warri0r45

I agree, Sumpta, I was just speaking generally. Obviously not everyone can be lucky enough to achieve what they want in life.

Yeah but creationist believers can just say: "The chicken, ever heard of God?" Well, we have proof in evolution, not god. Not really :| . It's all theory, really no fact in it. A theory has facts in it to support its explanation. The theory of evolution deals with how it's suggested to have happened, i.e. through what mechanisms and in what order of emerged species. Geological and biological facts vindicate these explanations, in specific cases almost irrefutably through repeated accumulation of molecular sequence evidence. I don't suppose you'd find transposons, hypervariable amino acids or genetic code redundancy interesting? You're just another victim of the nonense arguments that go on about how "it's just a theory". You should be asking yourself what a theory is (hint: you haven't looked hard enough). As for which came first, it probably would have been the egg, but the whole argument is pedantic as hell. It depends entirely on what you define as "chicken" and as a "chicken egg". Mutations in the germ line would have tipped non-chicken DNA (suspiciously similar to chicken DNA) over the arbitrary line to produce the first "chicken egg" which, with a sperm cell, contributed genetic information to grow up the first "chicken", or should that be "half-chicken". :lol: You can think of this whole debacle as defining 12:00 noon and after as "the afternoon" and everything before as "the morning" and trying to argue with someone that there is some noteworthy difference between 11:59:59 and 12:00:00. Or to demonstrate the point even more, make those times something completely arbitrary like 8:39:42 and 8:39:43. When close together, those points in time are almost indistinguishable and the difference isn't significant at all.

Of course, perfection is only thought up because we have things less than perfect and have a basis of comparison (bad) to envisage the best (good). I personally don't see how this makes things "just so" so as to mean fate exists but I'll not argue the point. We just see things differently.

Quite good points. I just find it disgusting when they don't plan their diets well - and many don't, hence the common mental image of vegetarians looking sickly and just unhealthy. Indeed. People are silly if they think they can just cut meat out of a non-vegetarian diet and be healthy. Up the legume intake, up the leafy greens such as spinach and other veggies and they'll have a better chance of being healthy.

Perfect? That's incredible. We must have completely different views on what perfect means. What do you call the hypothetical time when all the world is one and there is no war, disease or animosity between anyone? Super-perfect? We had this exact conversation before if you can recall. Well - not exactly, but like 95% similar. To answer your question, I call it a boring world where I'd be ungrateful. And how do you see this as evidence for fate?

Perfect? That's incredible. We must have completely different views on what perfect means. What do you call the hypothetical time when all the world is one and there is no war, disease or animosity between anyone? Super-perfect?

I don't believe in fate. It's up to the individual to work hard to do what they want in life, and yes, they have the free will to do that.

I'm a meat eater and I think vegetarians can live just fine if they plan their diets well. It might be a bit of a challenge to get some vitamins like B12 and minerals like iron and calcium, but it is possible. The upsides of vegetarianism can be reduced risk of heart diseases associated with intake of excessive saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which contribute to the formation of plaques on arterial walls). Fibre is well and truly a plus for the vegetarians as well. Many cancers have a similar rate of incidence in vegetarians and meat eaters. As for protein, vegetarians can eat legumes. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... aid=814540 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S

My favourite of all time is probably Bill Hicks. Some of his philosophy is summed up in the quote in my sig. The guy was such a rival of all things status quo, and that's a huge part of what drew me to his comedy. Although he seemed like a misanthrope in a lot in his comedy, in reality the guy was quite the opposite. He was really keen on seeing humanity rise to new levels; he was a dreamer like John Lennon. Another one who really challenged the status quo is the recently departed George Carlin. He's been another favourite of mine for some time now. His incredible wit, precision and endeering style mixed with all kinds of crass subject matter was funny as hell. Again, he was a rival of the status quo, not just another comedian in it for [cabbage]s and giggles listing off half-baked jokes. Having said that it's not like they have to be like Carlin and Hicks to be good comedians. I've also been getting into comedy central recently - Colbert, Stewart, Chapelle - they're all awesome.

It's important to be clear with what you say. Having said that, a few misspelt words don't invalidate an argument. People who think this or pull you up on the slightest misspellings are the kind you'd call grammar Nazis. I also find it incredibly condescending when people pretend they don't understand what you're saying because of one misplaced letter in a word. I'm sure everyone's seen this: "Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe." http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/

Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage. So I guess the question is - do you think it immoral for the churches definition of a religiously based marriage = man and woman only? Even when the religion the marriage is based on states it as such? You of all people should know what people mean when they say "equal rights" in respect to homosexuals. It's the idea that homosexuals should be able to marry who they want (other homosexuals) just as heterosexuals get to marry who they want (other heterosexuals). In this sense, they don't have equal rights. As for the definition of marriage, I think it's become secularised these days to the point that it's not an exclusively religious term any more. In this sense, I think homosexuals should have the right to marry if they want to.

A lot of these won't end the human race, only seriously screw it up.

I saw it today. Overall it was a really enjoyable movie. I was a bit worried about the hype surrounding Heath Ledger's performance but in all honesty he had me sold. His mannerisms and acting as the joker were a true highlight of the film.

Well said. This goes right to the heart of the issue of gay marriage and immediately bypasses all of the irrelevant distractions. The limits for people getting married are legislated by the state and I think it's about time for equality between people of different sexual orientations.

Fair enough. Looks like Oreskes made some mistakes after all. As for the point I was trying to make, don't worry about it. I gave up trying. It's all as plain as I can put it in what I wrote if you want to go over it again.

And it's often right, tooc. It's a huge stretch to go from the fact that science is a trial and error process to reject well established sciences. The whole basis of your computer and the medicine you take is testament to how science works and how many of it's key aspects have always coincided with empirical observation and testing. Much of it is proven, including the principles that concepts like evolution and phylogenetics are based on. The thing is, we can only prove it here on our tiny rock. We hardly know anything about our solar system, let alone the universe in general. After all, the idea of an Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt surfaced, what, 60 years ago? Who knows what else is out there. Beyond recorded history, we know little about our planet. We can make generalizations of a time period and what lived then, or what kind of planet it was, but the margin of error has been said to be huge. That's a good point, Julius. But your rationality will never work here. :P By who? The difficulty of a task doesn't tell us what our current margins of error are. In reality there is very little uncertainty as to whether something like evolution happened, for example, and I have the facts to vindicate that. I've seen and experienced enough science to know gross overstatements when I see them, and I'm sorry to say that yours is one of them. Some things we know less than others and some are very uncertain, but to say that "the margins of error has been said to be huge" pertaining to a whole particular flavour of scientific inquiry is wrong.

Catharsis. A release. Writing it, playing it or listening to it, it all does the same thing. I can't possibly do it justice with just these few words, though.

Yep, i like them too. I have to say though I prefer their live stuff that you see on youtube, etc. Their TV series, although pretty good, can be pretty bland at times as well.

The neutral papers don't disagree with the consensus. The just don't agree with it either. There were 25% that were neutral in Oreskes paper. Oreskes did lie about her method. In the original article in Science she said she typed the words 'Climate Change' into the ISI database. Typing that in yields something like 12,000 papers. She then said she typed in 'Global climate change'. That excludes 90% of papers. And she said she analyzed 928 abstracts when there were only 905. I wouldn't say that completely invalidates her work but it does raise some questions. If the neutral papers are neutral, then why did you say the neutral papers disagree with the consensus? Where did she say she typed in global climate change? I didnt catch it here. Where did she say this? I see your point that analysing 928 abstracts when there are only 905 would be lying but I cant seem to gain access to ISI web of knowledge. I've never used it before and I think it requires authorization or something. What he was studying was if there was a basis in the media for the distress patients are feeling from agw alarmism. Please, think. You're missing the very point. What is the actual consensus that this debate hinges on? You originally quoted the following, pertaining to the study in question, found on a site called DailyTech: Now, what is the measure of consensus in the paper in question? Read the abstract: I'm loosing my patience going on like this.

And it's often right, too. It's a huge stretch to go from the fact that science is a trial and error process to reject well established sciences. The whole basis of your computer and the medicine you take is testament to how science works and how many of it's key aspects have always coincided with empirical observation and testing. Much of it is proven, including the principles that concepts like evolution and phylogenetics are based on.

NoMoreDead - the Bible isn't only about creation stories. It includes moral stories too (parables and the like) which aren't necessarily meant to be "true" but are rather seen as good to live by. This is part of why many people follow the Bible. It doesn't require any proof or validation, only an acceptance of the stories as morally valuable.

Read the FAQ. You know there is a certain amount that can be gleaned from an issue if you don't run away because you find it yucky.

You don't have to type "THIS PAPER ENDORSES THE CONSENSUS" at the top of the paper to accept it. If the neutral papers accepted it they would have been in the implicit category. Whats more interesting than those neutral papers are the ones who disagree with the consensus. Schulte used the same method as Oreskes and I remember the first time we got into this you had no problem using her paper. Despite the fact that she lied about her method, she found no papers that disagreed. If that has gone from 0% to 6% that shows that the consensus position is shrinking. Why do you think I expect each paper to say "THIS PAPER ENDORSES THE CONSENSUS" to accept it in these studies? What basis do you have for saying that the neutral papers disagree with the consensus? You shot yourself in the foot here, jack. You said "if the neutral papers accepted it they would have been in the implicit category" but of course the same logic would apply to implicit rejection, but your argument doesn't hold because only 6%, implicit or explicit, reject the consensus. The neutral figure is 48%. Again, if what you said was true, you'd expect these 48% to be added to that 6% figure. As for Oreskes analysis, I didn't see any problems with it when I first saw it. What makes you say she lies about her method? Show me how she did that if you could please. Also, I take it from that final comment that you actually think there is a consensus? Or are you going to tell me 100% of people have to accept it for it to be a consensus again? If there is a 6% drop in the acceptance of the consensus then so be it. From what youve showed me before (if I remember correctly), I wouldnt be surprised that its no longer 0% rejection, but I'll have to read up on the issue some more. He's saying that there is no basis for what they say in scientific literature. He brings it in because that is what feeds the anxiety of patients. No, jack. Read it again and read what I'm saying again. If the benchmark to which consensus is tested is the IPCC's claim, then the comparison of scientific literature to the things you hear in the media and from politicians is completely beside the point and only serves to obscure things. If this kind of hypothesis testing is what counts for science these days then science has become a game for imbeciles. I have to be more rigorous in my undergraduate biochemistry pracs for christ's sake. I mean really, how does that conclusion sum up this paper if it was supposed to be judging consensus by what the IPCC claimed? Read the abstract again and how it defines consensus if you don't understand what I'm saying.

Make Yourself by Incubus.

Good Will Hunting. Specifically the scene when Sean finally cracks Will (spoiler). http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPm-x14kN7o Cuts me up every time. :( I also found an Australian movie from 2006 called 2:37 to be really sad, specifically the ending. [hide=spoiler]The movie deals with a bunch of teens on a "regular" school day and the quiet girl who was kind of a loner killed herself in the bathroom at the end of the movie. Quite graphic and confronting and really sad as the movie shows interviews with the characters throughout and it only shows hers after she dies.[/hide]