Leaderboard

Never? I'm at work so can't look that up - but feel I need to... I thought they used to believe this. If they believed it and changed their minds it doesn't say much about the 'infallibility of their scripture or their pope or indeed the god that was supposed to have written this. Why did god allow it to go into the book if it is factually wrong? I used to be a Christian and made the same argument about it being 6 time periods myself... but so what? It's still nonsense. The book is full of holes and contradictions - which wouldn't be there if what the book claims is true. What about the talking animals, the 900 year old people, the impossible boat with all the animals on it etc.. why would the god allow a book to written which is so obviously untrue and expect everyone to believe it? You are Catholic yea? Going by your willingness to quote the catholic church as an authority on the matter... the catholic church has a book of recorded miracles.... it's a total joke - not one of them can be properly confirmed and they are all shit. If the book was real then where are the seeing blind, the walking dead or the healed people? Every claim of it turns out to be false, made up, or unprovable when scrutinised by anyone other than a catholic priest - it's worse than misunderstanding... it is a total lie. ...er - they claim to be absolute truth. They claim that they are above science and that any discovery made by science that contradicts their faith must be wrong. The bible claims the existence of a god that rules over all - they claim this to be true.... it is clearly nonsense. There is a lot of stuff they claim that is totally ridiculous and contrary to rational thinking and observation.

Once again, I am explaining from the start. You said that indirect observation of electron trace does not prove existence of electron, and came up with image of lemur. I explained you what does it even means "to see something" i.e. interactions of photons with matter/antimatter/particles. You complained that interaction of photons with electrons in trace of electron is not the same as looking at living animal. But it's pretty much the same. So I came up with three distinct cases in which billions of photons are interpreted by brain as image of known animal (their state to be alive or not, is actually irrelevant). Entire discussion started from your doubt in electron existence. Scientists are firing and accelerating electrons at will (and you too in old CRT TV (CRT - Cathode Ray Tube - basically "electron rays tube") ), in electron gun, simply pressing button, and immediately seeing effect caused by electrons. If they are accelerated to enough velocity, and thus have enough kinetic energy, after hitting luminescent screen, they decelerate and gave part or all of their kinetic energy to atom in screen which they hit. Excited atom is emitting photons in human visible spectrum. Human eye is observing photons, thus know collision did happen. That's not any tiny bit different from case in which photon is emitted by external light source, then it interacted with matter on its path ("lemur" or whatever else what is around you), and reached your eye and has been absorbed by retina, and interpreted by your brain. I rephrased your statement "indirect observation of electron trace does not prove existence of electron" to "indirect observation of image of lemur does not prove existence of lemur", but you failed at understanding this analogy..

Aristarchus KNEW the earth revolved around the sun. That is not philosophy in the broadest sense that is specific scientific knowledge. Neither did I use analogy or simile, dank cells and hangings were often the ends for true scientists, and please don't confuse the established state religions with Christianity here. Modern examples involving someone else claiming the work are found by the curious, most often in our era a man claims the woman's discovery. What are you going to be left with, Beecee, if Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Black Holes are 'discovered' to be false? They ARE only theories, after all. Nevertheless, I am counting on scientific advances to confirm certain ancient knowledge, like the water beyond the furthest galaxies, for instance, but as that is written of in a book considered off limits to most science forums I won't mention it here. "Troll" : A typical internet insult and accusation towards a person with beliefs differing from another person's. Often the accused is too considerate and polite to respond with similar insult .. but that is not necessary, as most people on the internet are familiar with the personality of the person hurling the insults. "Where is the evidence for your underlined words?" : A request made most often by those who fail most often to provide evidence for their own statements, underlined or not.

If you have a glass and pour water into it until it runs over and see a puddle on the table, do you stop pouring or do you continue because "drinking glasses hold water, everyone knows this"? We see the equivalent of the puddle in atmospheric CO2 measurements.

What? ND currently has a republican trifecta of control. What suppression is in place, and how did the democrats allegedly pull it off? Except it was true. Not the same way as before, since they had to obtain that documentation. The outcry I saw was that this happened late in the election cycle, making it difficult to comply. Fortunately, a significant amount of money was raised to make it happen. Here's a story from Oct 19 about that effort. Funny thing — they clearly mention the bit about the tribal letter. I don't see how you can sell this as not preventing people from voting if you require them to get a new ID. All new voter ID laws will disenfranchise people, because not everyone can run out and get the new ID that's required, for a variety of reasons. It's be nice if you would give some citations for any of these claims you make.

It's a waste product of the combustion process. By your reasoning, excrement isn't a waste product because of bacteria and dung beetles. But waste is defined by the process in question; it's unused/unusable output of that process. In photosynthesis, oxygen is the waste product.

not if I'm lying.

Will all members who think they're brains in vats, or victims of a Cartesian demon, please raise their hands. Ok, leaving them aside, let us proceed... The position is known as radical skepticism: all we can have knowledge of is the contents of our own minds -- if that! I have no disproof. I don't think anyone else does either. It's just a position I don't think ought to be taken seriously. Do you? Still here? Since you don't believe you are a brain in a vat, we can start talking about knowledge of external reality. Presumably we can know about things like rocks and chairs and other inanimate objects like Robert Mitchum. Still with me? Perhaps after a few gin & tonics for Dutch courage we can muster the cojones to start talking about scientific knowledge....

.... you see - we will go round in circles discussing semantics again. What shocker? That I admit to knowing that some people in the world (I think it was started by Solphists, I don't really know) suggest that we cannot really know that anything we believe or not is actually true? As a philosopher you could probably tell me and put me straight as to where that line of thought originated. Personally I don't really care as it seems so blindingly obvious. How can you really know anything? I do not believe I am a brain in a jar.... but I don't think I can prove it. Maybe you can tell us how to prove it if you have studied philosophy. To me - when people start asking 'How can you know you are not just a brain in a jar receiving external stimuli which makes you believe you live in the real world?' I think it is a waste of time talking to them... There are things in life that we 'know' to be fact.... but they are still just based on what we have learned throughout our lives.... we could still be wrong about things we think are absolute facts and truths. Are you saying you have never been wrong about anything?... Thought you 'knew something to be true' and it turned out it wasn't? When this happens you update your understanding of reality in your own mind and build a new (better?) model of reality. Of course I have - that's language. I am saying that there is a line of thought that says you can never really know if you are right or not. No-one knows what happened 5000 years before what we term the big bang for instance. No one has any way of knowing. I know what I had for breakfast though - I was there and I remember eating it. I would say that it is 'true' that I know what I had for breakfast... It is not, though, beyond the realms of possibility that I was tricked into believing that I ate this morning. I don't see how but it isn't impossible. You can use the word (as you can with many words) in different contexts. You will have a totally different conversation about what is truth with every different member here and everywhere else I'd expect. Do you ever reach a conclusion in these discussions? What is your point? What is the use of this? If you discuss what is true with a child - they might tell you different things to what a politician will tell you or then again a philosopher or a scientist. It depends on the definition and the context of the word.... Which we discussed several pages back with Studiot. It could be that I am still missing your point... or just failing to see it's worth.

Well, that's a start. What a relief too! By the way, do you regard "[They are] used by every programmer few, few hundred, or thousand times per day" to be a true statement? Why is everyone so terrified of truth??!! Aaarrrggghhhh!!!! Can you even imagine going through life without speaking of truth? Might make a good party game. First person who uses the word "true" or "truth" has to chug a beer. Betcha it'd be a very short game.

Universal statements of the form "Every X has property Y" where X has unlimited scope, are best understood to be policies for generating empirically verifiable finite propositions of the form " precisely n X's have property Y", where in order to generate a proposition the variable n must be substituted for any finite number. It is analogous to infinite FOR loops in programming languages. Whenever a programmer uses an infinite FOR loop, he isn't implying that the algorithm will never ever be stopped, he is merely deferring the termination of the FOR loop to the external operating environment of the program and has nothing else to state about the matter. Likewise, so-called universal "laws" of science are better understood to be policies for generating verifiable and finite propositions that we deem to be permissible in light of our current observations. Here, the "stopping conditions" of a policy of science are the fulfilment of falsification criteria for one of it's generated propositions . As with a non-terminated infinite FOR loop, a non-terminated policy of science implies nothing empirical whatsoever, positive or negative, concerning the eventuality of it later stopping due to falsification of one of it's verifiable propositions. Put another way, science is empirically constructive and expresses a finite amount of information concerning what has happened and what can be envisaged to happen, but science implies nothing empirical about what cannot ever happen, despite occasional appearances to the contrary. For example, take the so-called law that "Nothing can accelerate faster than the speed of light". On the surface, it looks as if if it were a meaningful negative empirical statement that universally forbids a genuine empirical possibility. But what it is really saying is that "an object accelerating faster-than the speed of light" is a nonsensical sentence in the language-game of relativity that isn't even a proposition. It is a statement of grammar, rather than a statement of empirical fact.

You want to redirect database requests? What are you trying to do exactly? It sounds like using some sort of proxy setup would be simpler.

Another confusion. What makes something true is not preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is what makes us confident that a particular proposition is true; it does not make the proposition true. There may be no evidence whatsoever to support a particular proposition. That proposition may nonetheless be true. Conversely, there may be a preponderance of evidence, yet the proposition that this evidence purportedly supports may be false. What makes a proposition true, as I've been defining truth here, is correspondence to facts.

A fact is thought to be a fact until another fact which is thought to be a fact proves the first fact to be an unfact.

It really is quite astonishing how, on a site that purportedly emphasizes evidential support, one manifestly preposterous claim is advanced blithely after another. First of all, "certainty" is a psychological state, not a degree of objective epistemological warrant. A science fan may proclaim certainty, or near certainty, that such-and-such a theory is true. A Creationist, on the other hand, is unlikely to share this confidence. Certainty, then, or near certainty, is a pretty myopic guide to truth. The loonie bins are full of wackos who enjoy certainty in their having prevailed at the Battle of Waterloo. Well, perhaps we can appeal to some objective measure of confirmation in order to show that the former's near-certainty is justified and the latter's lack of confidence is misplaced. Can we show, for example, that the objective probability of evolutionary theory (whatever that is today) being true is 99%? Or 80%? 60%? 10%? In other words, if this can be shown, then the degree of subjective confidence -- the degree of belief -- a rational person ought to assign to the theory will be exactly the same as the objective probability of its being true. If anyone out there can do this, I'd like to see it. And don't forget to show your working.

Huh! How old are you? Crap, ignorant crap. Coral Atolls are generally stable and many lived upon. Some are the result of ancient Volcanoes. There are also other Islands, non atolls, that are low lying, without your tourist resorts but inhabited by local Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians. Why are you so insensitive to the people that live in these places? Again, I must ask, how old are you? I simply do not believe the stupidity I am reading. Yes I have been to a few atolls as I was fortunate enough to sail the Pacific from Panama to Sydney over 4 months on a square rigged Barquentine. This is why your ignorance astounds me and why I ask, how old you are. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146594-eight-low-lying-pacific-islands-swallowed-whole-by-rising-seas/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/pacific-island-nations-urge-world-leaders-to-act-as-islands-expected-to-sink/news-story/9416ac1726d1f8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_island_nations#Sea_level_rise One of the dominant manifestations of climate change is sea level rise. NOAA estimates that "since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year".[2] In addition, NASA calculates that average sea level rise is 3.41 mm per year and that sea level rise is directly caused by the expansion of water as it warms and the melting of polar ice caps.[3]Both of these changes are dependent on global warming and thus climate change. Sea level rise is especially threatening to low-lying island nations because seas are encroaching upon limited habitable land and threatening existing cultures. As Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of Ocean Physics at Potsdam University in Germany notes "even limiting warming to 2 degrees, in my view, will still commit some island nations and coastal cities to drowning." [4] However it is also important to consider recent research which contradicts the claim that rising sea levels will necessarily submerge island nations. Studies done by Paul Kench, a geomorphologist at the University of Auckland, have shown that "reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward". However at the same time Kench states that "for the areas that have been transformed by human development, such as the capitals of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Maldives, the future is considerably gloomier" because these islands can not adapt to rising sea levels and are therefore greatly threatened.[5] Other effects of climate change[edit] There are many secondary effects of climate change and sea level rise particular to island nations. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service climate change in the Pacific Islands will cause "continued increases in air and ocean surface temperatures in the Pacific, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and increased rainfall during the summer months and a decrease in rainfall during the winter months".[6] This would entail distinct changes to the small, diverse, and isolated island ecosystems and biospheres present within many of these island nations. As sea level rises island nations are at increased risk of losing coastal arable land to degradation as well as salinification. Once the limited available soil on these islands is salinified it becomes very difficult to produce subsistence crops such as breadfruit. This would severely impact the agricultural and commercial sector in nations such as the Marshall Islands and Kiribati.[7] In addition local fisheries would also be severely affected by higher ocean temperatures and increased ocean acidification. As ocean temperatures rise and the pH of oceans increases, many fish and other marine species would die out or change their habits and range. As well as this, water supplies and local ecosystems such as mangroves, are threatened by global warming. The tourism sector would be particularly threatened by increased occurrences of extreme weather events such as hurricanes and droughts.[

Not that I ever took you seriously in the first place, but you now officially have zero credibility with me I just asked a kindergartner what was wrong with this conclusion and they said islands are at different heights (elevations). Does it matter to you that your position is so weak that you can’t even fool a kindergartner? Granted, they are a pretty above average 5 year old...

A few cheery remarks inspired by reading through the posts above... Here Zosimus alludes to Carl Hempel's notorious "raven paradox". The uninitiated will no doubt find it explained on Google, and the problem it raises for any account of evidence and confirmation in science, namely, granting two rather innocuous assumptions [ (i) any instance of an F that is G constitutes confirming evidence for the hypothesis "all Fs are G", and (ii) any evidence that confirms a hypothesis H also confirms any hypothesis logically equivalent to H] we derive the disturbing conclusion that almost any observation constitutes evidence for almost any hypothesis. Hardly a trivial result! Given the overriding importance assigned to "evidence" by our members in appraising scientific claims to truth and knowledge, Hempel's paradox is ignored at one's own peril. Lacking any understanding of what evidence is in science, and exactly how it serves to support a theory or hypothesis (if indeed it does at all - Zosimus is skeptical), a "We have lots of evidence" defense is hardly superior to "It's all in scripture". Zosimus, cogent and intelligent argumentation notwithstanding, takes skepticism further than I'd be willing to go myself, though his presence here, in my opinion, constitutes a sorely needed corrective to the wildly inflated and frequently ill informed hyperbole of those raised on self-congratulatory Whig history of science and the simple-minded Dawkins/Krauss type pablum obediently and uncritically consumed by those who prefer their portraits wart-free. On a different note, to the myth of "the scientific method" we may now add the legend of the "unique self-corrective mechanism" of science often alluded to implicitly or explicitly. First, there is no unique "mechanism" of self-correction, that I'm aware of anyway. When scientists come across something they consider to be an error they amend it. Far from being unique, that puts them on a par with pretty much every other institution and individual on the planet. Second, the term "self-corrective" is wont to beguile us, implying as it does that what is incorrect is replaced with what is correct, or falsity gives way to truth. Taking the example of light again for illustration, it's far from obvious that light construed as a wave constitutes a "correction" of light as corpuscles, especially given that light as a wave itself subsequently succumbed to "correction". Finally, in spite of the usual panegyrics, proselytizing, and propaganda from the devout, scientific knowledge (more properly, putative knowledge) probably ranks among the least secure knowledge that we have, or think we have. The reasons for this are not hard to discern. First of all, surely the briefest reflection will reveal that simple everyday knowledge (e.g. "Donald Trump is the 45th president of the USA", "There are six Grolsch beers in my fridge") is far less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of time than, say, "The top quark has a mass of 173.34 ± 0.27 (stat) ± 0.71 (syst)10⁰ GeV/c²". (Take it up with google if my info is inaccurate). And which do you think is more likely to turn out true: the astrologer's "something will happen today" or the physicist's assessment of quark properties? Lest I be misconstrued, this is no criticism of science. It is, rather, simply to point out that scientific knowledge claims, in striving for accuracy, exposes itself to mutability. Just to help us keep our feet on terra firma... "If there is one thing we can learn from the history of science, it is that the scientific theorizing of one day is looked on by that of the next as flawed and deficient. The clearest induction from the history of science is that science is always mistaken - that at every stage of its development, its practitioners, looking backward with the wisdom of hindsight, will view the work of their predecessors as seriously deficient and their theories as fundamentally mistaken. And if we adopt (as in candor we must) the modest view that we ourselves and our contemporaries do not occupy a privileged position in this respect, then we have no reasonable alternative but to suppose that much or all of what we ourselves vaunt as "scientific knowledge" is itself presumably wrong." -- Nicholas Rescher "For in formulating the question as to how to explain why the methods of science lead to instrumental success, the realist has seriously misstated the explanandum. Overwhelmingly, the results of the conscientious pursuit of scientific enquiry are failures: failed theories, failed hypotheses, failed conjectures, inaccurate measurements, inaccurate estimations of parameters, fallacious causal inferences, and so forth. If explanations are appropriate here, then what requires explaining is why the very same methods produce an overwhelming background of failures and, occasionally, also a pattern of successes. The realist literature has not yet begun to address this question, much less to offer even a hint of how to answer it." -- Arthur Fine Personally, I think it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of evolutionary theory being true or false. The term is so hopelessly vague, and encompasses such a welter of heterogeneous claims, that an attribution of truth or falsity is misplaced -- much as it would be peculiar to characterize the Encyclopedia Britannica as either "true" or "false". Philosopher of science Elliott Sober frames the problem this way: "Creationists often talk of 'testing evolutionary theory', and biologists sometimes talk this way as well. The context of their remarks sometimes reveals which specific proposition the authors have in mind, but often this is not the case. It is important to recognize that the phrase 'evolutionary theory' is too vague when the subject of testing is broached. There are a number of propositions that evolutionary biologists take seriously. The first step should be to specify which of these is to be the focus."

Why do people think that "irregardless" is a good word to use? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless Anyway, regardless of that, silicones are used as heat transfer fluids, and heat-sink compounds. They can't conduct all that badly. I wonder if some of the lower values found are for foamed products.

And it gets more and more right as our observations improve. I see no progress though in your continued obtuseness and misunderstandings. Scientific truth remains as determined by observation under the auspices of the scientific method. Nonsense. The observations of Jupiter and its moons showled that everything does not revolve around the Earth and lead to the heliocentric model. It is scientifically adequate and correct when used in its zone of applicability, as per all scientific models including GR. I'm really not interested in your philosophical clap trap. My claims stand and are generally accepted by scientists. I'm pretending nothing other then your inadequate attempted use of philosophy to attempt to invalidate science, the scientific methodology, and progressive scientific truth. Keep trying. If you chose to ignore history and logic in favour of your hairy fairy philosophical learning, then I certainly understand why Krauss and Hawking took your nonsense to task....Note carefully, I don't denigrate all philosophy'just that as preached by yourself and another on this forum and the fact that even you two cannot agree.... "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". :Henry Louis Mencken Actually again you fail to see. Science itself shows its own errors when relevant and is self correcting. Not interested in discussing any non scientific myth though. let's actually start where you are again wrong. Plenty of experiments starting with Focaults pendulum. I suggest you now start to stop trying to defend your silly philosophical stance against the practical application of science and the scientific method. So? I'm not prejudiced against any religious person, despite your own prejudices against the scientific discipline for having disposed of ID as unnecessary, and superfluous. Not sure why you find that an issue really. Oh for Christ's sake stop being so silly and pedantic. You know exactly what I'm inferring and mean and what I said. Is obtuseness a staple requirement of philosophy? Again science has been practised for eons, despite not being called scientists or philosophers. I suggest at this time, along with your other obvious agendas, that you look up the definition of science. Yeah sure, and as I have already said, that also is the general view held by many who chose mystical, mythical beliefs over science, the scientific method and the knowledge that goes with it. The scientific methodology is the most logical system available and I doubt if it will ever be improved upon. It's available and observed everyday at every opportunity for anyone that is not blinded by some agenda. I don't intend to pander to your nonsensical question in that regard. To the contrary I'm absolutely right and as I explained in detail.

Menan has been banned for not modifying his behavior after his suspension.

Lol

Incorrect. g ( gravitational force) is zero at the center, but the Specific(per unit mass) Gravitational potential is -3GM/2R where M is the mass of the planet, and R is its radius. At the surface of the planet (or any point above it) the Specific Gravitational potential is -GM/r where r is the distance from the center of the planet ( on the surface r=R) Specific Gravitational Potential Energy tells us how much energy it would take to move a unit mass from one point in the field to another. It takes energy to lift a mass from the center of the Earth to the surface, just like it takes energy to lift the same unit mass from the surface of the Earth to a point above it. It is the difference in potential gravitational energy is responsible for gravitational time dilation, not the difference in g. An easy way to demonstrate this is to calculate the gravitational time dilation factor for the surface of the Earth vs the surface of a planet with twice the radius and 4 times the mass of the Earth. You will get two different answers even though the value of g will be the same at the surface of both planets. A clock at the center of the Earth is at a lower potential than one on the surface and thus will run slower than one on the surface, even though it feels 0g compared to the surface clock at 1g.

I don't see the point of it. You need electrical energy for the laser. You might as well just have an electric motor.

Why some people think they can solve a physics mystery with only popular science study instead of mainstream coursework in actual physics.

You simply do not understand the water cycle. Australia has NEVER BEEN SO WET http://archive.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/01/australian_flooding.html Does not matter because the resorts are ALL ON THE BEACHES. Try again, feel free to call a friend

This is nonsense and you know it. It's like saying, "Every time a woman runs for the office of the president of the United States, she is defeated. Every time. EVERY TIME. Can we use these observation (sic) to predict that next year, when a woman runs for president, she will be defeated?" Well, of COURSE you can make that prediction. Will that prediction be true? You have no idea. The napkin religion is the one true religion because I've read this napkin and it's said so the past 20 zillion times I've tried it. P.S. It's 9.8 m/s2 not m2/s So, science is often wrong but that's a good thing? Yes, Galileo went to Medical School. That made him an astrologer. In addition, the word scientist wasn't even invented until 1834. So how can you claim that a person who was born before the word even existed was a scientist? We might as well claim that Moses was the first Muslim. I think you need to take a serious look at https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off And I think you should take a remedial logic class. Induction—from the false everything follows. For example, I plan to prove that Richard Dawkins does not exist. The statement "Richard Dawkins does not exist" is logically equivalent to the statement "Every thing that exists is not Richard Dawkins." Now, I have been to the beach. I have seen endless grains of sand. Not one of them was Richard Dawkins. I have looked into the sky and seen endless stars. Not one of them was Richard Dawkins. I have met thousands of people in my life. Not one of them was Richard Dawkins. I have eaten countless bites of food. Not one of them was Richard Dawkins. I have breathed in countless molecules of air. Not one of them was Richard Dawkins. In short, the entire data set that I have provides overwhelming evidence that Richard Dawkins does not exist. Induction — it's great.

If by "a few trials (or even zero trials)" you mean 46 times that women have run for the presidency and failed, then I can't help but wonder what you consider a large number of trials. Wasn't it you who claimed that it was zillions? I'm sure you must know that zillions is not an actual number.

So you believe that you have the right to to create whatever sick form of life that you choose for your pleasure..... Why do you imprison things Is looking at frogs in a tank fun

Bio luminescent frogs are not endangered. They are sad toys for sadder people

Thousands of years of scientific evidence proves beyond a doubt that the term 'scientific truth' is at such severe odds with itself that it defeats itself at every new and conclusive discovery. In fact, 'scientific truth' may be the origin of the word, 'sleuth:' to take the scent of and then run headlongingly excited and baying like a hound straight into a large Oak. Derived somewhat from the olde Englitchgermanormandutchviking languatch.

If Aristarchus had not been exiled mankind might have been on the moon 1,000 years ago. Scientific truth may advance, but the weight of Consensus most often banishes it to a dank cell until those holding the consensus can understand what the person in the dank cell has discovered.

Black holes do not exist. If black holes existed, they would produce Hawking radiation. If Hawking radiation were produced, we would detect it. We have never detected Hawking radiation. Therefore, black holes do not exist. QED — Modus Tollens. I have never made a single comment about evolution. Every time you bring the topic up, I roll my eyes, chuckle, and read on. Philosophy is stagnant? What is Laurence Bonjour -- chopped liver? It's good that truth is not the goal of any scientific model — because there's no reason to believe that science generates truth. God knows, if I invented or discovered anything, people would posthumously insist that I had been a scientist!! Philosophy is not my chosen discipline. I teach critical reasoning, reading comprehension, sentence correction, data sufficiency, and mathematics. To the extent that science is useful, its use will be found not in finding Higgs bosons but in curing cancer. Unfortunately for us, (see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328) there's good reason to believe that more than 88 percent of published research findings, even in the best journals, are just nonsense.

or think you can? If you succeed and it starts raining in California, the mudslides will wipe away the town. You will be liable Actually not because this is complete comedy, as you can not stop, or alter what has been happening for 5 billion years. Do you really think you can end hurricanes? every time there is a hurricane it's climate change that caused it So will your screaming end hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts. Jesus

Why can't you quote yourself? Would you like me to tutor you? he he he

The climate is changing, it always was. Are you proposing to stop the Earth from doing something? Cuz thats wealli funnnnni Perhaps yo ucan do the superman thing and spin the Earth backwards Jesus some people are dense

How old are you that you are claiming that fires floods and droughts are something new in World history, and they are not worse now, we have instant communication. Remember if George Washington wanted to tell the English king to f off, and get a response, this would have taken a year, now it takes under 1 second. So we see more, sooner, but there is no more Grow up, or wake up. So how are you going to stop fires, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes....... Seriously

Wrong, as some places experiencing climate change are getting wetter. See the way it works is nothing really changes in precipitation, though it moves around. So if it is dryer in one place, it is wetter somewhere else. California deserves what it is getting for letting in illegals who end up living under bridges. When all the homes burn to the ground all will be equal Does your timeline include the 900 north south miles of glaciation that melted from 20000 bc to 10000 bc, or just the few feet melting a year now. It's not anywhere near record change, so get used to it, you just will only look at the graph that an idiot made. I looked, that appears to have been made by someone in kindergarten who never made a graph before. Graphs denote time from left to right, not up an down. Really

The Earths biggest problem would be demented fools who believe that the Earths climate began changing 150 years ago. Kind of comical, but Trump has put them in their place