I ain't a scientist but I have read a bit into this. Basically, a cavern forms underground beneath a body of water, or where water has seeped through. Over time the cavern gets bigger and bigger and bigger until it collapses and everything above it sinks down.

That's why videos of sinkholes occur by water or in a region with bayous, etc. I don't know about every type of sinkhole situation but this is the most common that I know of. (I lived in Florida and it happens a lot.) It's also possible for older pockets to exist where water once flowed, and then the earth just needed some change that eventually breaks the thin layer above.

Science, right? Everything is in a state of constant change. Eroding. Dissolving. Shifting. Sliding. ERUPTING. SWALLOWING. I'm talking about science now -- and not biology.

By the time I hit 30 I was supposed to be sane, married, raising kids, happy, loving god, healthy, and with an answer for everything. Hah! Well, not like I really thought that. Just thinking about previous generations and their standards, as they constantly change and adapt. I was supposed to be sick and dead in the streets of England. I was supposed to be a proud Nazi, hated by the world. I was supposed to be a starving Irishman. I was supposed to die on the trail of tears. I was supposed to be a slave on a railroad track. There's some perspective. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO SUFFER. Are you? No? Alright then. Yes? Sucks, dude. Welcome to the human race. We don't know shit.

@gorillaman, my having the "same conversation" for forty years is because I have heard it all. I would LOVE for someone to present a new argument so I could think about it. However, that hasn't happened in this thread. For me, it's all same old, same old.

What bothers me? The fact that it has taken me forty years to come up with my experiment. I am deeply embarrassed that in 40 years I have never changed tactics. I just kept repeating myself, thinking that since I was talking to a different person, a different group, the result of the conversation would be different.

Unfortunately, this is my personality -- guileless, obstinate, passionate, deeply sure of my own point of view (because I have constantly tested it against new information, constantly changed my opinion based on new information). But I never had the personal skills to think -- hey, try a new tactic.

There is a reason I am not in politics or sales. I lack some real people skills.

I have told people for 40 years that I was changed when I did this experiment on myself. Well, actually, my personal experiment was more radical. Every time I heard the word "girl", I imagined the subject was a black man, changed the word to "boy" and checked in with how comfortable or uncomfortable I was. That little experiment knocked my socks off as it revealed the power of words to subjugate a group of people. [In the 1970s, you DID NOT call a black man a "boy." The stereotype of a white Southern sheriff with a see-gar in his mouth, calling a grown black man a "boy" was very powerful and real back then. Not so much anymore. Thank goodness.]

But in 40 years, I have never asked anyone to do this experiment, with a time frame so it isn't too onerous. Never framed it as a scientific and social experiment. Never changed my tactics.

I am deeply embarrassed by that. I am also deeply thrilled that I finally figured this out.

If you are willing to do it, of course. It does require effort on your part.

You game? You wanna play? I honestly would love to hear how it goes for you. If that Southern sheriff stereotype resonates with you, feel free to try that version. If you want.

>> ^offsetSammy:

Sorry, intentionally putting someone in danger (and those around them, who had no part in it) by messing with their mirrors is NOT the equivalent of being inconvenienced and not being able to get into your car. What you did is pretty irresponsible, regardless of what the other person did to you.
>> ^Porksandwich:
Yeah I think his car would have fit through much earlier on than when he gave up and left. But I think he hit the car next to him when he spun pushing the car on front.
It used to piss me off to no end back when I commuted to college and people would park too close to me, so much so that I couldn't even open my door enough to get into the vehicle. I used to mess with their side mirror settings and then fold them into their car if they were moveable just to give them irritation right back. Nothing like finding out you can't see shit out of your side mirrors once you're already in traffic. Much like not being able to get into your vehicle to get your books and shit out for class without some gymnastics and contortion. That's not even counting all the door dings and paint scratches those pricks gave my vehicle that had just been painted.



That's hardly intentionally putting someone in danger. Hell half the time I'd have to fold theirs and mine in just to make sure I didn't break something when I tried to get in my car. Plus I didn't actually DAMAGE or disable anything on their vehicle, meanwhile I can see the paint from mine on the edge of their doors where they just bash their door into mine because they can't properly handle a vehicle. They should be glad I didn't absolutely ruin the value of their vehicle like they so casually did to mine on top of blocking it in. You park too close where people have to walk between and mirrors are going to be bumped and moved as people squeeze by, especially when you got people lugging 30-50 pound backpacks around. Should learn to park courteously and responsibly.

Plus if YOU don't check your mirrors before YOU start driving, YOU are putting yourself and others in danger. A strong wind can blow your mirrors out of adjustment. Much like not properly cleaning and de-icing your windows and mirrors means you can't see properly...yet people do it ALL the time. Make sure you tell them how they are intentionally putting someone in danger next time you see them not check their mirrors or clean their windshields and side windows before starting out next time. You should also check your oil, brake fluid, coolant levels and light functionality weekly if not daily.

Now if I ran around smearing their windshield wipers with petroleum jelly, something that is not 100% noticeable you might have a point. That's something people used to do, you'd be going down the road in the rain and hit the wipers and suddenly it's like looking through a constantly changing sheet of ice. And you couldn't clean it off your windows without something to cut it.

Blaming others for your inability to follow simple parking guidelines like stay between the lines and stay centered to your parking spot when they have to work around your mistakes.......is your problem. You are responsible for the vehicle you are driving and it's safe operation. I checked my mirrors every day leaving campus, because people bump them all the time when walking between vehicles on their way to class...annoying but not their fault if I smash into a car because I didn't adjust them to be useful. Course now the mirrors have been motorized long enough that most cars have it, even the older models students can afford....so they are stiffer and harder to move by design. Doesn't change your responsibility to make sure the car is road safe before you take it on the road.

Disagreeing is not fighting, troll.

See 0:50-1:00 here.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^RhesusMonk:
No one asked you to defend anything, bub. Didn't mean to pick a fight.>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^RhesusMonk:
I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.


You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?
Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.
And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.


Ok... contradicting everything I said, claiming to know what I'm actually thinking is different from what I posted, and then using the phrase "call you out"... and you didn't mean to pick a fight? I think perhaps you need to consider your words a tiny bit more before hitting that "submit" button.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

No one asked you to defend anything, bub. Didn't mean to pick a fight.>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^RhesusMonk:
I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.


You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?
Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.
And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.



Ok... contradicting everything I said, claiming to know what I'm actually thinking is different from what I posted, and then using the phrase "call you out"... and you didn't mean to pick a fight? I think perhaps you need to consider your words a tiny bit more before hitting that "submit" button.

No one asked you to defend anything, bub. Didn't mean to pick a fight.
If anyone else is in doubt, see 0:50-1:00 here.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^RhesusMonk:
I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.


You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?
Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.
And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.



You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?

Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.

And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.

I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly *promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:

I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.

I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.

Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.

o let me confirm this... your answer is; yes, i know i am being rude, but it is an integral part of my religious viewpoint that i must be rude. Well, thank you for at least letting me know - i know now i can have no interest in your christianity. I am glad i have met other christians or i would leave this thread with a terrible viewpoint of your ilk.

My answer is, I believe the words of God over the words of man. I'm not sure why you expect me to compromise my beliefs and tell you something that I don't believe is true.

Do you realise that it is part of my viewpoint to see you as a silly, childish, scared and brainwashed fool? But do i accuse you of those things? No. Because i have respect for you (or at least i did), i accept that you may not conform to the mould. I choose my words extremely carefully sometimes even to the detriment of making my point clearly! All because i don't want to offend you.

I think it speaks volume that i, as an agnostic atheist, am more tolerant and polite than you, a theist. In the face of being called dishonest and insincere as well. You are not special, there is no excuse - you do not get special rules for calling people insincere; it makes you a bigot by definition (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). And your words confine your religion to bigotry. How can it not when you insult anyone who disagrees?

What possible respect could you have for someone that you believe is a "silly childish scared and brainwashed fool" except that which is empty and false? I prefer your honesty to your tolerance. You are incapable of offending me; I've heard it all.

If you cannot lay aside that bigotry, then we have nothing further to discuss.

I am obstinately and intolerantly devoted to the word of God. If it wasn't a scandal for you, you would be a perfect man.

The reason why i am not able to reply to certain parts of your posts is that you include bible quotes; these are utterly meaningless to me, and you may as well be reading me a vacuum cleaner instruction manual. Especially in a discussion pertaining to the validity of said document.

You virtually ignored everything I wrote, and looking back I count 3 scriptures.

I suspect that it is you who needs to go and study logic and maths - notice how i wait for you to demonstrate your ignorance of such subjects before i suggested this, a kindness you did not afford me. There are ways of solving uncertainties such as using occam's razor to demonstrate that evidence is required if you wish to propose a more complicated state of affairs. By suggesting that reality is changeable (from what i can understand of your loose grip on the subject, for example perhaps the gravitational constant changes depending on your position in the universe), you may as well suggest that gravity tastes like jelly - it has no basis and is rediculous to propose as a realistic alternative because it is utterly meaningless and offers an infinite spectrum of alternatives. You must have a reason to suggest it, otherwise it can only be considered as a philosophical exercise and as such is not scientific. If you have a scientific reason, then you're all good.

You entirely missed the point, and actually reinforced it with your assertion that it would be ridiculous to believe that law of gravity could change. The question is, why should there be a law-like order in the Universe in the first place? What evidence do you have that the future will be like the past? How do you explain the uniformity in nature? Where do you get the laws of logic from? These are things that you assume apriori without accounting for them.

If you think differently, then you are wrong; it is not a matter of opinion. Science (which is maths) is defined on those terms, something is either scientific or not. That is why many religious groups can't understand how outrageous it is to suggest intelligent design is taught in science classes; you may as well teach people how to read tea leaves to get to a solution in a maths class. Maths is a set of rules, and if you change those rules then it is no longer maths. Same goes for science. Your opinions do not count towards science.

There is good reason to believe that the Universe is designed, from the fine tuning of the physical laws, to the information in DNA. It is a better explanation of the facts. To rule it out I think is ridiculous and definitely not scientific. Ask Anthony Flew why he stopped being an atheist.

Finally i will say this; you rarely ever address my point or reply to a simple question. You seemingly always reply to an example rather than the point (which you did again even when i highlighted this oversight; the second reply was utter misdirection). You often subtly change the parameters. Perhaps it is not intentional, or perhaps that is also a necessary part of your religion.

I'm not sure i can make another polite reply, so i may make none at all; i have been insulted enough. I for one am absolutely certain that, if there is a god, god would not be happy with you walking around judging others. He or she is watching you right now, seeing you insult others in his/her own name.

I wouldn't call passive aggressive polite, would you? God isn't going to judge me for telling what His word says, which is what He commanded me to do.

Edit:
Actually, i saw you apologised for being rude. I'm sure in your mind you are forgiven by god. This must give you an incredible amount of freedom to be immoral. I am glad that i at least do not need a sword hanging over my head to be polite and fair. When i am rude to someone, it hurts me in my heart, and i can't just apologise and feel better; i carry it with me.

Everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. Your guilty conscience is telling you that you've violated Gods standard of behavior.

>> ^dannym3141:

@shinyblurry

So let me confirm this... your answer is; yes, i know i am being rude, but it is an integral part of my religious viewpoint that i must be rude. Well, thank you for at least letting me know - i know now i can have no interest in your christianity. I am glad i have met other christians or i would leave this thread with a terrible viewpoint of your ilk.

Do you realise that it is part of my viewpoint to see you as a silly, childish, scared and brainwashed fool? But do i accuse you of those things? No. Because i have respect for you (or at least i did), i accept that you may not conform to the mould. I choose my words extremely carefully sometimes even to the detriment of making my point clearly! All because i don't want to offend you.

I think it speaks volume that i, as an agnostic atheist, am more tolerant and polite than you, a theist. In the face of being called dishonest and insincere as well. You are not special, there is no excuse - you do not get special rules for calling people insincere; it makes you a bigot by definition (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). And your words confine your religion to bigotry. How can it not when you insult anyone who disagrees?

If you cannot lay aside that bigotry, then we have nothing further to discuss.

The reason why i am not able to reply to certain parts of your posts is that you include bible quotes; these are utterly meaningless to me, and you may as well be reading me a vacuum cleaner instruction manual. Especially in a discussion pertaining to the validity of said document.

I suspect that it is you who needs to go and study logic and maths - notice how i wait for you to demonstrate your ignorance of such subjects before i suggested this, a kindness you did not afford me. There are ways of solving uncertainties such as using occam's razor to demonstrate that evidence is required if you wish to propose a more complicated state of affairs. By suggesting that reality is changeable (from what i can understand of your loose grip on the subject, for example perhaps the gravitational constant changes depending on your position in the universe), you may as well suggest that gravity tastes like jelly - it has no basis and is rediculous to propose as a realistic alternative because it is utterly meaningless and offers an infinite spectrum of alternatives. You must have a reason to suggest it, otherwise it can only be considered as a philosophical exercise and as such is not scientific. If you have a scientific reason, then you're all good.

If you think differently, then you are wrong; it is not a matter of opinion. Science (which is maths) is defined on those terms, something is either scientific or not. That is why many religious groups can't understand how outrageous it is to suggest intelligent design is taught in science classes; you may as well teach people how to read tea leaves to get to a solution in a maths class. Maths is a set of rules, and if you change those rules then it is no longer maths. Same goes for science. Your opinions do not count towards science.

Finally i will say this; you rarely ever address my point or reply to a simple question. You seemingly always reply to an example rather than the point (which you did again even when i highlighted this oversight; the second reply was utter misdirection). You often subtly change the parameters. Perhaps it is not intentional, or perhaps that is also a necessary part of your religion.

I'm not sure i can make another polite reply, so i may make none at all; i have been insulted enough. I for one am absolutely certain that, if there is a god, god would not be happy with you walking around judging others. He or she is watching you right now, seeing you insult others in his/her own name.

Edit:
Actually, i saw you apologised for being rude. I'm sure in your mind you are forgiven by god. This must give you an incredible amount of freedom to be immoral. I am glad that i at least do not need a sword hanging over my head to be polite and fair. When i am rude to someone, it hurts me in my heart, and i can't just apologise and feel better; i carry it with me.

The blunted point of this video: religion is about faithfully following and constraining curiosity, while science is about aggressively questioning and holding nothing sacred.

A point I would add is that in human societies there may be a time and a place for each, but they will still each question the value of the other.

What we should be talking about then is the individual common ground, in your own head, between these two things. You describe a more Unitarian God, responsible for creating/upholding the laws of a changing Universe, and nothing else. I might describe a God with far less impact or far greater impact on human lives here on Earth (...or hundreds of Gods along a God power-spectrum). I might also specify some particular stories about how I know my God to be the true God.

On the other side is Science, where neither bullshit nor treasured dogma are valued once proven wrong. Your world is composed of atoms, which we've taken pictures of, and we've landed robots on another planet... but where we wonder what the meaning of any of this is, and how long its going to be before we screw it up.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What is upholding these absolute laws in a Universe which is constantly changing? ...you can describe mechanism all day long, but this says nothing about an Agency. You have to explain Agency first (or explain it away), before you can say you've explained anything.
You can describe all the mechanisms of reality, but in the end, you still have faith in a self-creating Universe.

I think the point Bill was trying to make, although I don't think he has quite articulated it in his own mind, is that while you may be able to describe the physical mechanisms as to why the tides behave the way they do, this doesn't explain why the physical laws that cause their behavior continue to operate constantly and consistantly. This is why he said "never a miscommunication". And this is something that science cannot explain and has to assume to make science even possible. All scientific theories that exist depend on it.

The uniformity of nature is *the* fundemental assumption of science, which is to say that future will be like the past, but how can this be explained in a naturalistic worldview? You can't justify it without viciously circular reasoning, ie, that the evidence that the future will be like the past is justified by the past. What is upholding these absolute laws in a Universe which is constantly changing? This is what Bill is getting at, I think, is that you can describe mechanism all day long, but this says nothing about an Agency. You have to explain Agency first (or explain it away), before you can say you've explained anything.

You can describe all the mechanisms of reality, but in the end, you still have faith in a self-creating Universe. You haven't explained why there is uniformity in nature, but funnily enough, it was the Christian belief of Christian scientists that God created a orderly Universe based on laws that science had the idea that it could suss out those laws by investigating secondary causes. This is why Kepler said he felt like he was thinking Gods thoughts after him. But to explain anything you must explain the first thought. "I don't know" is not an argument against a Creator, nor is explaining the tides physical operation evidence that His hand isn't pulling all the strings.

The issue is when the cluster of cells inside a woman achieves the level of development to be called a viable human being. If the cluster of cells wouldn't be able to live on its own

And viability is under constant change thanks to medical advances. If we reach a point where science can viably support a fetus after only 2 weeks does that become a new starting point?

As for cells that can live on their own, do we then count that same exclusion on humans of all other ages after birth as well, by the same logic?

The question of abortion is not about when life begins, it's about weighing the costs and benefits of pursuing a pregnancy, taking into account both the woman and the embryo/foetus/future human being.

And how you weigh that will be radically changed based on if you define the fetus as an independent human being with it's own human rights, or if you simply class it part of the woman's reproductive system.

How you define the point when a fetus is classed a human being with human rights is a fundamental base assumption of all your points and concerns. Admitting that should NOT be damaging or a hindrance to the discussion, unless you are uninterested in really pursuing it.