Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 436 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#29743 - 03/09/09 12:56 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: redewenur]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I never said science was founded on lies. But errors creep in at all levels and in all branches. A huge part of science is being able to find its errors - the fact that it is self-correcting.

Science has procedures like peer-review to prevent errors from becoming entrenched, but it also uses tools like falsificationism to discover errors after they are already accepted.

There is some deceit in science. There are also things that are just plain wrong. The creationists are attacking all of science, not because they intend to attack all of science, but because they really don't understand how the rest of science works. Your messages continually demonstrate this fact.

We have gotten off track from Nebraska Man - which was almost universally rejected in the scientific community.


Edited by TheFallibleFiend (03/09/09 03:12 PM)

Top
.
#29747 - 03/09/09 06:42 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
You either missed or evaded the point - a point much better expressed by tff


then what was the point that I evaded?

this run around that I get when replying to someone is really getting old , waiting for a responce from tff is getting older
some of you might have made really good politicians as you are very good at evading questions , I have asked for views on the cambrian explosion several times but I keep getting the normal run around.

I guess there is no view because there is nothing to view.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29748 - 03/09/09 06:55 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
tff
Quote:
Once again you demonstrate a thorough misunderstanding about what science is and how it works.


you keep making accusations about what people know or understand about science , and that is really all you do...

you are always saying that others have a
"comic book understanding of science"
when do we hear what YOU !! understand about science
preferably the cambrian explosion !!!!

of course you dont have to express your view on the subject.

you can just sit back and tell others how their views are comical.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29749 - 03/09/09 07:08 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Ellis

Quote:
what is your point?


my point was that tff wrote the following in a reply.

Quote:
The solid foundation of science are not the facts of science, but the operating principles.


I was just stating that the foundation of science was the strict set of procedures that science follows in gathering data , and the combination of all scientific data gathered to this point is the foundation of science , and that the foundation of science is not founded on opperational principals.

but opperational procedures.

of course his reply was the usual ...
Quote:
You have a comic book understanding of science.


bla bla bla
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29750 - 03/09/09 07:23 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
nevermind

just forget it tff , we have abused this thread enought , it would be nice to hear your views on the cambrian though , but not necessary.

I have a comic book understanding on science and you dont.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29752 - 03/10/09 01:15 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Samwik

Quote:
I love the anchor idea--it's so creative.
Do you think those T-shaped "anchors" would hold together; with the bottom of the T not pulling away from the top crossbar?


I found the [compressive strenght of limestone] its 4000 psi

this is limestone quarried in the state of Indianna U.S.A.

http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/minRes/indianaLimestone/index.cfm

and the weight per cu/ft 163 lb cu/ft

http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html

so each square inch of the rock where the hoizontal crossbar of the T meets the verticle part of the T should support
4000 lbs of rock below it or above it.

limestone weights 163 lb cu/ft so a 1 sq inch x 12 inch high columb of limestone would weight apx 13.58 lbs , so the horizontal part should support apx 294 ft of a verticle columb
if the stone were suspended horizontally in the air by the joint.

bending or rupture strenghts are apx 1000 psi.

so a anchor that has a 12 x 12 inch joint would have apx
144,000 lb rupture strenght.

if these stones verticle parts are 10 ft in lenght then the
material strenght of the joint is 29.4 times the material strenght of solid limestone.

yes the top would not shear / break away due to any downward
load placed on the joint.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29753 - 03/10/09 01:43 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
You either missed or evaded the point - a point much better expressed by tff


then what was the point that I evaded?

Let's assume that you simply missed the point, which is this:

While the sum of human knowledge acquired by means of the scientific method is vast beyond the grasp of any individual, the method itself is not. Anyone (almost) ought to be capable of understanding it, if only they were to take the minimal time and trouble required to do so. What has been pointed out to you, in the course of this thread, is NOT that some people have a great knowledge of science while others don't, but that some show every indication of having no insight into the method employed to derive that knowledge. If the intention is to participate in a reasonable discussion of science, then an understanding of the scientific method is essential.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#29755 - 03/10/09 02:57 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
redweneur

Quote:
if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory , then the theory would remain intact would it not?


I think the above is the post that was the basis of your reply below.

Quote:
You can come up with an idea and call it a hypothesis, even without evidence - that doesn't constitute a theory; but you can then set about accumulating evidence to support the hypothesis. If you have a measure of success, then you can call it a theory. It may turn out to be a strong theory or a weak theory depending upon how substantial the evidence. Then again, if you find no evidence at all, then it remains a baseless hypothesis, and does not constitute a theory in the scientific sense.

Then again, if you take the texts of the Bible as evidence because you believe them to have been provided by the Almighty, then why bother discussing science? You can fill the knowledge gap instantly, without recourse to rationality and logic. It has been done for millennia, after all. The only reason that springs to mind for opposing science is that it threatens a precarious and untenable theology.


if the above is concerning what I said about a theory
then what exactly were you trying to put forth?

that you and paragraph comprehension and forum thread following have parted ways?

that you are capable of typing alot of words that have no bearing on the subject?

were you praticing being a encylopedia?

and no I was not offended , why should I be , what I wrote
was correct and in context.

Quote:
You can fill the knowledge gap instantly


evoloution seem to be the one that fills gaps instantly!

lets see the earth is around 4.5 billions years old

theres a gap of lifelessness and no fossile record from 4.5 billion years ago to 542 million years ago..

quite a gap.

then life just sprang up everywhere on the earth simultaneously.

where is evoloutions [evolving] durring ... DURRING ... the
4 billion year gap?


now you can explain more about how and what science is ...
thats what you and tff do right , never a inteligent reply to a post , nothing but your views on what science is , not the contents of science.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29761 - 03/10/09 10:38 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Mike Kremer]
ichatfilipina Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/10/09
Posts: 3
The age of modern humans and the earth was in an ice age around 13,000 years ago tilts it even further.
_________________________
iChatFilipina

Top
#29768 - 03/10/09 02:53 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: ichatfilipina]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"heres a gap of lifelessness and no fossile record from 4.5 billion years ago to 542 million years ago."

Life did not just "spring up" 500 Mya.
The earliest definite fossils are about 3.5 billion years old.
The problem, Paul, is that your primary (only?) source of "information" is creationist websites which contain false information and poor reasoning. The reasoning sounds good to you, because you are conscientiously avoiding reading what the real scientists say.

There are indeed huge gaps in our knowledge of the details of evolution. Filling the gaps with magic is not a scientific approach to acquiring knowledge. To say that we don't know everything does not mean that we don't know anything.

We don't have direct observation of the entire orbit of comets - and yet we have no reason to believe that those orbits are affected by anything other than ordinary classical physics (newtonian mechanics, etc).

It's because you have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works that you lay unreasonable requirements on evolution - requirements that would eliminate the vast majority of science were they to be applied universally.

Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Everyone is. But willful ignorance of someone who is attempting to overturn science is inexcusable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology



Top
#29770 - 03/10/09 03:31 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
The earliest definite fossils are about 3.5 billion years old.


how about a link to some information on your find tff

I googled the oldest fossil and here is the results page.

the oldest fossil

you know your obsessive remarks about other people and lack of information input is bearing down on you...

Quote:
It's because you have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works


Quote:
Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Everyone is.


Im not ignorant , and your generalized statement above is false
you must percieve yourself as being ignorant and therefore you assume that all people are ignorant.


Quote:
But willful ignorance of someone who is attempting to overturn science is inexcusable.


excuse me , but if science is wrong about something and can be overturned and the result being a more complete and correct science that emerges then no one should stand in the way...

I believe that willfull ignorance about what science really is lies on your side of the fence.

a fence that has been constructed on or has its beginings in falsities.

give us a link to information of the 3.5 billion year old fossil
and let us decide if this information you posted forms a foundation that could support evoloution.

soft bodied multi cell animal fossils should be abundant in pre cambrian rock , and should show obvious links to cambrian animals, IF evoloution is correct , lets see it.

otherwise you begin with creation

bring on the massive amounts of data that evoloution built there foundation on !!

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29775 - 03/10/09 04:58 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

Top
#29781 - 03/10/09 06:37 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
are you relenquishing your belief that creation was not ?

and that evoloution is a science that can only show how the species have changed over time , and that evouoution has no claim concerning how the many species began , but can only base its assertions on these changes from the evidence it has available.

if so then I could see how a gate could be built in the fence.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29785 - 03/10/09 08:56 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

"are you relenquishing your belief that creation was not ?"
And other silly questions.

Of course not. I'm moving thread more towards its original topic, namely the megalithic site.

Top
#29788 - 03/11/09 02:49 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Paul- Everyone is ignorant about something. It is massive arogance to deny that.

FF- Am I correct in thinking that evolution (or even Evolution) is not, as Paul insists, 'a science' but is a theory seeking to explain the origin of the various forms of life that have inhabitated the planet? And it actually does a really good job of it!

What date is suggested for this remarkable megalithic site? It seems very sophisticated for 11,000 years ago--- but I suppose that is the point!

Top
#29811 - 03/12/09 03:25 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136

Mikes original link in the first post of this thread
Quote:
Carbon-dating shows that the complex is at least 12,000 years old, maybe even 13,000 years old.
That means it was built around 10,000BC. By comparison, Stonehenge was built in 3,000 BC and the pyramids of Giza in 2,500 BC.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A760240


Quote:
The End of the last Ice Age

The Earth emerged from such an ice age 14,000 years ago, and for a brief period1 of about 1,300 years, things actually went quite well. Forests began to grow back and magnificent creatures such as the Irish Elk and the Woolly Mammoth flourished in the rich temperate grasslands of Europe and North America. In fact, for a time, temperatures were even warmer than they are today.

The Younger Dryas

Then, around 12,700 years ago2, the climate across North America, Europe and Western Asia suddenly reverted to bitterly freezing conditions. This period is known as the Younger Dryas3. Icecaps reappeared over high ground and the sea levels dropped. The forests and grasslands died back, and the Irish Elk and Woolly Mammoth were driven towards final extinction4. Human societies, still mainly accustomed to hunting and gathering for their sustenance, faced huge challenges as the fruits, cereals and animals on which they depended disappeared. Around this time, they adopted a new survival strategy that would enable them to live year-round, particularly during the long winter periods when absolutely no food was available. This was made possible through the intensive cultivation and nurturing of selected foodstuffs and animals close to home, an activity known today as farming. In this way, modern society was born.




Quote:
It seems very sophisticated


yes , it really does !






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29812 - 03/12/09 11:44 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Well then let's get back to discussing this interesting discovery without calling it the Garden of Eden and treat it as a folk memory of a lost fertile valley where, perhaps, farming began.

Top
#29817 - 03/12/09 04:53 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Well then let's get back to discussing this interesting discovery without calling it the Garden of Eden and treat it as a folk memory of a lost fertile valley where, perhaps, farming began.


Quote:
calling it the Garden of Eden
I agree !

but only because I dont believe that the time frame is even close
or that the area is close , however if the garden of eden was in this area then the land must have been at a higher elevation due to glaciers pressing down on the land further north.

what would make sence about this particular idea / theory would be that there would be a river that flows toward the land east of assyria.

but that would be another topic and it is a good idea to stick to the topics.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29854 - 03/14/09 07:57 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: paul
...never a inteligent reply to a post , nothing but your views on what science is , not the contents of science.

etc...

*** You are ignoring this user ***

- thank you SAGG
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#29855 - 03/14/09 08:49 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***


I wish it was that simple red , but normaly I read the post and
then make replies and cant avoid seeing the stuff you leave.

and I guess you need to be logged in for the ignore thingy to work , and if the ignore thingy exist in a cookie , well they get deleted as soon as Im done.

mostly I just dont read what you write , its not that I'm ignoring you its just that theres not much to read unless I want to read someone telling someone else that what they know about science is wrong.


but that sort of thing does make you a megastar quickly right!

you can aquire a large number of post by the following , and never tax your brain thingy in the process.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.