Page 159 of 161 FirstFirst ... 59109149158159160 ... LastLast
Results 5,531 to 5,565 of 5607

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #5531
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I spent uncounted hours chasing through that rabbit warren.

    i respect Mathematician Brendan McKay - but he seemed to be the only one to take on the Mathemeticians on the other side. It took me too and beyond my limits of understanding the maths - but i concluded that there was no clear victor in that particular fight.


    that was years ago and Bible Codes seems to be a continuing project

    i have not come across any critique of the two most compelling examples for me - perhaps someone out there has a link?

    1. Coded in Isaiah 53 - the disciple's names of those at the foot of the cross

    2. all the plants listed in the OT coded in the Deuteronomy ? passage of the food laws as "good to eat"

  2. #5532
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    50,299

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Bible codes!

    Gentlemen, please, please let this thread die, or let Frank rattle on by himself. We're far beyond futility.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  3. #5533
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
    The same sedimentary and tectonic processes that created these features are going on as we speak at an imperceptible rate. All you need is a great deal of TIME. Science tells us there has been plenty of TIME.
    1. imperceptible

    - if you cant observe it - how is that proof?

    2. Time

    - if all you have got left as a mechanism is "Time" how are you not saying that "Time moves boulders"?

    3. Science tells us there has been plenty of TIME

    -
    Yes, the current dogma asserts millions and billions of years - but actually THAT is what is under review regarding Earth (and, presumably, our local region of the universe. I dont believe that the vast ages for the further regions is controversial. Models of the cosmos are now being developed that address this )

  4. #5534
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    I tried once and I have also posed questions that he has just ignored.
    i am insulted that you make this accusation, Gary.

    I believe that i have been scrupulous in addressing every relevant and legitimate or genuine question that has been posed.

    Stupid or irrelevant trolling i try to ignore.

  5. #5535
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    Cambrian, remember the rabbits?
    i saw a reference to there being Two sets of major sedimentary features - fossiliferous (sp?) and non-fossiliferous.

    The former (Cambrian to the Cretaceous) are posited as the result of the Flood.
    Last edited by Frank!; 11-05-2018 at 11:06 AM. Reason: oops..

  6. #5536
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Bible codes!

    Gentlemen, please, please let this thread die, or let Frank rattle on by himself. We're far beyond futility.
    Keith - Please dont be such an anti-intellectual party-pooper

    ta - frank

  7. #5537
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    i am insulted that you make this accusation, Gary.

    I believe that i have been scrupulous in addressing every relevant and legitimate or genuine question that has been posed.

    Stupid or irrelevant trolling i try to ignore.
    Well, you are gullible enough to believe all sorts of impossible cow chips, so I guess that is consistent.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #5538
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Traverse City MI and Charlotte NC
    Posts
    3,312

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Bible codes!

    Gentlemen, please, please let this thread die, or let Frank rattle on by himself. We're far beyond futility.
    I dunno, Keith. I was in a bar the other night and some guy said his friend told him that scientists were wrong about nearly everything. Guy was well dressed and said his friend was plenty smart. I think it’s worth looking into.
    Well, Mr. Botard, do you still deny all rhinocerotic evidence?

  9. #5539
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
    I am posting these unanswered questions for a forumite:

    how a sufficiently massive flow of water obeys The laws of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Conservation of Mass.

    Also ask how those same laws and the law of Conservation of Momentum applies to his impactor triggering rapid plate tectonics and a massive earth girding flood.
    Huh?

    - so what is the question(s)?

    And, actually, wasnt the first my question anyway? I asked (of our resident Fluvial Geologist), "What sort of, size of, kind of, flow of water would be required to spread a layer of sediment containing boulders across a vast area of countryside?"

    I expected that i would be a simple matter for them to consult their tables of Turbidity Flows (or whatever) and / or apply the relevant equations and come up with some sort of answer like 2miles deep travelling at 80mph - or whatever....

    Im not a Fluvial geologist so this is not my field - all i know is that i've seen the photo - and so have you - the boulders are there!!! all i'm asking is how, exactly, did they get there?

    As to the Impactor - someone else calculated the energy to cause a worldwide flood , and a link was posted to a site that contained the means to calculate impactor energies and effects - so i merely looked up an impactor of the appropriate energy and found that Noah, somewhere beyond the horizon, might suffer the inconvenience of having his window broken (big deal - apparently there was only one, according to the bible) and maybe his pendulum clock stopped (bible doesnt mention clocks - but the impactor site does)

    Hey, Fitzy, see if you can get some sense out of yer forum mate - or is his name Botard? and he's seeing Rhinocereos's ?

    best regards,

    frank

    ps - ah, yes, rapid plate tectonics is a subject in itself .......

  10. #5540
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    1. imperceptible

    - if you cant observe it - how is that proof?

    2. Time

    - if all you have got left as a mechanism is "Time" how are you not saying that "Time moves boulders"?

    3. Science tells us there has been plenty of TIME

    -
    Yes, the current dogma asserts millions and billions of years - but actually THAT is what is under review regarding Earth (and, presumably, our local region of the universe. I dont believe that the vast ages for the further regions is controversial. Models of the cosmos are now being developed that address this )
    Time is not the mechanism. What is being said is the mechanisms of geology take time.
    Regarding imperceptible, we can’t feel Australia moving north but we know it’s happening because the rate is measurable.
    Last edited by WX; 11-05-2018 at 03:23 PM.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  11. #5541
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Huh?

    - so what is the question(s)?

    And, actually, wasnt the first my question anyway? I asked (of our resident Fluvial Geologist), "What sort of, size of, kind of, flow of water would be required to spread a layer of sediment containing boulders across a vast area of countryside?"

    I expected that i would be a simple matter for them to consult their tables of Turbidity Flows (or whatever) and / or apply the relevant equations and come up with some sort of answer like 2miles deep travelling at 80mph - or whatever....

    Im not a Fluvial geologist so this is not my field - all i know is that i've seen the photo - and so have you - the boulders are there!!! all i'm asking is how, exactly, did they get there?

    As to the Impactor - someone else calculated the energy to cause a worldwide flood , and a link was posted to a site that contained the means to calculate impactor energies and effects - so i merely looked up an impactor of the appropriate energy and found that Noah, somewhere beyond the horizon, might suffer the inconvenience of having his window broken (big deal - apparently there was only one, according to the bible) and maybe his pendulum clock stopped (bible doesnt mention clocks - but the impactor site does)

    Hey, Fitzy, see if you can get some sense out of yer forum mate - or is his name Botard? and he's seeing Rhinocereos's ?

    best regards,

    frank

    ps - ah, yes, rapid plate tectonics is a subject in itself .......
    An impactor capable of causing a world wide flood five miles deep is going to do a damn sight more than crack a window. Which Noah would not have had anyway. The resulting tsunami would have destroyed the Ark before it even got to float.
    Last edited by WX; 11-05-2018 at 03:46 PM.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  12. #5542
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  13. #5543
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Huh?

    - so what is the question(s)?

    And, actually, wasnt the first my question anyway? I asked (of our resident Fluvial Geologist), "What sort of, size of, kind of, flow of water would be required to spread a layer of sediment containing boulders across a vast area of countryside?"

    I expected that i would be a simple matter for them to consult their tables of Turbidity Flows (or whatever) and / or apply the relevant equations and come up with some sort of answer like 2miles deep travelling at 80mph - or whatever....

    Im not a Fluvial geologist so this is not my field - all i know is that i've seen the photo - and so have you - the boulders are there!!! all i'm asking is how, exactly, did they get there?

    As to the Impactor - someone else calculated the energy to cause a worldwide flood , and a link was posted to a site that contained the means to calculate impactor energies and effects - so i merely looked up an impactor of the appropriate energy and found that Noah, somewhere beyond the horizon, might suffer the inconvenience of having his window broken (big deal - apparently there was only one, according to the bible) and maybe his pendulum clock stopped (bible doesnt mention clocks - but the impactor site does)

    Hey, Fitzy, see if you can get some sense out of yer forum mate - or is his name Botard? and he's seeing Rhinocereos's ?

    best regards,

    frank

    ps - ah, yes, rapid plate tectonics is a subject in itself .......
    Fitz, in greater detail.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Like I said, you will have to spell it out in words of one syllable with no wriggle room.
    Law of Conservation of mass: Mass can neither be created or destroyed. There is not enough water in the oceans to cover the highest mountain to 15 cubits, or it will be doing so now. So where did the extra mass of water come from and go away to?
    Law of conservation of energy: Energy can neither be created or destroyed. So where did the energy required to accelerate all of that huge mass of water to create the "Catastrophic" behaviour come from, and where did it dissipate to afterwards?
    Newtons laws of motion: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. So where did the force come from and how was it applied to the water to cause all of it to start to move at the velocity needed to erode, move and deposit all of those millions of tonnes of sediment?

    The catastrophic flood that deposited all of those layers of sediment whilst not destroying an ark built of gopher wood contravenes all of those laws.,
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  14. #5544
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  15. #5545
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    22,519

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Bump for Keith! Ha!
    Could not resist!

  16. #5546
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Bitches?
    - is anyone prepared to concede that there is a logical flaw in that argument?

    ie - that none of the examples that Dawkins gives depends upon the science of Evolution.

    and - All of those examples could have been developed under Creation science.

    ( and indeed may have - who knows,or cares, for that matter, whether the scientists involved were Evolutionists or Creationists? - note that the MRI machine was developed by a Creationist)

    Now i have put forward an example of a useful and validated development in science that could not have been developed under evolutionary science.

    I am still waiting for an example of something that could not have been developed under young earth, biblical literalist, science.

    theres a challenge

    still

    frank

  17. #5547
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Bitches?
    - is anyone prepared to concede that there is a logical flaw in that argument?

    ie - that none of the examples that Dawkins gives depends upon the science of Evolution.

    and - All of those examples could have been developed under Creation science.

    ( and indeed may have - who knows,or cares, for that matter, whether the scientists involved were Evolutionists or Creationists? - note that the MRI machine was developed by a Creationist)

    Now i have put forward an example of a useful and validated development in science that could not have been developed under evolutionary science.

    I am still waiting for an example of something that could not have been developed under young earth, biblical literalist, science.

    theres a challenge

    still

    frank
    I think you missed the point of the video.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  18. #5548
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    I think you missed the point of the video.
    - then you have seriously missed the point of my post?!

  19. #5549
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    - then you have seriously missed the point of my post?!
    It doesn’t matter what version of religion/nonreligion a person follows when it comes to inventing something. The Chinese invented heaps of stuff long before the concept of evolution or creation.com.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  20. #5550
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    I think you missed the point of the video.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    - then you have seriously missed the point of my post?!
    Yep, Frank confirms that he missed the point of the video. Totally.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  21. #5551
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    50,299

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Longino View Post
    Bump for Keith! Ha! Could not resist!
    You scurvy wretch.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  22. #5552
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Is nobody prepared to admit that because Dawkins only cited examples that had no bearing upon the validity of Evolution - then he can therefore make no claim for the validity of Evolution?

    (and hence the "Bitches" jibe reflects back upon himself!)

  23. #5553
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Is nobody prepared to admit that because Dawkins only cited examples that had no bearing upon the validity of Evolution - then he can therefore make no claim for the validity of Evolution?

    (and hence the "Bitches" jibe reflects back upon himself!)
    U R Silly.
    Here is the full video in context.
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 11-06-2018 at 05:12 PM.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  24. #5554
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    anyone else?

  25. #5555
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Here is the full video in context.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  26. #5556
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    anyone else?
    Dawkins didn't even mention evolution, he merely pointed out that inventions based on science work.
    If a creationist invents something based on science it will also work.
    What is your point?
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  27. #5557
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    Dawkins didn't even mention evolution, he merely pointed out that inventions based on science work.
    If a creationist invents something based on science it will also work.
    What is your point?
    True, Gary, he didnt - and from the context it seems to me to have come from a question about the "Heuristic" (sp?) of science (whatever that is...)

    but he did add that one word "Bitches" - and that word has characterized the clip.

    But we all know where Dawkins is coming from......

    I understand his own contributions as a scientist are quite modest. But a Professorship at Oxford was created and paid for for him to promote his ideas.

    Now - He thinks that Evolution is the "only game in town" - the "Greatest hoax on (sorry, Show on) Earth". He claims all of science supports Evolution, and anything that doesnt is "Pseudoscience". He tolerates no dissenting views from any quarters. He appropriates Natural Selection as only supporting evolution and does not recognize that it is also a foundational part of Creation Science.

    It is telling that he cites no inventions based on Evolutionary science - seems that is because there are none?* (I keep asking and none have been forthcoming here) - but note, it seems that there are scientific advances that can be attributed to the YEC / ID models.

    Allow me to return the compliment - Bitches!

    Frank

    *and worse, those that do turn out to be nonsense and / or false (the "useless appendix", the "quadruped spine of humans" etc etc)
    Last edited by Frank!; 11-07-2018 at 02:59 AM.

  28. #5558
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    True, Gary, he didnt - and from the context it seems to me to have come from a question about the "Heuristic" (sp?) of science (whatever that is...)

    but he did add that one word "Bitches" - and that word has characterized the clip.

    But we all know where Dawkins is coming from......

    I understand his own contributions as a scientist are quite modest. But a Professorship at Oxford was created and paid for for him to promote his ideas.

    Now - He thinks that Evolution is the "only game in town" - the "Greatest hoax on (sorry, Show on) Earth". He claims all of science supports Evolution, and anything that doesnt is "Pseudoscience". He tolerates no dissenting views from any quarters. He appropriates Natural Selection as only supporting evolution and does not recognize that it is also a foundational part of Creation Science.

    It is telling that he cites no inventions based on Evolutionary science - seems that is because there are none?* (I keep asking and none have been forthcoming here) - but note, it seems that there are scientific advances that can be attributed to the YEC / ID models.

    Allow me to return the compliment - Bitches!

    Frank

    *and worse, those that do turn out to be nonsense and / or false (the "useless appendix", the "quadruped spine of humans" etc etc)
    Evolution is the only game in town.
    What inventions based on Evolutionary science would you expect? Medicine, genetics to name two fields.
    Name some scientific inventions that can be attributed to YEC?
    I reiterate, he was talking about science not the beliefs of the scientists behind it. I could happily believe in pink elephants but as long as I practice good science it doesn't matter.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  29. #5559
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post

    4. Evolution is the only game in town.

    3. What inventions based on Evolutionary science would you expect? Medicine, genetics to name two fields.

    2. Name some scientific inventions that can be attributed to YEC?

    1. I reiterate, he was talking about science not the beliefs of the scientists behind it. I could happily believe in pink elephants but as long as I practice good science it doesn't matter.
    to take your points in reverse order, Gary,

    1. Yes, yes, i have agreed with you on that one, Gary

    2.a. well, there is one that you will be most familiar with - but choose not to recognize - fair enough , everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but you will forgive me, but i find the work of a top, well experienced scientist, with a solid career in a high level outfit (Sandia Laboratories), published in a respected peer reviewed journal, and validated ("It Works!!!") as predicted, by observation , and has been shown to have wide general application - so clearly we have a useful scientific advance here. His hypothesis was clearly based on YEC / BL factors. I refer, of course to Dr. Russell Humphreys, Model for the prediction of Planetary Magnetic Fields. I would further note that this Model has shown to have wide general application . It is not just restricted to bodies with a core that could sustain a Dynamo driven field. And i further note that Humphreys' Model better predicts and explains the properties and quirks of the Earths field than does the old Dynamo Model!

    2.b. Interestingly, in the field of animal husbandry, where one would expect Evolutionary theories to come to the fore, it was a procedure developed to help cattle adapt to hostile tropical conditions based upon a YEC scenario (? - the details are hazy now - i came across it some years ago now) that finally solved the problem. It struck me as significant because attempts using the Standard (Evolutionary / DEepTime) principles had been unable to get a result.

    I understand there are many other examples. (Hey - who knew!)

    3. Science can be applied in many ways to produce fruit, from specific inventions like the MRI machine (yep - a fruit of neither YEC, nor Evolutionary science per se - so dont twit me - just an eg of a material invention..... ) science could develop a useful Principle, or a useful new Medical procedure, or as in the case of HPM, a Model that can be used to explain or predict something.

    As i noted in my earlier post, Evolutionary Science has produced some shockers! - Hitler's Master Race theory, and for that matter, early Australian Govt Policy towards the (so called "Primative Race" of aborigines) and the theory of Eugenics. I have already mentioned the vestigial organs fiasco and physiotherapy procedures based on the false notion that , as an evolved quadruped (which have 'straight' splines) ours got 'unnaturally bent' as we supposedly evolved uprightness - so Physios would strap on a frame to straighten the spline of those with back problems. turned out to be utter rubbish.

    4. Yeah, that is the Dogma that has been so successfully pushed by Dawkins and his ilk that it has become a worldwide cult. (my term - maybe a bit intemperate - but its been a big day with a lot on for me - an im reddy to sackout...)

    chrz,

    frnk
    Last edited by Frank!; 11-07-2018 at 06:35 AM.

  30. #5560
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    ^ Humphreys again.
    Any one got any reputable papers using or building on Humphereys planetary magnetism model? Frank!?, Anyone?

    As to Eugenics, that was politicians not scientists. Look at Kellogs report back to the US President during WWI
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  31. #5561
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Will someone draw this to Frank!'s attention please

    Humanity's artistic heritage just got a new historical milestone. In a cave wall deep in the forests of the isle of Borneo, archaeologists have just confirmed that a depiction of some sort of cow is the world's oldest known figurative piece of art.
    It dates back to between 40,000 and 52,000 years ago, during the Upper Palaeolithic and the last ice age - at least 5,000 years older than the previous record-holder for figurative cave paintings, from the nearby Indonesian island of Sulawesi.
    https://www.sciencealert.com/borneo-...rative-artwork
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  32. #5562
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    But he doesn't believe in radiometric dating, so .....

  33. #5563
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by robm View Post
    But he doesn't believe in radiometric dating, so .....
    Oh, go on
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  34. #5564
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    50,299

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Why, why do you guys bother? Let it die.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  35. #5565
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,470

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Why, why do you guys bother? Let it die.
    It's either this, or how many Dolt 45 threads?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •