Jump to content

Ancient Science (Babylonian period and prior)


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'm here to prove a truth.

Please proceed then.  So far you have said you don't subscribe to science, we have discussed moss growth and you have hinted ancient Babylon is somehow significant.  I don't know what point you are trying to make in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

He said on a computer plugged into the internet... 🙄 What happened, you run out of stones?

The fact is, science that is authentic is rooted in a love (brotherly) of something, that being wisdom; which isn't exhibited here.  Philosophy is the parent. https://www.google.com/search?q=word

Please proceed then.  So far you have said you don't subscribe to science, we have discussed moss growth and you have hinted ancient Babylon is somehow significant.  I don't know what point you are tr

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's not a fact.
It's barely an hypothesis.

 

Even if it was true then questioning ideas would still be important.
You put forward an idea
"And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals.  What then are the implications?"
The idea you put forward  was that you noticing something about a broken rock has (implicitly, significant)  implications.

 

Well, prove it...
 

 

What I put forward was not a generalization: "you noticing something about a broken rock," as you say I said.

What I put forward was specific: "And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals."  The question, "what are the implications," follows from that.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

What I put forward was specific: "And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals.  What then are the implications?"  The question, "what are the implications," follows from that.

What do you think the implications are?  This is your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Please proceed then.  So far you have said you don't subscribe to science, we have discussed moss growth and you have hinted ancient Babylon is somehow significant.  I don't know what point you are trying to make in this thread.

How long did it take the Wright Brothers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2020 at 10:13 PM, Bartholomew Jones said:

But I discovered some moss a few weeks ago growing on rock projecting laterally where soil could not have been.  And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals.  What then are the implications?

 

1 minute ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

How long did it take the Wright Brothers?

That's a remarkable response to someone saying
 

 

8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I don't know what point you are trying to make in this thread.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm happy to quote exactly what you put forward.

I suspect that, if what you said supported your case, you would have quoted it.

You're either a very poor reader or very hasty "(or worse)".

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
From this point forward I explain my edits, recognizing seeds of malice. This one I inserted (or worse). Then I added quotes.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us here (myself included) thought your subject was a windup attack on Science and scientists, sprinkled with something totally unconnected and apparantly scientific.

That usually acerbic Scotsman has been unusually kind to you and three times has simply addressed the scientific part of your post with a typically scientific answer.

Each time you have brushed it off and returned to the attack on scientists.

I still consider this a wind up as an example of the establish technique of making a statment about two unconnected subjects and using an argument in one to support a weak argument in the other, so diverting attention from its weaknesses.

+1 to John Cuthber and Bufofrog for trying.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

The fact is, science that is authentic is rooted in a love (brotherly) of something, that being wisdom; which isn't exhibited here.  Philosophy is the parent.

https://www.google.com/search?q=word+origin+philosophy&oq=word+origin+philosophy&aqs=chrome..69i57.12449j0j9&client=ms-android-americamovil-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

The wise thing to do is listen, and that's a fact... 😉 😇

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Please proceed then.  So far you have said you don't subscribe to science, we have discussed moss growth and you have hinted ancient Babylon is somehow significant.  I don't know what point you are trying to make in this thread.

They also mentioned some "sources", which have been announced but never made explicit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Which question is foremost?

You said:

What I put forward was specific: "And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals.  What then are the implications?" 

My question:

What do you think the implications are?

 

Edited by Bufofrog
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I don't listen well enough.

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

There aren't very many examples of good listeners to follow.

No shit...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You said:

What I put forward was specific: "And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals.  What then are the implications?" 

My question:

What do you think the implications are?

 

Good question.  I had stated before, something like, "I expected an answer such as: over the years, subsequent generations, through communications between radiant energy and enforced conditioning (rock), more rock-like minerals had formed as was evident by the 9 inches that were stratified between the rock and the vivid green moss."  I was trying to show somewhat of my observations of moss in a nutshell, over the past two years.

 

I don't take an interest in this kind of stuff for amusement.  I'm a reclaimer of lands for their restoration to their natural conditions, and here in the u.s. their return to the natives, particularly, who are households done wrong in any way by anywhom, and not done right by the justice system.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
More accidental duplication.
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

 over the years, subsequent generations, through communications between radiant energy and enforced conditioning (rock)

What do you mean by communications?

20 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

more rock-like minerals had formed as was evident by the 9 inches that were stratified between the rock and the vivid green moss." 

Are you saying that moss forms minerals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, commercial toothpastes foster bad breath because it sterilizes, by its exclusions of flora, rather than sanitarily activating hygienic salivary enzymes; which bad breath is profitable to mass manufacturers.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
Pardon the grammatical shift.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

"I expected an answer such as: over the years, subsequent generations, through communications between radiant energy and enforced conditioning (rock), more rock-like minerals had formed as was evident by the 9 inches that were stratified between the rock and the vivid green moss." 

Why did you expect tosh?

57 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

For example, commercial toothpastes foster bad breath because it sterilizes, by its exclusions of flora, rather than sanitarily activating hygienic salivary enzymes; which bad breath is profitable to mass manufacturers.

Is that an example of the implications of you looking at a rock?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

For example, commercial toothpastes foster bad breath because it sterilizes, by its exclusions of flora, rather than sanitarily activating hygienic salivary enzymes; which bad breath is profitable to mass manufacturers.

Do you have evidence that your toothpaste hypothesis is based on ancient Babylonian science?  You seem to be using modern scientific discoveries, which you don't subscribe, at least you said you don't.

Edited by Bufofrog
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Do you have evidence that your toothpaste hypothesis is based on ancient Babylonian science?  You seem to be using modern scientific discoveries, which you don't subscribe, at least you said you don't.

Not scientific principle; these are principles of natural discovery; closer to which Babylonian ERA-science was.

37 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Why did you expect tosh?

Is that an example of the implications of you looking at a rock?

These are examples of more antiquated scientific observation.

As has been stated, I have an agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.