ydoaPs

Swansont taught at Orlando when there actually was a nuke school there. Though, that was before my time; I went to Goose Creek.

As far as I can tell, the ONLY link between SFN and any militaries is that mooeypoo and I were both in militaries. edit: and swansont taught nuke school at one point

It is.

Do you know what the laws are?

Out-dated, yes. Popsci, no. Same as above. They're 'contemptuous', because it's so oversimplified to being wrong. Popsci, with very few exceptions, is actually misinformation.

Ah, yes, I forgot they were based on the video lectures. I liked the video lectures, but they didn't do them in studio (they just filmed actual lectures), so you get all of the misspeaks that are corrected in the text. It was somewhat distracting for me. Then again, I also like to hold a book and be able to flip through pages and literally write in margins. For those interested: Volume 1 (Classical Mechanics) Volume 2 (Quantum) These are actually the only popsci books that I'd recommend (seen the lectures 2 is based on, so unless he went insane during writing, it should be just as good) for anyone who actually wants to learn what the theories say instead of learning oversimplified cartoon versions of things like you'd find in anything written by Greene.

What about TV? Have you seen Kaku on just about any of his TV spots? He spouts complete nonsense. The second volume (QM) comes out at the end of the month. I've had it preordered since December.

What are popsci books evidence of, exactly?

Two words: "false memories". The human mind is a pretty messed up thing.

The mammal presents an evolutionary conundrum. Its lungs both an advantage and a disadvantage. It enables it to breath above the water but makes breathing below the water impossible. Also, its arms aren't very good for flying at all. Where does it fit into the evolutionary jigsaw?

He couldn't, because they're not.

Except Jesus spends almost a whole chapter saying precisely that the old ones aren't superseded.

No, there's really not.

I didn't mean to suggest it was. You just asked for citation. I provided.

From a site every YEC should check out: tools in coal and polystrate fossils Also, polystrate fossils aren't what Bill was talking about, fyi.

I actually thought Bill's jokes were funny (especially the inflation joke). I think the audience didn't understand them.

For those of you that don't know, tonight Bill Nye (the Science Guy) debated Ken Ham (YEC guy from the Kentucky 'Museum') on the topic of "Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?". If you missed it, you can watch it here. Basic rundown: 1) Ken Ham failed to actually address the topic of the debate even once in the entire 3 hours. 2) Bill Nye hammered home that Ham's "model" fails to fit the evidence and fails to make predictions. That is, it not only is not a viable model, but it is not a model at all! The most telling part of the debate, imo, was in the Q&A. When asked what would change his mind, Ham stood there for a few seconds with a deer in the headlights look and finally responded "My answer to that is I am a Christian". That is, he said literally nothing would change his mind. Nye, on the other hand, gave examples of evidence that would change his mind. Did any of you watch it? What are your thoughts?

Your third point is false, and I'm not sure what 'superposing' is, but it's not a valid rule of inference.

I'm disappointed at the lack of feathers.

You've been given the rule for the next step multiple times. If you can't see it from that, you need to go back and review your rules as the last two are two of the most commonly used rules.

Two things: if that's what you're trying to prove, it's a tautology. It's also not Murphy's 'Law'. Murphy's 'Law' states that whatever can go wrong will. So, it takes the form of (∀x)(⋄Wx⊃Wx). That is, for all events, if it is possible that the event will go wrong, then it is the case that the event will go wrong. If you are trying to prove Murphy's Law, that's the thing you're shooting for. Does not follow. However, it is the case that for something to happen, it must have a non-zero probability. Yep. That's unintelligible nonsense. That's not actually true. This is also nonsense, and doesn't follow from anything even given all of your 'arguments' above.

I literally gave you the first step in the shortest (and most straightforward and obvious) proof. You can use 'or' to add whatever you want to anything you already have. From there, it's two obvious steps.

For any proposition, you can add anything at all to it with or. If you know p, then you also know p or q. See what you can do with that.

Yay, we're doomed!

Apparently my uni just gives people the urge to kill. A professor was shot by her husband and then he killed himself. She, however, is still alive.