> > On Apr 11, 12:59 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Apr 11, 11:49 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > >>> On Apr 11, 11:16 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> In article
> > > >>>>>> <d331c85f-de62-45a8-8c20-645f0ec40...@ms3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >>>>>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
> > > >>>>>>>>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
> > > >>>>>>>>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
> > > >>>>>>>> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> > > >>>>>>>> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
> > > >>>>>>> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> > > >>>>>>> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> > > >>>>>>> method unreliable.
> > > >>>>>>> For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> > > >>>>>>> see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
> > > >>>>>>> by Thomas De Wesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
> > > >>>>>> *
> > > >>>>>> If I wanted to know something about electrochemical dating and its
> > > >>>>>> accuracy, I would tend to prefer Brent Dalrymple's "Age of the Earth",
> > > >>>>>> rather than something on the "Shroud of Turin" by an art historian.
> > > >>>>>> Dalrymple's book explains in detail how electrochemical dating works and
> > > >>>>>> how different methods serve to check up on each other.
> > > >>>>>> De Wesselow is a Christian apologist now working full time to prove the
> > > >>>>>> Shroud Of Turin is the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.
> > > >>>>>> Take your pick.
> > > >>>>>> earle
> > > >>>>>> *
> > > >>>>> Your dichotomy is completely false.
> > > >>>>> Shroud research has shown the image not the result of any paints or
> > > >>>>> dyes; rather, it was "burned" onto and into the linen; three
> > > >>>>> dimensional, one side only. And we know for a fact that carbon dating
> > > >>>>> does not work on linen.
> > > >>>> Leaving aside for the moment the authenticity (giggle) of the shroud,
> > > >>>> why doesn't carbon dating work on linen?
> > > >>> That's a good question. Someone could write a thick book answering the
> > > >>> question.
> > > >> In other words, you have no support for that assertion.
> > > > No, I'm saying that you must do your own homework in this area. Below
> > > > I provide allusions to some facts that say the method does not work on
> > > > linen.
> > > Allusions don't help.
> > > >>> DeWesselow is a very tenacious art historian and investigator. He has
> > > >>> definitively traced the Shroud as existing well before the Medieval
> > > >>> date produced by the 1988 test.
> > > >> But the claim is that the linen tested wasn't the same age as the
> > > >> shroud. Again, the claimed problem is with the sampling, not the method.
> > > > Then why won't your colleagues in modern science make the same
> > > > distinction? Their position is, based on the 1988 test results, the
> > > > Shroud is a Medieval fake.
> > > Neither of us is responsible for what other, unspecified people say. Why
> > > bring it up? Do you agree or disagree with what I said?
> > > >>> Other examples: Archaeologists, from time to time, already know the
> > > >>> age of a particular mummy linen. Carbon dating fails to confirm. In
> > > >>> the eyes of objective persons these failures cast the technique
> > > >>> unreliable.
> > > >> Can you back up that claim about mummy linen? Where did you get it?
> > > > In DeWesselow's book, the chapter titled "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
> > > > His book is now on the shelves in all major chain bookstores.
> > > I'm not buying it -- the book or your claim. Feel free to quote, with
> > > references.
> > > >> And let me remind you that carbon dating has nothing to do with the age
> > > >> of the earth except to show that the age is greater than a few thousand
> > > >> years.
> > > > No comment.
> > > Why? Isn't the age of the earth what we were talking about when you went
> > > off on this irrelevant tangent?
> > The line of evidence that dates previously living things has no role
> > in the determination of the age of the Earth?
> > You've contradicted yourself with an exception (stated above).
> > How old is life on Earth?
> > No role?
> > The point is: based on the totality of facts concerning the 1988
> > Shroud dating event and other events involving mummy linen, carbon
> > dating is unreliable, a collossal failure. DeWesselow's arguments
> > undermine the entire discipline----no wonder you don't want anything
> > to do with his book.
> Carbon-14 has a half-life of less than 6,000 years. That's not going to
> be useful to date artifacts that go back hundreds of millions of years.
> Other radioisotopes with much longer half-lives are used.
> > Do not rocks date fossils, and fossils date rocks?
> There are plenty of rock strata without any fossils whose dates have
> been accurately determined. Notice that geologists have been able to
> accurately date rocks retrieved from the Moon via space probes, even
> though the Moon has always been lifeless.
> > We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
> > DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
> > acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
> > validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
> > the line.
> Don't stoop so low as to accuse scientists of a conspiracy to cover up
> the truth. That kind of paranoia is for cranks.
> -- Steven L.
Imagine that; this person actually believes status quo scientists are
immune from protecting their careers at all costs.
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:56:39 PM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > > >>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
> > > >>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
> > > >>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
> > > >> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> > > >> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
> > > > Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> > > > beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> > > > method unreliable.
> > > Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
> > So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
> > no role in determining age of the Earth?
> I can only assume you are joking. Surely you must have picked up enough about the methods of radiometric dating to realise that your question is passing > strange.
The point is these things have, at a minimum, an indirect role in the
big scheme.
Both you and John Harshman, contrary to what you claim, are nay-saying
everything, making discussion impossible.
> Hint: you wouldn't use carbon dating to age anything out beyond about 50K years (half-life of C14 is too short). In other words, all carbon dating has to say > about the age of the Earth is that it must older than the dated age of the sample.
So there is a role? contradicting previous claims about no role
whatsoever.
You guys need to get your story straight. Why don't you email John
Harshman?
> Conversely, carbon dating cannot be used to date fossils older than around 50K years for the reason above.
What's the point?
> However, there are many other radiometric methods available that are reliable over hundreds to thousands of millions of years when applied to igneous
>rocks found in association with fossils. These methods do not directly date the fossil but provide an inference of the fossil's age by reference to the nearest > datable igneous intrusion. The "age of the fossil" simply puts a stake in the ground that reads "the Earth must be older than this nearby igneous rock".
Again, what's the point?
> In other words, if you want to get an estimate of the age of the Earth, you actually don't need fossils at all. Just use radiometric dating to find the oldest >igneous rocks. The Earth must be at least as old as those rocks.
> But I assume you know this already.
We know your dating techniques are unreliable. I have discussed this
with John Harshman in the past. Like all evos he is very sensitive and
touchy when anyone dares to establish the unreliability of dating
techniques.
> > > > For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> > > > see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
> > > > by Thomas DeWesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/ > > > > The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
> > > > the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
> > > > supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
> > > > Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."
> > > If so, isn't that a problem with the sample rather than the method?
> > Yes, but the main thrust of the chapter undermines the method. If the
> > method is scientific, why the secrecy?
> The dating method is scientific and accurate (presumably), the sampling method was (apparently) not scientific. Hence the (apparently) nonsense result.
We who challenge the presumption know differently. The process
concerning the Shroud dating event was very unscientific, involving
secrecy and Vatican hierarchy. Yet the physicists who announced the
test results, and their supporters, point to the test as proving the
Shroud a Medieval fake. These persons do not admit any problems,
including the fact that researchers have traced the Shroud to exist
well before the Medieval date produced by carbon dating.
> > > >> "Old" may be only a few
> > > >> million years.
> > > > TenS of millions at a minimum.
> > > > Compared to 10,000 years or less, tens of millions of years is old.
> > > So how do you account for radiometric dates in the billions of years?
> > How can you feel secure in the billions when techniques fail within
> > calendar time?
> But they don't fail, when properly applied.
Anyone can do a little research and discover the known age of certain
materials not corroborated by dating techniques. What is it that you
don't understand?
> > > You have to suppose that the methods are not just unreliable but
> > > inaccurate by one or more orders of magnitude (depending on the age you
> > > like, whatever it may be).
> > I don't know what you're on about here.
> > > >> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
> > > > Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.
> > > It still isn't clear what you mean by "immutable". I've tried to get you
> > > to deal with the ambiguity, but I think you like to hide inside it.
> > An admission that you doubt or don't know the meaning of the word
> > "immutable"?
> > I find this very hard to believe. But I have always said that
> > Evolutionists are completely and utterly brainwashed, so my
> > observation receives support when you are unable to conceive and
> > comprehend the thing known as "species immutability" also known as
> > "fixism" or "permanence."
> I understand what I mean by the terms, but I'm still unsure what you mean by them.
Go ahead, tell me what you understand the terms to mean?
> > > >> God can change them if he wants
> > > > I never said any such thing.
> > > You disagree? God can't change species?
> > Evolution says species change, not God or Victorian Special
> > Creationism.
> You avoided his point. He is asking about potential cause of change, not whether change occurs. Nice evasion, but inadmissable.
You have misunderstood. John Harshman attempted to say that I believe
what any ordinary Christian Evolutionist on the street believes
concerning species. The attempt is seen when he misportrayed my
position as accepting God can change species. Special Creation doesn't
allow any change since the concept presupposes each species to be
special creations.
> > > >> and it's possible that Ray thinks new
> > > >> species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.
> > > > Again, I have never said any such thing.
> > > The problem is that you have never said what you mean, so we all have to
> > > guess.
> > Ridiculous!
> Actually, very germane. You define terms to suit yourself, but never share what the definition might be.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 12, 12:51 am, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:56:39 PM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>>>>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
>>>>>>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
>>>>>>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
>>>>>> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
>>>>>> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>>>>> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
>>>>> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
>>>>> method unreliable.
>>>> Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
>>> So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
>>> no role in determining age of the Earth?
>> I can only assume you are joking. Surely you must have picked up enough about the methods of radiometric dating to realise that your question is passing > strange.
> The point is these things have, at a minimum, an indirect role in the
> big scheme.
> Both you and John Harshman, contrary to what you claim, are nay-saying
> everything, making discussion impossible.
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 12:51 am, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:56:39 PM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> >>>>>>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
> >>>>>>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
> >>>>>>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
> >>>>>> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> >>>>>> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
> >>>>> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> >>>>> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> >>>>> method unreliable.
> >>>> Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
> >>> So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
> >>> no role in determining age of the Earth?
> >> I can only assume you are joking. Surely you must have picked up enough about the methods of radiometric dating to realise that your question is passing > strange.
> > The point is these things have, at a minimum, an indirect role in the
> > big scheme.
> > Both you and John Harshman, contrary to what you claim, are nay-saying
> > everything, making discussion impossible.
> No we aren't.
Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
Burkhard wrote:
> On Apr 12, 9:11 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Apr 12, 12:51 am, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:56:39 PM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
>>>>>>>>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
>>>>>>>>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
>>>>>>>> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
>>>>>>>> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>>>>>>> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
>>>>>>> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
>>>>>>> method unreliable.
>>>>>> Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
>>>>> So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
>>>>> no role in determining age of the Earth?
>>>> I can only assume you are joking. Surely you must have picked up enough about the methods of radiometric dating to realise that your question is passing > strange.
>>> The point is these things have, at a minimum, an indirect role in the
>>> big scheme.
>>> Both you and John Harshman, contrary to what you claim, are nay-saying
>>> everything, making discussion impossible.
>> No we aren't.
> Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
I'm sorry, do you want the five minute argument or the full half hour/
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>> My grandfather heard about this.
> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still did not accept it.,
Mike Painter wrote:
> On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car >>>>> 1,000
>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
> Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in > front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
> I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate > enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a > strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still > did not accept it.,
I'm presuming that instead of a propeller you're talking about a wind turbine. Let's consider one on a ship, on a pivot mount, with the turbine driving (perhaps mechanically, perhaps electrically) a propeller in the water. How close could you sail to the wind?
<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Mike Painter wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car >>>>>> 1,000
>>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>> Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in >> front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
.
>> I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate >> enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a >> strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still >> did not accept it.,
>I'm presuming that instead of a propeller you're talking about a wind >turbine. Let's consider one on a ship, on a pivot mount, with the >turbine driving (perhaps mechanically, perhaps electrically) a propeller >in the water. How close could you sail to the wind?
If the electricity was stored, then directly against the wind, for
awhile at least. The headwind could also be used to recharge the
battery, almost canceling the additional resistance/drag created by the
air foils.
Then sea anchors to hold the ship (nearly) in place while the batteries
recharged - and so on.
All this without violating any of Newton's Laws !!
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
In article <7aCdnXUP0cwFVBXS4p2d...@giganews.com>,
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I'm presuming that instead of a propeller you're talking about a wind >turbine. Let's consider one on a ship, on a pivot mount, with the >turbine driving (perhaps mechanically, perhaps electrically) a propeller >in the water. How close could you sail to the wind?
I don't see any reason you couldn't sail directly upwind. I am certain
that a wheeled vehicle on land could travel upwind this way.
-- Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius
> Mike Painter wrote:
> > On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
> >>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
> >>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car
> >>>>> 1,000
> >>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
> >>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
> >>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
> >>> My grandfather heard about this.
> >> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
> >> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
> > Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in
> > front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
> > I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate
> > enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a
> > strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still
> > did not accept it.,
> I'm presuming that instead of a propeller you're talking about a wind
> turbine. Let's consider one on a ship, on a pivot mount, with the
> turbine driving (perhaps mechanically, perhaps electrically) a propeller
> in the water. How close could you sail to the wind?
I remember a picture of a sailing ship, probably circa 1900 or so,
with a windmill on deck to pump out the bilges of a wooden ship with
considerable hogging. Coastal routes only, I believe.
>On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in >front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
Nah, the Hittites were smarter than the average fundie.
But it sounds a bit like the Fabulous Hillside Snee...
>I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate >enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a >strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still >did not accept it.,
Assuming you mean a wind generator, it *could* generate
enough power to move the car, even upwind. Not very fast, of
course, and dependent on the wind strength and direction.
(In fact, if the wind velocity is high enough and from the
rear, the generator is unnecessary, although its wind
resistance would actually *increase* the speed of the car,
even discounting any power generated and used for
propulsion.)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:05:05 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
><md.pain...@sbcglobal.net>:
>>On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>>Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in >>front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
>Nah, the Hittites were smarter than the average fundie.
>But it sounds a bit like the Fabulous Hillside Snee...
>>I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate >>enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a >>strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still >>did not accept it.,
>Assuming you mean a wind generator, it *could* generate
>enough power to move the car, even upwind. Not very fast, of
>course, and dependent on the wind strength and direction.
>(In fact, if the wind velocity is high enough and from the
>rear, the generator is unnecessary, although its wind
>resistance would actually *increase* the speed of the car,
>even discounting any power generated and used for
>propulsion.)
>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:05:05 -0700, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
>><md.pain...@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>>>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>>>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>>>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>>>Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in >>>front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
>>Nah, the Hittites were smarter than the average fundie.
>>But it sounds a bit like the Fabulous Hillside Snee...
>>>I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate >>>enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a >>>strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still >>>did not accept it.,
>>Assuming you mean a wind generator, it *could* generate
>>enough power to move the car, even upwind. Not very fast, of
>>course, and dependent on the wind strength and direction.
>>(In fact, if the wind velocity is high enough and from the
>>rear, the generator is unnecessary, although its wind
>>resistance would actually *increase* the speed of the car,
>>even discounting any power generated and used for
>>propulsion.)
>A sail might be more effective.
True, but a traditional sail couldn't provide the power to
run the sound system...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:48:28 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Richard Norman
> <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:42:00 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:05:05 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
>>> <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>> On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>>>>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>>>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>>>>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>>>>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>>>> Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in
>>>> front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
>>> Nah, the Hittites were smarter than the average fundie.
>>> But it sounds a bit like the Fabulous Hillside Snee...
>>>> I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate
>>>> enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a
>>>> strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still
>>>> did not accept it.,
>>> Assuming you mean a wind generator, it *could* generate
>>> enough power to move the car, even upwind. Not very fast, of
>>> course, and dependent on the wind strength and direction.
>>> (In fact, if the wind velocity is high enough and from the
>>> rear, the generator is unnecessary, although its wind
>>> resistance would actually *increase* the speed of the car,
>>> even discounting any power generated and used for
>>> propulsion.)
>> A sail might be more effective.
> True, but a traditional sail couldn't provide the power to
> run the sound system...
You probably would not be able to hear the sound system over the noise of the windmill anyway.
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:05:05 -0700, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
>><md.pain...@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>>>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>>>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>>>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>>>Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in >>>front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
>>Nah, the Hittites were smarter than the average fundie.
>>But it sounds a bit like the Fabulous Hillside Snee...
>>>I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate >>>enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a >>>strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still >>>did not accept it.,
>>Assuming you mean a wind generator, it *could* generate
>>enough power to move the car, even upwind. Not very fast, of
>>course, and dependent on the wind strength and direction.
>>(In fact, if the wind velocity is high enough and from the
>>rear, the generator is unnecessary, although its wind
>>resistance would actually *increase* the speed of the car,
>>even discounting any power generated and used for
>>propulsion.)
>A sail might be more effective.
Hmmm. Maybe TO could get a hundred million dollar government grant to develop
"green" sails. Headquarters would be near the beach in Hawaii, with frequent
staff meetings held in Las Vegas. (The GSA could give pointers on that).
>>> We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
>>> DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
>>> acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
>>> validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
>>> the line.
>> Don't stoop so low as to accuse scientists of a conspiracy to cover up
>> the truth. That kind of paranoia is for cranks.
>> -- Steven L.
> Imagine that; this person actually believes status quo scientists are
> immune from protecting their careers at all costs.
Imagine that: Ray throws out accusations which he can't back up, and then insults thousands of working scientists rather than admit he was wrong.
Ray, science, and scientists advance through challenging the status quo, not supporting it blindly. Your libelous statements above have no basis in reality.
>>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:05:05 -0700, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
>>><md.pain...@sbcglobal.net>:
>>>>On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>>>>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>>>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>>>>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>>>>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>>>>Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in >>>>front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
>>>Nah, the Hittites were smarter than the average fundie.
>>>But it sounds a bit like the Fabulous Hillside Snee...
>>>>I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate >>>>enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a >>>>strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still >>>>did not accept it.,
>>>Assuming you mean a wind generator, it *could* generate
>>>enough power to move the car, even upwind. Not very fast, of
>>>course, and dependent on the wind strength and direction.
>>>(In fact, if the wind velocity is high enough and from the
>>>rear, the generator is unnecessary, although its wind
>>>resistance would actually *increase* the speed of the car,
>>>even discounting any power generated and used for
>>>propulsion.)
>>A sail might be more effective.
>Hmmm. Maybe TO could get a hundred million dollar government grant to develop
>"green" sails. Headquarters would be near the beach in Hawaii, with frequent
>staff meetings held in Las Vegas. (The GSA could give pointers on that).
What has happened to the Dean's Yacht, er, the university's research
vessel?
> I told the Group plainly and forthrightly that the rough draft was
> posted accidentally.
And "the Group" considered such a obvious falsehood like that with all the respect it deserved.
> I opted for deletion.
Which has been explained to you before doesn't "delete" anything.
> Whatever power that
> preserved the post did so without authorization. The post, in their
> hands, becomes a revision, belonging to them, not me.
Ray, as has been explained to you before, Google is not USENET. Simply deleting posts from Google Groups doesn't make them disappear, and you don't get any control over your posts after you press 'send'.
> Since you are a computer geek with no understanding of ethics and
> rights and privacy you won't understand. In plain English: the post is
> not mine.
Ray, if you were interested in 'privacy' you wouldn't be posting in a public forum like this. The post is your words, and you can't simply pretend it doesn't exist. If you wish to post a revision, the original still is visible to anyone who cares to look.
Your lack of understanding of how USENET works, and how the internet works is not anyone elses problem but yours.
>>>> We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
>>>> DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
>>>> acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
>>>> validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
>>>> the line.
>>> Don't stoop so low as to accuse scientists of a conspiracy to cover up
>>> the truth. That kind of paranoia is for cranks.
>>> -- Steven L.
>> Imagine that; this person actually believes status quo scientists are
>> immune from protecting their careers at all costs.
>Imagine that: Ray throws out accusations which he can't back up, and >then insults thousands of working scientists rather than admit he was >wrong.
More to the point, what Ray fails to understand is that the failure of most
dating techniques is due to the lack of a good pickup line.
>Ray, science, and scientists advance through challenging the status quo, >not supporting it blindly. Your libelous statements above have no >basis in reality.
> In article <B4udnVARBYVxqRbSnZ2dnUVZ5jSdn...@giganews.com>, Dana Tweedy > says...
> >On 4/12/12 1:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >snip
> >>>> We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
> >>>> DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
> >>>> acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
> >>>> validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
> >>>> the line.
> >>> Don't stoop so low as to accuse scientists of a conspiracy to cover up
> >>> the truth. That kind of paranoia is for cranks.
> >>> -- Steven L.
> >> Imagine that; this person actually believes status quo scientists are
> >> immune from protecting their careers at all costs.
> >Imagine that: Ray throws out accusations which he can't back up, and > >then insults thousands of working scientists rather than admit he was > >wrong.
> More to the point, what Ray fails to understand is that the failure of most
> dating techniques is due to the lack of a good pickup line.
*
My favorite pickup line (Mississippi version):
"You know, for a fat girl, you don't sweat too much."
