Received: by 10.68.227.67 with SMTP id ry3mr14362718pbc.8.1340750470557;
        Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: l9ni23531pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren,alt.religion.mormon,alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.druid
Subject: Re: Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Happened - Oard - YT - 1 Hr.
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:41:11 GMT
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 171
Message-ID: <4fea3645.1431750@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <4fe21619.6920750@news.eternal-september.org> <d9f7578f-d5f2-4001-b7a9-1f9fa592ddfc@q5g2000pba.googlegroups.com> <4fe54ae3.2138593@news.eternal-september.org> <d0530ec1-51e9-4aff-805d-6e596997055b@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <4fe8bf49.1811015@news.eternal-september.org> <d2b9eb0a-52ce-4a7d-b230-09883cb9fb76@2g2000pbv.googlegroups.com> <4fe6d69d.2302718@news.eternal-september.org> <e679427b-8ee3-42ad-9b81-1952d0effbc2@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: logan.sac...@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="WTf+AFdFuUQqivrUVq8+bQ";
	logging-data="11909"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+W/WV7oJVPJXkizT/TAIsd"
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tGpHXjmLZIPvgNdlCw5FfqbpTQY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:05:35 -0700 (PDT), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 23, 8:36 am, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>> >> I rely on Science all the time, it is my job.  Mathematics, science
>> >> and its relationship to the cosmos is unmistakable.  Some science,
>> >> especially young science doesn't hold up or is too obtuse to depend
>> >> on.  That is when you have to fall back on science that has more
>> >> history of being correct.
>>
>> >young science?   Like DNA mapping?   Photon Science?
>>
>> Young science is an undeveloped or immature science.
>> You're projecting again.
>
>I'm projecting?
>
>This is a fantastic example of how in religious
>thinking you have to diddle with word meanings
>in order to preserve a world view that conflicts
>with evidence.

What?  If I were to say, that twisting light beams can provide terabit
internet speeds, but the science is still young. 

Does that somehow escape you?

 It is not an unused phrase.

>So in the other thread, you refuse to use the
>common term "greenhouse" to describe the
>warming effects of some gasses in the
>atmosphere.   You do this because part of
>your denial is to refuse to admit certain premises
>that science presents.

I never refued to use it, I only asked the simple question of how you
interpeted a greenhouse gas so we would be able to discuss the issue.
Was the question that difficult?


>Here on this thread you invented a term
>called "young science".   To me, the language
>seems clear,  it means a scientific body of
>work that is recent.   There is a lot of very
>recent science,  gene mapping, for example.

OK, have it your way then, I'll plaly along.  But please don't wrap my
knuckes for asking  how you define the greenhouse effect then.

>This is far younger than climate science, the
>greenhouse effect or atmospheric gasses
>was theorized almost  200 years ago by Fourier.

That doesn't change the fact that the phrase "greenhouse effect" means
different things to different people due to its name.

>Is geology a young science?   In order to
>believe your worldwide flood, you better define
>it as such,  though geology is one of oldest
>sciences there is.   Indeed,  amazingly it
>was people finding fossils on mountaintops
>that had them postulate a world wide flood.
>Certainly, hundreds of years ago, that made
>scientific sense.  Of course, the science of
>geology has far better explanations for those
>fossils than a worldwide flood.

Now you're getting pretty far off course.

>snip
>
>> >But this is what I observe you do.    I find it interesting
>> >from that POV that you'll be dismayed at a Mormon
>> > friend who won't accept evidence.
>>
>> He is the one that tried to convert me from the start, but that is
>> neither here nor there.
>>
>> So, by your statement,  I should have explained to him that JS was a
>> con man, but that this was just a theory?
>
>That JS was a con man is a theory backed by
>copious evidence.
>
>That JS was visited by angels and given
>gold plates has no evidence.   There are
>spurious witness's claims, of course, but
>no evidence.
>
>Of course, both could be possible.  He
>could have been a con man visited by angels
>with gold plates.

That would be a concidence I can't accept.

>> Yet as you explained, science is not always something you can prove,
>> but that it is observable or testable.
>
>"proof" is another one of those non-precise
>words in  science that gives deniers
>wiggle room.
>
>No scientific facts are strictly "proven", as
>proof is a mathematical concept.  They are
>accepted as facts because of overwhelming
>evidence in favor,  and no evidence rejecting.
>
>
>
>>
>> Science is more the quest of knowledge through the use of basic
>> assumptions and imperical theory.
>
>I'll try my own definition, you decide.
>
>Science is a method for understanding the reality
>of the universe.
>
>This method utilizes a discipline of observation,
>theory, and testing that is replicable by different
>practitioners of science,  and results are shared
> in a written form that can be preserved, re-tested,
>and re-used.
>
>That's as simple as I can go.
>
>>
>> We can observe global warming, but we cannot ethically include CO2
>> into the method of cause, because it is still a theory that has not
>> been show to be empirically sound.
>>
>> Except in politics of course.
>
>This thread is not about climate,  but I've tried to
>stick to the Noah myth.  Many of the same
>disciplines of understanding climate apply to
>the hypothesis of a world wide flood.
>
>Now you have already told me that you
>are not interested in pursuing the flood
>myth,  you've thought about it as much as
>you really want to.
>
>But your flood beliefs directly conflict with a
>set of sciences that is very very old, and
>with every single younger science that
>has emerged.

>
>I can see why you don't really want to
>deal with it.
>
>I believe you when you say you use sciences
>all the time in your job, but there's lots of
>people who can compartmentalize, believe
>fantastically wrong things on one hand,
>and be extremely competent in another field.
>
>Your mormon friend is probably an example.

Actually a perfect example.  He is very smart but has lost a lot of
money in the markets because he is a contrain.  When high frequency
trading and quantitive easing came along, it upset his methods and he
is having a hard time letting go.