Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quality Control the Gold Standard
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 6090 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 226 of 238 (287699)
02-17-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 11:15 AM


Re: Of course observation comes first
I was watching some energy and mass interchange in my back yard and the idea that sunlight made it possible for me to see led me to E=mc**2
acutally evopeach I'm pretty sure that one of the things Einstein was trying to explain was the observed curvature of light. So yes, the theory of general relativity came about due to observatiions that clashed with newtonian mechanics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 11:15 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 2:52 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6870 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 227 of 238 (287719)
02-17-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-17-2006 2:21 PM


Re: Of course observation comes first
The curvature of light by gravitation/mass was not shown or even possible to observe in an experimental setting until years after he published the prediction when the perihelian og Mercuty could be observed and analyzed in detail.
Nice try but no banana.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-17-2006 2:21 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-17-2006 3:26 PM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6870 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 228 of 238 (287722)
02-17-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by nator
02-17-2006 1:59 PM


Re: Going back off topic
Which includes the defeated pseudo-scientists (alias for evolutionists) he debated for thirty years prior to his retirement.
Einstein spent less than 5%of his worklife in a lab and Hawkings even less yet they are considered 1st class scientists... theoretical physicists.
Gish read prodigiously, maintained his scientific societal memberships and wrote a number of books on his views all with impeccible footnotes and references.
The CRSQ web site is easily searched for peer reviewed Creationist rResearch papers and projects and that is up to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 1:59 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 5:23 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 231 by ramoss, posted 02-17-2006 5:29 PM Evopeach has replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 6090 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 229 of 238 (287734)
02-17-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 2:52 PM


Einstein - off topic
Actually I found out that Einstein based his theory on a MUCH simpler observation: That all motion is relative.
If a body next to you appears to be in motion, it could be you are still (in the larger picture this is rather a remote possibility) and the other is moving, or it is still and you are moving, or (the usual case) you are both in motion; thus, all motion is relative.
http://www.blupete.com/...e/Biographies/Science/Einstein.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 2:52 PM Evopeach has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2426 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 230 of 238 (287805)
02-17-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 3:05 PM


Re: Going back off topic
quote:
Which includes the defeated pseudo-scientists (alias for evolutionists) he debated for thirty years prior to his retirement.
If Gish's scientific evidence was so incredibly damning to Biology, then why didn't he publish his incredible evidence in the professional journals annonymously?
If he had some revolutionary new scientific theory that had turned what we thought we knew about Biology, Genetics, and Biochemistry on its head, why didn't he use all of the donation money he got from supporters and do the research which would validate it?
Real scientists don't spend their time lying in order to gain religious converts using dishonest tactics.
For just one of many examples consider that Gish repeated false claims for years regarding the bombadier beetle even after being literally shown, in public, that his claims were false.
quote:
Einstein spent less than 5%of his worklife in a lab and Hawkings even less yet they are considered 1st class scientists... theoretical physicists.
No shit, theoretical physicists spend little time in the lab. They don't do lab work at all.
Biochemists, however, do most of their work in labs.
How come Gish left the lab decades ago if he really wanted to contribute to science?
(Also, it's "Hawking", not "Hawkings").
quote:
Gish read prodigiously,
Irrelevant.
quote:
maintained his scientific societal memberships
Irrelevant. You pay a membership fee for most of them. If I wanted to use my past credentials to influence gullible people to believe I had some kind of scientisfic standing, I'd maintain them too.
quote:
and wrote a number of books on his views all with impeccible footnotes and references.
You say that as if getting the footnotes and references right in a book that one has written is some kind of major accomplishment instead of the bare basic standard that any undergraduate should be able to do.
That Gish is notable among Creationists for managing this minor task speaks volumes for the usual level of scholarship among these authors as a group.
This points up another aspect of why these footnotes and references are so often absent from such books, and why we know that Gish stopped using any scientific rigor in his work long ago. When one goes to the trouble to look up the references and footnotes in Gish's books, one can quite frequently discover that he has misunderstood the source material or misquoted it.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2006 05:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 3:05 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 5:32 PM nator has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 869 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 231 of 238 (287808)
02-17-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 3:05 PM


Re: Going back off topic
And with incredible lies and misinformation too.
For example, Gish still uses the 'footprints' at paluxy river, even though it has been demonstrated to be totally and absolutely false. It is so false that even "Answers in Genesis" says not to use it.
His booklet still claims that the 'precambian' is void of fossils, yet, that has been proven to be totally false.
Gish admits that the 'moon dust' arguement is wrong, yet, still includes that in the pamphlets he is selling. This is patently false.
The Institute of Creation research is still been pushing the falsified
concept of the magnetic field degrading.
So many inaccuracies.. so little time. .. and not only that, inaccuracies that keep on being repeated long after the evidence is presented that it is wrong..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 3:05 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 5:42 PM ramoss has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6870 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 232 of 238 (287812)
02-17-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by nator
02-17-2006 5:23 PM


Re: Going back off topic
I thought profanity was a no-no at this forum... I guess that only applies to the intelleigent, rational and logical posts.. that leaves you out.
Gish made a conscious decision based on convictions to use his gifts in a second career. That hardly obviates his previous contributions, intellect, prowess or work product.
What of significance did Einstein puiblish in any peer reviewed journal after 1940... little if anything of consequence. Did that make him a fraud,liar,miscreant and useless pseudo scientist?
You logic is laughable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 5:23 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by AdminOmni, posted 02-17-2006 6:40 PM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6870 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 233 of 238 (287821)
02-17-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by ramoss
02-17-2006 5:29 PM


Re: Going back off topic
First of all you are a liar and ill informed concerning the footprint deal which was recanted twenty years ago publically by the entire ICR staff.
Second the moom dust article is old hat and not in any new material that I am aware of.
Third the precambrian includes the 600 million years of no fossil evidence preceeding the complex invertebrates. If you think mud trails without a single organic molecule constitute fossil evidence for precambrian life leading up to say a mollusk, a sponge or a trilobyte have at it.
Not one of these so called supposed fossils has any ancestral relationship to the complex invertebrates. They are isolated and apart from the cambrian fossils having no possible evolutionary connection.
Desperation is the last bastion of ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ramoss, posted 02-17-2006 5:29 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by NosyNed, posted 02-17-2006 7:41 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 237 by ramoss, posted 02-17-2006 7:50 PM Evopeach has not replied

AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 238 (287847)
02-17-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 5:32 PM


Throwing peaches in glass houses
I thought profanity was a no-no at this forum... I guess that only applies to the intelleigent, rational and logical posts.. that leaves you out.
Largely, yes, though plain old Anglo-Saxon words like shit are not that problematic.
Name-calling and ad hominem attacks are also no-no's, Evopeach, but you have enjoyed a broad exemption from enforcement so that your minority view can be heard.
Approximately 50% of your posts consist of scorn and ridicule. Why don't you demonstrate the higher ground on which you claim to stand?
This message has been edited by AdminOmni, 02-17-2006 06:42 PM

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
    Trust me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 232 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 5:32 PM Evopeach has not replied

    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 9012
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003


    Message 235 of 238 (287892)
    02-17-2006 7:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 233 by Evopeach
    02-17-2006 5:42 PM


    Precambrian
    Third the precambrian includes the 600 million years of no fossil evidence preceeding the complex invertebrates. If you think mud trails without a single organic molecule constitute fossil evidence for precambrian life leading up to say a mollusk, a sponge or a trilobyte have at it.
    A statement based on your ignorance. Which makes :
    Desperation is the last bastion of ignorance.
    That much more amusing.
    Evopeach, you need to get something very clear. We know that you have pretty much no *clue* what you are talking about. You know nothing about the subjects being discussed.
    You make pronouncements about "fact" but don't actually know a darned thing.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 233 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 5:42 PM Evopeach has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 236 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 7:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

    Evopeach
    Member (Idle past 6870 days)
    Posts: 224
    From: Stroud, OK USA
    Joined: 08-03-2005


    Message 236 of 238 (287895)
    02-17-2006 7:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 235 by NosyNed
    02-17-2006 7:41 PM


    Re: Precambrian
    Your assertions and ad hominems mean nothing to someone who hs been studying this subject since 1974. Of couse you could provide some evidentiary staements and then you could elevate your credibility above pure sophistry.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 235 by NosyNed, posted 02-17-2006 7:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

    ramoss
    Member (Idle past 869 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 08-11-2004


    Message 237 of 238 (287899)
    02-17-2006 7:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 233 by Evopeach
    02-17-2006 5:42 PM


    Re: Going back off topic
    No, I am not a liar.
    From what I see, the Moon dust arguement was used recently by people who pointed to the IRC. An article current on their web site is
    The Institute for Creation Research
    (Hum.. do you really know what they say)
    THe precamion DOES have fossil evidnece in it. No, it is not complex inevertibrates, but no one said it is. The ICR said NO fossil evidence, and that is a plain lie.
    The IRC lies and misrepresnts many many things.
    I mean, they are still using the magnetic field lie
    (see The Institute for Creation Research)
    And, as for the footprints, they don't admit it was wrong, but they will admit that 'it is improper to use it at this time'. They also imply a 'conspiracy' to show it isn't valid.
    The Institute for Creation Research

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 233 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 5:42 PM Evopeach has not replied

    Adminnemooseus
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 238 of 238 (287919)
    02-17-2006 8:16 PM


    Topic has no focus - Closing it down real soon
    Isn't it strange that the bulk of the recent messages have the subtitle "Re: Going back off topic". Maybe that says it all.
    Topic is a terminal mess - 10 minutes to closing time.
    Adminnemooseus

    New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
    General discussion of moderation procedures
    Thread Reopen Requests
    Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    Other useful links:
    Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024