It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

page: 14
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




Can you provide me with links to the original hypothesis and the normal line of inquire that says that evolution is a fact.


No, I can't. Neither can I show you the original hypothesis that the sun comes up in the morning or that fire is hot. These are existential facts.

The theory of why and how those facts occur are works in progress that have engaged man's imagination since the beginning of sentient thought.



No but I will say that if you do a study on the history of the speed of light you will find that it does not seem to be constant , and it would seem that it is derived at by a decision at the time it is published that varies over time .


The differences in the measured speed of light result from limits of the techniques and the technology, not the mindset of the experimenter.

Before the 17th century is was thought that light was instantaneous. Then Galileo measured the time it took for a lamp signal to be returned. He came up with something around 10 time the speed of sound. Ole Roemer came up with 200,000kps by measuring the time differences of Jupiter's moons in transit depending on the distance from Jupiter to the Earth. James Bradley also used a celestial system and calculated 301,000kps. Hippolyte Louis Fizeau and then Leon Foucault used spinning disks and mirrors separated by a known distance. Fizeau calculated 313,300kps, Foucault continually refined his result, finally reporting 299,796kps, which is very close to the modern figure for the speed of light in a vacuum.

299792.4574 ± 0.0011 km/sec (US Bureau of Standards) or
299792.4590 ± 0.0008 km/sec (British National Physical Laboratory).
299,792.458 km/s is the adopted value for speed of light at the Generla Conference of Weights And Measures (this is about the midpoint of the US and British measurements).

Notice that the Americans and British aren't fighting over which one is right - they both are. They just use different setups, or techniques, or calibration, or whatever. Also light travels at different speeds in different mediums, so you'll get a different answer there too.

The differences are not due to decisions at the time of publication, but by the techniques used and available to the experimenter at the time. There is nothing nefarious about scientists improving their equipment and techniques over time. Roemer had an inaccurate figure for the Earth's orbit so his result was the worst (not counting Galileo who may actually have been timing the reaction time of his assistant and himself).

edit on 26/12/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Thank you for picking up the load! Good explanations.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
"Remember that the AGW issue has been in the public eye since the late 1960's at least it is not a new phenomenon " correction , back in the 60's 70's it was a new ice age that was the fear porn of the day .

"In exactly what way does getting institutions to divest carbon industry investments benefit the mysterious party behind the AGW worldwide bribery effort? How do the Rockefellers benefit from divesting out of oil (Rockefellers = Standard Oil)?
What do drug companies have to do with AGW and in what way do they benefit from scaring the world about AGW?
What companies benefit from scaring the world about AGW?" The fact that the different fields of scientific discovery have issues with telling the truth . The fact that Govt's give large grants for industry to develop alternative energy sources .A quick search and you can find ow Obama gave millions toward solar power that flopped and folded quicker then the funds could have been used . It resembles more like a money laundering scheme then anything else .All helped by what seems to be a body of scientist to make the data say what it has to say to perpetuate the scam .

" In your search for people who have been corrupted in the area of the AGW 'issue'[, you need look no further than Steve McIntyre. He is owned lock, stock, and barrel by oil company interests. The entire episode of which you speak was an orchestrated smear campaign, not a legitimate research project. " He may be sponserd by oil .We know that 350.org is from their links .The climate gate emails tell a different story as well as Micheal Mans refusal to supply the data because Steve Mcintyre would only find fault with it . Well dauh . It seems that MM spliced temperature records to proxy data without mentioning that fact and created the famous hockey stick . a reply to: rnaa



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1



You would think with all of the problems that some models have with actual data to project accurately they might set them aside


Sometimes data is just to bad to use effectively. Perhaps the instruments have not been calibrated properly, maybe it didn't record properly or only partially. Maybe you want to summarize to hour intervals but only have 1 data point per day. Maybe it doesn't cover the same geographical area that your other datasets cover.

There are any number of reasons that datasets might not be appropriate. Data is not knowledge, you need to have context for that.

Sorry, but there is no 'there' there.

Anthony Watts is a propagandist, has no climate science credentials (dubious electronic engineering credentials, maybe), and continuously pushes long debunked non-controversies. He is, quite frankly, not worth your time.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Gee and I was under the impression that science starts with inquire into how things work . You are saying you have to have a lab first or some data first . That looks like a cart ahead of the horse to me . "Second, scientific research does not have a world view or philosophy." Oh ,so you are saying that scientist do not need to guard against personal bias ? And I though it was part of the integrity process . You are saying that scientist don't look for facts that would support their hypothesis ? Seems like a silly notion to me , but then again I am not a scientist .

"Can you give an example of a particular research paper where you don’t think it’s the truth? "

Reply to Laden and Hughes on Sheep Mountain climateaudit.org...-20396 A very lively discussion in the comment section with a mix from both sides of the argument . It might be worth while checking out some of the other threads there as well . Make up your own mind as to what may be going on but if you disagree with the host you should bring your A game . a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Do you have recent studies using the old methods to compare today with the values found in yester years .We know that a old musket had a degree of accuracy that is more accurate in today's models despite resembling them , but we can account that to better construction and more consistent loads .Using a old one should produce the same results they did back in the day . a reply to: rnaa



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




The fact that Govt's give large grants for industry to develop alternative energy sources .A quick search and you can find ow Obama gave millions toward solar power that flopped and folded quicker then the funds could have been used.


Correction: it was G.W. Bush's and Congress program, not Obama's. It was designed specifically for risky investment areas to advance technology and it was expected from the beginning that not every investment would pay off. In the case I assume you are discussing (Solyndra), the company failed because of market forces not because of mismanagement or bad technology. Solyndra's technology was more efficient (cheaper per kilowat) than existing technology. China undercut the cost of older technology, eliminating Solyndra's advantage. The technology will resurface sometime when the $ are right.



It resembles more like a money laundering scheme then anything else


By the way, the overall program is making money for the Government, something wholly unexpected when the bill was written.



All helped by what seems to be a body of scientist to make the data say what it has to say to perpetuate the scam .


What scientists? Solyndra scientists? Solyndra didn't fail because of bad science or bad engineering. It failed because of market forces - you know the thing - good old American Captialism at work.



He may be sponserd by oil .We know that 350.org is from their links .The climate gate emails tell a different story as well as Micheal Mans refusal to supply the data because Steve Mcintyre would only find fault with it . Well dauh.


'Climate gate' emails say no such thing. McIntyre doesn't have the expertise to make heads or tails of the data, and it was basically available to him as a publicly available dataset for years anyway. The only difficult parts were the part that some of the data owners wouldn't let Mann pass it on to McIntyre - and that was their decision, not McIntyre.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. McIntyre and McKitrick are exactly the paid shills telling lies about the science that you are complaining about, and Watts is their acolyte (I don't know where Watts gets his money from but it shouldn't be too hard to guess pretty close).



It seems that MM spliced temperature records to proxy data without mentioning that fact and created the famous hockey stick .


That is simply rubbish and has been debunked so thoroughly for so long that you should be embarrassed to bring it up.

(source)
"The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

This subject is way way way off topic and I am surprised readers have tolerated it so far. I'm out.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1



Do you have recent studies using the old methods to compare today with the values found in yester years ...


I don't know what you are talking about in this post. Too much 'Christmas Spirits', perhaps?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
"Sometimes data is just to bad to use effectively. " mmmm so when real world data wont work then scientist can turn to made up data.I would think that would be a project for engineers to overcome and be able to collect accurate data in the real world . What would give you confidence that the data being collected from the cosmos is sufficient to explain what they are looking at over billions of miles when they cant properly collect it here on earth with any quality ?

I will decide where and what I read . Example . Measuring the PH of something is either alkaline or acidic .It is either more or less unless it's neutral . That means not acidic or not alkaline . How is it possible to say that something is more acidic when it is alkaline .But coming from scientist we might get the impression that our oceans are becoming more acidic and we should act right now even when the oceans are alkaline in PH . Maybe that is why they need to make up data instead of using the tools we have been using all along .And if those tools are not good enough then the data they collect and used in many papers should be redone or just thrown out . a reply to: rnaa



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Government is a revolving door so it matters not who is in charge but who controls the money .To suggest that the Govt. makes money is a laugh .They spend money plain and simple and if they happened to develop something that was profitable then it would be sold off or given away . " What scientists? Solyndra scientists?" no the scientist that have been saying that we need to move to other types of energy because of CO2 . I dont know if you are familiar with the divergence problem but it is a big problem .increased CO2 but no increase in temps makes the hypothesis that AGW failed .The models do not represent real world facts .

" This subject is way way way off topic and I am surprised readers have tolerated it so far. I'm out." No problem ,have a good holiday . Oh and about Micheal Mans exhortations lol

In today’s post, I’ll discuss another misrepresentation in Mann’s Statement of Claim, one in which Mann bizarrely misrepresented the nature of his own research, falsely claiming credit for being “one of the first” to “document” the increase in 20th century temperatures. This particular false claim was in the same paragraph as Mann’s false claim to have received a Nobel prize. While the latter false claim has received widespread and well-deserved derision, Mann’s false description of the nature of his research has thus far passed without comment, an oversight that I will try to remedy in today’s post, which is part of a series of articles on various untrue statements by Mann in his pleadings in Mann v Steyn et al. For previous articles, se
climateaudit.org... One of many posts that looks deep into the MM story . a reply to: rnaa



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

No, you’re wrong. Science starts with a question and the only way to answer that question is to go into the lab or into the field, collect the data, analyze it and review the results. The “question” is not science. The actual work in the lab or in the field is the science.

No. Scientists collect the data objectively. THEN they see if the data supports their hypothesis. They don’t go into a project with a conclusion and then collect data that looks like it supports that conclusion. They may have a hypothesis, but it’s up to the scientist to collect OBJECTIVE data – that means any and all data – whether it supports their hypothesis or not. It’s just as important to know what doesn’t work or what isn’t valid as it is to know what does. So a hypothesis that doesn’t pan out in the data, isn’t wasted time or work.

Thanks for the links. I’ll take a look.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

On the subject of climate change, I stopped paying too much attention to it because it became heavily politicized.
I briefly read McIntyre's latest Sheep Mountain blog post. Without knowing anything about him or his work, I'd say that his comments on out-of-sample testing are correct. How you setup an out-of-sample test has to include ALL the data available as long as that data was collected under standard conditions. The divergences of the data shown in the charts is enough to question how it was collected and how the out-of-sample model was setup.

Again, I'm not a climate change enthusiast so it's not a topic that I'm particularly interested in. As far as I know, the climate has been changing since the Earth was formed, so I don't find climate change remarkable anyway.


edit on 26-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




Aliens by definition are extraterrestrial and are neither inter-dimensional nor supernatural.... This is just the type of quackery mentioned in the OP made all the more hilarious when you attempt to act asthough it's not. 'hey I'm a christian and I believe they exist, but only if I change the definition to fit my belief in a god'...


Hey crafty editing there. You cut out the part where I said I agreed with the conclusion of two of the most respected men in the history of UFOlogy, Drs J Alan Hynek and Jacques Valle.

And they AREN'T Christians. So crafty edit, making it appear I didn't say that and just pulled some crap right out of my arse.




posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah, I've seen that, there are several threads here discussing that project specifically, it's not on topic here.



My objection is to the corruption of science and disinformation which is tantamount to fraud. Ken Ham is a fraud.


Okay, then discuss him, my comment was there are MANY Christians who reject the angel view of Genesis 6 (Ken Ham most likely being one of them), and I rejected the notion that all Christians don't believe in the UFO/alien phenomena. Many of us don't.




edit on 26-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Ah, OK, I understand what you're saying now. Sorry for the confusion on my part. In your earlier post, you jumped right from indicating that you believed what most people call extraterrestrials are extradimensional demonic beings into rejection of the angelic translation of "sons of God", with no mention of the Nephilim.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

Almost correct, I don't think the intradimensional beings are demons, but fallen angels. I think they are abducting humans and animal in an attempt to make hybrids again like was done with the Nephillim in Genesis 6.

And I mentioned Daniel because tucked away in his explanation to Nebuchadnezzar about his dream he makes an odd comment about the toes made of Iron and mirey clay. He says something to the effect "They will mingle themselves with the seed of men", and by the structure of that sentence the "they" must be something other than the seed of men. (non-human)

"And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." ~ Daniel 2:43



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1


I will decide where and what I read . Example . Measuring the PH of something is either alkaline or acidic .It is either more or less unless it's neutral . That means not acidic or not alkaline . How is it possible to say that something is more acidic when it is alkaline .But coming from scientist we might get the impression that our oceans are becoming more acidic and we should act right now even when the oceans are alkaline in PH . Maybe that is why they need to make up data instead of using the tools we have been using all along .And if those tools are not good enough then the data they collect and used in many papers should be redone or just thrown out .

Do you really not understand how a pH of 8.1 can be said to be "more acidic" (i.e. "less alkaline") than a pH of 8.2?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
You said "First, the basic structure of science is research. It’s work in the lab, it’s work in the field, it’s work wherever your branch of science takes you." Then you said "No, you’re wrong. Science starts with a question and the only way to answer that question is to go into the lab or into the field, collect the data, analyze it and review the results. The “question” is not science. The actual work in the lab or in the field is the science." That was my first point in saying it starts with inquire . A question to ones self or someone else .

"No. Scientists collect the data objectively. THEN they see if the data supports their hypothesis. They don’t go into a project with a conclusion and then collect data that looks like it supports that conclusion." I agree that they should but , if you wanted to get funded and recognized within the IPCC then you had to produce work that showed the link to AGW . They didn't want papers that showed no link to humans .That bias right there was a for gone conclusion and one that needed support . Fortunately or unfortunately there were a group willing to take the challenge and the money to do so . They are the Pox on science that will not go away until they are completely shown to be . Climate audit is one of the better sites exposing the errors and keeping it in the public's eyes . Micheal Man's CV and his court pleadings are in odds with one another . Along with many issues he had with the science . He is having his day in court with Stern and it will be interesting to see how that goes . a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
No more then I could understand someone being 2 months pregnant being less pregnant then someone who is 7 months pregnant . The difference between the two is there is no states of neutral in pregnancy , you either are or you are not .In PH you are either 1 of 3 states . When you are in the neutral phase you can not be more or less of the other two states which are acidic or alkaline . More or less acidic yes ,more or less alkaline , yes .What is in between the two states is neither of the two . But I will bite you tell me as you must know because I have never took the psychology of PH a reply to: iterationzero



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1


No more then I could understand someone being 2 months pregnant being less pregnant then someone who is 7 months pregnant . The difference between the two is there is no states of neutral in pregnancy , you either are or you are not .In PH you are either 1 of 3 states . When you are in the neutral phase you can not be more or less of the other two states which are acidic or alkaline . More or less acidic yes ,more or less alkaline , yes .What is in between the two states is neither of the two . But I will bite you tell me as you must know because I have never took the psychology of PH

Not exactly. The pH scale is a continuous scale that goes from 0 to 14, with a pH of 0 being the most acidic and a pH of 14 being the most basic, and a pH of 7 being neutral. It's not a trinary system where it's simply defined as acidic - neutral - basic. You're trying to apply a discrete model, like that of a lightbulb or (in your own words) pregnancy, where it's either on or off, pregnant or not pregnant. That's an oversimplification of the pH scale and, ultimately, an incorrect one.

Picture it like a gradient of colors going from red to blue, with a purple made of equal parts of red and blue. If we point out a color that's a 75:25 mixture of blue:red, we can absolutely say that color is more red than one that's an 80:20 mixture of blue:red, even though it's technically on the blue side of purple. It's exactly the same with pH. A pH of 8.0 is more acidic than a pH of 9.0 by virtue of the fact that there are more H+ ions in the water at pH 8.0 than there are at pH 9.0 -- literally, the water is more acidic even though it's still on the alkaline side of the spectrum.




top topics



 
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join