doG

I disagree. I witness manufacturing defects all the time. Some things are made broken. In the context of this discussion though I suspect a great many of the broken people were not born that way, just broken by someone's hand me down beliefs in their upbringing.

I think I'd like to nominate you as the thread mascot.

Currently a Ball Python snake, a Mexican red legged tarantula and 2 parrots, a Caique and an African Grey.

While we're being silly then I'll mention that it's kind of an interesting match to the number of Bald Eagle nests occupied in Maine too... I bet a clever researcher like yourself could probably find more graphs that look like this. Do you think they're all related somehow?

I said that in the post you quoted but there's no evidence of wind farms reducing Earth's radiation. Can you support that claim?

Ummmmmmm.....No. Wind farms do not impede upper atmosphere radiation. They simply convert surface energy from one form to another.

Please refrain from the attempt to proffer hearsay story books as evidence of anything,this is a science forum.

I'm well aware of that ewmon but esbo has asserted that wind farms CAUSE global warming. This implies that wind farms add heat to the energy that is in the system already in order to cause warming. In reality, wind farms only take energy that is already present in the environment and convert it to other forms within the same environment. There is no net increase in energy and therefore no warming as esbo has asserted. In order to cause global warming. i.e. in order to heat the Earth's environment as a whole, you must add energy to the system as a whole or impede the normal radiation of energy from that system. Wind farms do neither.

Thank you for proving my point. In order to warm anything you have to add energy. Your assertion that wind farms cause global warming is the implication that wind farms add energy to the Earth's environment.

No, I actually posted a link that refutes your claim. According to the rules of the forum you need to back up positive assertions. Blah blah blah doesn't get it. Now, let's see your evidence.

Mods? Will you please point out the rules to DrDNA here and demand some proof of his/her unsupportable assertion?

Your understanding of the big picture appears to be incredibly lacking. Wind farms merely convert energy from one form to another. They do not add to the total heat of the system, in this case the system that is Earth's environment. There is no net increase in heat, i.e. molecular motion. They do not impede any radiant processes that might reduce heat. They could interfere with the natural movement of energy from place to place but even that does not contribute to any warming of the system as a whole. Can you provide any peer reviewed material to support your assertion?

IMO climate change should be undeniable to everyone. Those that have their head in the sand probably are broken while the uneducated that don't understand the picture are probably just uneducated. The only thing that's really debatable about climate change is the amount that man contributes to a natural cycle the planet already goes through. IMO we'd be better if we worried more about the pollution that contributes to this problem instead of worrying about the result.

Could be is the key. A father jumping in front of a car to save his child's life is actually committing a natural act IMO. A father that stands there and prays the car won't hit him when he has the ability to get out of the way has a mental disorder that has let faith poison his natural will to survive. IOW, faith is sometimes a mental disorder that prevents someone from using reason to survive and they end up dead or injured because of it.

What's to support? Are you saying the will to survive is not natural? That anything that suppresses it could be normal? Wrong answer. The placebo effect has lots of unanswered questions as to all of it's causes and you certainly haven't supported yours. Then again, it's unsupportable but I'll leave you to support your invalid claim.

First of all, your positive assertion has no supporting links. Here's a non-supporting link for you though, You might also consider... I would certainly assert that anytime faith overrides the natural will to survive it could be legitimately labeled as a mental disorder.

Generally so. I've seen many angular contact ball bearings that don't have a flange though. Mainly in screw compressor applications where the inner race bottoms against a shoulder on the through shaft. Many of these also have double row type bearings that support axial loads in both directions so they are not unidirectional in their mounting configuration because they are effectively back to back single row assemblies in one common race.

No, it's proof that portion of the world's population cannot think for themselves. They blindly believe what they have been told to believe with no evidence to support those hand me down beliefs. I have no doubt these people believe in God but that is not proof of god. There is no proof of any god(s). Most of men in that population have been taught to believe there are 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven. Do you consider that proof there are 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven?

Really? Equating a faith based belief to a hypothetical book that no one claims to actually exist. I notice the Wiki article for straw man has a section for examples. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia I think you should copy your post there since it's a great example. And to clarify....

Great. Care to start a local Bright's Community Cluster? You can find leadership information here

That's what the brights do....we just don't do it as atheists. The ideology is not about promoting the disbelief or lack in belief of god(s) but one of illuminating and elevating the naturalistic worldview. As such it is not Atheists 2.0.

I would not really consider that valid evidence but something misunderstood for evidence.

Visit The Brights' Net. We already work on all of the areas you're interested in with a growing collection of local community clusters.

In response to John Cuthber's post 257, you replied," but John presented no evidence for any god in that post so your remark that you can agree that there is some evidence for god for some people is confusing.

Following Phi's link I landed here where I found a link to leave a response in the fine print below the post...