iNow

The independent variable usually goes on the X-axis, whereas the dependent variable goes on the Y-axis. Since the mass is dependent on the item being described, where will you put them?

Some are calling it a "death spiral." Greenspan on THIS WEEK this morning. Watch below: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5798760

I say again, exactly which point of my rebuttal above in post #51 and post #57 do you think is mistaken? This implies that parts of evolution are wrong. Which parts of evolution are you saying are wrong? Simply repeating a point does not provide it with accuracy. You were wrong the last time you said this and you are wrong again. First, survival of the fittest is not Darwin's idea. I guess you are not reading replies to you which are counter to your worldview because this has been discussed already. Second, evolution did not lead to anything. The loss of lives came from megalomaniacal crazy people who worked their way into positions of power. Third, evolution is an accurate description of nature. Lying to yourself will not change how nature operates, and I encourage you to bear this in mind as you move forward in life. Responsibiltiy for what, exactly? The fact that you even use the word "evolutionists" shows that you are seriously biased on this issue, and that you are working from half-facts and outright falsehoods. Who in your spiritual life has been lying to you about the truth of nature? What is wrong about evolution beside the fact that it makes your iron age fairy tales look even more silly?

Dennis' argument is akin to people saying bad things about Isaac Newton for describing gravity and then asserting that it's his fault people drop rocks on to others from tall buildings. It's now time for me to bow out of this conversation because people are trying to use Iron Age fairy tales as evidence in a scientific discussion.

We agree more than we do not on the issue that science cannot with certainty prove anything, but with that said, you need to look up what an ad hominem is. What I did contained invective, aggression, and I was also mocking, however, it was not an ad hom. Had I said, "Lucaspa is an idiot who believes in fairy tales, therefore his points can't be trusted and are all wrong,' then that would be ad hom. However, I respected your points, respected you, and mocked religious belief in general. My mocking of belief in religion and the fairy tales was not used in support of my argument, and was, in fact, peripheral to it. Therefore, my argument was made separate from my mocking and no ad hominems were made. You're well educated, and I respect your biological knowledge as it far surpasses my own. However, I did not ad hom you and wanted to set the record straight on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Exactly which point of my rebuttal above in post #51 and post #57 do you think is mistaken? Actually, what I am saying is that it is not currently included and it works fine without it. We are in agreement that science cannot be used to disprove the hand of some god in the process, just like science cannot be used to disprove that fairies, unicorns, or dragons have some hand in the process of evolution. However, I flatly reject the god assertion with the same fervor and confidence, and also for the same reasons, that I reject the assertions of fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns, and countless other ridiculous fairy tales have some involvement in evolution. Finally, if the proported influence of some supernatural cosmic dictator cannot be measured, perceived, or detected then it can be fully ignored and disregarded with zero negative impact to our understanding.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809120021 When a candidate makes a false claim, reporters can respond one of three ways: They can ignore it, on the basis that a false claim is unworthy of attention. They can adopt the false claim as the basis of their report, as they did with this week's stories about whether or not Barack Obama had made a sexist comment about Sarah Palin. They can produce a report centered on the fact that the candidate is saying something that is untrue. If it is the latest of many falsehoods, they can indicate that. If the candidate is telling more and larger falsehoods than the opposition, they can make that clear. In short, they can make the lack of credibility of the person making the false claim the theme of their coverage. The first option privileges the lie by allowing a candidate to run around saying things that are not true -- but at least it does not help spread the lie further. The second option -- even if it includes mention of the fact that the claim is false -- privileges the lie a great deal by helping the candidate spread the false claims. At the end of the day, what most people take away from this week's media coverage of the lipstick flap is likely that there is some controversy around whether Barack Obama made a sexist comment about Sarah Palin. That's a clear advantage to McCain -- and thus the media's handling of the episode has rewarded his falsehood. The third option punishes the falsehood. If you think the media's job is to bring their readers and viewers the truth, this is obviously the best of the three options. This is where some will say "but then reporters will be taking sides." And there is some truth to that: They'll be taking the truth's side. Reporters "take sides" with everything they do. Everything they do involves a choice, involves a decision that X is more important than Y. When they report a lie five times before reporting the fact that it is false, they are taking the lie's side. The question isn't whether reporters should "take sides" -- they can't possibly avoid taking sides. The only question is whether they will side with truth or with fiction. I can't help but agree. The third option is the only way to go. h/t

There is not. If you disagree, then share your evidence so we can see for ourselves and make an informed decision.

I think YouTube has been doing some censoring lately. That's the third Palin related video today that was no longer available when I clicked the link. line[/hr] I think I found the video you wanted to share on an NBC site. It's amazing how similar they are: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/?dst=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video&__source=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video

We could put the hygroscopic salt into the air above to the oceans which will help to generate stratocumulus cloud formation and increase the albedo effect. I saw it on a Discovery special yesterday called Project Earth. http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/lab-books/brighter-world/brighter-guide2.html

Corrected.

Your post contains far too many inaccuracies to be taken seriously.

You're right. This little semantic word game you're playing is not wrong. Science cannot tell us that a "super natural cosmic dictator" is not required. However, the theory in existence that has ZERO inclusion of a supernatural entitiy still works as well as can be. It does not include the assumption of the supernatural, yet it performs majestically. Adding the part you did which implies that a supernatural cosmic dictator might be involved does nothing for us beyond semantic correctness, and offers seemingly nothing to an already robust theory. In my view, the inclusion of such a "god possibility" only offers solice to the mentally handicapped people who are still struggling to reconcile their belief in god and their Iron Age fairy tales with their empirical knowledge of the natural universe. My point exactly. Perhaps I was wrong to remind you of this above.

Is there anyone out there who still thinks that Palin did not "desire" to ban a book or two?

We are, however, quickly depleting fresh/drinking water supplies, and should spend more money and effort into desalination technology.

Gliders point seems straight forward. Not really some of the best information on those topics...

Yeah, I saw that one months back, but it has always stood out in my memory. What inspired the thread was the first one, though. It was so vast and so amazing and so far away from any primate issues. Here is another good one, about 10 years later, from the same guy (much shorter though):

The problem with the depravity is that we continue to let it happen... we the electorate. This is, I believe, why Pangloss agrees so much with the tone of the OP and also why he has pushed so hard to try to keep semantic and rhetorical license in check. If only all voters would revolt against blatant falsehoods... If only people in America would wake up... We might actually get to focus our attention on the stuff that matters, instead of the distractions which don't, and issues would be allowed to take precedence over fact checks and corrections. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-truth14-2008sep14,0,1376410.story Analysts who have studied campaign rhetoric point out that rhetorical excess is hardly new. Plato railed against it 2,400 years ago. But even he might have been taken aback this year, particularly by the GOP ticket's recent comments and advertisements. On Saturday, the McCain team was on the defensive after the Boston Globe reported that Palin's 2007 trip to Iraq, which the campaign had forwarded as evidence of foreign policy experience, was actually a trip to a Kuwait-Iraq border crossing. The campaign earlier had said the trip -- her only one outside North America -- included a visit to Ireland, but later acknowledged that was a refueling stop. On Friday, McCain himself added to the list of untruths. He said on ABC's "The View" that his running mate would help him put a stop to congressional pork projects known as "earmarks," which are put into appropriations bills without the normal review procedures. When co-host Barbara Walters noted that Palin herself has requested earmarks, McCain inaccurately responded, "No, not as governor she didn't." In fact, she requested $198 million in earmarks this year as governor, atop millions more when she was mayor of the small town of Wasilla. McCain also brushed back criticism of two misleading ads released by his campaign this week, one that attacked Obama on sex education and another that said he equated her with a pig. Both ads have been debunked by independent analysts. FactCheck called the sex education ad "simply false" and said along with others that Obama was talking about McCain's government reform strategy, not Palin, when he said the campaign was putting "lipstick on a pig." On "The View," co-host Joy Behar asked McCain about the ads, calling them "lies." "Actually they are not lies," McCain replied.

My thoughts exactly while reading that post.

Watch this: Then this: Then finally, this: ... and laugh at yourself. Enjoy.

YD is right. In case you want more explanation, here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon If you have new questions after reading, post again.

I take your point. I just have a hard time with this type of dishonesty, and an even harder time with people who approach these discussions like that and are truly being sincere.

I was saying, "Statistically more likely to die" than at any point previously in his life, than any other candidate, and more so than any other president ever. While you are correct that actuarial tables give him a better chance at living than dying, his chance of dying is still quite large. Statistics for the "average 72 year old man" hardly represent McCain since he will be in the most stressful office on the planet (just look at how Clinton and Bush both aged during their terms). This all translates into Palins chances of becoming president being higher than they EVER should be (a chance which, in my mind, should be very close to zero). Finally, Bascule can defend his own points. I speak for myself, and ask that you address me as an individual and my points specifically, as opposed to lumping me with some collective ideology and dismissing my arguments in the process of doing so.

Well, that's an interesting speculation. We cannot, however, use it as any sort of fact for our discussion since it never happened. A great piece in the NYTimes today about Palin: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.” As Ms. Palin’s star ascends, the McCain campaign, as often happens in national races, is controlling the words of those who know her well. Her mother-in-law, Faye Palin, has been asked not to speak to reporters, and aides sit in on interviews with old friends. At a recent lunch gathering, an official with the Wasilla Chamber of Commerce asked its members to refer all calls from reporters to the governor’s office. Diane Woodruff, a city councilwoman, shook her head. “I was thinking, I don’t remember giving up my First Amendment rights,” Ms. Woodruff said. “Just because you’re not going gaga over Sarah doesn’t mean you can’t speak your mind.”

You have a really weird view of the world, but whatever. We all know that wasn't the point you originally were trying to make. You were trying to distract everyone from the topic at hand by suggesting we focus instead on the library book selection board. You're rather transparent, I'm afraid. Speaking of books, there is a great expose on Palin in the NYTimes today. It is finally a piece of investigative journalism on several issues that our media has been so desperately lacking these past several weeks. It's a few pages long, but well worth the read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp In it, and relevant to the topic at hand: For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral. “People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.” Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship. But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it. “Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.” “I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.” There are plenty of other nuggets of information in that article which are worthy of their own threads.