Cosmos with Neil DeGrass Tyson

The one thing I was hoping you would notice about that segment was how the layers looked when he expanded them. Unlike a majority of the diagrams that have been used to show the different layers here, the CGI could use the seismic information and expand the layers showing how they are not flat all the way across, but that some pushed into layers above or below and were wider in some areas than others. I thought it was one of the best diagrams I have seen for showing this fact, especially with one of your consistent arguments about the Grand Canyon being how the layers are perfectly flat and show no signs of erosion.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

You are incapable of learning, so I won't go over the details again. Your mind is like a steel trap--rusted shut.You are attempting to warp the universe to fit an old tribal myth, and it gets more and more ludicrous as you jump from thread to thread twisting anything you can to try and make it fit. Sorry, it does not fit.And this "real" science vs. "historical" science is just the latest effort on the part of creationists to negate hundreds of years of scientific findings and even to turn back the Enlightenment. But it will fail, just as the other attempts have failed because the evidence does not support the creationist beliefs.

Perhaps you have forgotten, but Creation Science is a cottage industry for the express purpose of solving these kinds of riddles. The explanations range anywhere from merely saying that you are using 'evilutionist asumptions' to tired light, to complex, general relativity denying cosmologies with earth at the center of the universe and a giant gravity well. Past discussions I've had here have involved creationist citing crackpot theories where light has different speeds coming and going, alternative relativity theories and just bad science.And if that is not enough, you can misinterpret real science papers.Yes, you can sometimes entrap the more unimaginative of the YECs who are willing to stick to something like a consistent set of laws for the universe. Mindspawn comes to mind. But creationism is way more slippery than that.

That was a very bizarre thing they did, just weird, made no sense and they didn't explain it. How do you even know what it meant? I've seen close-ups of many of the layers and they are quite flat and horizontal, even with those knife-edge straight contact lines. Yep right there up close. Slightly varying width doesn't make a difference to my argument. That section he was looking at was messier than many, obviously suffering from trauma of some sort after the whole stack had been laid down. "Perfect" is a very weird word. Who cares about "perfect?" I'm interested in the general fact that they are all continuous with one another, PARALLEL, visibly parallel, ORIGINALLY horizontal, which is still apparent, and visibly parallel, even over the contour of the mounded rise into which the Grand Canyon was cut. You guys keep making straw men of that argument. Whoever drew the diagram knew how to draw erosion which is very apparent from the Kaibab on up and in the Great Unconformity. But not between the Tapeats and the Kaibab. No tectonic disturbance occurred to the entire stack until they were all in place, that's obvious, go back and look. They wouldn't have been laid down horizontally which they obviously were, or kept their parallel relation to each other, which they did, if that had been the case. The tectonic disturbance came after they were all in place all the way up to the top of the Grand Staircase.Try following my argument about all that, I've made the case.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can always say it again. Historical science is a different animal from experimental science. All you have is your theories. If you say the fossil bacteria in a particular rock represent all that was on the earth during the time period that rock was being deposited, that's your theory, you can't prove it, that's simply how you interpret the rock and the fossils and you don't have anything but more theory to add to it, no way of testing it. That is not how experimental science works. And again, there isn't the slightest usefulness to any of that theorizing you all do. And again, the theory itself is bonkers, the idea that a time period is represented by a huge horizontal rock is crazy. And a whole bunch of other time periods represented by a whole bunch of other huge flat rocks is REALLY crazy. And that the fossils in them represent the only creatures living during that time period. REALLY REALLY crazy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure, a lot of sciences have been corrupted by the ToE here or there, but that doesn't change what is valid in their work. But I don't think radiometric dating is hogwash, I certainly understand the concept. I simply believe that there are interferences and contaminations that you guys fail to take into account.

It all seems to work and I don't question it, but it's the Earth God described in detail, that's what I think about. I'm sure there will be plenty of surprises about all the rest of it eventually but I'm leaving all that for then. Totally fantasy, yes, but anthropology doesn't spend a whole lot of time on that fantasy as I recall. Yes it is imaginary, totally made up. One thing you absolutely cannot know anything about is genetic relationships that you have no way of observing. Yes you are inflating similarities into genetic relationships without warrant. Paleontology should be more like entomology, just collecting and categorizing their finds. Something like that. As with all the rest of historical science they can't know anything about any of that, it's all ideas that they cannot prove, but fortunately they spend most of their time looking at things that are right in front of them. Not sure what accusation you are intending to make here. In general where there was nobody to observe there isn't any way of having real knowledge about claims involving that period, it all remains theory, guesswork, fantasy. SOME things are knowable, however, such as that huge creatures used to walk the earth. We have bones to show for that. Don't know if the chemical reactions you have in mind are of that sort or not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh the Fremdscham!Faith, RAZD was being sarcastic. He was deliberately acting like you, mimicking the same clueless rejection of science for stupid reasons.Did you even try to follow up on the link he provided which explains the term, Fremdscham ("stranger shame")? From that link:

quote:

---

Fremdschmen describes embarrassment which is experienced in response to someone else's actions, but it is markedly different from simply being embarrassed for someone else. In particular it is different from being embarrassed because of how another person's actions reflect on us or because of how another person's actions make us look in the eyes of others.

​

Instead, Fremdscham (the noun) describes the almost-horror you feel when you notice that somebody is oblivious to how embarrassing they truly are. Fremdscham occurs when someone who should feel embarrassed for themselves simply is not, and you start feeling embarrassment in their place. It is at the heart of beloved "mockumentaries" such as The Office, Modern Family, or Ricky Gervais' Extras. It is also what makes the auditions for American Idol, Britain's got Talent and Deutschland Sucht den Superstar so discomfortingly entertaining...

​

Besides the emotional response, Fremdscham-inducing events and items (such as this creationist video{DWise1: link provided in article}) also usually cause one to ask this question: "how on earth can these people be unaware of how stupid they are being right now?".

---

Of course he was mocking me, so I answered straight, best thing to do under the circumstances I figure. I've pretty much said all that straight before anyway.What's sad is that you guys take your stuff so seriously. You SHOULD be embarrassed for yourselves. I wonder if any of you are going to wake up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

thank you faith for demonstrating my point

thank you faith for demonstrating my point

It's funny how even though this has all been explained to you before that you repeat your claims as if nothing had ever been explained to you. There's no hint in this that you've been made aware of the many reasons and ways that you are wrong.An experiment all by itself tells us nothing. The results have to be analyzed before we know anything. The only difference between experimental and historical science is that one gets to conduct their experiments in the present while the other has to take advantage of what are, in effect, uncontrolled experiments that took place in the past.But they both analyze the results, and it's the analysis that's important and makes them both science, as well as the subsequent peer review and replication. Rosie's X-ray diffraction images meant nothing until Crick and Watson analyzed them to reveal the structure of DNA. The data collected by the Large Hadron Collider meant nothing until analyzed to reveal the Higgs. Yes, we're fully aware that your only weapon against the repeated detailed explanations of how these layers accumulated in the past in the same way they're accumulating today (see, for example, my Message 18 that I posted yesterday) is to call them names and remain ignorant. We see this on the sea floor today, so what you're really doing is calling reality crazy. You're calling crazy the idea that creatures become buried and preserved in the era in which they lived? While believing it sane that a violent flood sorts fossils by evolutionary distance from modern forms? Really?Again, you need to develop proposals that don't violate the physical laws of the universe.--Percy

It's even a wonder how murders get solved with all those theories and fantasies and guesswork about the unobserved death of a person, eh?- Oni

And an awful lot of false convictions are based on eyewitness testimony, which is infamously unreliable. So much for the sharp science of right here and now.Still, killers have good odds if they think location:

quote:

---

Scripps Howard has built a searchable database that allows you to find the murder clearance rate in your state or county over time. You can also see the trends in your county for weapons used, gender, race and ethnicity.
...
Police solved only 35 percent of the murders in Chicago in 2008, 22 percent in New Orleans and just 21 percent in Detroit. Yet authorities solved 75 percent of the killings that same year in Philadelphia, 92 percent in Denver and 94 percent in San Diego.

---

Well, sure, Denver and San Diego--buncha amateurs. I thought better of Philly. Story hereThe story links to the Scripps Howard database, in case you want to sort your paranoia or odds of apprehension by race or ethnicity.

Episode 1It's about climate change, what is happening and where it is happening ... and why we need to move forward.Which of course is why we also have: The brutally dishonest attacks on Showtime’s landmark climate series

quote:

---

The bad news is the Times has published an error-riddled hit-job op-ed on the series that is filled with myths at odds with both the climate science and social science literature. For instance, the piece repeats the tired and baseless claim that Al Gore’s 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth polarized the climate debate, when the peer-reviewed data says the polarization really jumped in 2009, as you can see in this chart from The Sociological Quarterly:

​

​

Percent of Americans who believe the effects of global warming have already begun to happen, by political ideology, from Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap. Click to embiggen[enlarge].

​

The New York Times op-ed is from the founders of the Breakthrough Institute (BTI) the same group where political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. is a senior fellow. It pushes the same argument that Pielke made in his fivethirtyeight.com piece which was so widely criticized and debunked by climate scientists and others that Nate Silver himself admitted its myriad flaws and ran a response piece by MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel eviscerating Pielke.

​

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two widely debunked eco-critics who run BTI, begin by asserting IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. But they never cite anything other than the trailer in making their case, dismissing the entire enterprise on the basis of two minutes of clips!

​

They base their entire argument on a misrepresentation of climate science and a misrepresentation of social science.

---

Lots more of debunking of the NYTimes article.What a surprise. It seems to be a constant in these debates, science vs lies and misinformation based on emotional appeal rather than rebuttals based on evidence.What's that word again? Fremdschmen? It embarrasses me that it is such a false facade of denial and that the gullible people suck it up.ps "embiggen" is not a real word people, the word is "enlarge" - more concise as well as meaningful.Edited by RAZD, : /