iNow

I completed all of my edits before Lance's post was submitted, but I think it's possible he was in the process of replying while those edits were being made. So, to be fair to him, I don't think he intentionally truncated my words.

Can you (or anyone) elaborate on this? I'm not sure I understand the distinction being made. They were barred from bearing arms, but could own and use guns? What's the difference between arms and guns? Or, is it something else subtle I'm not grasping?

AFAICT, he wasn't talking about behavior. He was talking about morphology, and the concepts he was addressing focussed on masculinized faces versus feminized faces. So, when he said "it can't be both," he was quite right in the context where he was making that statement. I'd like to thank Paralith for her illuminating contributions here. You not only understand the topic well, but you do a fine job articulating it for others.

Perhaps it's a riddle?

My acceptance of your concession remains.

What are the parameters defining the label "wealthy new york democrat," and how is that relevant to a decicision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America decision? This is almost precisely what I mean when I suggest that we need to raise the level of political discourse in our country. Though, if I continue saying such things, I might inadvertently be accused of patriotism.

Yes. I do suggest you've gone well beyond the scope of the objective here.

I accept your concession.

Precisely which fallacy are you suggesting was at play here?

Well, I've always enjoyed empiricism. I'm willing to do 4 or 5 tests per day if that's what it takes. Can we use multiple participants as well?

Was it this one, perhaps? Because, it doesn't negate my points, nor does it show how yours are particularly relevant to the current warming trend. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8388 But Delta formed north of the usual hurricane zone as an “extratropical” storm, with a cooler core and a different circulation pattern than tropical storms which form over warm water. <...> Storms that form over warm waters often lose their tropical characters as they move over cooler water. Extratropical storms rarely move south and become tropical like Delta, except late in the hurricane season. We've been down this path before, but I will soften my approach. I really can't take you seriously if you don't provide a reference and also if you don't show how your comments are applicable to the discussion at hand. Your own personal assertions mean nothing to me. I don't care if you personally consider it significant or not. We know it's happening. We know the intensity is increasing, and we also know why. What makes you say this? I can EASILY show otherwise. Can you support your comments with anything more than rhetoric? Or, perhaps more apropos... will you? However, even if you did have the numbers to demonstrate a delta in frequency, you don't have the numbers to demonstrate the current frequency is not the result of human action. I'm pretty sure you've repeatedly said that you don't deny that humans are impacting the climate. So, this leaves me to ask, what exactly is your point? You repeatedly appear to be arguing against positions nobody here has espoused. Not at all. No sir. On that basis, we've had improvements in technology. However, those improvements in technology have no bearing on what crops the current climate can support, where agriculture can be currently supported, nor where fresh water is available. You're arguing that technology has improved in the last 50 years in an attempt to disprove my comment that climate change has, in fact, impacted food and water availability in the present. To borrow from the physics world where morons try to demonstrate the falsehoods of relativity, why are you mixing frames? I can tell that your problem is with the blame, and not with the science. With that said, your posts here on climate issues unecessarily obfuscate the situation, and it just causes me a visceral sickness when I see you doing it. I know you're well read, and I know your understanding of the situation is better than many others. What I don't understand is why you repeatedly make and continue with such smoke screens in every climate science thread where you participate. Nuh uhh... you're a poopy head. Come on. You were arguing that we can only treat the symptoms, not the causes, and I called you out on it. If you want to display a "proper argument," then I suggest you try supporting the quote to which I was responding:

Another great post, ParanoiA. I've enjoyed your contributions to this thread's primary question quite a lot. Thank you. I quite agree with your distinctions and definitions, ones which I wasn't personally sure about when first reading the OP.

Ah... I'm older than you. To me, there is no difference between the word kids and the word teenagers. No offense.

Think about the kids without downs sydnrome using the dolls to make fun of others. We have a very inherent "us/them" mentality, and kids can be brutal.

When in doubt, try it out.

I've not heard this before. Do you have a reputable source that I could read more about it? We may not be having a greater frequency of hurricanes overall, but the intensity of those we do have has increased. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/4/111816/4408 Global warming increases sea surface temperatures (SSTs), which are directly correlated with stronger storms. Indeed, tropical cyclones are threshold events -- if sea surface temperatures are below 80°F (26.5°C), they do not form. Some analysis even suggests there is a sea surface temperature threshold close to 83°F needed for the spawning major hurricanes. Global warming may actually cause some hurricanes and some major hurricanes to develop that otherwise would not have (by raising sea surface temperatures above the necessary threshold at the right place or time). This is especially true in the Atlantic, where sea surface temperatures appear to be closer to the threshold than other hurricane-forming basins. Equally important, one of the ways that hurricanes are weakened is the upwelling of colder, deeper water due to the hurricane's own violent action. But if the deeper water is also warm, it doesn't weaken the hurricane. In fact, it may continue to intensify. Global warming heats both the sea surface and the deep water, thus creating ideal conditions for a hurricane to survive and thrive in its long journey from tropical depression to Category 4 or 5 superstorm. Your comment is only correct if the disasters are not related to global climate change. If the disaster is unrelated then you are correct, but your blanket comment misses this important detail. Sometimes disasters WILL happen as a result of climate change, and the frequency of such instances is on the rise. Please tell me you don't seriously believe this. We know MUCH more than just "the climate is changing." For example, we KNOW that food and water resources are being dramatically impacted... And yes, it's based on science, not pessimism. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&q=impact%20of%20global%20warming%20on%20food%20supply&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=impact+of+global+warming+on+water+supply Sorry mate, but that's just a stupid comment. It's akin to someone focussing entirely on symptoms and not the cause.

How about studying how much friction is created across and inside various parts of the body during intercourse?

Again, you are putting the cart before the horse. All available data shows that it is worship behavior and religion which are the result of genetic "brain structuring" as you've called it. There are other characteristics selected for which result in the emergence of religion. Simply reasserting that religion is what caused the brain structures we see is not valid. It was note valid the last time you said it, nor the time before that, and it's not valid now. I dare you to prove me wrong with some citations to peer reviewed research. I double-dog dare ye. I bet you must sound pretty profound to people who are drunk, stupid, or not paying attention. However, I am paying attention, and I'm going to let you know that you're working from false premises and you're not making much sense. That's a blanket claim, and is quickly disproven by showing simply one example of a culture which did not involve mythology. False premise # 3 x 10^7. Anecdote is not evidence. The Mayans killed people over chocolate, too. What's your point? Do you even have one? Well, now you've said it twice. It simply MUST be right. Your premise is false until you show me evidence that not a single advanced culture dominated without mythology. I don't really care if you do or do not offer this evidence, I'm just pointing out that you're making shit up and expecting us to take it as fact. Try again. I suggest the book, "Singer of Tales," by Albert Lord which very artfully describes the process by which stories were and are passed. These stories have been shared and passed for aeons. They most certainly did exist, which shows that your previous premises were false. Also, they were NOT all "absorbed like a dinosaur," as many successfully passed their genes into future generations and had their society and customs survive. It's as if you're suggesting that religion was what allowed survival. If that is the case, you're very wrong, and again misrepresenting the process of natural selection. I'm pretty sure genes aren't studied by looking at graphic art. If I recall correctly, this type of study is done in the lab, with comparison of dna chains and structures. Come on. Lol. I see now that you are dominated by the delusion, and looking for ways to support it. When someone who is not deluded like this reads your words, you appear silly.

Hmmm... I was hoping for a more "scholastic" response than that. I'll let you know it has to do with how the motor cortex is mapped, and how close the connections are for these types of actions. The areas for the hands are very very close. Also, have you heard of the homonculous? Some areas of the body are represented more in the brain than others (example, lips have more cortical representation than an elbow). If you're curious, here are a few starter links on the topic I was alluding to above. My favorites are the Neuroscience for Kids ones. I studied this stuff in college and still learn new things when checking those out. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/brain/mapcortex.html http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/flash/hom.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus#Sensory_and_motor_homunculi Enjoy.

3 or 4 minutes between each post implies that the responses are not being taken in, and the links not reviewed.

Google is your friend. http://www.allwaterpurification.com/water-softener-supplies.html

I appreciate the correction.

Which part of any of the links I shared do you think are wrong?

Let me preface by saying that you're off topic. I had some posts indicating this get (understandably) deleted. No, they haven't. Not all humans, and not all civilizations. If you wish to continue with your assertion, then support it. All it would take to prove it wrong is to show examples where humans did not practice religion. False premise #1. What evidence do you have of what every human being thought in ancestral times? Questionable premise #1. Societal and group teachings do not "imprint" themselves on the human brain. There may be certain behaviors selected for or against, but you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Religion and belief in god(s) are more likely an emergent property of other evolved characteristics. Obedience to authority (children that didn't listen to the instructions of their parents were more likely to die). Learning and teaching from others in the group (stories of the tribe take on larger significance, and the stories continue and change as they are passed on to each new generation). Those who questioned or challenged the stories accepted by the larger group were more likely to be ostracized, and hence would have limited access to resources and potential mates. Humans lack context of entities which do not come from previous life. All humans have parents, as do animals and plants, so god is the presumed "first parent." The desire to attach meaning to events assisted in the ability to predict them, and hence increased the probability of survival. Those that predicted better and explained better consequently survived better. Emergent from this evolved trait/desire is the presumption of "god" for those things more difficult to explain. Those are just a few off the top of my head. False premise #2. Your meaning here is unclear. As I mentioned above, religious belief could very well be correlated with survival and selection through various mechanisms, but it is not causal. Questionable premise #2. By "deviates," I presume you mean those who chose not to accept the fairy tales and imaginary friends of the group? If natural selection was involved, then this trait of group cohesion happened WELL before the advent of religion or god(s), and also in nonhuman animals. False premise #3. Not if the group was not a religious one. There were human groups and tribes who were not religious, and who did not believe in god(s). False premise #4. We did not evolve for religious belief. Religious belief is an emergent property of other traits which were beneficial to survival. For that reason, it is invalid to suggest that humans cannot exist without religion, and it is also invalid to suggest that religion cannot be removed from human society. False premise #5. Since so many of your premises were false, so are your conclusions. Also, you're not on topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion