GODsHandOnEarth Posts

Someone else doesn't know a single thing about grammar and spelling.

Also, really? You're going to criticize me for cursing?

comparing cursing to your exceedingly childish tactic of, "I don't care what you say, you're wrong, I'm right, nyah nyah." Is...it's like comparing a skid mark to an entire truck full of cow manure. You WEREN'T being civil with that comment that set me off, you were being an assholish child. Plain. And. Simple.

Good job, you didn't even bother reading your own sources. Re read them. While the majority of the theory has been discarded as being inadequate, or innacurate, parts of it are still relavant to modern chemistry, and indeed help modern chemists.



I assume the top part was a typo. Secondly, my reference to your source was that it wasn't a peer reviewed article, and spontaneous generation was NOT considered a scientific theory by anyone, it was simply a hypothesis come up with in the B.C. age that was never adequately scientifically tested, and when it finally was, it was shown to be a bad guess.



It doesn't. You've failed to comprehend this time and again. Science doesn't go about disproving theories. It goes about trying to showw facts about the world that the theories don't adequately explain, or see if the theory CAN explain them. Nobody goes out in science with the intention of "I'm going to disprove this theory." That specifically goes against the entire philosophy.



2 things. 1. I didn't see him say global warming theory, nor define it. Secondly, it wasn't a peer reviewed article anyhow, so it wouldn't matter even if you could quote it directly. A scientist saying something doesn't mean it's right.



It is good to know. And the more you know, the more you can stop talking out of your ass.

What I'm wondering is, what exactly are you trying to say about science with all of this? Are you trying to say science is unreliable because it changes its mind or something? Are you trying to say science is always being proven it's wrong over and over? What is your thesis for all of this?

Again, I don't know jack fucking shit about Bernie or Mae or whatever the fuck, and I honestly don't care. My problem with you was your inability to argue like an adult.

You didn't 'prove flaser wrong' .You gave him n article, essentially said, "This article proves I'm right and you're wrong." Flaser then countered the article with his own argument, and WHAT DID YOU DO?

You said, quite simply, "Nope, you're bias. Government's evil and you're blind to it. Bai." You didn't prove anything other than that you cannot argue for shit. What I did in my quote, was not argue in defense of Flaser, nor even argue your point, but point out that you are a horrible debater, and your response to the counter argument Flaser took the time to write wasn't even worth reading. you offered no new information, just an ad hominem attack, and an "I'm right, you're wrong, and I'm done."

You argued like a child. Plain and simple. And the fact tht you're HAPPY about it...is just fucking pathetic.

I don't know jack shit about governmental policies, law, or what the government is and is not allowed to do concerning business. but holy fucking shit, that was the worst counter to an argument that ADDRESSED your argument completely.

Here, let me counter what YOU just said, with JUST as much validity.

Again, your ignorance and inability to reason beyond those ideas that were beat into your head by whoever brainwashed you into believing the governmnet is an evil conspiracy shows. Next time, take the time to understand his post.

Feel good?

*yawn* Copernicus came up with a hypothesis that wasn't shown to be accurate until Galileo did furthur testing. The fact of the matter is, you've still failed to show how anything prior to the Geocentric model were 'theories' in science. They weren't, they were simply untested hypothesis'.



It's scholarly sure, but I asked for peer reviewed, which this is not. Wouldn't matter even if it was, as it at no point makes reference to Spontaneous Generation being a scientific theory.

I already know Spontaneous Generation was shown to be incorrect. That's not what's at issue, the issue is you're calling it a 'theory' when it's not.



*yawn* no it wasn't. It was shown to be innacurrate, and not a good enough explanation of all the given data. However, it WAS shown to have some enduring points that have been used, and still are used by chemists to help explain and help experiment with combustion, metabolism, and the configuration of rust.

It wasn't 'proven wrong'. Science doesn't prove things wrong. you fail to see that time and time again when you make postings.



No, they have a long list of theories that haven't been shown to be accurate enough, or explain enough given new data and technological advances.

Again, they're not disproven. A theory is simply discarded as being inadequate, or changed due to new things needing to be explained. None of them were disproved, the list is even called 'superceded theories' not disproven ones.



Yet again I yawn. Neither are peer reviewed sources. That's what I asked for, you still have given me nothing of the sort, except for Roy Spencder, who, by the by, proves none of your points that dispute mine.



And a blah blah blah, Roy doesn't believe humans are a significant cause to global warming, I know this, but he accepts the world is warming completely, global warming is still never referenced as a 'theory' nor defined in the way you've defined it. What are your next ones?

I mean seriously, what exactly are you trying to prove with all of this, which youhave consistently failed to do?

Hello K-1.

I see you're playing the old card of "Just because some muslims do it, doesn't make islam bad. Look at all the good Muslims."

While, of course, as most people do, completely ignoring the counter argument of, "...Ok, then just because there are good muslims...doesn't make Islam good. Look at the bad ones."

Let's get one thing clear before I start addressing you with my view. Moderates are far better than extremists...and there is certianly a difference between them. Moderates aren't the ones flying jets into buildings or blowing themselves up in the streets.

However moderates present a different problem. The problem of forcing everyone to respect faith. Moderates have this idea that faith...is this untouchable thing, that should always be respected no matter what religion it's placed in. Muslims, Chirstians, Jews, all of these practices, under this moderate idea of what faith ought to be regarded as, are complettouchable...when it comes to criticisms. People are allowed, under this cover, to raise their children to believe themselves to be a chirstian, or a jew, or a muslim, without ever being taught to question it, and nobody is allowed to disapprove...not for any reason, because faith is to be respected.

It is under this cover that we have blurred religions. Moderates have made it incredibly difficult to tell religions apart from eachother. so hard that many people ca't tell from going to services, or listening to moderates in what they believe, what the differences are. They can't see that religions in fact DON'T teach the same things, DO teach a lot of different things, and the things they DO teach the same are not taught equally well.

Think about it. Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? I've heard it said to me that islamic extremists are born he Israeli occupation, and of our own(the united states') mishandlings of Iraq and Afghanistan...well if that's true, then the Buddhist suicide bombers should far outnumber the Islamic ones.

The tibetian people have been through a far worse, far more cynical occupation than Israel. Some million and over Tibetans have died due to China's occupation. Yet you don't see them rushing the streets, and crowding around with signs, asking for the deaths of the chinese non combatants.

Why is this? It's because Buddhism doesn't teach what Islam teaches. Buddhism doesn't teach about infidels. It doesn't teach about the people who don't believe as they do deserving death. It doesn't teach that children who leave the religion need to be killed for Apostacy. It doesn't teach that witches should be beheaded, and give an extremely vague description of what a witch is, so that anyone who seems semi-pagan would be guilty, and thusly beheaded.

That's not to say you couldn't possibly twist buddhism to cause a death toll. Zen Buddhism played a role in the kamikaze fighters of WWII...but you REALLY have to try REALLY hard to twist buddhism to that level. You do not have to work so hard, as a muslim, to turn your religion into such an orgy of violence. And it in fact WOULD be impossible to do so as a Jain. The Jains have this respect, for ALL life...in fact the more extreme a Jain gets, the LESS likely they are to kill ANYTHING.


So you see...it's not fundamentalism, or extremism that's the problem...it's the fundamentals. You can't possibly argue that the core tenet of Islam is nonviolence. Religious moderates...have rendered noticing this kind of stuff, taboo.

It's important to reference that I'm not talking about a race here. You gave the example of "If a black guy mugs me, is it right to assume al black guys want to mug me?" Well, thats a faulty analogy. Nothing about being black...teaches people to mug people. When I speak of Islam I'm talking about guys like John Walker-Lynn...a white man who went off to fight alongside the taliban.

We are not at war with just Al-Quada..or extremist islam. We are at war with Islamic...fundamentalism. What does that mean? It means we are at war with people, who follow the fundamental tenets of their beliefs, strongly and devoutly. The mainstream idea of Islam does INDEED contain the notions of Martyrdom, and Jihad. It contains an IMPERITIVE to convert, subjigate, or kill infidels. If you don't believe this, you must simply read the Quran, or the Hadif.

Contemplate, for a moment, if you will, the biographies of the 19 men who woke up on September 10th, and decided in their minds to go onto planes, slit Stewardess throats, and fly planes into buildings. These people were college educated. Each and every one of them. Many had PhD's. Many of them educated in the West. They were middle class, or better. How many architects and engineers need to hit the wall at 400 mph for us to realize this is NOT merely a problem of extremism...that islam...is what is to blame?

these are not guys who spent a lot of time agitating, or at least publically expressing needs for regime change in the Middle East. These were men who spent a lot of time at their local mosque in Hamburg, talking about the pleasures that await martyrs in Paradise, and demonizing infidel culture.

We live in a society where it is fully possible to be intelligent enough to build a nuclear bomb, yet still think, and believe, that you'll get the 72 vrigins in paradise, if you detonate it in the right place, and die with it.

Are you getting it yet?

Edit: I have since learned that Zen Buddhism actually played NO part in WWII kamikaze bombers. They performed these acts due to a strict following of Shinto and Bushido, believing their emperor to be a living god, and the american war machine being too strong to stop without possibly dieing. volunteers were asked for by the government, and they got them.

Counter question: "Why do you ask 'who', and not 'what'?

[quote="the unknown
"In fact, prior to Galileo, there really was no such thing as a scientific theory, as the scientific method wasn't invented until around his time."

...really? So what you are saying is science was around before Galileo? And people were not performing experiments before him? And people did not base their theories off their experiments before Galileo?

scientific theory-"a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable" "
If you claim there were no theories based on scientific observations before Galileo then I suggest you think a little. Science does not have to involve machines.


Geocentric model aka (Geocentric Theory, Ptolemaic system, geocentrism) was a theory that claimed the Earth was the center of the universe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geocentric

Spontaneous generation is a scientific theory since scientific experiments were done to prove it. A new type of beaker can be refered to an advancement in technology. Technology does not only deal with machines. It also deals with an advancement in a method used.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technology
The microscope helped shut the lid on the spontaneous generation theory.

On global warming:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-Braswell-97-BAMS.pdf
[/quote]

Alright. 3 points.
1. Your first point about the geocentric model is unsupported. Just because you can find a dictionary to call something a theory that isn't, nor ever was, doesn't makit one. the fact of the matter is, the scientific method wasn't even invented until Galileo's time, and it is well accepted Galileo was the first prominant scientist to actualy implement the method successfully and correctly.

The reason things weren't scientific theories prior to Galileo was because, quite simply, there was never any testindone. Experiments were never done. All that happened was that people made observations, and made guesses...and that was it. There was no way to fine tune things down to a degree of certainty. Theories are what happens AFTER testing is applied, and testing is passed.
2.Your point about beakers being known as 'technology' is not only irrelevant, but I never argued that it was true. Secondly, spontaneous generation(ad that's all it was called, it was NEVER referred to as a 'theory') was disproven by beakers, not microscopes. The point I'M at contention with concerning you, is that you cal spontaneous generation a scientific theory, when it was never anything of the sort.
3. I can't read your link, because it's not showing up for me. However I'm fairly certain it's not a peer reviewed paper, as it's not linked to a scientific journal.

I HAVe however looked up Dr. Roy Spencer, and braswell, and I have found a couple of their papers concerning global warming. According to climatologists, none of them show that global warming isn't affected by humans, just that the sun causes global warming as well. Also, it still doesn't call global warming a 'theory', nor does it define 'global warming thoery' as you have continued to call it baselessly, as a theory that man is the sole purpose behind global warming.

So there you go, you've failed three MORE times. Try again, I love debunking your bs.

The Geocentric model wasn't a Theory, so no, it was a disproven theory, it was simply a disproven model. In fact, prior to Galileo, there really was no such thing as a scientific theory, as the scientific method wasn't invented until around his time.



Firstly, it wasn't theh elp of a microscope, it was the help of a specialized beaker. Secondly, spontaneous generation again, wasn't a scientific theory. So that's double fail.



And fail over and over.



Karl Schmidt is the writer. I can't find his credentials anywhere. I don't know if he's a climatologist, but it really doesn't matter, as not only is the article, which is rather lengthy, unsourced, written amateurishly, and simply sloppy(I.E. Using disproven and also known to be made up graphs), but it's also not peer reviewed.

So you still fail. Find me a climatologist of some sort in a peer revieweed paper that refers to global warming as a theory. You've failed consistently to do that.

[quote="the unknown"]

from:

Opinion article written by an unsourced author. Discarded. Neither is it peer reviewed, nor do I even have any clue as to who wrote it, NOR are there any sources for the information in the article. Its grammar is also sloppy, so I have doubts that it's professionally done. Simply having a website that agrees with you means literally zilch. Seriously, go read up on what Peer Review is, and why it's important.



No, they start as hypotheses', and after they go through testing, and pass the testing, do they get upgraded to Theories.

As for your source. Good job on finding a credible scientist that actually uses citations and is trained to speak on global warming. But again, not a peer reviewed article. Not only that, but at no point does he mention global warming as a "theory" AND, not only that, but he spends the whole article criticizing skeptics of global warming(mich like yourself).

Most of the violence fundamentalist muslims get from their religion is from the Hamas, which is another book they hold in just as high regard as the Quran. Also, the Quran is pretty contradictory. In several verses the commands are given to send those who would go away from Allah to the god they wish they knew, implying killing them, which is where the law in Saudi Arabia, and other muslim run countries, that apostacy is punishable by death, comes from. This is also known as a part of Sharia Law, which is ordered by Islam. While at the same time in other verses, it says Allah loves all and is al forgiving, and even commands others to respect other religions. It's very inconsistent.

As far as fearing Muslims...I don't, really. I find them...silly, when they stand around saying, "DEATH TO OUR ENEMIES! ALLAH WILL HAVE YOU! DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!" It doesn't make me quiver, it makes me snicker.

It's like watching Fred Phelps and his church go to funerals to go, "Fuck faggots." It's not even offensive anymore...it's just sad...and funny.

that actualy reminds me of a joke. It's in one of the videos I put up about global warming. Essentially, Al Gore points to a map of Europe and says, "Western Europe went through a heat wave that killed 14,000 people." The presenter paused the video and said, "Let me explain how climatologists measure warming. They look outside, and if it feels hot, they conclude the earth is warming, and if it's cold, they conclude the earth is cooling...If that sounds incredibly stupid, you're right."

Takerial, mind providing a quote of me confusing or twisting anything you've said?

In any case, it's quite obvious you guys simply have a bias against me, and even if I were right about everything, none of you would admit it, mainly because you see me as a prick, and it would feel icky to concede a point to a prick. I can understand that.

So instead, I'll get involved in this new discussion.

My favorite unidentified animal, now I assume that includes any animal we don't even know exists, so I'll go with ol Nessy. Mainly because I figure Nessy's idea is pretty much a dinosaur of some sort.

Favorite animal in general would be Giant Stingrays. They can grow to be over 16 feet long, and have been around for over 100 million years. Isn't that nuts?

Yes, but they're far more qualified to think, and talk about science than we are. Or are you suggesting I never take anything I hear from a scientist as being scientific?

Seriously, I'm giving you sources for my information, and you don't seem to care. Do sources not matter to you?

Yes...I know that...that's actually the point I made in my post.



I never said I was content with not needing to know. I said I'm content with not knowing, that doesn't mean I don't want to know more still.



Yet you can't point to where I said anything you're accusing me of saying, including that science is absolute in any way, or that all religion is bad. The problem is, you all aren't taking the time to read and understand what I'm saying. You're simply judging who I am, and deciding my arguments mean something other than what I've said. It's rather unfair.



Can you explain what I've said that's demonstrated how I don't think for myself? One of the books I have in my library is "The Demon Haunted World: Science is a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan, which has an entire chapter on how to critically think caled "The Dragon in my garage"and I've read it cover to cover. I believe I am well informed on how to think properly, and clearly.


Honestly, all of you are basically telling me, "We can't point to you saying any of the things we're saying you said, but we know you mean them anyway."

Can anyone explain to me how that's in any way fair?

Let's not, because as soon as you said that you agree nothing is 100% in science, I stopped disagreeing with you on that point.

Also, To Revartion. No I'm not saying that I'm right, because I say I'm right, I'm saying people are wrong, because I can demonstrate them to be wrong. I'm not simply saying, "My opinion states you're wrong. So haha."

I mean seriously, If you'd like I can explain who my sources are for my views on how science works. I'm more than willing to tell you.

Several of my textbooks include:

Prentice C. Hall's copywrite 2007 version of Biology, which is, by the by, co writen by a christian scientist, Kenneth Miller, whom I have NO problem with.
Lectures on Gravitation - By Brian Hatfield and Richard Feynmann. Feynmann, by the by, is one of my favorite thinkers of all time, and I recommend the video I posted in my priginal post in the other topic, as it's him explaining his work, and personal philosophy, and it's thoroughly entertaining.

Right, so why should we have a preference one way, if it makes you go through all sorts of unnecessary channels? Like, say, confession, and studying an irrelevant, bronze age book, with bronze age ideas, coming up with mental backflips to do to convince ourselves it's correct, among others?



I wasn't making a point towards you guys in the first place. I was making a point to the main topic, you said my point was too long, so I condensed it. Now we're arguing what I said.



Which I in no way disagree with. I'm sort of akin to Hitchens on this one, if I may quote him, "I view religion as a toy. If you want to play with your toy, that's fine. If you want to teach your kids to play with your toy, that's fine. Just don't come to me and tell me I, or my kids must learn to play with your toy, and PLEASE don't make any laws dictating that I must respect you playing with your toy."



I didn't say it did. I simply said I had evidence from my own empirical experience that religion is devisve. I didn't say that it makes the religion wrong, simply not good.



And a freedom I want. the problem is religion by its very nature goes AGAINST that. I will direct this to both you and Takerial, as he said something similar below you, that religion has nothing inherently wrong with it. I'm afraid it does.

See, Takerial is confusing theism and religion. THEISM has nothing inherently wrong with it, religion, however, which is a summary of cultural and belief systems, and worldviews, that concern spiritualality, and sometimes morals, DOES have things inherently wrong with it.

Of those I mentioned, the fact of the matter is, ALL religions make a statmeent of fact about things being the way they are, or at least how they OUGHT to be. And, they always caveat it with a system that says if you do not follow what the religion says is true, or how you ought behave, you are wrong. This...is ineherently...devisive.

Give me a single religion that says anything along the lines of "We believe this happened, but you don't need to agree, and we think people ought behave like this...but you also don't have to agree, and nothing bad will happen to you, nor are you wrong, should you disagree." You can't, as that would bye oxymoronic. It logically follows from statements like We believe this to be true" and "This is how people ought to be": that those that disagree, these followers believe are WRONG.

No it won't. I gaurantee it won't. It will simply be labeled as "Not shown to be incorrect or inaccurate yet." There's no such thing as 100% in science. Takerial says this, and me and Takerial can almost never agree on anything. you seem to be the only person who cannot grasp this.



No it doesn't.



someone's never heard of a 'false positive' before.



No, it's considered to be consistent.



The quest to have knowledge using empirical data, testing of hypotheses, confirmations, and continuous attempts at disproof.

That's a sloppy layman's idea, but it covers the basics.




Alright, how about this...name a single theory, that was proven wrong, without the fact it was explaining being proven wrong. That work better for you?




You didn't do as I asked you to. I asked you to find a SINGLE peer reviewed scientific paper from a scientist that claimed global warming was a Theory.

You failed to do this. you instead gave me a political bias website written by...not a climatologist, but an energy advisor, with an undefined PhD in...something, that's not given. Until you do as I asked, you, and everyone else who calls what you're talking about 'global warming theory' are simply making the words up. It's not a real thing. No climatologist has ever, to the best of my knowledge, ever stated any such thing as 'Global Warming Theory'. It's not a scientific theory.

Edit: quick note to Renovatio. Could you explain to me how insulting someone in any way makes me wrong? I mean, it makes me a dick, but it doesn't hurt my argument whatsoever.

Both you and Takerial have been essentially telling me, "No you're wrong." Takerial regularly accuses me of 'getting my info from youtube and wiki' while never explaining where he's gettig his facts.

both of you consistently misrepresent what I'm saying, and try to make it look like I'm saying many things I in fact am not saying.

the biggest lie that's been spread is that I in any way have been saying there's any such thing as an absolute truth in science.

I mean, don't YOU find it annoying when people almost seem to DELIBERATELY misunderstand you?



Yes, actually, something you said EXPLICITLY stated that it was a correct way of looking at things. Let me quote you once more, you suggested the correct way is to say "We are getting less inaccurate" Which, logically, is the EXACT same statement as "We are getting more accurate." Which is what I have said is the correct statement all along. Your wording is different, but both of us are saying the EXACT same thing, and you're claiming, rather arbitrarily, that your wording is more correct.

Secondly, the Law of Gravity DOESN'T explain why the apple fell to the ground. Explain to me exactly how "f1=F2=G[(m1xm2)/r^2]" Exlains WHY the apple falls to the ground. where in there is there a single explanation as to why?

Ok, here's why your example doesn't apply in this situation: I have never claimed religion doesn't have redeeming values. I never said religion is 100% completely wrong.

Whatmy argument is, is that religion has a lot of bad things about it, and not enough redeeming values to make up for the bad parts.

And any redeeming values religion DOES have, are in no way UNIQUE to religion.

Here's a challenge for you. Provide me with a single observable benefit of religion that cannot be gained without it.