Phi for All

Haven't you realized it's not an argument but a misunderstanding? It's been explained to you, but you're being (purposely?) obtuse about it, and keep preaching instead of listening.

I'm so sorry I can't do more to help you understand the nature of scientific methodology, and how theories are always challenged by experimentation, even when they support them. I think there must be something hindering your critical thinking in this regard. Perhaps it's your fixation on mistakes, trying again to bounce them in one hand while ignoring the mountain of trustworthy success in the other.

! Moderator Note Please put your blog link in your signature, and stop spamming it in threads all over. We have rules against advertising, but you're welcome to participate in the discussions. And no, we aren't having a thread about this.

I think you make a mistake in ignoring the staggering amount of methodically recorded evidence for mainstream theories, each piece of which was an attempt to challenge those theories. It makes your arguments look like you're trying to judge the scientific merits by bouncing them in either hand.

Motel 6 on the PanAm Expressway in San Antonio, Texas?

Listen to others. Take a genuine interest in their lives and family. Do small things within your means to help make their lives better. Introduce the people you know to each other. Cultivate a caring personality.

! Moderator Note Since there's no science to discuss about this subject, I'm moving it to the Lounge.

! Moderator Note Done.

This old boy sure does appreciate the help we get from all those who like it here. Our tiny volunteer staff would be hopelessly outnumbered by the negative extremist delinquents if it weren't for all of you.

! Moderator Note Since this is outside mainstream theory, it needs to be in Speculations rather than Quantum Theory. Please support your assertions with evidence, and answer all calls for clarity.

! Moderator Note You know better than to soapbox without the scientific arguments to back up your assertions. Correct the misconceptions, and show some support beyond handwaving next time.

! Moderator Note When we lock a thread, you don't get to bring up the same subject again in another. You had your chance to make your arguments, you didn't, you started preaching, and the thread was locked. Oh look! You're doing it again!

! Moderator Note It's pretty clear you aren't here to learn the way everyone else is, and would rather soapbox your misunderstandings. Please read the guidelines for posting before opening any more threads.

I would avoid claiming the Earth as the victim here. The planet isn't doomed by the things you mention. Rather it's life on Earth, and the environments that host that life, that are in danger. I think it's an important distinction to make if we want to approach the problem with the best solutions, and if we don't find some, Earth will get along just fine without most of its living species.

To me, this is what is meant by innocent until proven guilty. It's not claiming you believe in guilt OR innocence, but are willing to let the arguments for either position to be made with no bias ahead of time. To me, "believe them" isn't asking me to take women's side, but rather to take them seriously.

We're talking about different things. You're talking about a trial, and the assumption of innocence that structures the way we treat them before they make their plea, and while prosecutors are making their case. I'm talking about the empty statements swansont mentioned. Since both the guilty and innocent are likely to claim innocence, it's up to the evidence to provide weight to the claims.

See what you just did, MigL? You stated that I claimed people with no evidence should NOT be believed, when I very clearly stated that a claim of innocence without evidence shouldn't hold any weight. You understand that there's a default position that can remain impartial until the evidence is gathered, right?

! Moderator Note You will be civil here or you'll be banned. It's our #1 rule. We attack ideas, not people. Shape up.

Actually, if they're only claiming it without evidence, or have to resort to logical fallacies, it has no weight from anyone. It's the start of a defense, but it can't be taken seriously without more to it.

! Moderator Note You've told us, but you haven't supported your arguments, and you don't bother to correct the flaws as they're pointed out to you. You're hijacking well-understood terms and giving them different meanings. This is a flawed methodology, my friend. It allows you to make up the perfect misunderstanding of mainstream science, something that will make absolute sense to you, and only you, because you made it up, We've given you many pages to explain your idea so it makes sense to anyone but you, and we encourage you to go back over the thread and reread the excellent objections posed by Ghideon (thanks very much to Ghideon for an extremely civil and positive approach to discussion). Please take this opportunity to see what mainstream science has to say about those points where your idea and current theory are disconnected. I'm closing this thread since it fails to meet the criteria for supporting evidence in the Speculations section. We're a bit more rigorous about this than a lot of science discussion sites, less than others. If you don't find anything further to support your ideas, please don't start any more threads on them.

So half the US is saying "Wait, let's slow down and be more thoughtful about this", but the GOP wants to move forward over those objections. Many are saying, "Stop, we don't need to rush into something so important", but the Republicans are ignoring that and are just doing what they want to do anyway. The concern is about sexual assaults, and the Republican leadership is treating this concern in the same manner that caused the concern in the first place. It's becoming more clear each day those old boys are going to ram this through despite heavy protests.

Same thing happens here. A few shitty comments dropped inappropriately by someone pretending to be a teenager with questions, and it generates pages of wasted debate. They ARE information terrorists, and being accurately informed these days is becoming more an issue of security. Forget the Mexico wall, we need a firewall to protect us from the Russian Federation.

Taxonomist didn't make it to 7 posts before violating most of the rules, so he's banned. Probably mikemikev anyway, same flavor of hate.

! Moderator Note Rule 2.1.1 Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. Also, we discuss science here, not conspiracy theories, or any of the crap you're hatefully pushing at us. There are tons of places on the web for you, but we don't want it. Go away and never come back, please.

Middle of the ocean, you with an AR-15 and a full clip, orca swims up from below. You get stopped. I would avoid using absolute terms like "unstoppable" when it comes to complex organisms and the behavior between them.. Environment is too much of a factor to claim we're the top predator. In most environments, with our tools, we're pretty incredible. But outside our prime zones, there are many creatures that can survive better, or escape us if we're hunting them, or even kill us if we corner them.