4
   

Description of modern science

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 07:33 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Seeing as how your own worldview is of an earth that is substantially younger than 100,000 years...


Not really. My personal view is that ALL systems for dating the earth are basically fubar and that the best anybody could do is an educated guess. My own version of such a guess would be somewhere between around 200,000 and the 200M or thereabouts which Robert Bass derived from redoing Lord Kelvin's heat equations WITH a maximal figure for radioactive elements included.

The one thing we do have in our system which LOOKS like a 6000 year old planet is Venus and the Earth and Mars don't look like that at all.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 07:50 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Not really. My personal view is that ALL systems for dating the earth are basically fubar and that the best anybody could do is an educated guess. My own version of such a guess would be somewhere between around 200,000 and the 200M or thereabouts which Robert Bass derived from redoing Lord Kelvin's heat equations WITH a maximal figure for radioactive elements included.
Im not going to go back in the dusty archives but , on several occasions you did post your feelings about a substantially young earth. Im curious, how do you present your opinions and calculations as to why ALL methods of age dating are incorrect? Are you teaching anywhere where we may sit in and audit your research. Please dont let the geological surveys of the planet know about this, it will really mess up the stratigraphic column and geochron data.

Seldom right but never in doubt, thats you alright.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 09:12 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Did the computer you're typing on come from science or from religion?


That's an easy question. It came from the Christian religion.

Did the bus come from round the corner?

No, it did not. It came from science, and was handed down to engineering. Do your beliefs depend on false statements?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 09:12 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
May one ask why you conclude that science should stay out of phenomena with long time scales?


I didn't say that. Scientists SHOULD avoid dogmatism in areas in which the scientific method is inapplicable because of time scales.

How do long time scales make the scientific method inapplicable?
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 09:16 pm
And counting generations in the bible is a more reliable time scale in what way, gunga?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jul, 2009 06:26 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
How do long time scales make the scientific method inapplicable?


Because the scientific method by definition requires testing.

For that matter scientists DID in fact put evoloserism to an acid test in the early decades of the last century in the case of the infamous fruit fly experiments, and evoloserism failed the test. In that particular case they got around the millions of years requirement by using a creature which breeds new generations every second day or thereabouts.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jul, 2009 06:40 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
How do long time scales make the scientific method inapplicable?


Because the scientific method by definition requires testing.

For that matter scientists DID in fact put evoloserism to an acid test in the early decades of the last century in the case of the infamous fruit fly experiments, and evoloserism failed the test. In that particular case they got around the millions of years requirement by using a creature which breeds new generations every second day or thereabouts.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm


They can do testing. First they try to make a hypothesis that fits virtually all known facts, and then they predict other things which ought to be true if the hypothesis is true and check to see if they are.

This is in contrast to your terribly reliable method of blindly accepting unverified accounts in a document written by our ancient, superstitious ancestors. If you fault science on the basis of imperfect verification, then religion shouldn't even be eligible to speak at all on the subject of the origins of species.

By the way, in order to be able to criticize a viewpoint, one should first know what it is. Please summarize the theory of evolution by natural selection for me. I doubt that you can.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jul, 2009 08:35 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
In that particular case they got around the millions of years requirement by using a creature which breeds new generations every second day or thereabouts.

So what, that's the way they breed. Bacteria breed even faster, which is exactly why an understanding of evolution is necessary in the medical sciences. Without it we would be at a loss to explain virtually every biological change we see over time.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jul, 2009 05:42 pm
@rosborne979,
I hope ros will take the trouble to justify that assertion. On the face of it it looks ridiculous and facile but I'm always willing to listen to scientific exegesis.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 6 Jul, 2009 05:44 pm
@spendius,
Maybe somebody else will ask him. He has me on Ignore for no other reason than to run away from such requests.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jul, 2009 01:26 pm
@spendius,
Isn't it convenient to put people on Ignore. It saves risking being asked questions you can't answer.

As has just been demonstrated.

I also asked ros to suggest how the educational process could operate sanitised of all ideology which he had suggested it ought to be.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jul, 2009 06:01 pm
@spendius,
Scientists have synthesised sperm.

Goodbye boys.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 7 Jul, 2009 08:27 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
For that matter scientists DID in fact put evoloserism to an acid test in the early decades of the last century in the case of the infamous fruit fly experiments, and evoloserism failed the test.

Actually it passed the test. It always has and it always will. That's because it's a fact; it's reality. Get used to it because it's not going away. Ever.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 8 Jul, 2009 05:12 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Scientists have synthesised sperm.


That's yesterday's mashed potoatoes. A stem cell research offshoot.

Today there's a pill to extend life by 20 years. That should throw welfare spending into chaos. Imagine ci. exploring the world until he is 110.
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 8 Jul, 2009 07:15 pm
@rosborne979,
Sean Carroll, the head of the "fruitfly" experiments that was published in 2006 in NATURE, has developed a neat little understanduing of how single and multiple genes act as "on off " switches to initiate gene ops. Te developmet of freuit fly evolutionary traits has been thoroughly studied and now serves as a model for deeper insights into evo/devo mechanisms. Of course the CRETINISTS will , upon losing the fact battle that has showed how evolution occurs, state that "THEY ARE STILL FRUIT FLIES". however, a fruitfly iis part of a series of genera that each contain several species and the new genera and species that have been developed by "unnatural selection" parallel all the species of Homo through time. The Cretinists want to play down the fact that individual species are as unique as Neanderthals or erectus,or Heidelbergensis and even Australopithecus. Losing the evidence war is starting to pile up on Creationism because they are beginning to try to accept evolution , even evolution of higher orders , to explain their daffy myth of NOAH and an ARK
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Wed 8 Jul, 2009 09:21 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Scientists have synthesised sperm.


That's yesterday's mashed potoatoes. A stem cell research offshoot.

Today there's a pill to extend life by 20 years. That should throw welfare spending into chaos. Imagine ci. exploring the world until he is 110.

What is the pill?
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 9 Jul, 2009 06:29 am
@Brandon9000,
No idea. It was headlined in two newspapers here. Something to do with a substance found on Easter Island they said.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Thu 9 Jul, 2009 10:12 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Losing the evidence war is starting to pile up on Creationism because they are beginning to try to accept evolution , even evolution of higher orders , to explain their daffy myth of NOAH and an ARK

I think the other thing that's happening is that they're trying hard to make themselves "sound" like a scientific view (Intelligent Design) in order to portray the mantle of scientific veracity. However in doing so, they trap themselves into having to deal with the evidence, and empirical evidence is an insoluble problem for them.
0 Replies
 
superjuly
 
  1  
Thu 9 Jul, 2009 10:26 am
There's a book on this called "The Tao of Physics", by Fritjof Capra.
It's very interesting but I haven't read the whole thing though.
...the convergence of thoughts.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 9 Jul, 2009 12:31 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Losing the evidence war is starting to pile up on Creationism because they are beginning to try to accept evolution , even evolution of higher orders , to explain their daffy myth of NOAH and an ARK


Quote:
Up to the time of Rhampsinitus, Egypt was excellently governed and very prosperous; but his successor Cheops (to continue the account which the priests gave me) brought the country into all sorts of misery. He closed all the temples, then, not content with excluding his subjects from the practice of their religion, compelled them without exception to labour as slaves for his own advantage.


( A page or so devoted to a description of the years of terrible labour in his honour.)

Quote:
But no crime was too great for Cheops: when he was short of money, he sent his daughter to a bawdy-house with instructions to charge a certain sum--


Quote:
Cheops reigned for fifty years.....and was succeeded after his death by his brother Chephren. Chepren was no better than his predecessor; his rule was equally oppressive, and, like Cheops, he built a pyramid.


Quote:
The Egyptians can hardly bring themselves to mention the names of Cheops and Chephren, so great is their hatred of them:


If the stones of the pyramids are subjected to the sort of scientific scrutiny accorded to fossils the traces of the whipped out blood of hundreds of thousands of slaves would show up. Maybe millions. Men, women and children. No doubt your scientific magazines often feature the wonders of the pyramids for you plonkers to admire and worship.

Quote:
The next king of Egypt after Chephren was Mycerinus, the son of Cheops. Mycerinus, reversing his father's policy of which he did not approve, reopened the temples and allowed his subjects, who had been brought into abject slavery, to resume the practice of their religion and their normal work.


All quotes from Herodotus.

Perhaps it was thought that any myth, however daffy, was an improvement on that sort of shite which lasted nearly 100 years.

Perhaps the myth of Mandana was even deemed an improvement.

According to Herodotus, Mandana was born to Astyages, King of Media and son of Cyaxares the Great, and Princess Aryenis of Lydia, daughter of Alyattes II, the father of Croesus of Lydia. Christian Settipani, however, says she was his daughter by another mother.

Shortly after her birth, Herodotus reports that Astyages had a strange dream where his daughter urinated so much that Asia would flood.

Maybe the Noah myth is a lower-middle-class version of that.

What you are doing effemm is a bit like discussing Mahler with sole reference to what the strings of the instruments are made of.

You silly old fool. The anti-religious Communist party of the USSR certainly treated non party members in a similar fashion as Cheops and Chephren did.

Have you got grandiose plans for the unscientifics amongst us? The first step to such a policy is to label them all cretins and idiots and to Ignore anything they say.

I call upon true Americans to rise up and resist this evil force in their midst which is hell bent on taking away their freedoms and enslaving them.


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 7.97 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 05:31:13