link I posted 

I did. You're wrong.

I'm not. I am. I'm not. 

That in a nutshell is the argument or rather the quality of it with Sweeper with each of you adopting fixed positions, each relying upon what each of you think (believe) to be  evidence"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:
2 minutes ago, faraway saint said:
You're wasting your fecking time.
Dim as a 2 watt bulb, and twice as dull. 

Stop bumming him up.

Come up with a decent argument Slarti. That's all you need to do. I'll leave you some time to think things through. Off to do other things for now. Don't be a stranger 

Edited by St.Ricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

That law only applies to an isolated system and is only about the mass before and after a chemical reaction or a physical transformation. It doesn't say what Ricky was claiming.

 

You said no such principle existed. It absolutely does. Under what constraints it is valid is a different discussion.

I have no idea or interest in what Ricky is trying to claim but I am as sure as I can be that he doesn't understand the scientific principles to any depth. Don't know why he raised it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You said no such principle existed. It absolutely does. Under what constraints it is valid is a different discussion.

I have no idea or interest in what Ricky is trying to claim but I am as sure as I can be that he doesn't understand the scientific principles to any depth. Don't know why he raised it at all.

All I need to confirm is that it exists. The universe is a singular system or else we would be taking of universes which we don't. Within the universe, it could be said therefore that no matter could be created or destroyed. This, in modern terms where debate on divine intervention is involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, St.Ricky said:

All I need to confirm is that it exists. The universe is a singular system or else we would be taking of universes which we don't. Within the universe, it could be said therefore that no matter could be created or destroyed. This, in modern terms where debate on divine intervention is involved. 

Yeah, like I said slarti, Ricky doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

This is going the same way as the banking thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:


 

 


As he never mentioned constraints (he just stated that it couldn't happen) none were assumed, so he was wrong. Plain and simple. Also, as you will know, particles apparently pop into and out of existence all the time - not sure if that counts as creation and destruction in the same sense, though.

Why he asked me to explain it when he had a link to it which would explain it better than I probably could, I don't know. And it would also let him see that the phrasing of his question was flawed.

I think he's trying to be clever - and failing miserably - in his assertion that I, and people like me, base our beliefs on the same level of evidence as the religious and that both points of view are equally valid. That, of course, is patently absurd.

Also, how he doesn't see the difference between the religious threatening non believers with eternal torture after death and non believers threatening (if it could even be called that) the religious with literally nothing after death totally escapes me.

 

You consider your arguments to be better founded. You put 100%Belief into them. Yet on the key question of creation and destruction of matter you do just that and contradict yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turrabuddie said:

Not sure where the last few pages of posts belong, but it’s certain not in this thread

Anyone out there with any comments on expected points for us in the remaining games, feel free ...

 

I believe we will reach 30 points, 8 more than now

Edited by St.Ricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:



I think he's trying to be clever - and failing miserably - in his assertion that I, and people like me, base our beliefs on the same level of evidence as the religious and that both points of view are equally valid. That, of course, is patently absurd.

 

 

That's exactly what he's trying to do.

I'm not arguing with him on that score. Arguing with stupidity is rarely worth the bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...