Message 31 of 64 (503860) 03-22-2009 9:12 PM

Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote 03-22-2009 8:00 PM

Edited by lyx2no, : Lost the end of a sentence somewhere.

Message 32 of 64 (503861) 03-22-2009 9:16 PM

Reply to: Message 28 by shalamabobbi 03-22-2009 8:51 PM

Mybad - I was thinking the speed of light had a time component.

Anyway, if mass slows time then the -space- before mass is created, or -where- mass is created, would be a timeless place. Or very fast.

I'm not saying that life appeared over millions of sped up years. But it seems likely that the rest of the cosmos did.

Message 33 of 64 (503865) 03-22-2009 9:31 PM

Reply to: Message 31 by lyx2no 03-22-2009 9:12 PM

Maybe I will. And likely there are. But I was thinking about comments from Parthenon researchers about how current steel tooling is inferior.

Message 34 of 64 (503866) 03-22-2009 9:35 PM

Reply to: Message 30 by Granny Magda 03-22-2009 9:04 PM

So far, everything Sky has said was pulled out of his ass and is meaningless drivel that show a surprising lack of knowledge about anything. Coupled with his dismissive lack of interest or curiosity makes him a scary perfect example of Mr. Jack's OP. A stunted world view indeed.

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Message 35 of 64 (503867) 03-22-2009 9:37 PM

Reply to: Message 31 by lyx2no 03-22-2009 9:12 PM

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obsidian+surgical+tools&aq=0&oq=obsidian+sur

http://www.finescience.com/commerce/ccc1065-obsidian-scalpels.htm

quote:

---

For applications where an extremely fine cutting action is required or for studies where trace metals from ordinary scalpel blades cannot be tolerated, these very special obsidian scalpels may provide the answer. They are so fine that they are used in human surgical procedures where objectionable scar tissue might result from the use of a coarser scalpel. The blade is made from obsidian a type of volcanic glass which allows a much finer blade than is possible with the conventional steel blade. In some cases this makes the relatively inexpensive obsidian scalpel a suitable substitute for an expensive diamond knife. Patterned after "stone-age" knives which first made their appearance about 18,000 years ago, these modern versions utilize hard maple wood dowelling for handles and a special epoxy coating. This seals the joint between the blade and the handle, and enables the knife to be autoclaved.

---

Enjoy.

Message 36 of 64 (503868) 03-22-2009 9:44 PM

Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD 03-22-2009 9:37 PM

Now fell a tree with it:).

Message 37 of 64 (503870) 03-22-2009 10:05 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by Sky-Writing 03-22-2009 9:16 PM

If we're discussing the rest of the cosmos only, then this doesn't resolve the YEC problem for radiological dating on earth.

One example is the lack of short term radioactive elements in the earth which is explained by an old enough earth that they have all decayed away.

Another example doesn't involve radioactivity at all. Fossil corral beds reveal a faster spinning earth in the distant past. This does not tie in with YEC very well since we know how fast the spin rate is slowing and why, the tidal interaction with the moon.

Another is the use of polystrate fossil trees by YECs. If the flood were the cause of this, polystrate fossil forests the world over would be the norm, not the exception to the rule.

Also incised meandering rivers such as in Utah's Gooseneck state park. It is known that the river must be slow to cause a meandering pattern. Yet 10,000 years is not a sufficient amount of time for the depth of erosion caused by the river.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : grammer

Message 38 of 64 (503874) 03-23-2009 12:01 AM

Reply to: Message 14 by Sky-Writing 03-22-2009 6:03 PM

quote:

---

The founders of modern science were believers in God.
Muslim or Christian, it didn't cause them any harm
or interfere with their accomplishments.

---

Only because their search for truth didn't end with the back cover of whatever sacred text they followed. This, of course, is what distinguishes them from cdesign proponentsists of various flavors.

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Message 39 of 64 (503881) 03-23-2009 4:00 AM

Reply to: Message 29 by Sky-Writing 03-22-2009 9:01 PM

Creationists are effectively willing to forego the majesty of nature as discovered (i.e. the "how") such that they can revel in the perceived majesty of the "why" at some later date.

Personally I think even the notion of the "why" is a misconceived folly.

But even ignoring that possibility it has to be said that basing ones notion of "why" on something that requires you to deny reality as discovered is just plain stupid.

There are many notions of "why" that are wholly compatible with the "how" as revealed by nature.

Message 40 of 64 (503886) 03-23-2009 6:04 AM

Reply to: Message 14 by Sky-Writing 03-22-2009 6:03 PM

How many of them shrugged their shoulders when faced with understanding the world, and said 'god did it'? Did Newton offer up a theory of gravity or leave it as intelligent falling?

There's nothing about being religious that stops people being excellent scientists; the problem is the acceptance of the banal, non-explaination that Creationism offers - especially when contrasted with the majesty of real biology.

Message 41 of 64 (503889) 03-23-2009 7:34 AM

Reply to: Message 39 by Straggler 03-23-2009 4:00 AM

Not to even start with the silliness of the notion that you only find out this great Why after you're dead!

Message 42 of 64 (503891) 03-23-2009 7:46 AM

Reply to: Message 34 by Tanypteryx 03-22-2009 9:35 PM

yawn...I admire your insights....ZZZzzz

Edited by -Sky-, : Got bored when I read it the second time.

Message 43 of 64 (503893) 03-23-2009 8:23 AM

Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Jack 03-23-2009 6:04 AM

Yet that is the background they came from. So to suggest there is anything banal about it, is ignoring the reality that that exact foundation is what made them what they were and CAUSED them to explore the world further. You would have to show that they rejected the creation story to have a solid point.
Rather than just assume they did.

Message 44 of 64 (503894) 03-23-2009 8:52 AM

Reply to: Message 37 by shalamabobbi 03-22-2009 10:05 PM

I can't argue YEC points because I'm not a YEC. The Week of Creation may have taken place some 10,000 years ago. But it didn't start out with an earth, effectively at age 0. Nor was anything else created at age 0. So I think it's pointless for YEC's to argue proof for an age 0 if it wasn't at that age when created. What would a rock look like at age 0?. What would plants and animals look like at age 0? What would earth's land masses look like at age 0?

But if it helps them feel good about life, let them play. Just like Evos. Everybody feels they have to know where they came from.

Some can accept it, and some need to prove it.
(There is nothing wrong with NOT being a scientist, by the way.)

Look at the amount of money spent on SETI. JUST to prove that there is more life than what the scriptures reveal. Scientifically speaking, the task is over, but the project refuses to die.

Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.

Message 45 of 64 (503899) 03-23-2009 9:59 AM

Reply to: Message 42 by Sky-Writing 03-23-2009 7:46 AM

quote:

---

yawn...I admire your insights....ZZZzzz

---

Is that all you have to say in response to the fallacious reasoning at the heart of your argument being laid bare for you? Are you not bothered that you are basing your case upon fallacious rubbish? Wouldn't you rather avoid fallacies?

Since you have not attempted to refute my point, concentrating instead on childish nonsense, I must assume that you are happy to concede that you were wrong.

Ooh look, here comes another one;

quote:

---

Yet that is the background they came from. So to suggest there is anything banal about it, is ignoring the reality that that exact foundation is what made them what they were and CAUSED them to explore the world further.

---

How do you know that religion was what caused these scientists to study nature? How do you know that it wasn't simple intellectual curiosity? Why are not concerned that you are basing another argument upon an obvious fallacy, namely post hoc reasoning?

Scientist A had a religious upbringing --> Scientist A became a great scientist --> Therefore religious upbringing causes great science.

Do you not see the flaw in the above? If so why use that argument? If not, you must be blind.

I had breakfast this morning --> This afternoon I fell off my bike --> Therefore eating breakfast causes bike accidents.

Do you see the problem?

Added by Edit; I almost missed this piece of nonsense;

quote:

---

Look at the amount of money spent on SETI. JUST to prove that there is more life than what the scriptures reveal. Scientifically speaking, the task is over, but the project refuses to die.

---

I see that you are content to repeat the same rubbish over again. You have no evidence that the search for extra-terrestrial life is destined to be fruitless and you have had it clearly demonstrated to you that such statements are illogical. But why let that stop you? Why stop repeating a refuted argument? Much more fun to just mindlessly parrot the same old crap.

SETI is not about disproving your precious scriptures. It's not even about proving that there is alien life. It is about finding out whether there is alien life. Your silly myths and fables have nothing to do with it. They are your obsession, not SETI's. You are projecting.

Not everybody shares your interest in the Bible, and, thankfully, not everybody shares your eagerness to decide how the universe ticks without bothering to study it.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : As noted.