Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Sun, 6 May 2018 05:19:15 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Well, obviously you are bat**** crazy if you think you can use
statistics to argue for God

That's VERY funny. Particle physicists uses statistics ALL the time to
confirm the existence of elementary particles.

Yeah. Because there's evidence for their existence.

You believe in a flat Earth and leprechauns, I assume, as well. After
all, both are easier to demonstrate true than any gods (not to mention
God, which is actually impossible).

I see no reason to trust Duncan MacDougall's data. Particularly when his conclusion flies in the face of Christian religious doctrine as well as science.

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:40:15 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 6 May 2018 05:19:15 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Well, obviously you are bat**** crazy if you think you can use
statistics to argue for God

That's VERY funny. Particle physicists uses statistics ALL the time to
confirm the existence of elementary particles.

Yeah. Because there's evidence for their existence.

There was no evidence for the Higgs particle before it was found. There
was only a theory that said it ought to exist.

You believe in a flat Earth and leprechauns, I assume, as well.

As usual, your assumptions are dead wrong. All you have done is prove
that you wish to denigrate anyone who disagrees with your pet beliefs.

After all, both are easier to demonstrate true than any gods (not to
mention God, which is actually impossible).

Only in your extremely biased opinion.

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires
no accountability, no understanding.� – Bill Bullard

“The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion.� – Paulo Coelho

And your opinions are really quite toxic.

“A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.�
― George Eliot

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:42:01 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

I see no reason to trust Duncan MacDougall's data.

I see no reason to trust your opinion :-)

Particularly when his conclusion flies in the face of Christian religious
doctrine

What "doctrine" would that be? I know of nothing in the Bible that says
or even implies such a claim.

as well as science.

Science has no conclusions about life after death, except possibly
the theory that information cannot be destroyed. However, if there IS
continuation of one's existence, that implies some kind of energy, and
we all know that m = E/c^2.

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:42:01 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

I see no reason to trust Duncan MacDougall's data.

I see no reason to trust your opinion :-)

Particularly when his conclusion flies in the face of Christian religious
doctrine

What "doctrine" would that be? I know of nothing in the Bible that says
or even implies such a claim.

as well as science.

Science has no conclusions about life after death, except possibly
the theory that information cannot be destroyed. However, if there IS
continuation of one's existence, that implies some kind of energy, and
we all know that m = E/c^2.


Science has investigated some religious aspects. The study on CABG (cabbage
to medics and coronary artery bypass graft to us) investigating the effect
of prayer on outcomes showed that prayer did not affect outcomes unless the
subjects knew they were being prayed for. If they were told they were
prayed for the incidence of complications was higher.
The study of out of body experiences in emergency departments by placing
recognisable and obvious markers on high shelves also indicated that the
felling of rising out of the body and looking down was an illusion.

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 4:12:35 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Science has investigated some religious aspects. The study on CABG (cabbage
to medics and coronary artery bypass graft to us) investigating the effect
of prayer on outcomes showed that prayer did not affect outcomes unless the
subjects knew they were being prayed for. If they were told they were
prayed for the incidence of complications was higher.
The study of out of body experiences in emergency departments by placing
recognisable and obvious markers on high shelves also indicated that the
felling of rising out of the body and looking down was an illusion.

Have you read any of Dr. Raymond Moody's books? Not every case of someone
dying or nearly dying results in an out-of-body experience. In fact,
they're relatively rare. If they were common, anyone who was anesthetized
would have one, maybe. And if one would have an OoBE, why would they be
expected to notice something on a shelf? That's just one uncontrolled
experiment trying to dismiss an uncontrolled experience.

On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There was no evidence for the Higgs particle before it was found. There
was only a theory that said it ought to exist.

Nonsense. There was a great deal of evidence, which is why so much was
invested in the search. Again, you demonstrate profound ignorance of
science.

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There was no evidence for the Higgs particle before it was found. There
was only a theory that said it ought to exist.

Nonsense. There was a great deal of evidence, which is why so much was
invested in the search. Again, you demonstrate profound ignorance of
science.

No, sir! There was NO evidence until it was actually detected. You
are making a really bad show here, old boy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

"The question of the existence of the Higgs field became the last unverified
part of the Standard Model of particle physics, and for several decades, was
considered 'the central problem in particle physics'"

You need to learn the difference between what you fantasize to be true and
what is actually true.

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 2:57:28 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:42:01 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

I see no reason to trust Duncan MacDougall's data.

I see no reason to trust your opinion :-)

I don't expect you to trust my opinion simply because it's my opinion.

Duncan MacDougall found the weight difference in only one of four subjects, and
he himself said it was premature to draw definite conclusions without more data;
but his findings were sensationalized by the press.

I find it bizarre that you would think that research of this nature is worthy of
anything but ridicule, though. To me, this indicates an extreme lack of
judgement, and it definitely explains how you can be "skeptical" about global
warming.

While you do not believe in a flat Earth, and it is unfair to imply otherwise, I
came across this article about flat-Earthers that indicates some commonalities
in their thinking with yours:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...hat-i-learned/

When scientists say that the "argument from authority" is invalid, they're
talking about unearned authority, like that of the hierarchy of the Catholic
church. Not about *their* authority, which comes from their technological track
record and their competency.

But you just don't get it, and manage to think that is somehow hypocritical of
them.

Particularly when his conclusion flies in the face of Christian religious
doctrine

What "doctrine" would that be? I know of nothing in the Bible that says
or even implies such a claim.

Well, perhaps some Christians have let their thinking get contaminated with Greek philosophy or something, and feel that matter would be out of place in Heaven.

as well as science.

Science has no conclusions about life after death, except possibly
the theory that information cannot be destroyed. However, if there IS
continuation of one's existence, that implies some kind of energy, and
we all know that m = E/c^2.

At E=mc^2, living creatures would have to contain a *lot* of energy for that to equal 21.3 grams...

John Savard

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:54:57 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

No, sir! There was NO evidence until it was actually detected. You
are making a really bad show here, old boy.

Depends what you include as "evidence for the Higgs boson".

There was plenty of evidence for the Standard Model.

John Savard