ghstofmaxwll

Why is that strange? If the parties are consenting it would be strange if the police ever heard about it.

 

 

 

 

My argument is the same as all the other threads ku has started about incest (a definite obsession there). Consent doesn't mean a child is ready for sex. A child who is not emotionally ready may consent to a parent without understanding all the ramifications. Incest should not be legalized because it also throws open the doors to all pedophiles (another ku obsession).

 

I don't know why I bother with these threads. ku rarely comes back to defend his arguments.

I said "incest with a consenting party", I thought it went without saying that this implies "all parties involved are over the age of consent", but I guess we cant all be quick.

Strangely, I've heard of arrest for bigamy, but not incest with a consenting party.

I didnt think incest was illegal, I've never know anyone to be nicked for it in Britain anyway.

[hide]queue.[/hide]

The Earth Moo system" .

Was that from a cow? ...No seriously though, that is disturbing there are people out there who think the earth and moon is the universe.

 

p.s Remember when you square root in the formula it gives two answers still when b = 0.

I need that tattooed on a place that I always pay attention to.

To be clear, this thread is not about certainty in data regarding global climate and evolution by natural selection. This thread is about the similarities, or lack thereof, between creationists and global warming deniers.

 

However, was your post supposed to somehow counter my point that creationists and global warming deniers are a special form of retarded, or was it meant to reinforce it? Frankly, it's really difficult to tell.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmmm. I think my post was supposed to some how sum up how retarded pretenders to science (A.K.A AGW asserters) are.

 

 

And if you look above, you will see why natural selection is probably the most robust theory we’ve ever encountered. I have no struggle with a belief in God, but a belief in the tenets of creationism which have been proven wrong repeatedly seems to me a bit retarded, but a special kind.

Maybe the reason you dont see the difference between the certainty of global warming assertions(based on scant data and interpretation) and the certainty of natural selection(based on copious and uncontested data) is because you are in fact the retard.

Indeed, and both of those arguments would require a far more convulted background of political strategies, rather than, anthropogenic influence to climate is happening, and there are a large number of the public who are a tad confused by the whole thing.

There is no confusion spastic! Your premise of a correlation between manmade greenhouse production and climate fluctuation is the simplest thing imaginable after learning Quantum mechanics and Trigonometric calculus. Its your faith induced assertions based on coincidence rather than strict science method that is where the doubt lies.

Just like a global warming enthusiast to miss the point..... Although its more likely than not you will not get attacked by a pit bull. Hospital figures show pit bull attacks are rising in Britain post "dangerous dog act".

How the hell do you guys get to write notations in your posts? Is it with latex?

Is there a way to get x as the function?

No because f of x is the accepted modus operandi in maths. It wont help you to switch axis anyway, what will help you is listening to the people telling you about the zoom function and increment settings.

That movie gets played on the classic channels, like AMC and TCM every now and then. It was way ahead of it's time. In fact Gene Roddenberry has been quoted as stating that it was a major influence for the Star Trek series.

 

The robot is Robbie The Robot. He was very famous. The first robot star. Besides that movie, he was the model for a robot toy that many kids played with in the 50s and 60s. The Twilight Zone,

That was the very same robot costume? I didnt realize that.......It was of course the "Uncle Simon " episode, yeah? They used the toy model for "One for the angels"?....I have just about all the DVDs released of that show.

I'm not sure exactly how they did it. The error range is pretty large though. 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years. That is not a lot of precision and is precisely why I was discussing in terms of order of magnitude.

What??? Are you a complete idiot? Yo cant calculate error of 8degreesC and then conclude that the climate was less than 1degreeC hotter back then compared to now! Your main calculation has to be a larger figure than your combined error!!! You seriously need to learn some practical Physics skills before spewing nonsense claims.

Huh? Are you being randomly sarcastic, are you actually arguing both sides of the issue here, or just spewing nonsense?

 

iNow's understanding (of whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of your "rebuttal" of 1veedo's statement.

No I'm not be sarcastic, Im attempting to illustrate how stupid your type look to the real science community, inow and 1weedo are capitulating well as my lead stooges.

OK forget it! The chances of you fanatics actually interpreting the data right in the first place are so small that I dont think the concession is needed.

This, of course, in no way invalidates 1veedo's statement. It's phrased like a rebuttal, but after a microsecond of thought one realizes that it really isn't. It's (partly) because of this observation that we should be concerned about climate change. Unless you want to go down that path of "... and this is a good thing ..." But somehow I doubt that the ones who claim that climate modeling is too complex will be able to reassure us by modeling which species will go extinct and how it will all be fine if that happens.

Indeed! Inow not understanding how much temperature will have surpassed well in excess of 1C fluctuations since 65E6 years ago, is its own rebuttal.

Yes It will be fine! It will be fine for evolution! It will be fine for everyone but you guys who are ignorant to mass extinctions throughout transitions from and toward iceages and mini-iceages.

 

 

 

The Universe's atmosphere is a mixture of many other radiations and gases such as plasma, dust particles, ice, and many chemical mixtures, depending where one measures.

 

Newton's ether (perhaps dark matter) is particles. This is the atmosphere light waves navigate. Radiation photons cannot navigate empty space; they must have a medium to traverse. Particles may make up the elusive dark matter to which so many scientist have referred.*

OK that is been out since Einstein found the revised explanation to Michelson-Morley. How did you bible guys latch onto it? and why adopt an outmoded concept when there are plenty of contemporary ones to corrupt into creationist teachings?

When the fastest historical period of warming within the past 65 million years or so was 3 orders of magnitude less, 1 degree C is a startling amount. Today the Earth is warming even quicker though, at a rate of about 3 degrees C over 150 years (.2C/decade * 15).

http://www.jokes.net/accountantvisitsthenaturalhistorymuseum.htm

If you've ever had any basic biology you'd know that slight changes in the climate have far-reaching effects.

If you had any knowledge of evolutionary biology, you would know that mass extinctions followed by remain species diversifying in the left niches is all part of the process.

You are trying to pretend that anthropogenic global warming has only been going on for the past 30 years when in reality humans have been steadily causing the Earth to get hotter for over 150 years now, and possibly even longer. To say otherwise is a missinterpretation of what the science says, eg it's a straw man. Just because the human impact on the climate has not always been the overwhelming factor does not change the fact that in the previous 150 years we have caused the Earth to get warmer by about a degree celsius. Where natural factors have caused the temperature to bounce up and down a little during this same period, human factors have steadily been pushing mean temperatures further and further up. If you look at only the natural factors in the climate the Earth would actually be cooler today than what it was 150 years ago, but because of the human influence over this entire period temperatures are much warmer now.

Jesus Christ man! 1 degree C???? If the mean temperature had remained within a degree over a 150 year period it would be a miracle if you take into account the erratic nature of solar surface activity along with one of the most complex climates in the solar system and substantial atmosphere( greenhouse gas rich). Thats not to mention accuracy and precision concerns in data, more so over a century ago.

Where do you guys learn your Physics? Do you guys learn Physics? Where do you guys get taught systematic error, not to mention the random error ?

What do you mean by a frigging ether atmosphere? You will have to elaborate if you want people to take you seriously.

??Can someone else from the bible sector give us non bible jigglers an explanation of what you mean by ether?

The Hubble telescope observations imply that dark matter ether must exist, as only about 4 percent of the mass of the Universe (as an estimate) can be accounted

Yes I know about wimps and machos, etc. I just dont know what you mean by "ether". Over here "Aether" is known as an out-dated explanation for Lorentz's measurements of space contraction.

What do you mean by the word "ether" here? Is that which we students from England know as Aether? Can you expand on what you mean? please.

There's no dilemma. Theres no black and white, but there's no dilemma....Err on the side of caution people.

On a side note, does the opening narration to Forbidden Planet chill other people? It does me.

...listen carefully to the very first line of the narration (where the seekbar is at the start of the red heart) and think about it! I cant see how this can fail to fill one with awe.

I doubt it because there is no purpose for that in maths. If you want to see that though just rotate your calculator 90degrees.