Log In
Name:
Pass:
Online Members (0)
No members are currently online.
Current Interguild Time:
Thu Mar 28 2024 6:31 pm
Member Chat Box  [click here to enlarge]
Recent Posts and Comments
« Forum Index < Random Chat Forum
«Previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, . . . 29, 30, 31 | Next»

Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 9:58 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
Then we have science.

Where do we begin...evolution, climate change - both agreed upon by experts to be very real. All countries in Europe accept this, even the right-wing extreme ones (at least in Sweden). Both are taught in primary schools (except a few Christian ones, who get high amounts of criticism for it - again, at least in Sweden). The fuel stations are making as much as they can to attract climate-smart customers by marketing their new ethanol products, flexifuel cars are common...
In the US, intelligent design is taught as an equal to creationism and you have multiple science teachers subscribing to the Young Earth theory believing that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. Climate change is regarded as a hoax by all the Republican candidates for presidency except for John Huntsman, and I think the same goes for their thoughts on evolution. Oil companies constantly pander to both Republicans and Democrats (though they donate more money to the Republicans) to disregard the science behind it all. SUVs are common and the American family on average owns ~2,5 cars (I had a link to that source somewhere on the Interguild).

Ninja'd. Will reply in separate post
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 10:14 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
'Yaya' said:
Yeah, I always thought it was neat how in most European gov'ts, parties get representation in the gov't based on how many votes they got in the election, unlike in the US where if it's extremely hard for 3rd parties to get representation in congress and a 3rd party president would simply be impossible. I'm not saying that they'd make the American political system better, but it'd certainly make politics more interesting. The thing with 2 parties dominating the system, is each side has a clear cut response to every issue, so they easily run out of things to counter each other with, and end up spewing complete ****. Both sides. I have liberal views, but even I can tell when Democrats are saying stuff that's never going to happen in response to Republicans saying stuff that's never going to happen.

This is not actually true in all countries. For example, France and the UK. It is true though that a majority of the Western European countries do not apply the same majority system like the US does when they're voting for the President (and the Senate? I never really got the hang of the mechanics behind that due to the fact that two persons are elected per state, gotta check).
It's too bad though that only a few states like Maine actually vote for the independents from time to time. I know that in 1992 there was a widely popular guy running for president and actually snagging a good 15% of the votes, but since then party lines have been tightened up. In the Senate there's still a few independents from time to time (Maine will vote one in this fall, I'm calling it!), but they're obviously not enough to get rid of the two-party system you've got going a century and a few scores back.

And yes, it would totally make the political system better, along with a few other much-needed changes (come on, what silliness is this filibuster? 60% majority required!?)

'Yaya' said:
And like Isa said, Europe just seems more forward thinking than the US. I'm one of those liberals that thinks the same set of rules can't apply to something forever, so I'm always for progressive policies. I know it's obviously more complicated under the surface, but I can't understand why pretty much more than half of America doesn't want free healthcare. I mean, I know it's not exactly free, but it seems like a step towards the future in my opinion. Same thing with drugs, marriage, abortion, the environment (how can somebody think global warming doesn't exist), etc. I just don't get why people think forbidding things or reverting to older policy is a step forward.  

Conservative parties (and following that, countries) make it a thing to hatch on to what's been proven to work in the past. "Don't fix what ain't broken." However, a frightening amount of time, these things are indeed broken. That's why you never saw any European conservatives pushing for women's right to vote, that's why the socialists got unions to add protection to the weak and powerless workers, etc.

'Yaya' said:
As for the economy and debt, I'm liberal there because 1.) I'm soon going to be a collegiate getting ****** over by debt 2.) the rich/corporations can spare some more money when it comes to taxes. I think it's ironic that the really rural evangelical states support the party because of their stance on guns, religion, and marriage, but they're also rooting for the part that'd hurt them economically. I'm pretty sure neither party can fix the economy now without serious reform (liberal or conservative reforms) and using ideas from both ends of the political spectrum. Of course that'll never happen due to the 2 party system.

Using ideas from both ends of the political spectrum will do more bad than good, I believe. I have nothing to back that up with, but it's a very delicate balance if you want to be able to cut taxes yet strengthen the welfare, which would be combining two ideas from the opposite side of the spectrum.
Also here's the thing - the two-party system in itself is not something that means that decisions won't be made. Minority governments in Sweden are commonplace, which means that broad compromises have always been sought for - one party does not rule over the other(s). If you look at US political history, you'll find that when Reagan was a president, Democrats backed him up from time to time, and I'm pretty sure that Republicans did roughly the same when Clinton was a president. The dysfunctional congress that you're seeing now is a modern thing that has arrived with the Tea Party.

'Yaya' said:
Sometimes I imagine myself in the future not even living in America because no matter which party is in office, I just think it's not how they will make the country better, it's how longer can they keep it from getting worse./frightening thought

Oh believe me, it's frightening to look at as well.

'Yaya' said:
And yeah, I'm on of those people that thinks The Pledge of Allegiance violates the 1st amendment.

I don't see how it does not.
snipereborn
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 10:21 pm EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
'Isa' said:

Regarding universal health care in the US, it's a good thing - I have pre-existing conditions. I'm an asthmatic (it's chronic and a very serious case of it as well), I'm a multi-allergic, I even need glasses for my poor eyesight. Especially being an asthmatic would make it very difficult if not downright impossible for me to get insurance and should I get it, it'd be very expensive as private companies are allowed to charge you loads of additional money for these faults of mine. Due to the universal health care system here in socialist Sweden, I'm still breathing.


The point I forgot to make on this, which I ussually do add on, is that the healthcare law covers this sort of thing, but badly. I see no reason why it can't be made part of antidiscrimination law that pre-existing condition be covered; that wouldn't cost the government anything. It might raise cost for everyone slightly, but compared to the current law, it's tons better. Someone has to pay for the healthcare sometime. I'm ok with the idea of universal healthcare; I'm just saying that doing it this way is retarded. Much as I like taking care of people, the means that we came up with is just stupid. Why can't we just pass all the stuff people like, and not the stuff people don't like? It makes no sense to drastically change everything when there's no real need.
Points that everyone likes:
--Students get to stay on their parents plan until age 26
--No bias against pre-existing conditions
--No loss of coverage after becoming ill or injured

There, I just wrote a good healthcare law. Let's pass it. It's mostly free, though maybe it cost a little for enforcement. Not trillions of dollars.


About republicans:
Some of them want to raise taxes on the poor, but the moderate one generally just think that lower taxes on the rich and cutting programs is sufficient. Most offer some kind of modified flat tax, where there's two income brackets, people who can afford to pay taxes, and people who can't. I don't know of any who want to raise taxes for anyone; that would be political suicide since Tea Party members would flay them alive, figuratively.

It always confuses me when Europeans go ballistic on america, but they tolerate countries like Iran, who kill their women for showing their ankles in public and kill gays for being gay. The US is a right leaning country; yelling at us to change just tickes us off makes us lose respect for you. That's the main reason that I tend to ignore most of Europe. I'm sick of being treated like everything in the world is my fault and like I'm some evil shadow-monster going around punching women in the face and stabbing gays. It's like I wanted to be friends, but Europe just wants to b* me out all day. It makes me throw up my hands and just flip you all the bird and say "I don't care what you think". Americas done so many good things and we never get credit for anything. It's always Bad America doing this and that and whatever. Is it any wonder when we get hardened hearts and turn inward for strength?

Ninja'd twice.

The problem I have with some of the science stuff you said is that the "experts" that support it wouldn't have a job if they didn't. That's particularly about climate change. As far as evolution, I'm religious myself, and I don't per-se have a problem with aspects of evolutions. I have a problem with people asserting that god had nothing to do with it.
Don't get me started on our teachers and education system. I'm not sure where you get the whole "teachers are extreme Christian radicals" bit; the opposite is closer to true. Most teachers won't even teach creationism at all, which is just as valid as any other theory in existence. What reason is there for ruling out intelligent design? If there were an actual answer to that, this debate would have ended.
'Isa' said:

'Yaya' said:
And yeah, I'm on of those people that thinks The Pledge of Allegiance violates the 1st amendment.

I don't see how it does not.

What? Do you mean schools forcing kids to say the Pledge? Then, sure, I can see that. If you mean the pledge itself, then your on drugs.


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
Yaya
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 10:45 pm EST

Age: 28
Karma: 747
Posts: 5367
Location: Ohio (US)
pm | email
It's the whole "one nation under God" thing. That's the only thing I have a problem with. None of the local schools have forced kids to say it for about 6-7 years now, but I don't why they just openly weave religion into one of our nation's famous phrases. Sorry if my original statement sounded extreme, and I'm not anti-religion at all keep in mind. I just get a bit twitchy when it comes to the separation of church and state, though lol.



COMING SOON: A giant meteor. Please.
Give me +karma. Give me +karma.
Cedric
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:01 pm EST

Age: 24
Karma: 13
Posts: 2056
Gender: Male
pm | email
It'd be awesome if Thomas came on and said something like "Politics are corrupt."
snipereborn
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:03 pm EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
I don't know when the pledge was written, but it might be a historical carryover. Moreover, the pledge doesn't really have anything to do with the actually government; there's no separation issue. You don't have to say the pledge, ever. You can go out and burn huges stacks of paper with the pledge written on it, if you want to. To me, this is like complain about our money having "in god we trust" written on it. So what? Your honestly gonna try to say that cause emotional distress to atheists? If so, I think they had some bigger issues that have nothing to do with the money.
I like separation of church and state. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's. Government has nothing to do with religion, except for its responsibility to protect both religious and non-religious people. I just think that if I want to display a 40 foot tall cross on my land, then I should be allowed to. I have no desire to do such a thing, but there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to do that if people are allowed to have anti-christian displays in public. I mean, come on. You're offended by a cross? (Not you as in Yaya, just whoever says that their offended). An atheist just thinks I'm silly, so what difference does it make to them where I derive my peace and comfort from?
Meh, got sidetracked. Like I said, keep church and state separate, but don't make me hide in a closet somewhere underground if I want to pray. And it's not like saying god will make you explode. I'd think non-religious people would love oaths that derive their power from god; those people would think that the oaths don't mean anything, and are thus not bound by them. When I was an atheist, I always felt that way. I always thought "Psht, you people are silly. You make me laugh. Go about you business; I'm just gonna stand over here and chuckle at you."

Ninja'd
Politics ARE corrupt.


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
Cedric
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:06 pm EST

Age: 24
Karma: 13
Posts: 2056
Gender: Male
pm | email
I honestly don't see how an American sniper could be converted into an Asian ninja. Think again, wise one.
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:08 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
'snipereborn' said:
'Isa' said:

Regarding universal health care in the US, it's a good thing - I have pre-existing conditions. I'm an asthmatic (it's chronic and a very serious case of it as well), I'm a multi-allergic, I even need glasses for my poor eyesight. Especially being an asthmatic would make it very difficult if not downright impossible for me to get insurance and should I get it, it'd be very expensive as private companies are allowed to charge you loads of additional money for these faults of mine. Due to the universal health care system here in socialist Sweden, I'm still breathing.


The point I forgot to make on this, which I ussually do add on, is that the healthcare law covers this sort of thing, but badly. I see no reason why it can't be made part of antidiscrimination law that pre-existing condition be covered; that wouldn't cost the government anything. It might raise cost for everyone slightly, but compared to the current law, it's tons better. Someone has to pay for the healthcare sometime. I'm ok with the idea of universal healthcare; I'm just saying that doing it this way is retarded. Much as I like taking care of people, the means that we came up with is just stupid. Why can't we just pass all the stuff people like, and not the stuff people don't like? It makes no sense to drastically change everything when there's no real need.
Points that everyone likes:
--Students get to stay on their parents plan until age 26
--No bias against pre-existing conditions
--No loss of coverage after becoming ill or injured

There, I just wrote a good healthcare law. Let's pass it. It's mostly free, though maybe it cost a little for enforcement. Not trillions of dollars.

Oh, I agree with you. Problem is the second line - no bias against pre-existing conditions. This would impact the free market which is believed to be a holy Graal or something. Yes, I'm probably over-exaggerating, but I don't see what the fuzz is about otherwise.

I will admit that I do not know of all the details in the American health care. What's your suggested changes to the current one?

'snipereborn' said:
About republicans:
Some of them want to raise taxes on the poor, but the moderate one generally just think that lower taxes on the rich and cutting programs is sufficient. Most offer some kind of modified flat tax, where there's two income brackets, people who can afford to pay taxes, and people who can't. I don't know of any who want to raise taxes for anyone; that would be political suicide since Tea Party members would flay them alive, figuratively.

Key word being "moderate" in that first sentence. Paul Ryan sure isn't a moderate, and there's only one proposed budget going through the party, and I highly doubt that even moderates such as Olympia Snowe will vote against it should it come to the Senate.
It's true though that no Republican wants to raise taxes anymore since the Tea Party came to life. It's a shame. Being a conservative isn't necessarily about pushing taxes down, down, down regardless of how the economy is. Look at Ronald Reagan, he raised taxes twice and is still regarded as one of the favorites of the Republicans.

'snipereborn' said:
It always confuses me when Europeans go ballistic on america, but they tolerate countries like Iran, who kill their women for showing their ankles in public and kill gays for being gay. The US is a right leaning country; yelling at us to change just tickes us off makes us lose respect for you. That's the main reason that I tend to ignore most of Europe. I'm sick of being treated like everything in the world is my fault and like I'm some evil shadow-monster going around punching women in the face and stabbing gays. It's like I wanted to be friends, but Europe just wants to b* me out all day. It makes me throw up my hands and just flip you all the bird and say "I don't care what you think". Americas done so many good things and we never get credit for anything. It's always Bad America doing this and that and whatever. Is it any wonder when we get hardened hearts and turn inward for strength?

"Tolerate" Iran? What are you talking about? We're sure as hell not. The EU isn't exactly loosening its sanctions against the country, neither are individual countries.
Also, head on the nail. The US is right-leaning, Europe is not. The US is in charge of the world, more or less (along with China), single European countries, especially a small one like Sweden, are not. With the US being the force of power it is, you're bound to get focused upon. And if a left-leaning population gets told about right-leaning news, don't expect it to react in a positive way. Furthermore, whenever I criticize an individual state, you'll bet that it's not New York, Maryland or Oregon. I embrace good things when I see them - election of Obama (staff had a political discussion back in -08), legalization of gay marriage in New York and Washington, etc. Problem is that...well, really, it's just the US catching up to Sweden and other European countries in many of the cases, at least on the social issues. =p The US isn't really a leading force on being progressive nowadays.
Also remember that during the Cold War, the Western European countries didn't exactly embrace Soviet. I'm not going to say that I experienced this - I'm not that old - but I can tell you that even today, the saying is not "the American is coming!", it's "the Russian is coming!". We very much prefer you to the alternative to the East, thank you very much. That does not mean that we agree with your decisions (invasion of Iraq).

Also, mirror mirror on the wall. I don't hear a lot of positive news from the US about the EU countries. You tell me what started first.

'snipereborn' said:
The problem I have with some of the science stuff you said is that the "experts" that support it wouldn't have a job if they didn't. That's particularly about climate change. As far as evolution, I'm religious myself, and I don't per-se have a problem with aspects of evolutions. I have a problem with people asserting that god had nothing to do with it.
Don't get me started on our teachers and education system. I'm not sure where you get the whole "teachers are extreme Christian radicals" bit; the opposite is closer to true. Most teachers won't even teach creationism at all, which is just as valid as any other theory in existence. What reason is there for ruling out intelligent design? If there were an actual answer to that, this debate would have ended.

While you're not disagreeing with what I wrote, I still want to link this image because I like it, with regards to evolution:
Spoiler:

So you're saying that scientists invent things because they'd lose their jobs otherwise...? So everyone who's in on this hoax (because that's what you're calling it, mind you!), are either liars or fooled? What's your own knowledge about climate change and what makes you disbelieve it?
Also, involving God with science is doomed to fail. Being religious is, to me, about having faith in what one cannot prove. Science is all about proving. We do not yet know what was before the Big Bang, if there was one - that does not mean that we should fill out the hole left behind with a theory we cannot prove.
Btw, a notorious amount of churches and religions have accepted that evolution is in fact the way to go (John Paul II as an example, during his lifetime the single most influential Christian man to live on Earth).
Regarding "Christian radicals", I didn't say that everyone was like that. I'm noting that these people exist and have teacher status (Liberty University is my example)). These things are unthinkable over here.
Regarding creationism and intelligent design: have a go. Highlights:
Spoiler:

Intelligent design claims to be science - but it's not. It tries to bend the rules of science to fit in, but it simply cannot.
Also check out the section "Arguments from ignorance".
Secret edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution This is an interesting read relating to evolution. Our natural science teacher taught us about this during first year in high school and I still find it fascinating.

'snipereborn' said:
'Isa' said:

'Yaya' said:
And yeah, I'm on of those people that thinks The Pledge of Allegiance violates the 1st amendment.

I don't see how it does not.

What? Do you mean schools forcing kids to say the Pledge? Then, sure, I can see that. If you mean the pledge itself, then your on drugs.

The former, yeah. The pledge itself isn't violating anything as far as I know...but when you force everyone to subscribe to it, then that's an issue.

Ninja'd four times while writing.
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:16 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
'snipereborn' said:
I don't know when the pledge was written, but it might be a historical carryover. Moreover, the pledge doesn't really have anything to do with the actually government; there's no separation issue. You don't have to say the pledge, ever. You can go out and burn huges stacks of paper with the pledge written on it, if you want to. To me, this is like complain about our money having "in god we trust" written on it. So what? Your honestly gonna try to say that cause emotional distress to atheists? If so, I think they had some bigger issues that have nothing to do with the money.
I like separation of church and state. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's. Government has nothing to do with religion, except for its responsibility to protect both religious and non-religious people. I just think that if I want to display a 40 foot tall cross on my land, then I should be allowed to. I have no desire to do such a thing, but there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to do that if people are allowed to have anti-christian displays in public. I mean, come on. You're offended by a cross? (Not you as in Yaya, just whoever says that their offended). An atheist just thinks I'm silly, so what difference does it make to them where I derive my peace and comfort from?
Meh, got sidetracked. Like I said, keep church and state separate, but don't make me hide in a closet somewhere underground if I want to pray. And it's not like saying god will make you explode. I'd think non-religious people would love oaths that derive their power from god; those people would think that the oaths don't mean anything, and are thus not bound by them. When I was an atheist, I always felt that way. I always thought "Psht, you people are silly. You make me laugh. Go about you business; I'm just gonna stand over here and chuckle at you."

Ninja'd
Politics ARE corrupt.

Bar the exaggerations (emotional distress? Nah...I'm not that easy to provoke), I agree with most of this.

I don't think you'll find many atheists being offended by a cross though. Just don't force religion in my face.

On a side note, I've seen a few devout Muslim immigrants praying towards Mecca from time to time, and I always find it fascinating, in a way. (I've never seen public Christian prayers.) They're very sure to be ridden of distraction, trying to find a spot that's as far away as possible from everyone else. Then they do their rituals, and I'm...amazed, I believe. It's an interesting feeling that I don't know how to categorize, but it's not a negative one.
Yaya
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:26 pm EST

Age: 28
Karma: 747
Posts: 5367
Location: Ohio (US)
pm | email
Don't they actually have to face the direction that Mecca is? I'd need to carry a compass on me.



COMING SOON: A giant meteor. Please.
Give me +karma. Give me +karma.
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:29 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
I think it's mandatory, at the very least preferable. I think they have specific compasses for the purpose, worn as watches Don't quote me on that though.
Yaya
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:47 pm EST

Age: 28
Karma: 747
Posts: 5367
Location: Ohio (US)
pm | email
I'm not sure if you've been keeping up on this, Isa, but do you think the blind chinese activist is gonna get asylum in the US? Taking him in and not both seem to have their consequences.



COMING SOON: A giant meteor. Please.
Give me +karma. Give me +karma.
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:50 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
There have been minor reports in the Swedish news about him, but I actually don't know anything about the situation - my intake of  news have decreased rapidly since I moved away from home, as I no longer have any newspapers delivered to me.
snipereborn
[?] Karma: +1 | Quote - Link
Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:52 pm EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
@Climate Change
Polar ice volumes are increasing steadily, not decreasing.
The world was supposed to be completely drown last year, but that didn't happen.
People have been claiming that the climate is changeing since the 70's, but there's little numerical evidence for that.
The greenhouse effect, which is often cited as the main cause of climate change, is more heavily impacted by the production of livestock than of any industrial source. Moreover, it's not clear that the greenhouse effect even exists, given the first point.
The climate has always been complex. We know that there are cyclical elements, such as average temperature. What isn't clear is that industry or human influence has any definitive effect on the overall average temperature in addition to the natural evolution of the earth climate.

Also, I'm not saying they invent things, but rather they misinterpret them, possibly on purpose but most likely because they just are seeing what they want to.

@Intelligent design
Sure, it's easy to say intelligent design doesn't conform to scientific standards when you define your scientific standards so that they aren't compatible with intelligent design. You say the principles of science won't tolerate bending. Since when? Science has always been largely organic. Moreover, it's just silly to say that intelligent design can't be proven; nothing can actually be proven, if you care to read Descartes' take of the problem of knowledge and skepticism.
Maybe we're using the term differently. I define intelligent design as the theory that states the universe was created by an intelligent designer.
My problem with the article you present is that it criticizes pro-ID journals as being composed entirely of ID-supporters, but it says nothing of the fact that the other journals are full of critics of ID. Is it surprising when they then criticize ID? People tend to hang out with people they agree with; their is no mystery there. "Lack of rigor" is a joke. "Rigor" to them means empirical proof. The kind of empirical proof that ID critics give is the exact same kind that ID supporters give. You cite ambient microwave radiation as proof of the big bang. I cite patterns of nature as proof of ID. The thing that gets me is that the two are not mutually exclusive. There's no reason to believe that we can't physically describe what events occurred before the big bang. There's also no reason to believe that the study of science wouldn't bring us greater understanding of an intelligent designer. Many ID critics just don't like religion, and anything that gives validity to religion obviously can't be tolerated. It's only mysterious if you won't think about it.

The problem with not accepting ID is that the universe becomes logically impossible. Science requires determinism. That means initial causality. But it makes no sense that something would come from absolute nothing. Even if you go to the multiverse theory, you still have the problem of causality. Science rejects the premise that time is infinite, so you have to have an initial cause. You can't have an initial cause without something to cause it. And now we've gone in a circle. Any theory without either an eternal universe or a causal agent outside of time has no ground to stand on.
'Isa' said:
I think it's mandatory, at the very least preferable. I think they have specific compasses for the purpose, worn as watches Don't quote me on that though.

This is correct. For Muslims, they must face mecca during their daily prayers, though spontaneous ones don't have that requirement

EDIT:
Just reread what I said. I meant "There's no reason the study of science wouldn't..." That makes a difference.


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 12:26 am EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
'snipereborn' said:
@Climate Change
1. Polar ice volumes are increasing steadily, not decreasing.
2. The world was supposed to be completely drown last year, but that didn't happen.
3. People have been claiming that the climate is changeing since the 70's, but there's little numerical evidence for that.
4. The greenhouse effect, which is often cited as the main cause of climate change, is more heavily impacted by the production of livestock than of any industrial source. Moreover, it's not clear that the greenhouse effect even exists, given the first point.
5. The climate has always been complex. We know that there are cyclical elements, such as average temperature. What isn't clear is that industry or human influence has any definitive effect on the overall average temperature in addition to the natural evolution of the earth climate.

Also, I'm not saying they invent things, but rather they misinterpret them, possibly on purpose but most likely because they just are seeing what they want to.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage They're steadily decreasing over time at the Northern Hemisphere, while perhaps increasing over time at the Southern Hemisphere. The Northern Hemisphere changes are statistically significant, the Southern Hemisphere ones are not due to the small increase.
2. I've never heard this before. Source, please - I can't find any.
3. Check the first link if nothing else, where your period of time is specifically mentioned (1979 was in the 70's ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007_Arctic_Sea_Ice.jpg Also, just read the opening paragraphs and check the topmost graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
4. First sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png Nope. It does have a big impact, but it's not the biggest one. Second sentence, I think we've been over that already.
5. Truth in the first two sentences, however, we're seeing spikes that imply that human activity has something to do with all of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_temperature_of_the_Earth Check the graphs. It is true that over a long period of time, we're not seeing anything vastly unusual - the temperature has been higher. However, the spikes correlate a worrying lot with the industrial revolutions, and...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Spoiler:
I'm taking stats right now and ideal accuracy level is almost always 95%, but 90% - that's not insignificant.

Might reply later to the rest of what you wrote. I'm a bit tired, it's 06:26 AM.
snipereborn
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 12:34 am EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

"When the news broke of the Arctic ice being at its 30 year low in 2007, the same source (U. of Illinois) reported the Antarctic at its record high"

We can trade sources all day long. Mine isn't wikipedia.

@2
Even you're wiki article says that their are prediction that next year will be the one.


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 12:35 am EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
Oh sure, I'm using Wikipedia for ease of access. I can link you to NASA if you prefer.
snipereborn
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 12:36 am EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
Ok, and I can link you to the original sources. There's no conclusive evidence.


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 12:38 am EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
I disagree.
snipereborn
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 12:47 am EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
That's fine, but consider the chart given on my provided link concerning average temperature match with number of observation stations.
Then consider the section titled "The IPCC Projections do not Comport with Reality".


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
Quirvy
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 2:17 am EST
  

Karma: 655
Posts: 7753
Gender: Male
pm | email
Quote:
I don't know when the pledge was written, but it might be a historical carryover.
Just wanted to say that "under god" wasn't originally included in the pledge of allegiance, but was instead later added in 1954. That actually came up in one of my classes recently (I don't know why)



spooky secret
jellsprout
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 6:56 am EST
Lord of Sprout Tower

Karma: -2147482799
Posts: 6445
Gender: Male
pm | email
'Isa' said:
Spoiler:


Now this is just cruel.

Isa, I wonder if you understand what science actually means? It is impossible to learn any truth through experimentation. Even if your experiment is in agreement with your hypothesis, there could still be different explanations. As such, the scientific method isn't about proving truths, it is about disproving untruths. We don't know if natural evolution is true or not, however it has managed to make several key predictions and hasn't been disproved. That doesn't make it the truth, it just makes it the most likely option.
Anything that applies to natural evolution also applies to Intelligent Design. They both state the same thing: a pile-up of micro-evolutions, often to better adjust to the environment, may lead to macro-evolution. The only difference is that while NE claims these micro-evolutions comes from stochastic processes caused by other natural phenomena (that have also been rigorously tested through the Scientific Method and as such are also the most likely hypotheses among other competing hypotheses), ID claims these micro-evolutions come from the guiding hand of God, either directly or by manipulating the stochastic processes.
As you can see, scientifically speaking both theories are pretty much equivalent. They explain the same phenomena and they make the same predictions. The only difference is that ID complicates their theory further by introducing the God aspect. This complication makes the theory more unlikely. However, that doesn't make it impossible either.

And Sniper, short of journals published by Elsevier, Springer and a few other major scientific publishers, there are few sources more reliable than Wikipedia. They have a very, very strict sourcing policy. Sure, anyone could edit Wikipedia, but the history of each edit is saved and it will likely be edited back within a few minutes.


Spoiler:
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 7:25 am EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
Jellsprout, I've studied that, so yes I do know that you cannot gain absolute truths in science without use of a deductive method (and even then, those truths are comparatively simple). That's why we still have the atomic model being called a theory - there's very little pointing towards it being disproved. That doesn't stop me from being confident in their findings. I believe in my scientists.
I'm not even sure what you're opposing.
jellsprout
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 7:54 am EST
Lord of Sprout Tower

Karma: -2147482799
Posts: 6445
Gender: Male
pm | email
I am opposing your stance of ID as unscientific. The theory of ID makes the same predictions and explanations as natural evolution. The only difference is the factor of God, which doesn't change anything about its scientific validity.


Spoiler:
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Sunday, May 6 2012, 9:40 am EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
On a topic change: Joe Biden has announced his support for gay marriage.

I'm very much satisfied. I don't expect Obama to announce his support for gay marriage prior to the election, but should he get re-elected (and I think he will), I don't think it'll take many months for him to announce his support for it as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/06/478786/biden-marriage/

« Forum Index < Random Chat Forum
«Previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, . . . 29, 30, 31 | Next»

In order to post in the forums, you must be logged into your account.
Click here to login.

© 2024 The Interguild | About & Links | Contact: livio@interguild.org
All games copyrighted to their respective owners.