Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Show a comparison between these skulls and the skulls of a regular human to match your claim that they are the skulls of giants, or you are just blowing smoke out of your behind.
Show me where I said that these skulls were from 25 foot tall Giants.Didn't I read in one of his links that the giants were up to 25 feet tall? If that is so, the giant skulls ought to be 64 times the volume of a modern human skull.
Giant Baby Mummy.
I don't see or smell any smoke........ You?
Giant Baby Mummy.
I don't see or smell any smoke........ You?
Yeah sure. Only General Relativity relates to gravity, and which part of Potential Theory is pseudo-science exactly?
St Alfven said it, so it must be true, I suppose.
The mainstream has been trying to ride the coattails of GR theory, while actually peddling a supernatural "blunder" theory, not pure GR theory. Their introduction of "dark energy", or magical forms of energy simply turns the math formula into a supernatural unsupported claim that begins and ends with an affirming the consequent fallacy and a "statement of faith" in "space expansion", something Einstein's use of a non-zero constant never even required nor implied!
Your heroes simply kludged the math and pretend that GR theory gives their dark energy claims instant merit. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of pure empirical physics.
How is it that you're comfortable peddling a pseudo-scientific "blunder" theory, while trying to ride the coattails of two different areas of physics where the authors of the theory actually *disapproved* of your unsupported claims?
Almost every lab example of "magnetic reconnection" begins and ends with an electric field that drives current through plasma. The rest rely upon lasers that also "drive current" through plasma. It's nothing more than "current reconnection" via a double layer, and Alfven's double layer paper makes the whole concept obsolete and irrelevant in all such environments! Holy Cow. Sure, just ignore the authors themselves and bury your head in the sand as it relates to the fact that no experiment on Earth ultimately supports any of your claims.
I've heard it all before.
Most scientists reject Thomas Kuhn’s wakeup call in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, even though his book fostered the science of paradigm change, how to detect when aging paradigms are wearing out, and how to predict the paradigms (or scientific models) of tomorrow.
Using these techniques, I published various papers in national and international conferences and journals (not Creationist or Christian venues, but solid, scientific conferences). Here’s an example of my publications:
A paper showing how the largest and third largest meteorites to ever hit the Earth caused elephant-sized oil deposits (the type that birthed Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth) on two great circles on the Earth. These circles lined up existing elephant-sized deposits and projected where to look for the next such deposits. The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, which warned their members about nasty Creationists on their website, still published my paper.
A paper that proposed an alternative to the asymptotic increase in global warming by considering cyclic warming throughout thousands of years of history, via the mechanism of the worldwide ocean conveyor. This paper not only predicted the cause of global warming, but its solution or prevention. This was published at the Boston Global Warming conference, and in their international journal by special invitation. They also invited me the following year to submit my follow-on work for their Featured Speaker position.
Three international conferences published my papers on the problems with the world’s best radiometric dating methods. As a result of these papers, I was invited to attend a conference featuring a ‘shootout’ of the Western proponents of oil exploration (looking in sedimentary formations for ‘petro-oil’ or oil sourced from animals and plants) vs. Russian techniques (looking for abiotic oil in basement or the deepest layers below the fossil record).
I also pointed out errors in two computer codes by the world’s foremost experts in Probabilistic Risk Assessment and human error analysis. I was paid by these experts to correct these same computer codes.
Using Kuhn’s techniques, I was able to propose significant advancements in widely diverse fields, and get them published. Scientists can disparage Kuhn all they want, but his techniques work!
Kuhn, like the boy who cried out, “The king has no clothes”, wasn’t reaching out to the king’s guards as much as the long-suffering populace.
I also realize that very few rigid scientists will change (it has been said that “Science improves one funeral at a time”, for there is no other way to loosen the hold of the rigid and powerful eggheads preventing progress in science). Instead I’m reaching out to the conservative Christian and Jewish parents who’ve watched their kids march off to college and lose their faith under the assault of atheistic and evolutionist teachers.
From the reactions of naysayers in this string, many of our scientists not only can’t see the assumptions that support their science, but blindly refuse to acknowledge these assumptions when they ARE pointed out. Scientists will not experience the power to ADVANCE their science unless they first recognize the assumptions inherent IN their science.
Most scientists reject Thomas Kuhn’s wakeup call in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, even though his book fostered the science of paradigm change, how to detect when aging paradigms are wearing out, and how to predict the paradigms (or scientific models) of tomorrow.
Using these techniques, I published various papers in national and international conferences and journals (not Creationist or Christian venues, but solid, scientific conferences). Here’s an example of my publications:
A paper showing how the largest and third largest meteorites to ever hit the Earth caused elephant-sized oil deposits (the type that birthed Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth) on two great circles on the Earth. These circles lined up existing elephant-sized deposits and projected where to look for the next such deposits. The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, which warned their members about nasty Creationists on their website, still published my paper.
A paper that proposed an alternative to the asymptotic increase in global warming by considering cyclic warming throughout thousands of years of history, via the mechanism of the worldwide ocean conveyor. This paper not only predicted the cause of global warming, but its solution or prevention. This was published at the Boston Global Warming conference, and in their international journal by special invitation. They also invited me the following year to submit my follow-on work for their Featured Speaker position.
Three international conferences published my papers on the problems with the world’s best radiometric dating methods. As a result of these papers, I was invited to attend a conference featuring a ‘shootout’ of the Western proponents of oil exploration (looking in sedimentary formations for ‘petro-oil’ or oil sourced from animals and plants) vs. Russian techniques (looking for abiotic oil in basement or the deepest layers below the fossil record).
I also pointed out errors in two computer codes by the world’s foremost experts in Probabilistic Risk Assessment and human error analysis. I was paid by these experts to correct these same computer codes.
Using Kuhn’s techniques, I was able to propose significant advancements in widely diverse fields, and get them published. Scientists can disparage Kuhn all they want, but his techniques work!
Kuhn, like the boy who cried out, “The king has no clothes”, wasn’t reaching out to the king’s guards as much as the long-suffering populace.
I also realize that very few rigid scientists will change (it has been said that “Science improves one funeral at a time”, for there is no other way to loosen the hold of the rigid and powerful eggheads preventing progress in science). Instead I’m reaching out to the conservative Christian and Jewish parents who’ve watched their kids march off to college and lose their faith under the assault of atheistic and evolutionist teachers.
From the reactions of naysayers in this string, many of our scientists not only can’t see the assumptions that support their science, but blindly refuse to acknowledge these assumptions when they ARE pointed out. Scientists will not experience the power to ADVANCE their science unless they first recognize the assumptions inherent IN their science.
Any objective evidence to support all this?
This is the pseudoscience two-step.
Kuhn says that paradigms change.
Crackpot goes on long speil of pseduscience.
Crackpot claims that his science is supported by Kuhn.
Just so you know, that's now how science works.
Hey, check this out!
Loudmouth said, "Just so you know, that's now how science works." I'm sure he meant to type 'not' instead of 'now', but isn't our God all-powerful, even over the keys of a computer terminal?
Interesting, how about citations/links so we can all review the science.About 10 scientific conferences and publications thought so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?