A young sun - a response

ditto

ok I stand corrected.

It is only a problem"" if the historical connections to its incorporation is not far enough removed from the actual research that no longer "gleans" from others'. This is much like a teenager saying to me as President of the Hunterdon County 4-H Herpetology Club that he or she CAN NOT join even though they have an interest in herps and desire to be a part of the group because they would have to SAY the 4-H pledge which independently they"" dont want to do - I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to... and my health for my country...Now we ask if we can say the Pledge of allegiance so I guess we must to be politically correct not recongize not a nation but a local group that kept teenagers off the street and is still going strong 30 yrs after I started it.I am not skilled on the newest ICR cosomology as this requries some kind of understanding of differential equations solutions and or hamiltonians etc but LB is asking if the writing is worth reading- given the number of responses here-- it seems to be. My understanding is that there is another "culture" of doing interpretation growing in warmer America tht may indeed get beyond a simple prefigureing of a different point of view that is at least sociologically established as far as I am concerned. Think of ICR as an Growth from Price that only ONE age is the time seen phenomenolgically in geology and USING this perspective DO astromony? That there is Biblical motivation is supplemental to this object but not to the subject- hence the pledge that is no wood cleaner nor a blight on any potato!You seem to have confused a "method" and a "principle"???

quote:

---

Re: How our Sun holds together
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Brad,
I have not confused Method and Principle. In the case of ICR, their principles define their methods. If their principles are to believe the bible first, no matter what, then they are suspect. That IS a blight to this potato.

---

Ok- you deny that I was correct to say that having a oath or in their case "believe the bible first" is a Principle and NOT a method because in a defintion depending on how the postulates around it are ordered DIFFERENT logic may be developed. It may even happen that the difference enables a reasoning faculativatively IN REVERSE even from which any such said defintion may have been materially signed for- OK That's a strech I dont believe in- but for thin threads okkk I'll deny it if you wont.The question was within a discssion that if I understand the new hireing of Humphreies and his "Starlight and Time" we need some kind of judgement on Eisntein on the AEHTER or not (at least). That I can understand and would be willing to write the defintion in METHOD for that holds to ICR priciples if I knew enough (for instance Wolfram on gravity waves) which physics I do not... But in principle I see this as nothing out the ordinary strangeness of quarks, strings, and inflationary GUTS.But you would have said all this " then they are suspect. that is" by NOT being a supporter. How do you $$KNOW%% that some ICR scientists is not able to seperate principle principally from method if you do not BELIEVE it? I understand that you said just understanding that the BIBLE first is reason for you but I thought we were talking about "them"???? So if the BIBLE is for you how you decided then you ARE a beliver by defition?????Where did I miss something?