zapatos

Any God who requires people to become amputees so that his plan works out is a total douchbag. Sounds like there is not much difference between God and the devil.

I am quite sure that no one would change their view of the statements you made if they knew your actual age. In fact, I seriously doubt anyone has considered your age at all. You do however seem to be making an astounding number of inaccurate statements for someone who has been on this site for such a short period of time.

Can you please supply some references for any of the things you said here?

At what speed do molecules break apart? Why do molecules break apart at all due to speed? Speed relative to what?

Yes, I'm glad you did wait! Great pictures too. Yeah, that's a good question. And are the non-blobs of light possibly partial images of the distant quasar?

First of all, we resolved in this thread that one picture would not contain multiple pictures of the same galaxy at different locations. Second, I don't know where you heard it's been proven that galaxies barely move, but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Can you explain please? I see nothing wrong with what we worked out and I believe he did indeed 'get it'. Or are you saying I was wrong?

You didn't address this to anyone in particular so I'm going to put in my 2 cents. One of the things I've noticed on this site is that you can call a person just about anything you want as long as it is implied or put diplomatically, and it is not a direct statement. For example, this quote: ...pretty much called you (or whoever was being spoken to), a 'fuckin scientific know it all idiot'. But since it was not directly said to you, there is plausible deniability. 'Oh, I didn't mean him, just, you know, some other guy.' Or if someone says "I think you went inside the Sphere you need some psychological help." Here again, 'Oh, I'm not saying he is crazy, it was just a thought I was having'. Most of your comments were subtle, but when you made your 'jackass' comment, there was no plausible deniability. You called him a jackass. To me there is really not much of a difference. I've been called lots of things on this site, but it is usually put like "Perhaps you are a dumbshit with no ability at all". I think they get away with it because they didn't just straight out say "You are a dumbshit!" I may be wrong but I think the reason you got called out was because you did not diplomatically call him a jackass.

Um, I think you misused the colon.

I think this is too complicated an issue to be decided by whether or not they are 'entitled'. What is the impact of the law? Are funds available? If additional funds to pay for brand names is raised, will it impact other areas? Who should make the determination? Doctors? Patients? Governments? How much of a decrease in drug effectiveness is acceptable? Is it worth listening to people bitch about it? How does this affect the politics of those involved? You probably need a method that is sustainable, effective, and delivers maximum benefit with an acceptable amount of downside. After you've done this, you can feel comfortable telling grandma that she just has to live with what she is given. As an aside, my insurance plan insists on first prescribing generics, but then the doctor has the authority to use other brands if the effectiveness of the generic was not acceptable to him.

Did he tell you anything about the spaceship other than where it would be?

I tend to think you'd quickly run into problems if this was true. For example, let's say that I perceive the apple as red and am told it is red. You perceive the apple as black but are also told it is red. All other colors we perceive the same and have the same name for. We are now asked to pick from a color pallette the color which seems to be a lighter shade of the color of the apple. I pick pink, which we both agree is pink, and you pick gray, which we both agree is gray. At that point we realize that we perceive colors differently. I think if we perceive colors differently we would have people constantly criticizing the clothes we picked for the day. Which is exactly what happened with my dad who was color blind. It was obvious to the whole family that he did not perceive colors as we did.

That was a great explanation! I'd give you +2 if I could.

So are you hurt that I had the temerity to question your proclamation on atheism? Let me know next time you are speaking ex cathedra so I know which statements of yours are infallible.

My apologies for commenting on a public forum. I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to speak unless spoken to.

For me this place is very much a learning resource. I understand how you two use this site, but my interest in science is more casual, and I am not going to apply it at work or in school. Everything I hear all day long I look at with a critical eye, whether it is someone's interpretation of Relativity or directions to a concert. It is not so much an overt process, but I always consider the source, weigh the risks of accepting the information as given, and determine whether further research is required or whether to just move on with what I've been told. At this point I know the credentials of you two well enough to be comfortable accepting that what you speak of with confidence is likely correct. While I would not accept what you say without checking if I was designing a new wing for a fighter jet, I am not likely to check up on what you tell me if I only have a casual interest in it.

I do see your point and believe it to be valid. The problem I see is that while you may very well be using the 'correct' definition of the word, that does not buy you much if the masses are using it differently. Common usage drives the definitions of words. Clearly not everyone is using it the way you are. When I was a kid, being gay only meant you were happy. "I'm not superstitious, but I am a little bit stitious." -Steve Carell

No, the problem is that you are telling me it is a problem to look up the word atheism if I want the definition of the word atheism. It gives me the same uneasy feeling I get when the mechanic tells me my car won't start but doesn't want me to try turning the key.

Completely agree. There are many ways to help you determine if information is valid. I am simply saying that researching someone's credentials is one of them. And if I do a Google search on this topic, I am still going to look at the credentials of the web site I land on. (Was it MIT.com or pseudoscience.com?)

Rigney said: To which you replied: You are the one who declared him an atheist. I think it is rather disingenuous of you to claim that I was wrong to look up the definition of the word you used to describe rigney. You used a lot of hand waving to trick me into ignoring the definition from Wikipedia of the word 'atheism' and instead use your personal definition. I think the fact you did that supports my view that the definition is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. If it is that clear, then why didn't Wikipedia say it like that?

I don't think it is as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Atheism is not a scientific unit of measure that does not vary. The meaning of words varies over time and location. Or, as in the example below from Wikipedia, it varies within the same paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism In the broad sense as defined above, you have to reject belief in the existence of deities. Saying you are not sure would not make you an atheist. In the most inclusive sense as defined above, you simply need lack of belief in deities. Saying you are not sure then would make you an atheist.

Your point is valid and I believe you are correct. When making a pursuasive argument, merit and content reign supreme. There are however different types of situations to consider. For example, I was looking at the thread "Why does light bend during acceleration?" and it contained the following: First from Elfmotat: Followed by this from DrRocket: I don't know who to believe. I know that their credentials won't guarantee who is correct and who is not, but if I determined that one of them had a PhD in physics and the other was an avid reader of science fiction, I would have some useful information. Similarly if I am on a jury and the prosecution brings in an expert witness on 'cause of death', one who has relevant PhD's and years of experience up the wazoo, while the defense brings in an expert on cosmology, I think their credentials are important. Har! Very clever. +1

I saw no appeal to authority in this thread, although I do believe there is one appeal to ridicule.

You are welcome. What evidence are you basing that on?