Acme

You sure spend a lot of time delineating the characteristics of something that isn't real. Just because our perception has limitations does not mean we have no perceptions nor is a blurry photograph any less a photograph because of its shortcomings.

Evidence for evolution: development of our kidneys It's not clear where you got that quote. Please give links for your citations. Just because something is not fully understood does not mean it's not understood at all. Note: I have quoted only a small portion of a lengthy article in accord with forum etiquette. This in no way excuses you from reading the whole article nor does it excuse you to dismiss the bit I quoted out of hand. Whether you think my evidence is good or not does not nullify the fact that I have actually presented evidence, and you are woefully short on presenting any evidence yourself.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Let the chips fall where they may.

I object for the reasons I have laid out. To restate and summarize, allowing creationists to soapbox on this site is tantamount to endorsing intellectual terrorism. Now if the decision is cast that that's an enjoyable thing, then so be it. As a side note, while Ophiolite was reporting the thread in question to support it, I was reporting it to quash it.

Your confidence and lack of knowledge count for little to nothing in this discussion.

I gave a reference in post #43 giving numerous examples of animals counting. You have either missed it or chosen to ignore it.

I don't mind. I like reading your posts. Well I'm flattered I'm sure. My point though is that you suggested I not read the creationist posts and since I have no way to know if a post is creationist or not without reading them, your point is kinda silly. It has been suggested that if these threads/posts stick to science then we should allow them, but again I would have to read them to make such a determination. My larger point is that NONE of the creationist posts or threads are actually science based so none of them belong here. Moreover, such posts/threads are fundamentally religious arguments that favor some particular religious viewpoint over others, a tactic that strikes me as contradicting our guidelines. We don't allow racist, misogynist, or other types of prejudice against groups of people and creationism is clearly prejudiced against science and per se scientists.

And you're under no obligation to read my posts or even respond to them.

Since we have umpteen threads already here with the debunking I see no sense in allowing more. As others have suggested, any new attempts should be referred to the old threads and the new bit closed. Anyone 'interested' whether new or not need only use the forum search function to get their fill. This give-equal-time meme is the same as the creationists trotted out in their attempts to include this crap in US public schools and which US courts determined was not science and soundly put the kibosh on. Honestly, anyone who wants to read what creationists write can go to creationist sites. creationism and creation science @ The Skeptics Dictionary

Your outright mischaracterization is disheartening, if not unsurprising in the context of your posting here. The article says explicitly:

Censorship here is not a four-letter word. The rules clearly set the censorship guidelines and the staff is responsible for enforcing the guidelines. Folks who don't like the rules here are free to leave and go somewhere else or start their own forum or blog. What I get from this thread's title is that creationism was at some point set out as against the guidelines. If this is the case then keep the guidelines that way and enforce them.

Sandstone

First, this place isn't a democracy and free speech is a red herring. While this thread was prompted by a report on the irreducible complexity schwang of creationism, my kudos to T. Swanson for his quick and decisive action on the young Earth schwang thread. To whit: post #3 Most responding here have agreed creationism is claptrap. (Not to mention US courts finding it so.) I'm in total agreement with Swanson that there is no need to rehash it. Nip it in the bud wherever and whenever it sprouts.

I say keep it out. [if you don't like referring to other sites, then refer to closed and/or debunking threads here.] Creationism is more than intellectual dishonesty, it's intellectual terrorism.

Wrong. Irreducible complexity

Presuming you have the proper settings on the multimeter, the adapter being 'kaput' may account for the erratic reading. On the amperage, I think that under-amperage would give less than optimal performance and that over-amperage wouldn't matter as the speakers can only draw so much current with their fixed resistance and at a given voltage. This bit is about computer adapters but the same principles apply to your speakers. >> Can I use a charger that provides the same voltage but a different amperage?

Therein lies the rub. Your concern for folks here is duly noted and your apology rejected. Good grief.

That's the feeling I have. It sounds plausible though, being able to shift the striking edge closer to the target seems like it would increase the depth of the cut. If I swing a straight blade, the hilt, my hand, and the striking edge are meeting the target in a line, and I'm timing my strike to meet the target at that moment when it's all lined up and my strength is being used most efficiently. But if I'm swinging a blade where the edge is already a couple inches ahead in the swing, it seems like the power point in my swing is now in an open wound instead of just starting one. ... The merits of any particular sword as a weapon are relative to the conditions of its use and type of material used. What is good in one situation may not be a benefit in another. For examples: Is the sword being wielded from horseback or afoot? What is the weaponry of the enemy that it is being used against? Is the enemy armored or not? How brittle or flexible is the sword?

I think the advantage of the offset handle on the snow shovel is about posture, i.e. you don't have to bend over as much to get a scoop. Less back bending = less back pain. As to the sword I think what you heard is old wives' tales. (Maybe old warriors' tales?) Talking about 'by the time a straight blade hits' is only as good as the speed at which the blade be swanged.

We are the vantage point & you're just spinning your wheels and getting nowhere fast Bro. Eat, drink, and be merry because we can croak at any time.

Indeed the crux of the matter is the meaning of words, or if you will, context is everything. Back in post #136 I gave the definition of measure as I was using it when geordief complained that I wasn't even using English when I said, "The set of prime numbers is infinite and this is measured by mathematical proof." Here is that definition again: Notice at the dictionary link there are 100 lines or more giving various definitions of 'measure'. All are correct but have differing applications depending on context. So in the context of this thread, an infinite universe is an evaluation of universe for which there is always something more... But a finite description of the set is enough. The proof is a finite description of an infinity. Here you commingle meanings of 'measure'; that of "b. A unit specified by a scale, such as an inch, or by variable conditions, such as a day's march." and that which I used, "2. An evaluation or a basis of comparison ." We are not talking of anything being infinitely small in regards to the universe. That is simply wrong. Cataloged galaxies are actual galaxies. It is statements such as you make here that prompts others to measure your writing as gossamer imaginings.

Mathematicians are not fighting over measuring infinity; they are in agreement. Since the distinction is beyond you then it is only reasonable that you excuse yourself from using the distinction in your arguments. So you make my point here about excusing yourself. You can't make the distinction so you have no logical basis to think anything sensible on the matter. The scale is the number line and it has no limit. You can always add one more number to the line. So just above you admit the distinction is beyond you and that you don't know the scale, and yet here -again- you go on to make baseless assertions about that which you don't understand. I gave a literal example of an infinite set, i.e. the prime numbers. It is not 'supposedly' infinite, it is as I said proven infinite (millennia ago by Euclid*) and yes, contrary to your knowing, folks are currently still counting new primes*. *Euclid's Proof of the Infinitude of Primes (c. 300 BC) *Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search: GIMPS Finding World Record Primes Since 1996

I had already conceded that point. Indeed. But you went on to question my use of the term 'spurious' and so I answered your complaint. I can avoid philosophical discussions in general without being obliged to avoid making a philosophical argument personally (inadvertently in this case) even immediately after saying that I avoid them . I don't intend to self censure myself in that regard. Well, actually you made the inadvertent philosophical argument before you said you avoided philosophy; thus the irony. If you don't self-censure then you shouldn't be surprised that at a discussion forum others will do you the kindness. Note that I came into this discussion to point out Tar's error in claiming infinity is not susceptible to measurement and that any further claim he made based on that error is also in error. All-in-all, beyond the factual errors, you and Tar appear to have an eristic bent in this thread. That is to say, you argue simply for the sake of arguing.

I know deceit is one sense, yes. I used spurious in the sense of "1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin". You argued that I wasn't using English and that argument is in essence invalid. I was pointing out the irony of you writing that you avoid philosophical discussion shortly after you introduced a philosophical argument. Acknowledged. Surely. Not always. It also refers to the use of fallacy.

Hit the toggle switch in upper-left corner of edit box then type the img tags at either end of the pasted url. [/img] Note: Studiot's method is if the image is yours and on your computer, whereas my method is for displaying an image from a web page.