zapatos

Your point is valid and I believe you are correct. When making a pursuasive argument, merit and content reign supreme. There are however different types of situations to consider. For example, I was looking at the thread "Why does light bend during acceleration?" and it contained the following: First from Elfmotat: Followed by this from DrRocket: I don't know who to believe. I know that their credentials won't guarantee who is correct and who is not, but if I determined that one of them had a PhD in physics and the other was an avid reader of science fiction, I would have some useful information. Similarly if I am on a jury and the prosecution brings in an expert witness on 'cause of death', one who has relevant PhD's and years of experience up the wazoo, while the defense brings in an expert on cosmology, I think their credentials are important. Har! Very clever. +1

I saw no appeal to authority in this thread, although I do believe there is one appeal to ridicule.

You are welcome. What evidence are you basing that on?

No one has made the claim there is absolutely nothing in space. You are arguing against no one. I can't tell where you are going with this thread. You ask questions, people answer, you reject their answers without evidence, and don't offer alternatives. What is it you want? I'm also curious about you explanation for moving through things. Presumably moving through wood is harder than moving through water, which in turn is harder than moving through air, all due to decreased density. But then at the point where we have the least density of all (empty space) you claim that suddenly movement is impossible. How does that work? If there was only one atom in a given space, could we move through it then? What suddenly happens to space when it becomes completely empty?

That would be a pretty small computer.

Quite serious. Twelve years of Catholic school for me, eight for my wife, twelve for my kids, two nuns and two priest in my extended family. My wife is one of eleven kids due to her mother's strict Catholic stance. In other words, I've had heavy exposure to Catholics as friends, family, parents of the friends of my kids, in schools, in social settings, etc. A generally middle class group of people, more or less centered around Missouri, USA. Based on that exposure, I would guess that fewer than 5% of the Catholics I have known base their beliefs or actions on what the Vatican has to say. They seem generally to have been influenced by their Catholic upbringing (as have I) but as a whole I'd say they think for themselves. A small example is that I have about five openly gay extended family members, who along with their partners are treated exactly as any other family members are. Two of them are sons of my extremely Catholic mother-in-law. My exposure to Catholics is one of the reasons I often find myself defending religion in various threads, even though I am an atheist. Many people here joyfully rip into religion, and my exposure to it (which I realize may not be representative) has been almost all positive.

I was raised Catholic and most Catholics I know also don't give a spit for what the Vatican thinks.

Maybe someone is trying to get your goat because they think you are a bit of a curmudgeon. Did you get something similar on the day the earth returned to its orbital position corresponding to the day of your birth?

If two people explain the subject in a clear and concise manner, but tell me opposing things, the person with the doctorate conveys more trust than the person without. The person's credentials don't trump all else, but they are a useful piece of information.

I just bought it and will be starting it soon. I'll let you know what I think. Thanks for the recommendation!

I agree also. While no one is right simply because of their credentials, knowing what someone's credentials are helps a great deal. The more I understand the background of the person explaining something I'm not familiar with, the easier it makes my life. If it is a fairly standard scientific principle they are explaining, I will probably investigate further if a layperson is explaining, and will probably not investigate further if an expert was explaining it. It is lower risk to take the word of an expert than a layperson. My wife is more of an expert on me than my neighbor. If they both give me the name of a book to read, who is more likely to have made a good selection for me? I can't investigate everything myself; I'd never get anything else done. Knowing someone's credentials helps a lot if I know nothing else about them.

When my kids were little we used to negotiate our way through dinner. Kids: Can I be done now? Us: Finish your food. Kids: How about if I have two more bites of potatos and a piece of the meat. Us: Eat the rest of your peas, some meat, and finish your milk. Kids: Can I eat all of the potatos, meat and milk, and then skip the peas? Us: Grrrrr.

If you brought in the police (No, wait! I don't mean to literally bring in the police.) their primary suspect would be the boyfriend, and they would usually be right. I'd think hard about him and what his motivation might be. Does he know you like solving riddles? Could he be helping out a friend of his? Is he going to give you an emerald (maybe that is what is in the picture!) for Valentine's day?

I've heard many times that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, unfortunately no one ever says why. There is the occassional correlation between slim people and breakfast eating, but no one ever states there is a causation. I cannot think of a reason why any meal is important, much less why one meal is the most important. Some cultures do not have any meals at all, and people just eat as they get hungry. On a related topic, I frequently hear people stressing the importance of families eating dinner together, as if doing so will result in a happy, well adjusted family. What is so special about dinner? If breakfast is the most important meal of the day anyway, maybe families should always have breakfast together. Or why not get together every night around the poker table? I know some families where avoiding dinner together would probably be the best idea. I know that eating food and socializing with your family are important, but what is the magical association with breakfast and dinner? Is there any valid science behind these often spouted words of advice?

The fellow in the backrgound is standing next to a tree (left side from our view). You can see the trunk flared at the bottom of the picture. He had a Heineken bottle tied with a piece of twine and hanging from a tree. The picture was taken from behind a sheet of plastic or a window, just as the bottle was broken either with a BB gun or by hitting it. He is threatening to force you to live a life without beer. Cruel, cruel, man. You have my sympathy.

If that is a green aquarium net, are all the other things green aquarium nets too? Looks to me like a picture taken out of a car window. Low on the picture looks like hills in the background. Then again, maybe a picture of kelp or seaweed taken with a camera inside a waterproof case.

Galaxies do not expand away from the 'creation event'. They expand equally away from each other. Well, it's more complicated than that, but it's a much better way to say it in only one line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Seemed like a pretty reasonable guy. I am unsure what point you are trying to make.

I never really understood how someone could believe in the specifics of the bible, or Koran, or in any kind of personal god, but I don't find it that hard to understand how someone could believe in a higher power. I used to consider myself as kind of a 'light' theist. That is, I believed in 'god', but had no more concept of him than that he was responsible for the universe. I didn't see him in action, didn't think he paid attention to me, and saw no reason to believe anyone else could. What brought me to this 'light' theist postion was science. The laws of physics just seem so complex, so precise, and yet all of this complexity seems to come from some very simple properties of the very smallest components of the universe. Even the fact that there are some laws rather than no laws at all seems strange. So it always seemed to me to be a kind of 50/50 proposition. Maybe something did create all this, or maybe something didn't. I have no evidence either way, so I just kind of leaned toward the position that seemed right to me. I spend most of my time on the side of atheism these days (in large part due to this forum) but when I'm reading some really interesting physics, I start to think, 'man, how could something this phenomenal just be here for no reason at all'. Just my musings. Not trying to argue one position or the other... (Spelling Edit)

You got it!

Ok, let's use your picture and take it to a smaller scale. Imagine the blue dot is you. The grey dots represent your friend who is across the street, shining a flashlight at you, and walking across your field of vision. When the light from the flashlight gets to your eyes, he is no longer there. He is now further up the street (although a very small distance) because he is moving. You never see that flashlight in more than one place at once, and by the time the light gets to your eyes your friend and the flashlight are in a different position. This is exactly the way it works on a galactic scale, only the the times and position changes are greater. It doesn't matter if the light travels for billions of years or billionths of seconds, the principle is the same. And as far as being able to see galaxies that are 2 billion light years away, or five billion light years away in the same field of vision, that is exactly the same as seeing your friend who is 20 yards away, and the other friend who is back and to the left who is 50 yards away, in the same field of vision.

I surrender. Your two intellects are just too much for me to compete against.

Please provide some evidence to support this assertion. Please provide some evidence to support this assertion. Please provide some evidence to support this assertion.

SUPERNATURAL 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural If God exists he is supernatural. Beyond the visible universe. Trancending the laws of nature. Therefore it is not possible to conclude that he is matter, energy, or just in the human imagination. He could be something else. Since he is not of this universe and transcends the laws of nature he could be composed of something that we have no concept of, that is not matter or energy. We do not know. We will never know. As far as we know there may be something called deity dust that is not made of matter. You need to read the words I am writing. I never said he wasn't made of matter. I said we have no way of knowing if he is made of matter or not. You are talking about spirits and the xth dimension if you are talking about God. I have no idea why you received a negative rep. Possibly for calling me immature when I am trying to explain my position to you. This illustrates the point I am trying to make about your misconception. Please provide any evidence whatsoever that pixie dust exists, much less that it is, as you claim, made of matter.

This is not about maturity. It is about logic. Please tell me how you came to the conclusion that your answer is better than mine. And if you are going to use the bible as proof, please tell me how that is a good reference.