Message from discussion Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Happened - Oard - YT - 1 Hr.
Received: by 10.68.227.67 with SMTP id ry3mr14362718pbc.8.1340750470557;
Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket)
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
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:05:35 -0700 (PDT), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>
>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>
>> >> 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.
>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
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.
>> >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
>That JS was visited by angels and given
>gold plates has no evidence. There are
>spurious witness's claims, of course, but
>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
>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,
>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
>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.