|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
 Posted - 01/21/2010 : 12:51:40 [Permalink]
|
Jeeze, Louise, that's the case with so much we do in the 21st Century! Should pilots refuse to pay attention to collision alarms because they can't see approaching aircraft with their own eyes? >>
You digress. The subject is about earthquakes, hidden causes, and educated guesses.
cantbe323 |
 |
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 13:10:04 [Permalink]
|
All Seismographs can do, (the only technical tool pseudoscientists have)...
Well, this is simply a denial of reality.>>
Not at all. I charted seismograph readings for Western Geophysical for two years. The field crew put explosives in a hole, set them off, the bounce back jolt moved a weighted pendulum in the seismograpy, and I charted the bounce back time and location. So easy even a cave man could do it. |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 13:20:57 [Permalink]
|
First, why call legitimate scientists "pseudoscientists"? Are you a tourist from the future who is acquainted with "real" scientists that put ours to shame? >>
I imagine there are scientists with a sense of real, but most come up with theories that actually make no practical sense. My criteria for true science is...
can it be physically demonstrated, or compared with something that has been demonstrated?
Richard
|
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 13:26:12 [Permalink]
|
Geologists on the other hand have more tools than seismographs.
>>
Yeah, picks, rakes, carbon dating, and vivid imaginations.
cantdo323 |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 13:48:32 [Permalink]
|
Therefore, I must ask: if the scientific theories concerning earthquakes are incorrect, what then, cantbe323, is your take on the matter and how did you come to formulate it? >>
Not necessarily incorrect, just unprovable because they can't be seen during an earthquake. How did I come to formulate it? I don't really know. Maybe the earthquake in Haiti stimulated my engineer's memory.
cantbe323
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/21/2010 : 13:51:23 [Permalink]
|
This is becoming silly, cantbe323. Thus far, you have made various claims that basically accuse scientists and even physicians of fraud. That's a pretty serious charge and I must ask you: where's your evidence?
By "evidence" I don't mean hand-waving and further unsupported statements, but specific cases of some sort of malfeasance on the part of said scientists and physicians as to their methods of investigation. With reference! If you cannot do this, and I doubt that you can, else you would of done already, I've no choice but to take your statements at their apparent worth. Thus far, that ain't much.
Do try and get your act together.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 13:54:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
Not at all. I charted seismograph readings for Western Geophysical for two years. The field crew put explosives in a hole, set them off, the bounce back jolt moved a weighted pendulum in the seismograpy, and I charted the bounce back time and location. So easy even a cave man could do it. |
None of which is support for your assertion that seismographs are the only technical tool available to Earth scientists for studying the insides of the planet.
You also wrote:...My criteria for true science is...
can it be physically demonstrated, or compared with something that has been demonstrated? |
Well, I guess it's a good thing that nobody pays any attention to your "criteria for true science," then. Thanks for admitting that all your posts here to date have been straw men built from your own private definition of science. No wonder you think you're a skeptic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 14:11:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by cantbe323
Geologists on the other hand have more tools than seismographs.
>>
Yeah, picks, rakes, carbon dating, and vivid imaginations.
cantdo323
|
Don't look now, but your ignorance is showing.
First, the motion of tectonic plates has been, and still is being, measured directly using both satellite laser ranging and GPS techniques. That's in addition to the prior movements we can infer from the paleomagnetic record.
Second, I find it verry interesting that you bring up carbon dating. I am not a scientist and yet even I know that carbon-14 dating has an absolute maximum range in the neighborhood of 60,000 years BP and can only be used on the remains of formerly living things, such as samples of wood. It is thus utterly useless for dating on a geologic timescale and equally irrelevant to geological research. Anyone who claims basic scientific literacy should bleedin' well know that. You might find it helpful to read this article about radiometric dating and the stratigraphic column at the Talk Origins FAQ.
"Carbon dating" is, however, a favorite buzzword for creationists who think that discrediting a tool which is not used for dating on an evolutionary timescale, they can somehow discredit all our knowledge of the age of the earth. It's a strawman argument, and a stupid one at that, but the dumb fuckers just never seem to learn.
The combination of "carbon dating" and "engineer" gives off a familiar aroma. Are you a creationist? You certainly seem to display appropriate levels of ignorance and belligerence towards science for that diagnosis to apply. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 14:18:13 [Permalink]
|
And I have a question: Was Darwin a "psuedoscientist?" Was Einstein? How 'bout Tesla? >>
Not Tesla... He designed things that could be demonstrated.
Darwin could also demonstrate his species.
Einstein OTOH, was more like a con artist. He stole ideas while he was a patent clerk, and faked his light bending theory by doctoring his photos of the 1919 solar eclipse. The last part was shone on TV a while back.
cantbe323
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 14:38:00 [Permalink]
|
cantbe323.....
| Einstein OTOH, was more like a con artist. He stole ideas while he was a patent clerk, and faked his light bending theory by doctoring his photos of the 1919 solar eclipse. The last part was shone on TV a while back. |
Thank you for this startling information. I would very much like to learn more about this epochal revision of history.
Would you please post the source or sources you have for this statement about Einstein? You said some of it was "shone" on television "a while back". Please give us details on your sources of this information. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 01/21/2010 14:39:57 |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 14:40:28 [Permalink]
|
But I'd really like to know what his definition of "pseudo">>
Speaking for cantbe323, pseudo is is a wannabe, not a be...
cantbe323's alter ego... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 14:54:12 [Permalink]
|
Suprise! He failed to respond to any of the real points >>
Speaking for cantbe323, he is still learning how the response system works on this forum, especially how to block the response. Any help would be appreciated.
cantbe323 |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 14:56:26 [Permalink]
|
Yep, idiot troll alert.>>
Takes one to know one...
cantbe323 |
|
|
|
cantbe323
Suspended
242 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 15:08:06 [Permalink]
|
Just blocks from where I live is the Hayward Fault, running roughly north-south along the western foot of the East Bay range of hills. The west side of this fault has been slowly slipping northward in relation to the east side. In numerous places, creeks are offset by a considerable distance as they try to run downhill toward the west. They run westward until they reach the Hayward Fault, then run northward along the fault, then turn westward again. The offsets are marked by the span of each creek along the fault. >>
Face it now. All you have to go by is charts made by pseudoscientists. You can't see the actual slippage or the fault.
Anyone living in California would have to be an idiot not to accept basic plate tectonic theory as factual. >>
I was in the middle of all the major CA quakes... 1933, 1952, 1971, and I never found out what caused them.
cantbe323 |
|
|
 |
|
Earthquake causes?
