ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _Chap »

Chap wrote:
Franktalk wrote:Chap,

You are right that I have used assumptions in my post on erosion. I assumed that rain happened in the past and it pretty much is about the same as today. I also assumed that soils erode today and in the past pretty much the same. I also assumed that no supernatural events caused the conclusions I came to.

If you want you can reject those assumptions and make new ones and redo the math. I am not sure if your conclusions will be worth much.


But how do your calculations lead to the conclusion that:

Franktalk wrote:[If you] study erosion enough [ ] you will find that our dating methods are completely wrong.


I suppose there will be no answer to my question ...
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _Some Schmo »

Franktalk wrote: It does not supply truth so don't look for it there.

LOL

If science doesn't provide truth, nothing does.

I'm not saying science is infallible; I'm just saying it's the best reality determining mechanism we've got... by a mile... actually, more like a light year. Yeah, that sounds about right.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _Some Schmo »

Chap wrote: I suppose there will be no answer to my question ...

I get the feeling ol' Frank here isn't big on matching content to conclusions.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

I'm gonna go ahead and call it.


Frank is a puppet here to troll us, and I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of EAllusion. Some things are just too good to be true.
_Morley
_Emeritus
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _Morley »

MrStakhanovite wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and call it.


Frank is a puppet here to troll us, and I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of EAllusion. Some things are just too good to be true.


You may be right. That piece he posted on the erosion of the Mississippi Basin is, by itself, a true masterpiece of merde-ification.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _Chap »

Some Schmo wrote:
Chap wrote: I suppose there will be no answer to my question ...

I get the feeling ol' Frank here isn't big on matching content to conclusions.


My problem is that I just don't see the point of his Mississippi calculation, but it is clear that he thinks he was making some kind of a killer argument.

Could it be that all he is saying is that a calculation can only be as good as the data you put into it - the old Garbage In Garbage Out point? His references to 'assumptions' do seem to point that way.

But he really did promise more than that, when he said:

Franktalk wrote:[If you] study erosion enough [ ] you will find that our dating methods are completely wrong.


This is the claim I'd like to see him justify. But maybe he is just a troll.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _Some Schmo »

MrStakhanovite wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and call it.


Frank is a puppet here to troll us, and I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of EAllusion. Some things are just too good to be true.

Awwwww!! Damn you for thinking of this first!

If you're right, I'm gonna be pissed at myself.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

Morley wrote:You may be right. That piece he posted on the erosion of the Mississippi Basin is, by itself, a true masterpiece of merde-ification.


That, and an avatar with the Laminin protein and the Kuhn name drop? It's too perfect.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _Chap »

MrStakhanovite wrote: ... the Laminin protein ...


Hey! That'd be the secret ingredient that turned them white and delightsome?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Morley
_Emeritus
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Post by _Morley »

MrStakhanovite wrote:
Morley wrote:You may be right. That piece he posted on the erosion of the Mississippi Basin is, by itself, a true masterpiece of merde-ification.


That, and an avatar with the Laminin protein and the Kuhn name drop? It's too perfect.


How the hell did you get the Laminin protein? Damn, you're good.
Post Reply