ydoaPs

Yes, people seem to jump from advocation of restrictions immediately to breaking in and taking all guns. What if we treated guns like cars: I see nothing unreasonable there.

There have been photos recently spreading on facebook about the recent shooting during the Batman premier. These people are suggesting that it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone in the crowd had a gun. Not only do I disagree with this premise, but I think it is insanely ridiculous. Discharging a firearm into a crowded room is extremely dangerous even when trained professionals in ideal conditions. To think that untrained civilians could have safely stopped the tragedy while under a cloud of teargas is insane and dangerously so. Now, moving from the specific to the general case, I found this article citing studies showing the obvious conclusions that more guns means more gun violence and more strict gun laws mean fewer shooting deaths. Thoughts?

Not to mention that the Obama quote was entirely out of context and is entirely reasonable when in context.

In addition to what the others said about preserving the post, it also gives the quoted user a notification allowing them to know there's been a reply to their post. This seems to indicate (since the OP has yet to return to this thread) that the OP either has not logged on since the subsequent posts, or that the OP is avoiding this thread like it is the plague.

Find an example of a paper arguing for fine tuning that actually does good analysis and considers covariance? Oh, and using an infinite dimensional space for the analysis would be good too since there are actually an infinite number of possible variables most of which just happen to be zero in our universe. Let me know when you do. Why would you want him to watch a video of crap analysis?

If anyone ever complains about the moderation of this site again, I'll direct them to this thread.

Why are you even here?

It's not much of an accusation if you apply the definition of the word used to yourself before the word is used.

Yes, yes I can. There is no known definition of causality that works with a deity creating the universe. To illustrate the point, WHEN did God create the universe? See, the universe is all of space and time. That means "before the universe" is contradictory to the point of meaninglessness. There is no time at which the universe did not exist. This is true by definition. If you don't believe me, tell me at what point in the universe does the universe not exist? I have no plans on going to Michigan anytime soon. You seem to be a bit fuzzy on what the word "fact" means.

They're not that impressive. They hire people who don't know what they're doing to do shoddy work. I've had to fix their mistakes countless times. I'd suggest somewhere else. Lockheed always did good work.

How is my request for clarification "nonsense"?

Which god?

Let's take a look at where the Bible explicitly tries to tell the future. Hmmm......it seems that Tyre is still in existence. Sorry, no future seeing there. I like the "prophecy" at the beginning of the video that describes every moment since the dawn of human civilization.

BAWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

Ah, just like the sun and the moon. We needed them to appear to us as humans so we could see that they exist.

AND THE STUDENT WAS EINSTEIN!!!!!!!!1111!!!!1!!!!!! Lying isn't a very good way to support your cause.

We're talking potatoes pre-human intervention. Yes, they were indeed poisonous.

Brace yourself for people claiming references to the existence of Christians is somehow evidence for Jesus.

How about the fact that changing a poisonous plant into a nutritious plant does none of those things? Indeed.

No. "god" is vague to the point of being meaningless. You can, of course, falsify various specific deities, though.

So, potatoes are bad, then? Because they are a member of the nightshade family, they are naturally poisonous. They were bred to be edible.

Yes, you can. If a pink teapot is flying around the universe, certain effects are exemplified (p->q). Conditions mutually exclusive with said effects are actually exemplified (~q). Therefore, a pink teapot is not flying around the universe (~q). This is the backbone of science. This is what falsification is. We take the conditional created by the hypothesis and set up a test in order to prove the opposite of the consequent. It's how we proved that luminiferous aether doesn't exist.

If you're lazy, you can just take this quiz a couple of times. And I almost completely forgot about this nice chart.

the fire guy the soap guy the wheel guy

/me checks the OP Yep