|
Up to:  Biker's CafeThis should be a good place for all purpose talks, better than interleaving our discussions with "Time Trial Champions" comments.
BikerBrian | PoliticsWow! I stirred up a hornets nest by bringing up politics. Sorry guys, you can blame me. 
Let me start by saying that I am in complete agreement with Vega's last post in the GC thread (this discussion has now been moved to its own thread).
As Kris said, we each have our own personal beliefs about political (and religious) issues, so there is no sense trying to persuade each other.
However, I do need to add my 2 cents to Xuzz's comments. Regarding taxes: Even under the current "Bush system", people who earn more still pay WAY more than anyone else (actual and percentage). The top 5% earn 31.99% of all wages, but pay 53.25% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 96.03% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% are paying a tiny bit of the taxes (3.97%), so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people that Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
The tax cuts have been unfairly labeled by the media to imply that they only help the rich, but that's crap. The "rich" are just being allowed to keep more of their own money. As Vega so eloquently put it, the better off they (and their companies) are, the better off everyone else will be. It is a terrible idea to punish success. If taxes are raised on businesses and employers, they will simply pass this burden on to customers and employees.
As for this election, we will have to agree to disagree if you (Xuzz) think Obama (who has the most liberal record in the U.S. Senate -  http://nj.nationaljou rnal.com/voteratings/) is better suited to run our country and unite it than McCain (who has a proven track record of working together with members from both parties).
Either way, our votes in CA and TN won't matter anyway. Obama will get California's electoral votes and McCain will get Tennessee's. There will be very little campaign money spent in either state. |
Kristopher
|  | | mike flips
|  |  | @Pickle
12 weeks is when it starts. Just because something happened once doesnt mean it happens all the time. You keep taking rare events and state them as fact for the majority of cases. There is no 6-8 weeks. Stop being dumb.
A pregnancy occurs because a sperm fertilizes an egg. God does not make a sperm do this. This occurs because that is how humans are designed. A fundamental concept in the religions stemming from the old testament is that god put us all on earth yet we have the FREE WILL to make choices that we choose. Therefore God may want the child to live according to you but the pregnancy did not occur for any reason other than the fact that the egg was fertilize and that isn't God's doing. You are coming awfully close to saying you don't believe people have freedom to make their own choices which is definitely not part of your religion.
Global warming - You are just so dense. Lee can you try and convince him. Its like talking to a baby at 11 weeks, they have no brain waves and can't comprehend anything. |
| Lee
|  | | @ Mike > I stepped back when I got told "99 out of one hundred scientists are wrong. Think about this just because something is belived bye millions does not conferm it to be true."
That sounded too much like an attack on my "beliefs", which I took pause with and chose not to enter into an argument.
it is not "believed" by millions of people - it has been subsequently tested by SCIENTIFIC METHOD as follows:
1. A hypothesis is formed. (actually a null-hypothesis, if we wish to be accurate)
2. This is then attacked with evidence-based research repeatedly.
3. The Hypothesis is altered - where proven to be wrong.
it is then attacked some more
4. < - repeat>
The end result is a robust hypothesis, which appears to reflect the actual fact of the matter as best as can be (scientists NEVER believe something to be 100% true - that is... as long as they are good scientists)
Faith, however, is a wonderfully rewarding and strengthenning belief of absolute certainty that you are immutably "right". I respect faith, I know many people for whom it is the reason for their being, and the metal with which the steel themselves to be productive members of society.
I do, however, think that at times it can stifle the ability to question.
With discussions over spontaneous generation, I can see that Pickle wishes to take the discussion into that for natural-selection / darwinism over "intelligent design".
I have had the discussion with many people, and find the concept of intelligent design to be a faith-based one, with little scientific method... but I know that those believers in intelligent design are unswayable also... I guarantee that the rest of the world is petrified of this state of play, but there you go... there will be no successful resolution in such a discussion.
Also...Please no more discussion on when life starts... it is a metaphysical question with no correct answer, and it polarises and divides whole communities. |
| Mr.pickle.
|  | | Lee I know the scientific method forwarsd and backwards(I did phisical science last year ) Since you do not get my point concerning spontanios generation(Something I do not wish to argue about here) I was simply using that as an example since you dident ge it I will now quote my phisical science book.
"....Other scientific laws are overthrown because the experiments that support them are flawed. For example, in about 330 BC, the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle observed that if one left meat out in the open and allowed it to decay, maggots would appear on the meat within a few days. From that observation, he formed the hypothesis that living maggots were formed from non-living meat. He called this process "spontaneous generation," and he postulated that this is where many life forms originate. He made many other observations that seemed to support his hypothesis. For example, he showed that eels have a similar smell and feel as the slimy ooze at the bottom of rivers. He considered this evidence that eels spontaneously formed from the ooze.
As time went on, many more experiments were performed that seemed to support the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. As a result, the hypothesis was quickly accepted as a theory. Of course, the experimentation did not stop there. As late as the mid-1600s, a biologist named Jean Baptist van Helmont performed an experiment in which he placed a sweaty shirt and some grains of wheat in a closed wooden box. Every time he performed the experiment, he found at least one mouse gnawing out of the box within 21 days. Think about it. A hypothesis that was formed in 330 BC was quickly accepted as a theory due to the fact that all experiments performed seemed to support it. Experiments continued for a total of 1900 years, and they all seemed to support the theory! As a result of this overwhelming amount of data in support of the theory of spontaneous generation, it became accepted as a scientific law.
About that same time, however, Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, questioned the law of spontaneous generation. Despite the fact that this law was universally accepted by the scientists of his day, and despite the fact that his fellow scientists laughed at him for not believing in the law, Redi challenged it. He argued that Helmont could not tell whether the mice that he supposedly formed from a sweaty shirt and wheat grains had gnawed into the box or out of the box. He said that in order to really test this law, you would have to completely isolate the materials from the surroundings. That way, any life forms that appeared would have to have come from the materials and not from the surroundings. He performed experiments in which he put several different types of meat in sealed jars and allowed the meat to decay. No maggots appeared on the meat. He claimed that this showed that maggots appear on meat not because they are formed by the meat, but instead because they get onto the meat.
Of course, the scientists of his day said that by sealing the jars, Redi was cutting off the air supply, which would stop the maggots from forming. Thus, Redi redesigned his experiment. Instead of sealing the jars, he covered them with a fine netting. The netting was fine enough to keep maggots out but allow air in. Still, no maggots formed on the meat, even long after it was decayed. What these experiments showed was that the previous experiments which purportedly demonstrated that maggots could form from decaying meat were simply flawed. If one were to adequately isolate the meat from the surroundings, maggots would never form.
These experiments sent shock waves throughout the scientific community. A scientific law, one which had been supported by nearly 1900 years of experiments, was wrong! Of course, many scientists were simply unwilling to accept this. Yes, they agreed, perhaps maggots did not come from decaying meat, but surely there were some types of organisms that could spontaneously generate from non-living things.
Anton van Leeuwenhoek thought he had found such organisms. In 1675, he reported that he had fashioned a homemade lens which magnified whatever was observed through it. As a result, he discovered the world of microorganisms .
Microorganisms - Living creatures that are too small to see with the naked eye
In the next module, we will begin studying this fascinating world in more depth. For right now, you just need to know that because these creatures cannot be seen without the aid of a magnifying lens, scientists prior to 1675 had no idea that they existed.
Leeuwenhoek and many others showed that these microorganisms did, indeed, seem to generate spontaneously. For example, in the mid-1700's John Needham did experiments very similar to Redi's. Needham made a liquid broth of nutrient rich material such as mutton gravy. He called these broths "infusions." He showed that if you boiled an infusion for several minutes, you could kill all microorganisms in it. Then, if you put the infusion in a jar and covered it with a net like Redi did in his experiments, microorganisms would appear in the infusion within a few days. Needham concluded that since he had covered the jar with a net just as Redi had, the infusion was isolated from the surroundings. These experiments were hailed as support for the beleaguered law of spontaneous generation.
Lazzaro Spallanzani, a contemporary of Needham, did not like Needham's experiments. After all, he said, since we cannot see microorganisms with our eyes, perhaps they can be transported by the air, making their way through the nets that covered Needham's infusions. Spallanzani repeated Needham's experiments, but Spallanzani covered the jars with an airtight seal. In these experiments, no microorganisms formed. Of course, those who still held on to the law of spontaneous generation argued that once again, without air, nothing could live. Thus, by making an airtight seal, Spallanzani cut off the process of spontaneous generation.
In the mid-1800's, however, the great scientist Louis Pasteur finally demonstrated that even microorganismsms cannot spontaneously generate. In his experiments, illustrated in Figure 1.4, Pasteur stored the infusion in a flask that had a curved neck. The curved neck allowed air to still reach the flask, but if microorganisms were present in the air, they would be trapped at the bottom of the curve. When Pasteur repeated Needham's experiments in the curved flask, no microorganisms appeared. In a final blow, Pasteur even showed that if you tipped the flask once to allow any microorganisms that might be trapped to fall into the infusion, microorganisms would appear in the infusion. Thus, Pasteur showed that even microorganisms cannot spontaneously generate. As a sidelight, he also showed that these microorganisms can be transported through the air.
The point to this rather long discussion is simple. Even though a scientific law seems to be supported by hundreds of years of experiments, it might very well still be wrong because those experiments might be flawed. All of the experiments that were used to support the law of spontaneous generation were flawed. The scientists who conducted the experiments did not adequately isolate them from the surroundings. Thus, the life forms that the scientists thought were being formed from non-living substances were, in fact, simply finding their way into the experiment.
These two discussions, then, show the limits of science and the scientific method. First, even scientific laws are not 100% reliable. We are certain that some of the things which you learn in this book will someday be proven to be wrong. That is the nature of science. Because it is impossible to fully test a scientific law, and because laws are tested by experiments that might be flawed, scientific laws are not necessarily true. They represent the best conclusions that science has to offer, but they are nevertheless not completely reliable. Of course, if you are working with something that is a theory, it is even less reliable. Thus, putting too much faith in scientific laws or theories will end up getting you in trouble, because many of the laws and theories that we treasure in science today will eventually be shown to be wrong......After that long story, it might surprise you to learn that there are those scientists who still believe in spontaneous generation. Now of course, there is no way that they can argue with the conclusions of Pasteur's experiments, so they do not believe that microorganisms can spring from non-living substances. Nevertheless, they still do believe that life can spring from non-life! These scientists believe in a new theory known as abiogenesis (a' bye oh jen uh sis).
Abiogenesis -The theory that, long ago, very simple life forms spontaneously appeared through random chemical reactions
In this theory, some scientists say that since all life is made up of chemicals, it is possible that long ago on the earth, there was no life. There were just chemicals. These chemicals began reacting and, through the random reaction of chemicals, a "simple" life form suddenly appeared.
As we go through this course, you'll see how such an idea is simply inconsistent with everything that we know about life. At this time, however, we want to make a simple point regarding abiogenesis. Back when scientists believed in spontaneous generation, they had experiments which allegedly backed up their claim. Even before Pasteur's authoritative refutation of spontaneous generation, these experiments were shown to be flawed. Rather than giving up on their law, however, those who fervently believed in spontaneous generation just said, "Well, okay, these experiments are wrong. However, look at these other experiments . Although we now know that life forms which we see with our own eyes cannot spontaneously generate, microorganisms can."
Do you see what the proponents of spontaneous generation did? Because they wanted so badly to believe in their theory, they simply pushed it into an area in which they did not have much knowledge. The whole world of microorganisms was new to scientists back then. As a result, there was a lot of ignorance regarding how microorganisms lived and reproduced. Because of the ignorance surrounding microorganisms, it was relatively easy to say that spontaneous generation occurred in that world. After about 200 years of study, however, scientists began to understand microorganisms a little better, and that paved the way for Louis Pasteur's famous experiment.
Well, nowadays, scientists have pushed the theory of spontaneous generation back to another area that we are rather ignorant about. They say that although Pasteur's experiments show that microorganisms can't arise form non-living substances, some (unknown) simple life form might have been able to spontaneously generate from some (unknown) mixture of chemicals at some (unknown) point way back in earth's history. Well, since we have very little knowledge about things that happened way back in earth's history; and since we have only partial knowledge about the chemicals that make up life; and we have no knowledge of any kind of simple life form that could spring from non-living chemicals, the proponents of spontaneous generation (now known as abiogenesis) are pretty safe. The fact that we are ignorant in these areas keeps us from showing the error in their theory.
Of course, there are a few experiments that lend some support to the theory of abiogenesis. A discussion of these experiments is beyond the scope of this module, so right now let me just say that they are not nearly as convincing as the ones that van Helmont and Needham performed. In fact, they do not even produce anything close to a living organism, as van Helmont's and Needham's experiments seemed to. They just produce some of the simplest chemicals that are found in living organisms. Nevertheless, those who cling to the idea of spontaneous generation casually disregard the flaws that can be easily pointed out in these experiments and trumpet their results as data that support their theory. However, if you look at the track record of spontaneous generation throughout the course of human history, it is safe to conclude that at some point, the version of spontaneous generation known as abiogenesis will also be shown to be quite wrong."
Ok now that I have quoted an entire page and a half of my bioligy cource....Read that and understand my point that millions of scientists beliveing does not make it true yes it is a christian cource but all the facts are correct.
And hence do I assume the position of longest post in BOD history |
| Mr.pickle.
| | | That was a little longer than I thought....but that guy descibes such things MUCH better than me..... |
| Xuzz
|  | | Mr.pickle.
| | | Notice how long it lasted Xuzz That was belived till the mid 1800s that means it was around almost 1900 years Yes science has improved since 1800s to however The point remains the same, scientists all beliving something together does not make it true. |
| Mr.pickle.
| | | Xuzz
| | | bones
|  | | i know there is longer really early on but i dont feel like finding it |
| Mr.pickle.
| | | Probly.... |
| Xuzz
| | | mike flips
| | | Pickle's post doesnt count as #1, he didnt write any of it and he quoted biased religious articles.
Its funny that today i was on the msn homepage and there is a global warming article.
"New record for ice melt in the Arctic adds urgency to climate talks WWF says"
OSLO, Norway - Data showing Arctic sea ice may reach its lowest level on record this summer underscores the need for governments to speed up talks on a new climate pact, the Worldwide Fund for Nature said Monday.
The WWF said observations on ice coverage and thickness pointed toward a record low for the second year in a row, continuing a "catastrophic" trend that could threaten polar wildlife and accelerate global warming.
|
| Lee
| | | http://nsidc.org/arct icseaicenews/index.html
an explanation of current polar ice cap extent and temperature, with some conjecture over the potential effect of this uncharacteristic temparature accelerating global climate shifts. |
| Xuzz
| | | Pickle, if that is really your biology course, I feel sad for you. I just read the entire quote you can even TELL where they are not telling the truth -- there is NO detail in many parts to disprove a theory, and also "facts" that are completely wrong ... |
| Mr.pickle.
| | | Mr.pickle.
| | | BikerBrian
| | | I, for one, enjoyed Pickle's textbook quote and the point it was making. Just because most people believe something, doesn't make it true (spontaneous generation, the earth is flat, geocentric theory of the universe, etc). I have to admit that I have admired Pickle for being able and willing to defend his beliefs (at 16 yrs old). It would have been much easier for him to simply back down when confronted by Mike, Xuzz, Lee, and Bones.
As for global warming, the debate in my mind is whether it is man-made or part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling. My boss leans so far left that I don't know how he walks straight. He and I have been debating man-made global warming since before Al Gore's Crockumentary came out. The topic of GW has become a religion for my boss and many others.
Although my boss sends me every article he finds that supports his view, he has yet to convince me. Although I have sent him numerous articles that dispel his view, I have yet to convince him. The one thing that I am convinced of is that discussing such a topic here is simply a waste of time. However, I finally got a top 10 time on my latest level of focus (obstacalus muchus), so I have little time to waste.
The Earth and Sun move at some 220 kilometres per second (almost 500,000 miles/hr) along a nearly circular orbit about the center of our Galaxy. We are but a speck in this universe, our galaxy, and even on our planet. It seems bold to me that so many think we have the power to affect global temperature (to make it colder or warmer), or that we can control weather.
Although Al Gore continues preaching about GW, he doesn't seem to care too much about conserving himself. (side note: Al is from my state and I used to like him in his early days as a senator, but he has moved way left since then. The vote in FL has been blamed for him not winning the presidency in 2000. However, the real reason he lost is that he couldn’t even carry his “home” state).
As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in TN. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets." It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."
Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.
GW believers states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years, but they cannot possibly be sure on this point because data from previous centuries is unreliable. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and from microwave sounding units, since 1978. If you want to look at past data, consider the global temperature variation for the past 425,000 years. http://198.144.166.5/global_temp2.jpg The data were derived from an analysis of ice cores taken at the Vostok station in Antarctica.
Reliable data over the past 50 yrs indicates a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the apocalyptic vision of Sir Algore. This minor trend could have easily been caused by irregularities such as volcanic eruptions or El Nino events (major fluctuations in ocean temperatures in the Pacific which affect climate). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Global warming enthusiasts often ignore evidence that does not suit their ideology. They gloss over the fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames was often frozen over for months at a time.
Although there are many alternative possibilities about long-term changes in global temperature, including the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily responsible for climate change, GW enthusiasts only want to indulge in the fashionable notion that western capitalism (and the Bush administration) is entirely to blame for every drought and disaster.
Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology. That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming. Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt.
There are many contradictions and irrationality that have been spawned by GW. The EU, for example, destroyed a tiny industry making traditional barometers, on the grounds of an irrational fear of mercury, then imposed the use of fluorescent light bulbs that distribute that same "dreaded" substance in huge quantities across the continent, all on the basis of the threat of global warming.
Pickle has been told to question religion, why the U.S. is in Iraq, and many other things. He has also been told that he is crazy for questioning the theory of man-made GW.
What is so tragic is the way that this ideology has achieved such dominance in our public life. Politicians love the green agenda, of course, because it means more control, more regulation, more taxes, more summits, and more opportunities for displays of self-important zeal.
The good news for the GW crowd is that both McCain and Obama have a similar stance on warming and have plans to fix it.
Speaking of "warming", it's time for me to get back to Summer Pack . |
| mike flips
| | | This is the ignore pickle line below. Everything he writes after it can and will be ignored. I don't need my IQ to fall anymore from reading his nonsense.
Great debate everyone. Too bad Pickle came in.
____________________________________________________________ |
| Mr.pickle.
| | |
|
.
:
http://198.144.166.5/global_temp2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png