[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> > > > posting   
   >> > > > about limestone above.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > I was never involved in that. So prove you did this before, and do it   
   >> > > again here for my benefit, at least.   
   >> >   
   >> > Maybe later, at present this is taking up too much of my time, and this   
   >> > thread is morphing into many variants outside the subject of the thread.   
   As   
   >> > is normal on the Usenet. VBG.   
   >>   
   >> Evasion noted.   
   >   
   >Evasion of what?   
      
   Proof that you've "been there, done that" regarding the link I posted   
   about 21 disproofs of the idea of Noah's flood.   
      
   >> > > > > > I am also not really into arguments of this type, as my focus has   
   been   
   >> > > > > > on   
   >> > > > > > God, spirituality, both in this world and the other world, which   
   BTW is   
   >> > > > > > more real than the limited one we dwell in.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > So science is not your forte.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > It is not my focus, I have been involved with various sciences, some   
   being   
   >> > > > part of my work history, and also because I read a lot about many   
   things   
   >> > > > in   
   >> > > > most all areas of life, I have at the least a modicum of knowledge and   
   >> > > > understanding of many things.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > Remind us why you are "not into arguments of this [scientific?] type"   
   >> >   
   >> > Because I am more focused on sharing the things and realities of Christ.   
   >> >   
   >> > I would inhabit the wood working NG’s if I wanted to learn and share, Same   
   >> > with various sciences, same with the field of electricity, or electronics,   
   >> > magnetism, engine design, communications, Chemistry, hacking/programming.   
   >> > Etc. I still dabble in these things on occasion for short periods, even   
   >> > photography, lenses, and all things related to that, but my primary focus,   
   >> > interest, and devotion is the things of the Lord Jesus Christ, His and My   
   >> > Heavenly Father, and the Heavenly Father is the Father of all believers in   
   >> > Jesus who walk with the spirit of God. I am really looking forward to   
   >> > eternity with him as there is no time, no limitations, and all that we can   
   >> > create it is possible to due there, for the benefit of all.   
   >> >   
   >> > God has stated that heaven is multiple times greater than one can think or   
   >> > imagine, no limitations. I can think of no greater joy than to be there,   
   >> > with   
   >> > Him. With full truth, love, and knowledge with wisdom, and be truly set   
   free   
   >> > from the bindings of these earth. That will truly be a world without end.   
   >>   
   >> If you're looking forward to heaven, why doesn't God take you into   
   >> heaven now, to a place where you'll be presumably happier?   
   >   
   >Did you already forget that you brought up that question earlier and it was   
   >discussed, in this thread?   
      
   Do you consider yourself spiritually able to be happy in heaven?  I   
   think you may be confusing this question as it applied to Gabe Poirot,   
   not you.   
      
   >> > > > > > There used to be some great scientists, and I am sure there are   
   some   
   >> > > > > > now,   
   >> > > > > > but to make money often destroys their desire and limits what   
   they can   
   >> > > > > > do   
   >> > > > > > because of object focus, which limits there ability to follow the   
   >> > > > > > offspring trails   
   >> > > > > > into other possibly great things. That is how things work best.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > No, science is not a for-profit business activity.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > What world do you dwell in?   
   >> > >   
   >> > > You have a really cynical view of science. My understanding of its   
   >> > > purpose is to learn about the natural world, not to make a few bucks.   
   >> >   
   >> > You are speaking solely of the hobbyist, typically those with limited   
   funds,   
   >> > thereby severely limited.   
   >>   
   >> No, not at all. I'm talking about professional scientists, whose goal   
   >> is to learn, not earn.   
   >   
   >Look up the definition of ‘proessional'   
      
   They earn a salary.  How does that make them business executives?   
      
   >> > Having some knowledge of the professional scientists, and the NDA’s they   
   >> > are forced to sign, and or disclose ongoing private research they do as a   
   >> > hobby, and the business end of it, things are not what they seem, and when   
   >> > you discover something, and it is found to have value associated with it,   
   >> > your name on that paper, depending on your position with the corporate   
   >> > employer, may be only at the end of a list of Five more or less names of   
   >> > others. And even if you were the sole author of the project, and director   
   of   
   >> > those that were hired to assist you, the corporate chain of command takes   
   >> > precedence and you are a mere peon added to the list.   
   >>   
   >> Scientists may crave fame and success, but not the money that may come   
   >> with those under other circumstances.   
   >   
   >Some have a primary focus on their desires to learn and understand or at   
   >least start out that way, an then quickly learn that like most people they   
   >need to eat and have a decent place to dwell in.   
      
   So now you're claiming that all people, even non-profits, are   
   entrepreneurs!   
      
   >> > I have had too many friends that were burnt out because of it and quit   
   their   
   >> > fields entirely, and could not even do further work on their personal   
   >> > projects due to the forced agreements. Now some of my children and   
   >> > grandchildren are in various fields and some of them cannot even speak to   
   me   
   >> > in any degree about what they are doing. Which is not a bad thing, lol,   
   >> > since without it we can just be family and not get side tracked.   
   >>   
   >> What scientific fields are they in? When I was collaborating with my   
   >> physics professors in undergraduate school and graduate school, I was   
   >> never told we had an NDA and that I therefore couldn't talk about what   
   >> I was researching.   
   >   
   >They are employed in their profession, as were all my my friends. And some of   
   >my friends had their own companies and for legal reasons as well as self   
   >preservation had to require others to sign them. If you knew anything about   
   >business you would understand why. It is extremely difficult to design and   
   >NDA and word it is such a way as to allow freedom of expression that we all   
   >desire, and only limit it to specific arenas as their are many ancillary   
   >tracks or veins of thought that went into it or stem from it.   
      
   Science is not a business operation, even if NDAs are used.   
      
   >Even in a scholarly environment were freedoms used to be the rule of the day,   
   >things have changed. And many professors have side gigs related to their   
   >profession. And what better place to grab ideas, trains of thoughts than from   
   >young people, and then take their ideas that have merit, build on them and   
   >thereby profit. There may be a very few who would tell the student of the   
   >possibilities of their idea or concept/s and assist them to develop them   
   >while they continue in their studies and not just halt their education by   
   >getting sidetracked.   
      
   Do the words "rich young scientist" sound right to you?  (Hint:  they   
   shouldn't, since scientists are not in it for the money).   
      
   >> > > > > > There used to be think tanks where someone with great wealth   
   would fund   
   >> > > > > > research without limitations of directions, allowing dream   
   chasers to   
   >> > > > > > run   
   >> > > > > > freely, uninhibited. Whether they were seemingly successful or   
   not. I   
   >> > > > > > don’t now it that exists anymore.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > No, science is better than think tanks.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Then you have limited knowledge in regards to think tanks. I was   
   looking   
   >> > > > into   
   >> > > > funding for one in my early years due to my inquisitive nature in many   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)