Re: Is radioactivity relational change?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
>Just as you have followed the faith that you have decided to follow, that faith is evolution. Everything you read is taken as your gospel because let's face it, you never repeat those things to make sure they are true, you hope others are. So it's all one big faith system.
> > > Victor M:
> > > Galileo allegedly tried to get a monk to look at
> > > the moon through his telescope. The monk was scared
> > > to look through the devil's glass and when he did
> > > he could not see the mountains on the moon. Modern
> > > scientists are back to the status of monks - seeing
> > > with dogmas taught in books - even when they look at
> > > the galaxies - they see mathematical things.
> > >
> > > I also was blind.
> > Dave O:
> > Then you decided that you will not see!
> Randy C:
> Victor's example is completely irrelevant example for not
> one but two reasons.
> First, if the monk was influenced by some "first principle"
> that was only because he had been told time after time
> that the Earth was at the center of a perfect, unflawed
> universe. That was a belief of mainstream Christian
> theology at the time.
To open your mind and decide not to be a sheep, is actually a good thing, not something to mock.
>Reminds me a bit of scientists of today who try and refute evolution. They are ridiculed and put to the wolves, not because they are wrong, but because it would damage the work of their peers. They want to retire with a name to be remembered for something, prove them wrong and they become Mr Nobody.
> You can only have a fundamental, "first principle" if
> you are told about it as this monk surely was.
> Since no scientists EVER talk about Victor's supposed
> "first principle" it cannot be a first principle or a
> second principle or a third principle or a hundredth
> principle. It is utterly impossible to have any sort of
> "principle" that no one ever talks about.
> Second, there were serious and legitimate risks if
> the monk had admitted to seeing the mountains. Those
> risks included the possibility of being burned at the
> stake. Galileo was, of course, forced to "abjure,
> curse and detest" his previous claims or else he would
> have suffered torture or worse.
>Again, just like the few scientists today who can't find work
> My guess is that the monk actually saw the mountains
> on the moon but simply refused to admit that he had
> seen them because of the very real potential penalties
> he might have been subject to if he had made that
because they have seen evolution is a false religion. Whats changed?
>Ahead of any peacemaker? how remarkable of a magazine. Still, I suppose a magazine would know wouldn't they.
> Furthermore, theologians (such as monks) have a very
> different view of how to treat new ideas than do
> scientists. Monks, such as the one who looked through
> Galileo's telescope, are punished if they suggest that
> things should be looked at differently.
> In contrast, scientists who look at things differently
> receive the greatest rewards.
> At the beginning of the 20th century, probably the most
> fundamental principles of physics were Newton's Laws
> of motion and energy. Then Albert Einstein came along
> and showed that those "fundamental principles" were
> mere approximations and simply wrong under some
> What was the end result of Einstein questioning those
> principles? Was he punished such as Galileo was for
> questioning the theological principles?
> Einstein merely became the most well respected scientist
> of the 20th century and possibly the most well respected
> scientist in human history. His renown even exceeded
> the scientific fields. He was named Time Magazine's
> person of the 20th century - ahead of any US President,
> any King or Queen, any peacemaker, anyone.
I remember Einstein saying "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them."
> I doubt that there isn't a single scientist anywhereDon't use your abilities to aid the development of weapons of mass destruction.
> who doesn't respect Einstein and envy his reputation.
> What lesson can we learn from that?
> That lesson is that **IF** some basic scientific
> principle is wrong, then scientists would rush to be
> the first to publish a paper demonstrating that to
> be true. Surely one Nobel Prize or another would
> await that scientist.
> So **IF** Victor's claims had the slightest bit of
> validity, scientists would have recognized it by now
> and it would be a part of mainstream science.
> Since they aren't a part of mainstream science, we
> merely have yet another example of evidence showing
> that Victor is simply suffering from serious delusions.
> He really, really should seek professional help.
> The sooner the better.
> > > > > MATT: You can see subduction happening via film from deep sea vehicles. I know you live in fear of looking.MATT: Not a problem. After you answer my question that you ignored. Do you believe the Moon missions were hoaxed?
> > > Vickie:
> > > Negative!
> > MATT: On the contrary, affirmative! You are not a scientist.
> > LOOK! All see that some of the lava goes down too, not all spreads out. LOO OO O O KKK-K-K!
> > Get over your jealousy of scientists.
> > You can see
> > MATT: Nope, you claim to see but you do not. You are in a no-win situation.
> > You could have done better in school but you had poor parenting and that is why you still hold a grudge against scientists.
> > I might have felt sorry for you but you are a hypocritical piece-of-shit soon to turn into dirt and your god would not be proud of you at all, she will subduct you. I say she because females came first in evoution.
> Show me one scraped off seamount in a subduction trench.
> Show me a pile of scrapped off marine clays or oozes in the alleged subduction trenches.
> Show me a crack in the earth when basalt is pushing its way back into the interior of the earth - perhaps a scarp - a volcanic vent etc.
> Show me why in the Aleutian trench, magnetic stripes run down into the trench - perpendicular to the trench. Isn't this evidence for longitudinal stretching - not subduction?
> Show me why the Cascadia subduction trench is filled with sediments from the land side, including sedimentary fans, not marine oozes as one should find if the Pacific plate is sliding under North America.