Riverwind
-
Posts
8,693 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Riverwind
-
-
A "scientific consensus" is a political statement rather than a matter of science. There was no "scientific consensus" on the ice age in the 70s because there was no strong push for policy changes that needed a artificial consensus to justify it. That said, the public was still inundated with scary stories in the news about the coming ice age which means the same scary stories about the planet burning up are just more of the same as far as the public is concerned.I haven't seen warming fanatics state that here as often as I've read, say, that the 1970s there was a scientific consensus about the coming ice age.
The weather in the last few years has been sceptic friendly. Before that with heat waves in europe, katrina and such. The media and alarmists scientists never failed to report those as evidence of the coming doom.Actually, come to think of it I don't remember ever reading someone post that recent warm weather is relevant. The Drudgereport loves to post articles about cold weather right beside articles about Global Warming. They think it's clever. -
The Mona Lisa is a unique work of art. The Hope Diamond is a unique rock. Both are objects which have value in themselves. The sign that went missing is just a sign - like the hundreds one passes everyday. It can be replaced. The value is in memory evoked by the sign - not the sign itself.Then I guess the Mona Lisa can be remade and nobody would know the difference. And the Hope Diamond can be replaced with a fake, and no one would know the difference. -
I have given you many examples but you seem to be incapable of understanding the technical issues involved and invariably cut and paste material that has nothing to do with the point being made.c'mon, you can show the real value of your posse of altruistic crusading skeptic volunteer “blog scientists -
None are so blind as those that refuse to see.no - you missed the point that there was no conspiracy other than the one you continue to see in your dreamsHere is a shorter explaination of why the Christy and Douglass story demonstrates how corrupt the peer review process is.
No reasonable person can defend the actions of the 'team' and the colluding editor in this case. It is also not the only example - other scientists have complained of the same kind of bias. The CRU emails prove that these complaints have merit.The whole thing is really frustrating. One side is denied information, while the others are spoon fed their opposition’s work in progress nearly every week. One side’s publication is rushed, while the other’s is delayed. One side gets to essentially pick its own reviewers, and in an incredible breach, have a prickly reviewer simply removed from the process (again for no good reason than he wasn’t giving the answer they want). This is like watching the inside mechanics of an election in North Korea. -
Don't forget the alternate realities with the Evil Captain Kirk...One thing I've learned from Star Trek is that time travel is going to be exceedingly common in the future
-
The sign can be remade. Nobody would know the difference.The sign being gone won't make people forget. -
The link I gave you posulates many universes suspended in some meta-verse that allows them to bump into each other causing big bangs. The hypothesis requires that these universes be real - not mathematical constructs. We will never have evidence that these universes really exist since they exist outside our realm of physical perception.Are you talking about "planes" or "dimensions".It is also worth noting that the hypothesis is not universally accepted. Some scientists think it is bunk. But it is still a legimate scientific hypothesis. Given that context I do not feel it reasonable to restricting a discussion of a diety to our realm of physical perception.
Neither am I. You seem to be caught up in the idea that only concept of a diety is the one described in the Christian Bible.They ain't arguing for heaven and hell. -
No. And neither do you. The climate models can barely hindcast a few global metrics like temperature. Regionally their projections are as useful as newspaper horoscope and there is no reason to believe the effects of climate change will be distingusiable from the effects of deforestation, overpopulation or any other bad thing that can happen when people are poor and governed by crooks.do you have any concept and scope of all the implications that CC will bring??? -
Then Canada would become the equivalent to the "US" superpower. There are things in history which are inevitable and things which are truly turning points. The establishment of British colonies in a NA depopulated by disease pretty much ensured that a NA English speaking superpower would emerge. The only question was where the border with the Spanish speaking territories to the south would be and whether Canada would be a separate country.Well Canada would own a lot more towards the south and Mexico would still own a lot towards the north. Whether the borders would meet would be in question though. At least that is how I see it.If disease had not wiped out the aboriginals then NA would have become like Africa - carved up into smaller states dominated by European powers.
-
Well a lot depends on what you assume was going on in NA if the US did not exist. I was assuming it remained a largely aboriginal occupied place of no particular geopolitical consequence.It didn't really ramp up until they officially entered the war. Canada was actually one of the largest suppliers of the entire war, US included. -
US assistance was not limited troops. The supplies that came from the US were very important.The stalemate was already broken and the Allies were advancing at a rapid pace by the time US troops were able to fight in France. -
The Nazis come into power because the US intervention that broke the stale mate in WW1. If there was no US, WW1 would have eventually ended years later with some truce that kept the status quo. Subsequent wars would have broken out and facism would have taken over some states but it is rather simplistic to assume that Europe without the US would have become a Nazi empire.The U.S. many not be a perfect superpower, but they're still better then Nazis. -
The issue is who defined the 'raw claim' that requires evidence. You are insisting on defining the 'raw claim' to be a diety that is able/willing to directly intervene in the physical world. You can define it that way but you are not addressing all possible claims of a diety.We're analyzing a raw claim that no one has brought any evidence to bear upon.
You are the one who asked what my definition of the system was. I gave it to you. You disagree. But you prove my point that this entire discussion comes down to the definition of a diety.But that's assuming the conclusion. First show some evidence of other planes of existence. You don't get a free pass on one claim just so you can make another.BTW - scientists speculate about planes we cannot perceive all of the time.
-
The null hypothesis is the 'default' position. i.e. what is the chance that random chance could explain the phenomena. To answer that question you must first declare any assumptions on the nature of the processes being analyzed.Huh? The null hypothesis simply says "claims require evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
No reason to. Note that I am not arguing that I believe that a specific diety exists. I am only saying that your claim that there is no evidence for a deity is only true because of the way you have defined a diety.And why don't you?
Any discussion of a deity must include the possibility that there are planes of existence beyond the perception of the physical world.Okay, in the context of this conversation, what is your definition of the word "system"? -
You cannot specify a null hypothesis without specifying the criteria that would be used to falsify the hypothesis. IOW - you seek to get the answer you want by framing the question.I'm invoking the null hypothesis.
Did I say I did?Do you actually accept that a dozen massless invisible faeries live in your left arm pit?
Depends on the problem I am trying to solve. I use whatever definition will allow me to determine what I need to determine.Can you please tell me what your definition of the word "system" is? -
Why? You are the one expounding the virtues of your belief system here. You are the one that needs to show that the logical basis for your system is sound. If you want to say that you do not believe that any diety exists - even a type of diety which does not interact with the physical world - then you are making a statement of faith. Not logic.It's up to them to provide them evidence.
Your system of beliefs is founded on the presumption that the physical world is all there is and if there is no physical evidence then something cannot be true. You obviously get something from that system of beliefs because you are willing to defend it.A belief system is a system of beliefs. Atheism is a pretty useless system of beliefs. Could you tell me what my system of beliefs is, I'd dearly love to be enlightened. Thus far you've told me I don't accept certain kinds of evidence, only to demonstrate you don't have any particular line of evidence. Now you're telling me I have a system of beliefs, so do tell, what are the tenets that I seem to accept.
-
I don't know. You would have to ask those 'people'. My point is you can't claim there is no evidence for a deity unless you are clear what kind of deity you are talking about.Alright let me redefine that as why do people make them up then? -
Does a rock have point of existing? Do you have a point of existing? A diety does not require a point or a purpose.So your deity is useless? What is the point of it existing? -
Exactly. And the converse is also true - i.e. if you want to be atheist all you have to do is pick a definition of a diety which requires physical evidence which then allows you to claim that a such a deity likely does not exist.Well, yes, anyone can concoct a theoretical entity that doesn't do anything, or if it does, has those actions explicitly moved into the realms of the undetectable.Creationism/intelligent design is not a science because the definition of deity can be modified to suit the evidence. i.e. if an explanation for a previous miracle was found then the goal posts can be moved to some other phenomena that currently does not have an explanation. Atheism justified with 'lack of evidence' has the same problem. At their core theism and atheism are a belief system - not a matter of facts or evidence.
-
That would be necessary if someone claimed a deity was interested in performing miracles.How about an actual miracle? -
The first thing that comes out is an ad hom against the website that did nothing but publish the views of working climate scientists? Says more about you than the people you criticize.since your self-expressed heightened target for complicity is RC, how better than to show this "American Thinker" clap-trapYou also missed the entire point of the piece. The issue is how pro-IPCC scientists colluded with journal editors in order to delay the publication of a sceptical piece and used information that they were not supposed to have access to to publish a rebuttal as a separate paper instead of providing a comment on the original paper after it is published.
-
What would constitute evidence? Many people have gone through dramatic personal transformations as a result of what they claim to be the intervention of a deity. You could claim that the transformation had some biochemical reason but that would be a matter of belief like the belief that a deity had something to do with it.Do you have any evidence for this kind of god either?
Some Christians claim that the deity intervenes directly - many say that god only acts through the minds of his followers.The Judeao-Christian god is seen as an active creative force in the Universe. -
Not all definitions of a diety claim power of the natural world. Many just claim the diety exists and they can communicate with it.A deity; a supernatural entity or agency that holds power over some aspect of the normal/natural world, or possibly over all of it.
Even there you see many different definitions. The evangelical christian notion of god is different from the catholic which is different from the united. Even within each church you will find different kinds of belief. Many do adher to the definition I noted above and see the church's teachings as a allegory rather than fact.But I'm speaking more specifically of the notion of the Judeao-Christian view of God.The bottom line is you could find a definition of diety that is held by some people and correctly claim there is no evidence to support that definition. But that does not mean there is no evidence to support any possible definition of a diety.
-
The problems of a 'subsistence rice farmer' are caused primarily by the society he lives in - not by climate change. The rediculousiness of your position was illustrated by when Mugagbe took a break from raping his country so he go to Copehagen and lecture the developed countries on climate change.so it's ok to carry on with our destructive behaviour as long as no Canadians suffer?...I don't think a subsistence rice farmer on a river delta in Bangladesh would agree...
Atheism is DEAD!
in Religion & Politics
Posted