|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: BenjBenj
Date: Jun 8, 2010 07:25
On Jun 7, 8:54 am, raven1 nevermore.com> wrote:> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Benj iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>>>The problem here isn't "drivel" it is the clash of two scientific
>>viewpoints.
>
> No, it's a clash between a scientific viewpoint and unsupported
> woo-woo.
Ah yes. "proof by asssertion". I know that always has me loosing every
debate! Let's face it, pal, Social Darwin is your religion and you'll
never deny it's dogma no matter HOW may facts are staring you in the
face. None so blind...etc.
You have no idea what true science is or how it works.
|
| |
|
| |
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: BenjBenj
Date: Jun 8, 2010 07:21
On Jun 4, 10:19 pm, Uncle Vic withheld.com> wrote:
> I jsut skimmed it looking for a cite. By the time one was finally
> posted, I had begun asking myself, if consciousness doesn't come from the
> brain, then where else?
>
> Sex organs?
> Elbows?
> Heart (blood pump)?
> My left foot?
> Spleen?
Ah so. Here you are auto-sodomized by your own limited social
Darwinist thinking! You didn't read a word I wrote did you?
> When will these bloody theists just give up and realize they're no better
> than Voo-doo priests and Witch Doctors?
And when will you bloody Social Darwinists realize the universe is FAR
larger and greater than your limited puny philosophy? Talking to you
guys is like trying to explain freshman physics to an ant colony.
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: BenjBenj
Date: Jun 8, 2010 07:17
On Jun 4, 10:11 pm, Uncle Vic withheld.com> wrote:
> So what exactly is a "Social Darwinist"?
Go look in a mirror!
> Scientists have dogma? What if they discover something tested to be true
> that lies outside of this dogma? Does the dogma change? Can dogma change?
Do scientists have dogma? You don't get around much, do you? If
experiment shows something true outside of dogma, scientists do what
priests of ANY religion (including atheism) do. They ridicule and
dismiss the results and attack the persons finding those results or
supporting them with ad hominem attacks. Usually to assert they are
"insane". We don't need to pay attention to the insane ramblings, do
we?
OF course "dogma" needs to change. One needs to "smash" dogma because
dogma is not logic or science.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: BenjBenj
Date: Jun 8, 2010 07:09
On Jun 4, 4:44 pm, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:> Benj wrote:
>
> [snip crap]
>
> In your case, as more than abundantly evidenced in time and space, of
> course not. It's in your rectum. Free your mind... then flush.
"Uncle Al" Swartz ably demonstrates that as the premiere Social
Darwinist priest here, that in spite of his Mensa membership, he is so
mired in his dogma that he'll never have enough of an open mind to
even admit of the higher dimensions so obviously required to have a
universe that "expands everywhere" let alone pursue any data that
shows "mind" might actually have segments within those dimensions.
In other words, "Uncle Al" is an idiot. (by choice)
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Mike PainterMike Painter
Date: Jun 8, 2010 06:13
Benj wrote:
>
> The opposing view is revealed "science".
So much for it not being drivel.
Apparently you have neveer had to develop anything using the scientific
method.
You and Bible Bob would make great friends
Bible Bob says,
" A theory is a guess, speculation, abstract thought, a guess based on
some facts; but then facts are not truth so it is all about theory."
and
" Of course I understand the scientific method (the true one, not the
false one made up by money grubbing deceivers who stole and corrupted
the words "the scientific method." Apparently you have been misled by
them so I will try to make it easy for you to understand.
|
| Show full article (0.89Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Anthrax MailerAnthrax Mailer
Date: Jun 8, 2010 05:18
>Why doesn't BP or the government plug the hole in the gulf. Based on
>observation --because they don't want to-
You're wrong again. The BP corporation has been demonstrably attempting
to plug their gusher, ergo your notion is demonstrably false.
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Budikka666Budikka666
Date: Jun 7, 2010 23:22
On Jun 7, 10:24 am, Joseki gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 5, 9:59 am, Budikka666 netscape.net> wrote:
>>> If you're advocating the tossing out of abiogenesis and evolution
>> because it was not directly observed - as it happened in the past - by
>> a human eye witness, why aren't you advocating setting free every
>> convict, no matter what their crime, if they were not seen committing
>> that crime by an eye witness?
>
> Because you are a buffoon. When Criminal Justice is ran like science
> using the scientific method, then your question can be asked.
> Observation is a tool for manyy types of disciplines, each one has
> there
You can't tell the difference between their, there, and they're and
you're calling me a buffoon? LoL! Take the massive plank from your
own eye, asshole, then you can blather mindlessly that you think you
might have seen a mote in mine.
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
|
4 Comments |
|
|
Author: chemistchemist
Date: Jun 7, 2010 21:21
On Jun 7, 10:44 am, Roger Coppock adnc.com> wrote:> On Jun 6, 9:58 am, Bret Cahill peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>> Just about all the oil will eventually end up in the atmosphere as
>> CO2,
>
> True, but before that happens some of the hydrocarbons
> in the oil are or become gases which are more powerful
> greenhouse gasses than CO2. These super greenhouse
> gases oxidize over time, leaving CO2. So, the greenhouse
> effect due to the oil spill is not easy to calculate and varies
> over time.
>
>> something they were trying to do anyway except faster at higher
>> temperatures.
>
>> That's easy to calculate and the cleanup won't be too difficult figure
>> either.
>
>> But what about the damage to marine life? ...
|
| Show full article (0.81Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: RichTravskyRichTravsky
Date: Jun 1, 2010 05:10
John Vreeland wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:28:07 -0700 (PDT), jabriol
2003?
Boy, do you have a lot of catching up to do...
> wrote:
>
> [off topic item snipped]
>
> I doubt the topic was banned from t.o, even though is is highly OT.
> More likely jabriol himself was banned, personally. I have not seen
> him there for many many years.
>
> This, by the way, is my first visit (I think) to t.a and the last
> time (I hope) I will ever respond to jabriol. Now where is that kill
> file...
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill
Date: May 14, 2010 06:00
Science 14 May 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5980, pp. 899 - 903
DOI: 10.1126/science.1186440
Reports
Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and
Arabidopsis
Arnold J. Bloom,* Martin Burger,{dagger} Jose Salvador Rubio Asensio,
Asaph B. Cousins{ddagger}
The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere may double
by the end of the 21st century. The response of higher plants to a
carbon dioxide doubling often includes a decline in their nitrogen...
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
|
10 Comments |
|
|
|
|
