Monday, September 24, 2018

... to Krauss, Three More Comments in Six More Minutes

(minutes of his talk, that is, not of my work)

6:24 Apart from Jews who were not allowed as citizens in 1200 in a Christian society but were so in 1820 almost anywhere, I can't see what is freer about society as a whole in Enlightenment.

Oh, for heretics ... what freedom are YOU offering heretics, when you are speaking of "forcing belief to comply to" what you consider as "evidence"?

Open questioning is a hallmark of science?

I was taught that too.

Recently, this no longer seems to apply if questioner is a Creationist and questions from a Creationist p o v.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Erik Høg on Parallax in New Catalogues

I was denied scientific information by Usoskin bc a Creationist, and by Høg bc I believe in angels. I was not asking either on creationism or on angels, I was asking both on a question they would reasonably have considered as scientific in itself, even if it was one which was important to me as a Creationist and as a Geocentric believing in angels.

Open questioning is dead.

10:42 "inevitably it's proved itself not being able to do that"
10:44 "and in terms of the tree of knowledge and the"

The Catholic answer to why we are asking scientific questions is not the tree of knowledge.

Adam and Eve were asking scientific questions and partly answering them, well before they ate of that, as far as we are concerned. They had God to speak to and therefore an excellent opportunity to falsify any wrong theories.

11:15 "why should we try to interpret those ignorant beliefs"

Well, some of us do not consider them to be so.

"there are dinosaurs" - Bible names them differently, behemoth, leviathan and tannin, of which behemoth seems to be a sauropod, and for unicorn a ceratopsian is as good a candidate as a rhino.

"earth orbits sun" "evolution happened" - some of us disagree this is really so.

I as to both, at least if you define "evolution" as "evolution of all or nearly all and of all non-microscopic species of life from a LUCA".

You just said you were willing to change your mind the moment nature tells you so.

I suppose you consider millions of years as proven by LOTS of potassium argon dates and into the ten thousands by LOTS of radiocarbon dates.

As you probably know, argon from the air can falsify a potassium argon reading, but you probably count on argon petering out.

What if I told you, it doesn't do that properly if lava solidifies too fast due to cooler surroundings, like lava running down into the water?

There was an eruption on Hawaii in 19th C. The new lava which is above air on land has a value where "recent" is within error margin. But lava ran into the water has been dated by Creationists at millions of years. I think 1 or 2 for something nearer land and 7 or 12 or 5 for sth deeper down into the sea.

Exeunt potassium argon dates.

On carbon dates, I have done myself a job on showing details of how carbon 14 could have risen in the atmosphere in comparison to carbon 12.

And given some speculation on which levels of carbon rise "faster factors" would imply lethal radiation doses causing them.

I have been blocked from checking those speculations by Usoskin:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup

He has the means, he refuses to answer the questions.

Meanwhile, what I have done in spite of this block deserves some respect:

Willing to put your questions to "nature" along such lines?

No comments: