Black Wolf

Has any prominent climatologist addressed the issue of arctic methane release? I don't think it's hard to argue that C02 increase is not a big deal, but if the planet is getting warmer, the permafrost will melt and release more methane, which will enhance the effects.

Now you just need to prove WHY the infinite series for e^x, cos(x), and sin(x) are what they are ;-) I actually wrote a seven-page book about it, so I couldn't really do it here.

Ah, tha'ts why I was confused. Yeah, I'm farmilar with the normal distribution curve... so 6 sigma would be from -3 sigma to 3 sigma?

I found Herman Cain's response to Lee Doren's question to be weak. "If you had to get rid of one department, would would it be?" "I want to get rid of the EPA!!!!!!!!!!! so i can rebuild it"

Well, my knowledge of physics is limited.. I wouldn't have known to seek that particular thread out, because I don't know what "Group theory" is. Still, I feel it warrants it's own thread, because it's quite a controversy in itself. Grames, your post has actually helped me understand this article better, believe it or not. What is the difference between 2 sigma and 6 sigma? The extent to which power you raise each individual value (summed) minus the mean raised to said power?

*** Mod's note: Merged with a similar topic. - sN *** I'm not sure if we had a thread like this, but I think a general reference thread solely for debunking intelligent design advocates would be nice. This thread can serve as a useful reference against tactics generally employed by organizations like the Discovery Institute. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html A fellow of the Discovery Institute (naturally) attempts to portray an attempt to recall a peer review as "censorship". Sewell claimed that the second law of thermodynamics conflicts with the theory of evolution But what really happened, appears to be a blogger who is attempting to remove a publication from peer-review, on the grounds that it has flaws. It cites the second law of thermodynamics as if it conflicts with the theory of evolution, dressed up in advanced mathematics to compel viewers into believing they are onto something. http://dvunkannon.blogspot.com/2011/03/retraction-of-granville-sewell.html You can see more discussion here. At any rate, it doesn't seem like the evil computer scientist who *Called for censorship* was trying to sweep this one under the rug.

http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf TL;DR OPERA claims that they found that neutrinos could exceed the speed of light, even accounting for statistical and systematic errors. John P. Costella claims that their fit wasn't tight enough, and that the neutrinos were actually going at a speed less than the speed of light, if properly accounting for the statistical and systematic errors.

Thread revival! I have a dilemma: According to Leonard Peikoff, the essential issue on whether or not aboriton is acceptable is A) a question of volitional consciousness a question of physical independence From what I understand of Peikoff's works, even if the conditions of A is satisfied on the part of the fetus, it still does not acquire rights until it satisfies the condition of B. Once it's born, it's no longer physically dependent (although it is psychologically dependent, but that's not the issue here). What about conjoined twins? From what I know, it's not as if one is equally as dependent on the other as vice versa. Would one have the right to kill the other? I am asking this, because I was confronted with these questions. I feel tempted to answer "Because conjoined twins have mutual dependence on each other, neither can claim the right to kill the other." But the person I'm arguing with brought up that one is less dependent on the other than vice versa I also borrowed Peikoff's comparison to a person on medical support, and she argued that you should be allowed to take someone off medical support, if you're the one providing it, because you didn't put them in such a condition in the first place.

I know it's about a month late, but I'm glad you made this thread. I keep hearing about OMG BUDGET CUTS WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOMED, and it's quite hilarious, frankly. It kinda makes you wonder: perhaps the media's intent is to label less radical moves in the opposite direction as draconian and unreasonable, to prevent people from wanting to do what they should be doing.

Still seems like a far cry from implying that sociopathy is a gift. You even acknowledged the context that other people tend to drop when discussing her. She admired a serial killer for particular qualities. But that's all it was. Admiration.

I've been hearing numerous people claim that there is no evidence that Obama actually died, and "all we needed was a media report to believe it".

Most creationists I've debated with tell me that they don't argue that species do change, they argue against common descent, and claim that common descent is just as faith based as intelligent design.

Even if I'm concerned about the principles of this island, people may have to live here to get a job. LOL. Did he say where he'd build it?

He claims evolution is a mythology, not atheism. Agreed, but I find his understanding of evolution to be so offensive and arrogant that I just can't be so abstract. I do feel a discussion of epistemology is necessary, though. What I am wondering is, did I put myself in a bad position by invoking peer review? I argued that peer review makes evolution a better candidate to be taught in school, but I do acknowledge that peer review has it's flaws, and relying on peer review may be considered an act of faith

I hate to admit it, but this may be the first time I got into an argument about evolution/intelligent design with someone who appears to know what he's talking about. I drafted a response to this guy, but I couldn't help but feel my arguments were not strong enough. If anyone would like to critique my responses (My arguments are under the "B"s), please feel free to be very honest. ---------- A - opponent B - me I didn't give a full response to this mess, but I did the best I could on my own with admittedly a lack of knowledge about the issue A I know exactly what I'm talking about and the sources are history and science. This isnt a college paper where I need to document. B If you're going to make radical claims, I'd like to see where you are getting them from. Just because you're not writing a college paper doesn't mean you can't verify what you're saying. A As I said, scientists of the past have been 100% wrong, B Still not correct. 100% of what? Everything they've said? Parts of claims they've made? You make it sound like every scientist that has ever lived has been discredited as total rubbish, when really, all I've witnesses is future scientists expanding on earlier scientists, and -maybe- contradicting one or two things the previous scientist has speculated. A yet you appeal to the authority (logical fallacy) of scientists today B Appeals to authority aren't inherently fallacious, and arguments from authority aren't necessarily appeals. An appeal is an instigation. I am not instigating, I am contending that based on the lack of peer reviewed evidence for intelligent design, there exists no valid reason to put it in a biology class. "Your not giving me a good enough reason to not want resources invested in this study" is not my burden. A that they somehow know better what is true. Peer review does not determine what is and is not science. It is rather a modern editorial fashion, arising in the last 50 years, not something that determines what is and is not science. B No, but it's the best way to interpret things for the layman. There should definitely be more standards as to what qualifies as valid peer review, and less conflicts of interest. But then again, I'm not claiming that peer review is unequivocal truth. I'm not saying that peer review is the standard for what qualifies as science. I'm saying that peer review should be the standard of prioritizing what educators should invest their resources in. . A Your analogy of alchemy being equivalent to design theory is also disingenuous, as alchemy is a discredited semi-mystical practice, not a scientific theory. B "Discredited"? Ooh, sounds like a reliance on the same standard you dismissed as an appeal to authority. Discredited by whom? And LOL @ "Alchemy is not a scientific theory". It was considered a scientific theory at the time. A ANY valid theories should be presented and shown their merits and evidence against. The evidence for design is rather plain, you have intricate systems that could not form by evolution as they are too complex, interdependent, and can not be explain as developing from step by step changes as many changes would have to occur concurrently in separate systems to continue working, Evolution is inadequate to explain it. B The argument from irreducible complexity ignores the fact that, although removing a part may render an organism helpless for one thing, it may still be perfectly useful for other things. Intelligent design is based on pure conjecture. The proposition "Some people believe that these organisms had to have been designed by an intelligent design" is relevant to social studies classrooms or philosophy, not a science class room. A The point of education is not to present one view. It is not to indoctrinate people. B Only teaching the theory of evolution is not indoctrination. In much the same way that only teaching modern chemistry, as opposed to alchemy is not indoctrination. Intelligent design is not taught, because it is not relevant to biology. Relying on the teacher to teach all aternative ideas is impossible. A It is to allow students to see the full range of ideas and yes choose their own. And when teaching science, which should ALWAYS accept alternate theories, why would say not presenting alternatives is wrong? They taught the big bang (creationist) and steady state theories (atheist) when they were both considered equally (chuckle) plausible. B Hahah what? A define "define" truth is the true nature of the universe B No circular definitions here, no sir. But if you want to get philosophical about it - there are no sources of truth. Science is the only accurate means of acquiring knowledge. A No, you merely show your ignorance. The example was gravity. Newton's theory has entirely been overturned. B So... what, ~-9.8m/s^2 is no longer the acceleration of gravity (yes, I know mileage may vary)? The gravitaitonal force of a planet is no longer m1 * m2 / (distance between two objects)^2 ? Force is no longer equal to mass * acceleration + velocity * (massdtime)? A We no longer believe gravity is a mystical force acting at a distance and no longer believe in Newton's Law even, which is at best an approximation. The present theory that overturned it believes that gravity is caused by a deformation of spacetime and the "correct" math expression of gravity is Einstein's field equation. B This is an example of modification, not 100% absolute 180 refutation, like you are insisting. A Sigh, you do realize that all theories in their beginning have little evidence because no one's looked for it. Einstein, even today, is proved "correct" due to a handful of evidence of a few experiments. Observations during an eclipse and time appearing to slow fractions of a second on spacetrips. The big bang is "proven" with a far too uniform background radiation that is less than half the lower range of the predicted value. Yet these are believed to be true. The evidence for evolution is not overwhelming and as said, its original evidence has faded away largely. Much of the remaining evidence is largely contrived. B Darwins theory is definitely not "in it's beginning", though. A no. but do tell how Newton modified the Greek view that gravity was caused by love? Do tell how Einstein modified Newton's theory of forces at distance to his view of warped spacetime. Seems entirely novel ideas. B Yes, because you cherrypicked the novelty out of the ideas and presented them as examples of scientific theories being 100% refuted - when they appear to be irrelevant to the overall theories. A No it is not stupid and again false analogies. Hitler did not reject Darwin's theory. B No proof A His entire racial theory was based on popular and scientific views of evolution of the time. B No proof. A You can not understand Nazi policy without its connection to evolution. They believed that the German people had been corrupted by cross breeding with non-Germans, particularly Jews, which was an obvious and distinct subgroup in Germany. This came from "scientific" views that non-whites were a subhuman species that whites evolved from (source: Darwin's descent of man <--how bout that -- he called them the melanin races) Northern Europeans were considered the most evolved and interbreeding with lower species caused their descendents to go backwards in evolution. This is why not only were "pure" Germans not permitted to marry non-pure germans, but also the destruction of less pure races, their planned enslavement, as well as encouraging "pure" Germans to breed more, from baby farms to encouraging births out of wed lock. B If you actually look at the context of the book, you'll notice that Darwin A Appeal to authority rather than facts...logical fallacy condems you :-D B That would be true, if I gave you an appeal to authority -without- facts. That's not the case. I provided some facts, and, although it was very hasty, it was definitely not a simple appeal to authority. A wow you present a whole video that comes up with the overwhelming evidence of um ring species. And this proves common descent how? No one is denying evolution as a process. I deny the THEORY of evolution that all species came from 1 single magic cell that we dont have a clue how it formed (MAGIC!) B Now you're shifting the goal posts. A well lets see: 1. artificial selection - once believed to show the incredible malleability of species, we now know that interbreeding causes reduction in the genome and less healthy individuals the more they are inbred and can be inbred to extinction. 2. Vestigial organs - once believed to have 100s in the human body alone, now we found functions for them and are left with well a vestigial bit of a theory that science holds on to. Simply put there are no vestigial traces, which also eliminates the possibility of new organs arising or declining out them. Even the appendix is an important lymphatic organ at the juncture of 2 organs. It is also a vestige from.....umm....mice? since monkeys do not have an appendix, but mice and apes do. So we have an organ that jumped not only an intermediate species, but a whole group. Seems that would be a flaw in common descent, but perfect evidence for design as designers tend to reuse models and parts. 3. Embryology --well this one totally f-d up too. They once believed that species relived their evolutionary development as embryos. Well even at the time, real embryologists said um no. Yet this too persists. Now they claim there's a stage where they all look the same, which is also false. What is really odd is the earliest stages of fish and reptiles and birds look similar, but not to the other group of amphibians and mammals that look similar, yet mammals, reptiles/birds, fish, and amphibian early embryos are all quite distinct in development. 4. Fossil record....well an amazing record that is totally contrived, scientists go out looking for skeletons with a certain trait (say an ape that can walk) and wow they find one (even tho it has equal length arms and legs which implies it walks on all fours) but the hips look at things in the hips dammit!! ignore those arms and legs. and viola it becomes our ancestor with an amazing half dozen partial skeletons. And repeat ad naseum. 5. Comparative anatomy....well the only proof left...but things looking alike does not prove direct relationship. Especially when you have jumping organs like the appendix above, and a vast amount of other inconsistencies. The problem with this "proof" is that its based on classification which is LOOKING for similarities and ignoring the vast differences. B I had no response because I admittedly know nothing about the subject as of know, and I would like to learn. A No, he does not debunk that evolution must arise out of random processes. We debunks probability arguments. I said nothing about probability so point? B You're spouting a common misconception about evolution being "mere chance", and you think you said nothing about probability? A Please then tell me the theory how cells evolved, how complex cells evolved, and how multicelled creatures formed (about a dozen times at least, all in the same basic way....? explain that) B I admittedly had no response or no idea how to research this A "But then all theories of origin are not true experimental science, they are mere modern mythology no better than creationism in intent" It's based on mathematical science. If there exists no observable evidence, scientists turn to reliable mathematics Um, common descent is based on math? wow, did not know that. B Had no response. If anyone's wondering about the quote beforehand, I admit I kinda just vomitted that response up A "So why do atheists believe their mythology is better than Christian?" Loaded question. " it is a mythology. Common descent is generally accepted on faith, since there are not even theories about how the major events of evolution (those listed above) occurred, yet you have faith it caused them and all species are related. I would agree with the relation, but it could only have happened by design and a designer. This is the only explanation that explains the evidence. Complex systems out of nothing, following the same methods....by the way all those events occurred the same way too...addition of a more complex reproduction method and compartmentalization of function, which had to occur at the same time too or else the advance could not have happened. so really why do you have faith in common descent? B Had no response --- If at any point, I put "had no response", it's because I didn't feel like writing up a response at the time. I'm not looking for someone to formulate a response for me, all I'm looking for is perhaps some improvement on what I already wrote. Here is the first dialogue I had with the guy, to clear things up --------------- Ahahaha you have no idea what you're talking about. You're on your soapbox and you've provided no sources. Not every idea deserves equal time in a science classroom. The idea that evolution and intelligent design are two equally plausible theories are absolutely -not- held by most scientists, but that's a myth they're trying to push. Intelligent design is rejected as unscientific by peer review, by people who regularly study evolutionary biology (ex: Francis Collins, who has absolutely no atheistic convictions motivating him to believe in evolution, yet admits that the evidence is overwhelming anyway). For the same reason that Chemistry classes aren't being required to offer a chapter on Alchemy, Biology classes shouldn't be forced to offer a chapter on Intelligent design. I don't believe most people would have a problem with intelligent design being taught in classrooms like.. philosophy, religion, etc. But the point of learning about science is not to "let students decide for themselves what they like" - The teachers are only teaching what the scientists have discovered. Whether or not people chose to accept it does not mean that the teacher should provide an alernative theory to what scientists accept. The mother then chimed in ask him about why he doesn't like science? The liberal newscaster in the panel then got almost exasperated that it is in issue that people can believe in something when science disagrees. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of science by people that is promoted by atheists who many treat "science" as a core belief of their religion. Define "truth" The examples you provided below are examples of modifications of former theories, no examples of theories that have been "overturned as false". Some aspects have been overturned, yes, but for you to claim that it is 100% wrong is idiotic. There's also no reason to categorize things with overwhelming evidence, to things with no evidence. Examples of modifcations of previous theories, not absolute refutations of theories. Ahahahaha... you do realize that Hitler rejected Darwin's theory of evolution, right? I'm only responding to that point because you have no sources for any of your claims, and your first claim was the only one I commonly heard. It's almost as stupid as saying (and yes, I realize atheists say this a lot and it is annoying) "Christianity has caused the crusades/murder of indigenous people" or "Islam has caused the WTC to blow up/slavery in Africa". Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome project disagrees with you. There is overwhelimg evidence that it has ever done so. No evidence provided for your claim whatsoever. Supporters of the theory of evolution don't claim that everything happens by the same chance as rolling a dice. Most mutations are based on previous mutations. http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf Here David H Bailey debunks the common misconception that evolution is pure randomness. All of these are incorrect, you should perhaps replace "no theory' with 'no answer that I like". It's based on mathematical science. If there exists no observable evidence, scientists turn to reliable mathematics Loaded question.

Seeing as how not everybody agrees that there needs to be a first cause, it's not necessarily a tautology

If someone asks you for an example of someone's racism, it'd be wise of you not to link people to google.com. Basically what you said is "Go back up my claim for me". It can also be construed as an insult, as I'm sure people aren't foreign to the concept of using a search engine. The burden of proof is on you when making a claim. Also, associating with Stormfronters doesn't inherently make someone racist.

Ron Paul definitely looks good when Bachmann is the only alternative. I can't believe she won Iowa's poll

Which banks were in favor of these legislations?

If someone's house is being foreclosed, they can't have a chance to pick up their valuables before they go?

If you are trying to imply that you are no longer an Objectivist, and you are referring to the rule about promoting non-Objectivism, then probably not. If people ask for an explanation of why you aren't, suffice to say that if you gave a response as to why not, you wouldn't be banned. We have a few theists here actually who are currently debating about the validity of either Thomas Aquinas' ideas, or the idea of the existence of God - they're not being banned, despite the fact that it clashes with Objectivism. If that's not what you mean, sorry for jumping to conclusions. But you might as well explain why you no longer agree with the sentiments that you made. You must think it was important to come back here 7 years later just to let us know you don't feel the same way you did

Actually I had no idea what I was talking about

If he's drawing cards from a deck, unless he's putting it back, it wouldn't be 1/52+1/52+1/52. It would be 1/52*1/51*1/50*1/49. And actually, even if there was replacement involved, the actual formula would be more like this: 1 - (1 - 1/52)^(number of trials) (^ = to the power of). It would never really hit 1, no matter how many times he drew from the deck. It would just approach 1. Just thought I'd make a nerdy point - if I am understanding what you're saying correctly

Erik Christensen has made the same arguments on this forum before, and he has continued to ignore all charges against him. To this day, I am still waiting for the quote by Ayn Rand, and the periodical it came from, where she stated that homosexuality was contrary to her philosophy.