Cap'n Refsmmat

I don't see where an appeal to ignorance enters into this. Models that give an infinite universe do exist, and some are supported by evidence. To state "the universe is clearly infinite in size and mass" would be premature, but it is an option with some non-trivial evidence. It's worth consideration, along with other suggested and supported models. An argument to ignorance would be "Well, anything could happen outside the observable part of the universe, so maybe there's a giant life factory out there!"

Occam's razor is a suggestion, not a logical rule. It is not a substitute for evidence.

Fair enough, but respecting the secret and top-secret designations entirely implies absolute honesty on the part of those who classify the documents, and that's simply not plausible. I'd suggest a middle ground: If there's evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government, it's ethical to leak documents that demonstrate that. However, when one does leak documents, one must be sure not to create more damage than the government's dishonesty is already causing. Have there been any numbers on terrorists stopped before committing crimes? Sure, many alleged terrorist leaders have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they were never tried in a court of law. There's been a few groups captured and tried in the US, but only a small fraction appeared sufficiently competent and prepared to carry out an attack. I'd love to see some CIA report on how well their tactics are working, but of course it'd be classified.

So... before August 2010, we had no direct evidence of the existence of electrons? In any case, your source does not actually show atoms being "watched" directly. Again, their motions are extrapolated from their effects on their immediate surroundings.

You haven't provided any examples of direct study of electrons. We have determined properties of electrons, but in the same way that we have determined properties of black holes. (We can measure the mass of a black hole through its interactions with matter surrounding it. Similarly, we measure the mass of an electron through its interactions with matter around it.) (For example, I measured the mass of an electron in the lab by observing its interactions with helium atoms and a magnetic field in a sealed chamber.)

Indeed. How did we learn those things about electrons? What direct observation methods were used? The electric charge of an electron, for example, was determined through the oil drop experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment The charge was not observed directly. It was measured using its effects on other matter.

And what way have electrons been observed that counts as "direct"?

You ought to read the beginning of Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, then get back to me.

I've started waging a gradual war on the cluttered bits of the software; I was trying to move some things around in post displays and I ended up messing it up. But because moderators get extra buttons there, the problem didn't appear to me...

Bouncing light off something requires the intermediary of light to convey information to me. I use mental models to turn that light image to knowledge of the actual object. Receiving light from the surroundings of a black hole requires the intermediary of light (or x-rays, or radio waves) to convey information to me. I use mathematical models to turn that image to knowledge of the actual object. These are slightly different. Which difference, exactly, results in one being "direct" and the other "indirect"?

And why does bouncing light off something count as "observed"? We similarly make a prediction about our observation ("the light will make a rectangular shape, like a table"), and the prediction comes true. I don't see why light has to be a privileged method here; in every case of us observing something, we predict what data we will receive and then verify that we are seeing The Real Thing. No, it isn't. You might find this useful: http://talkorigins.o...to-biology.html

My fault. I should have realized that would happen. Is it okay now?

Please remember ScienceForums.net rule 8. If you want to discuss something, please start a discussion. SFN is not the place for you to simply lecture us on the Quran.

Wait, it happened while you were typing? As in, you were typing in an additional word, and suddenly you got the error message? Something's wrong if that's the case.

What does "observed" even mean? To observe a table, light from that table enters my eyes. Right? If it's a table, I'd expect a certain pattern of light to enter my eyes (showing legs, a flat surface, and so on), and my sensory apparatus would compare what does enter to what I know about tables. To observe a black hole, light (and x-rays, and radio waves, and so on) enters my telescope. Right? If it's a black hole, I'd expect a certain pattern of light to enter my telescope (showing matter being ingested, an accretion disk, and so on), and my computers would compare what does enter to what I know about black holes. What's the difference? Don't say "observed," because I don't know how you define it. What is the substantive difference between the two scenarios above?

If there is a table here, light will bounce off of it and some will enter my eyes. I can test this to see if this is true. If there is a black hole here, nearby matter will be sucked in. I can test to see if this is true. What, exactly, is the difference?

For reference: PlutoXid3 was a clone of Klaplunk. He is no longer with us. Carry on.

The Bible specifically says "like blood," so oil is disqualified. There are quite a few other signs mentioned as happening earlier in Revelation: a two-horned speaking-dragon beast arising from the earth that causes fire to rain to earth; worshipers of the beast get branded on their right hand or forehead; and so on.

I don't think the minor water loss from crying would be significant enough to be an evolutionary disadvantage. I don't know many people who got critically dehydrated because they watched a sad movie. The social benefit could be quite large, though. When harm comes to you, tears encourage the community to come to your aid, building altruism. I don't know if there's any specific research in this field though.

For Revelation 16:8 to mean global warming, the other three angels should have already done their things: sores on those who have the mark of the beast, everything in the sea dies as it turns to blood, and rivers and springs become blood. Only after those occur will the Earth be scorched with fire.

I did say, "If you want to ask more about dark matter, black holes, or whatever else, open a new topic."

As I said, you should search the Internet first: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210173609.htm So, er, yeah. If you want to ask more about dark matter, black holes, or whatever else, open a new topic. Dark matter has similar evidence for it if you just do a search.

I suggest you try searching the Internet, or, if that fails, open another topic to ask, because this is completely unrelated to the question at hand.

I'll add this to the to-do list. I think mooeypoo will have to throw together an icon from the logo she made for us.

eleven, what you have just posted is a giant ad hominem and strawman attack on ydoaPs, ignoring the valid points he made (such as the nature of science) to laugh at him instead. You claim ydoaPs is "free" to call people dumb, ridicule posters, and pass off arguments as "nothing serious," when of course those are the exact things the staff try their very hardest to stop. Incidentally, those are the same crimes you have just committed in your post. If you're going to make an off-topic debate, please be civil about it, and preferably do it in its own topic.