It's nowhere close to being religious, it's entirely evidence-based, and among the people who know what they're talking about is me. Can I take it from the rest of that post that you'd agree that *you* don't know what you're talking about either?
gradualism versus catastrophism
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Dex, take a look at my avatar. Can you take anything that guy says seriously? That is a picture of me.
And no, I do know what I'm talking about, it is just that sometimes others don't know what I'm talking about.
Nope.
I don't think I'd have admitted that, if I were you.
How do you square that with your earlier claim that nobody has enough information to know what they're talking about? Or is this just another case of someone (me) not knowing what you're talking about?
The links to "real science" are not as easily had as what is suggested here. Sure there are easy to find big name links. Sure there are credentials, sure there is intelligence, sure they shine and glitter and publish and prosper and they certainly appear to know what they talk about , and the dramatic music is sometimes inspiring, but the same is true of junk food floggers and God whacks. So what is an aspiring explorer of the unknown to do? Well you have to suffer the trials like everyone of those pioneers who dared to question those who "knew what they were talking about" until it became blatantly and provably obvious that they didn't. With respect to the post on redshift it is perfectly clear that conventional understanding is proven wrong, without doubt. The universe is not expanding, there are no black holes and no missing matter nor energy. You can order a cold fusion generator now if you have the coin.
Ya see, I know that you know what you are talking about. What you are talking about is what you know. What you know is based on the data base that you have accumulated. The same applies to me. It is just that we have accumulated info from different data bases based on our interests in life. I know what I'm talking about just as much as you do, we just don't agree with what the other is saying because it doesn't fit with the conclusions we have drawn from our data bases.Nope. I don't think I'd have admitted that, if I were you.
Is that clear? Or do I have to do that again? ;-)
Of course that makes perfect sense Cliffy but it requires a broader view than what seems available to the common naysayer infesting these threads. They rely on the priesthood of any subject they investigate and in their child like innocence they refuse to believe that the priest may be a bad man.
Don't bend down to pick up that penny in the confessional.
I think most people fear having an open mind. Their brains might fall out.
It is a sign of the times Cliffy. All the ivory towers are filled with those who surrendered to peer pressure often and early. In that way they advance on the acceptable predictable path which renders them solid religious supporters of whatever office or subject they approach. The age of spectacle wearing meek skinny little short pant wearing 32 kilo weaklings who worship giant holes in space running the world alarms real men, like us.
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-if-low-energy-nuclear-reaction.htm
Last edited:
lol Attagirl; keep up the balanced view of issues scientific (sarcasm). Got any links of your own on the subject or do you just dismiss mine arbitrarily? If you're just being arbitrary, then so am I and any links you provide, I will arbitrarily avoid as being crap (which they usually are anyway).I won't even bother to open the link Lester, you know it's commercial garbage in support of the Church of Science. It's nice to talk to you again, I assume your lobotomy went well.
Please continue to stick to your spurious versions of your quasi-science. Those of us with lobotomies will stick to reality and keep chuckling about your follies.
Actually if you had used the link I provided, they admit that MOST of Antarctica was ice-free even during the biggest spell of warming on the planet, but not entirely ice-free. At the time there was literally no ice on Earth, there also likely was no life on it yet.
As far as your electrostatically built mountains go ..... roflmao
Not even prolonged lightning can build structures that big "instantaneously". All it can tube is build small tubes (fulgarites). About the ONLY things that can build mountains "instantaneously" are asteroid/comet/meteorite hits and volcanoes and even then, they aren't instantaneous.
Quite.
Last edited:
Perfectly clear, and no you don't have to do that again, but to continue your metaphor, my database says some of the things in your database aren't correct, it contains different explanations for them than yours does, and according to the rules for critical thinking (which your database doesn't contain a full set of), they're demonstrably better ones.
Including your opinion about people knowing what they are talking about.
My sympathies. lol
Ahah! Another supposition and opinion.
Sure, Nova has a big name, is intelligent, and whatever other traits you mentioned, but all Nova is is a purveyor of what REAL scientists are telling us. But you avoid those in favor of your Van Danikens and other wingnuts.
In my case, I keep following evidence. In your case, you can continue following the ravings of dingbats like Von Daniken et al.
And you do this by avoiding what they say and arbitrarily dismissing their findings? Curious.
Yup, junk science said Galileo, Newton, Darwin, etc. were wrong, too.
In most cases, they are right; their brains would fall out. Not literally, but such people are easily awe-struck by relatively simple things.
Have I ever stated that what I say is anything other than my opinion? Truth/reality is subjective, not objective.
This: Earth History - Oronteus Finnaeus Map
...or this: Piri Reis map - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...makes one ponder...
...& no, I'm not advocating little green men with Polaroid camera's
in what is thought of as prehistory. Maybe there's just more to
our history though than what we're currently aware of.
I am familiar with the map, but it changes nothing of what I stated as the map was lost to history until the 20th century. I have little doubt that much of what we now know may have been discovered earlier, but lost to antiquity. The key thing with any discovery is letting everyone else know about it, otherwise it is completely useless.
There's where you go wrong. There is an objective reality out there that exists regardless of anyone's perceptions of it, it was here long before we were, and it'll carry on long after we're gone.
Row, row, row your boat
gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream.
Basic Buddhist philosophy. The Aborigines of Australia believe the Dream Time is what holds the world together. All we are, all we perceive, all we know, is inside our minds. There is a whole school of thought that says everything out there is just a projection of our consciousness. What we perceive as solid reality is nothing more than a holographic image played inside our minds to learn more about the nature of ourselves. Is it wrong. I don't know any more than I know it is right. It is just another concept to entertain our minds, which in the end, is all thought is, the purpose of our being. Call me crazy, I don't really care. I'm having too much fun inside my head. It is people who take it all seriously that I'm concerned about. They are missing out on all the fun.
Last edited:
It is what is playing inside my head everyday. You can't beat your mind for entertainment.
I dismissed your link because it was directing me to NOVA. My nephew gave me about fifty episodes not long ago. I watched one for maybe twenty minutes or until the background music drove home the consumer nature of the product. I don't do science and music together unless the science is music. You have a lot of faith in the scientific establishment. There's nothing wrong with that. It will just make the realizations all the more pointy. That's if you become a skeptic. Plasma etching and deposition are industrial realities on the human scale as they most certainly are on the cosmic scale. If your crater is round its been cut by an arc, period, nothing but that can strike at ninety degrees, not even a bullet. The lobotomy crack was a joke I didn't expect to see scars. I apologize. Maybe when you recover we can be frens.
Since the Enlightenment, people have made a fairly rigid distinction between ideas about the cosmos as formulated by individual thinkers, on a rational basis, and those as expressed collectively by entire peoples, typically rooted in folk memory. The former are labelled science, theory of nature or cosmology, the latter traditional cosmology or mythology. The theoretical difference between scientific and traditional paradigms of the cosmos certainly cannot be overemphasised.
Whereas the former continuously reinvent themselves in response to the latest insights, the latter are conservative by nature. The former fundamentally look forward as they evolve, the latter look backward as they decay. And whereas the former do not tolerate logical inconsistencies, the latter happily admit them.
Nevertheless, it is equally paramount to recognise the ultimate continuity between concepts that circulate between traditional lore and science. The collection of ideas about the cosmos, whether scholarly or popular, deserves a single denominator, as the same subject matter is involved. With the possible exception of cosmovision, an expression thriving especially in the Spanish-speaking world, cosmology really presents itself as the most suitable term for any sets of ideas about the world.
Modern cosmology, taking its earliest beginnings in the proto-scientific speculations of Greek philosophers, contrasts with traditional cosmology as it has prevailed among people through all ages and cultures.http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/28/traditions-of-science/
It doesn't have to strike at 90 degrees to make a round crater. Curious About Astronomy: Why are craters round?