Pseudo-Scientific Nonsense

[tplank]

Just my two cents, but content moderation has been a miserable failure every time I've seen it tried. Far better to build a community which reflects the realities of life where pains-in-the-buttocks like myself are politely ignored than to dent the free exchange of ideas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[spasser]

I'm wondering why this thread hasn't been locked or moved.<br /><br />Why must we wait for the new rules to move this to an appropriate section?

 

[spasser]

What?<br /><br />Sorry for misspelling your name earlier... but what did you say... I don't recall anything beyond just passionately defending theism against contra's rant against Christianity and the claims that atheism is scientific. Both sides were passionately arguing with perhaps an insult flying here or there.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I apologize Contracomando for my personal attacks and my trolling behavior. I am sure you could care less though. But I admit your attacks were on religion in general and mine were personal.</font><br /><br />Huh? I admit I missed your last two posts... but besides that, none of your posts were trolling any more than Contra's were. And... to a large extent his comments were an attack on Christianity not religion in general... though he certainly was attacking religion in general.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why must we wait for the new rules to move this to an appropriate section?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It just seemed convenient to me -- and then the new mini-mod folks can weigh in on their feelings before it gets moved. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />We aren't going to be banning any topic -- merely requiring certain standards of behavior. Hijacking of threads will be detected and dealt with much more quickly. Unscientific threads will be moved out of scientific forums, most likely into Phenomena. The topics will still be permitted. We all feel very strongly about freedom of speech, so no one is going to be silenced unless they've done something so egregious they have to be removed (e.g. Nigerian spammers, hackers, etc). It will never be because of *what* they say. Perhaps *how* they say it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But not the ideas. Never the ideas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - That's fine. You do not have to post any proof or data.<br /><br />Now, remember thread theme and what was posted which I was responding to.<br /><br />Are you objecting to my responding to those posts?<br /><br />I am fine with transfering this discussion to Free Space or Phenomena as it was way off Ask the Astronomer type discussions.<br /><br />However, I did segway back to astronomy and you have ignored the astronomical questions I posted.<br /><br />In my next post I will again attempt to get this thread on a theme that is more appropriate for this section.<br /><br />Why not confine your responses to astronomy and relevant sciences rather than concentrate on what you don't want discussed in this section?<br /><br />Remember, though, that I was simply responding to posts already made on this thread.<br /><br />And, btw, I was not proselytizing. I was defending the Bible against attack.

 

[newtonian]

Here are some imbedded astronomy questions that I posted on (plus more) to get this thread to appropriate discussion.<br /><br />1. To segway from the Biblical flood: How did earth accrete its water? Was it all by unifformitarian mechanisms or were there also watery catastrophes?<br /><br />2. What evidence do we have for earth's primordial waters. Were they in darkness at Genesis 1:2 states? <br /><br />3. [gen. 1:2]Could life have been created first in dark waters, hence explaining one thing the holy spirit was doing going to and fro over early earth's dark waters?<br /><br />Were extremophiles in dark ocean areas earth's first life forms?<br /><br />Should we be looking for extremophiles on other planets and moons?<br /><br />4. Does the evolution (=creation) of planets harmonize with this statement concerning early earth:<br /><br />(Job 38:9) 9 When I put the cloud as its garment And thick gloom as its swaddling band,<br /><br />Context was while the early earth's oceans were unbounded, covering the whole earth.<br /><br />Is this a tenable model for earth's formation: i.e. swaddling accretion bands causing deep gloom on earth's surface?<br /><br />This description fits Venus at present. Was early earth similar to Venus?<br /><br />For example, doesn't the evidence of the past massive geologic carbon cycle depositing vast amounts of carbonates on earth's surface indicate early earth had a similar amount of CO2 in our atmosphere compared with Venus today?<br /><br />Why didn't earth end up with a runaway greenhouse effect?<br /><br />5. See my former post on early earth's greenhouse effect. Does the sudden change in climate which permanently froze mammoths and other animals in the arctic (and not in the antarctic) confirm the catastrophe occurred in the northern winter?<br /><br />6. How do the actual observations compare with ice age vs. flood models <br /><br />7. Could a comet have caused a sudden increase in water on earth by causing a nuclear winter effect and condensing an a