Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 06:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
I showed you such evidence several months ago. I guess you
didn't
think it was strong enough :-)




Very likely so. Note that anecdotal "evidence" does not count.

"anecdote - a short amusing or interesting story about a real
incident or
person"

Why not? They are still "real incidents."

But they lack in documentation. A scientific experiment or
observation should be documented with enough detail to enable anyone
with the appropriate skills and knowledge to repeat it. And it's not
taken really seriously until it has been independently repeated and
confirmed.


You grew up accepting anecdotal
evidence from your parents and friends. It helped you develop into
the
individual you are today and you still believe many of those and
guide

That's daily life, not a science project.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:06:18 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
That's because you define atheist to include all agnostics.

Not at all. I know many agnostic theists. But they don't
self-identify
as "agnostic".

Why don't they do that?

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:33:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
I am incapable of taking Pascal's wager. If an omniscient God
exists, I
can't fool Him by pretending to believe in Him.

What if this deity is a Her?

And why should an omnipotent deity who lives forever need to have any
sex at all? A sex is needed for mere mortals who need to make kids to
avoid extinction. Someone who lives forever need not do that, right?

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:12:18 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:
I showed you such evidence several months ago. I guess you
didn't think it was strong enough :-)

No evidence can ever be strong enough to overcome religious faith.

If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 20:59:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:12:18 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:
I showed you such evidence several months ago. I guess you
didn't think it was strong enough :-)

No evidence can ever be strong enough to overcome religious faith.

If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

Science and religion are absolutely mutually incompatible.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 20:51:54 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:06:18 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
That's because you define atheist to include all agnostics.

Not at all. I know many agnostic theists. But they don't
self-identify
as "agnostic".

Why don't they do that?

Because most don't really understand what it means to be agnostic, and
the word itself is quite ambiguous in meaning. Most theists think
"theist" is sufficient to represent their worldview, without
qualification.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:33:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

I am incapable of taking Pascal's wager. If an omniscient God exists, I
can't fool Him by pretending to believe in Him. My beliefs are the
result of applying my reason to the available information; I can't choose
them directly like a box of detergent in the supermarket.

Of course, Pascal's wager is nonsense on many fronts. Not only can we
not choose what to believe, but statistically, if there's a god you're
going to pick the wrong one to worship (or pretend to believe in).

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 12:48:17 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 06:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I showed you such evidence several months ago. I guess you
didn't think it was strong enough :-)

Very likely so. Note that anecdotal "evidence" does not count.

"anecdote - a short amusing or interesting story about a real
incident or person"

Why not? They are still "real incidents."

But they lack in documentation. A scientific experiment or
observation should be documented with enough detail to enable anyone
with the appropriate skills and knowledge to repeat it.
And it's not taken really seriously until it has been independently
repeated and confirmed.

A scientific experiment involves controlling variables and making
measurements, carefully varying conditions, observing changes and
hypothesizing. But life isn't like that. When we come before the
bar of God, I don't think He's going to ask us how well we made
measurements or how well we controlled variables. I don't think
He will even ask if we believed in Him.

From all that I have gathered, He will ask how we treated each other:

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty,
and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and
ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye
came unto me.

"Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
hungred, and fed thee? ....

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,
ye have done it unto me." -- Matthew 25:34-40.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
-- Matthew 7:23

So much for Pascal's wager, hmmm?

It doesn't sound to me like it matters whether or not you BELIEVE in
God, but whether or not you are doing His will.

You grew up accepting anecdotal evidence from your parents and friends.
It helped you develop into the individual you are today and you still
believe many of those and guide

That's daily life, not a science project.

So live your daily life doing God's will, even if you don't believe in Him.

Some aren't perfect enough to do that without faith, however, so don't try
to diminish their faith. If they believe Matthew 25, you should be on the
same side. If they are (at least somewhat) Christian but are unaware of
Matthew 25, point it out to them.

In article
RichA wrote:

....

As opposed to what NASA has fallen into in the hands of liberals?

Bridenstine is a simple, political appointee. He's in there for his
politics. He's never run anything like NASA, he's just run a
museum. He was confirmed because the future Secretary of State
agreed to ease travel restrictions to Cuba. Bridenstine is a
political pork product.

....
A chimp in NASA now would do a better job than what has been.

And now one will get the chance!

IGary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:45:50 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary
I looked very carefully at the evidence you presented. It was an obvious
con trick.

"It"? I had three DIVERSE cases so it cannot be an "it."

Children can be made to believe anything by unscrupulous self
serving parents.

What children? What parents?

A child dreaming of a return from heaven followed by long discussions
which fixed the idea as truth in the child’s mind.

The parents had a hard time believing what the child was telling them.
There are also hundreds of cases of near-death experiences, some of
them compiled by Dr. R. A. Moody.

Then a money making and fame - generating confidence trick.

Making money is not a sin. What one believes is a choice. I made mine
and you made yours.

And the weight of a soul determined by weighing at death. With the results
published glossing over the cases where there was no change or a gain in
weight.

I am aware of the experiment being performed only six times. Here is a
reprint of the paper:

http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html

Patient #1: sudden loss of 3/4 oz.
Patient #2: sudden loss of 1/2 oz. (Additional weight loss later)
Patient #3: sudden loss of 1/2 oz. (Additional weight loss later)
Patient #4: not set up properly and interference from other people.
Patient #5: sudden loss of 3/8 oz.
Patient #6: died before scales could be set up.

So your claim of "no change or gain" is erroneous.

You obviously know about experimental error.

Yes, I do. Any honest investigator would throw out patients #4 and #6,
leaving only four valid measurements.

The average is 0.53 oz and the standard deviation is 0.157 oz.
The range for the true population size is 0.38 to 0.58 at 95% confidence.
The range for the true population size is 0.33 to 0.73 at 99% confidence.
The range for the true population size is 0.27 to 0.79 at 99.9% confidence.

You obviously know about reproducibility of experiments. Yet in a century
or so nobody has successfully repeated these experiments.

Nobody has performed ANY experiments since then, so your assertion leaves
out that important point. The reason WHY there have been no further work
is most likely because (1) it is considered "ghoulish", (2) medicine has
advanced considerably since those good ol' days and doctors work on the
dying and often resuscitate them, and (3) it is considered unseemly, even
offensive, to treat a human this way. MacDougall was prevented from
continuing his experiments in his day and things haven't changed much
since then.

From Snopes

“Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for
having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at
death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the
lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by
this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men’s
weight and the dogs’ failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by
panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no
blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling
occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December�

Perhaps we could do some new experiments with modern equipment and
many more subjects. Would you like to volunteer as a patient? :-)

That doesn't apply in the cases I presented.

There is no evidence for the existence of any god.

There is sufficient evidence for me. Obviously, you have different
criteria.

Even if there were who made that god - another higher god?

Yep.

Is it gods all the way up?

At some point, there must have been a first, but why would that matter
to us? We're Johnnie-come-lately to this universe. An equally-
irrelevant question is, how old is the universe? Are you sure?

Then where did the first come from. You’re just hanging a more or less
human face on what is as yet unknown.

Where did humans come from according to the standard model? How did
man become conscious of himself? Is it any different to claim that God
developed long ago in the same way? Why would you eschew the teachings
of a Being whose civilization is billions of years older than ours?

“There may be millions of inhabited worlds circling other suns, harboring
beings who to us would seem godlike, with civilizations and cultures
beyond our wildest dreams.� -- Arthur C. Clarke

It’s fairly clear from his writings that the only religion he had any time
for is a cleaned up Buddhism.

For his opinion on Christianity read The Star again. Or better still go to
the Old Time Radio SciFi Friday site and hear him reading it himself.

And they may be resurrected Beings.

If you take the Copenhagen interpretation or quantum mechanics you
don’t need a god at the beginning, just an observer to make the
universe exist by collapsing its wave functions. Schrodinger’s god.

The Copenhagen interpretation is DOA. Although ... have you heard of the
double-slit experimental results being affected by thought? Hmmmmm

A window into the multiverse?

Who knows?

http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Phys...in%20final.pdf

I want to set this up sometime and try it, but I'm up to my eyeballs
in a research project that I've been working on for over five years.

Stephen Hawking’s last paper (not yet published) suggests a deep space
mission to investigate the multiverse.

Interesting. I wonder what he proposed. Maybe to find gravitation where
there is nothing? Would he use a Forward gravitational gradient detector?


http://www.space.com/40025-stephen-h...ultiverse.html