Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
147 Comments
Once again real science, not creationist whining and excuses, reveals more about the irrefutable fact of evolution.
Tale Of Two Snails Reveals Secrets About The Biochemistry Of Evolution
ScienceDaily (Nov. 8, 2008) — Researchers in Spain are reporting deep new insights into how evolution changes the biochemistry of living things, helping them to adapt to new environments. Their study, based on an analysis of proteins produced by two populations of marine snails, reveals chemical differences that give one population a survival-of-the fittest edge for life in its cold, wave-exposed environment.
In the new study, Emilio Rolán-Alvarez and colleagues note that scientists long have known that animals of the same species can have different physical characteristics enabling them to survive in different habitats. One famous example is the different beak sizes and shapes that evolved in Darwin’s finches, enabling the birds to live on different foods in different habitats on the Galapagos Islands. Until now, however, scientists knew little about the invisible biochemical changes behind such adaptations.
More real science (not creationist myth) at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081103124324.htm
Once again, Maggotpunk looks like an scientifically illiterate fool for claiming that Evolution is an “irrefutable fact.”
That is not science. That is your belief and not how science works.
Eagle editors?
Why no thread or reporting in your paper about the blatant and inflammatory lie aired by Spirit One Christian center on their marquee?
“America we have a Muslim President. This is sin against the Lord!”
This is just the latest violation by this “church” of the provisions of their tax exempt status.
Why would the head of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) misrepresent the facts and data by stating that “warming is taking place at a much faster rate” and show a slide portraying global temperatures climbing?
In fact, sources that the IPCC relies on show global temperatures have plateaued and are starting to fall.
Is it desperation because they are losing momentum, or arrogance because he is not being challenged by the media?
———————-
Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored: IPCC’s Pachauri says “warming is taking place at a much faster rate”
7 11 2008
From the Sidney Morning Herald
Michael Duffy
November 8, 2008
Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman
Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]“.
Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there’s been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/07/truly-inconvenient-truths-about-climate-change-being-ignored-ipccs-pachauri-says-warming-is-taking-place-at-a-much-faster-rate/
And let me repost an article from yesterday giving us a little insight into the ultimate goal of the global warming movement.
———————–
Rich nations should ditch ‘unsustainable’ lifestyles: China’s Wen
Nov 7 10:58 AM US/Eastern
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and a top UN official urged industrialised nations Friday to alter their lifestyles and not let the global financial crisis hamper climate change efforts.
Industrialised nations should also help developing countries respond to climate change, Wen said at the opening of a two-day international meeting on global warming in Beijing.
“The developed countries have a responsibility and an obligation to respond to global climate change by altering their unsustainable way of life,” the state news agency Xinhua quoted him as saying.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081107145825.op2k0ggd&show_article=1
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska fired back Friday at the unnamed McCain campaign aides who have been maligning her in recent days, saying that their criticism was “cruel and it’s mean-spirited, it’s immature, it’s unprofessional, and those guys are jerks.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08palin.html?bl&ex=1226293200&en=13ba3abeed17e92e&ei=5087
_________________________________________________
The Republicans had a fit when we criticized Palin, but now they’ve turned on her.
McCain Palin lost the election and now are just a footnote in history. Whether Palin has a part to play going forward remains to be seen. After what happened in this election, will Republicans run her for president in 2012? That would pretty well assure another 4 years for Obama.
Obama and the Democrats will bear watching. I expect some great things from them in the next 4 years. But if they don’t deliver, I’d like to see a Republican candidate a little higher on the scale than Palin….somebody you could possibly vote for.
The ultimate goal? Consuming so much oil is not sustainable. I can’t see what is in this quote that would ruffle the paranoia feathers…
“…and those guys are jerks.”
Is Palin one of the Republican nic-switchers on the WEBlog? Naw, much to polite!
I don’t aspire to live in a tent and eat leaves.
But the American lifestyle these last 50 years and more of unthinking, ravenous consumption? The rest of the world now aspires to that. And the truth of it is, THAT is clearly NOT sustainable.
The greatest resources we have are in what we waste.
McCain has to be kicking his @ss over giving in to his worst instincts and picking Palin. It was a double whammy that neither he nor the GOP saw coming (apparently).
Not only was Palin hilariously unfit to assume the office of VPOTUS (never mind POTUS), but it delineated a trend. To wit, when put with the Hagee endorsement McCain’s cynicism, and the poor quality of decisions borne of that cynicism, were brought into stark relief for all independents to see.
I think it also showed the low value McCain places on all center-right voters, too. Not only could he not be bothered to identify, nurture, and harvest the endorsement of a quasi-mainstream culture warrior (where in the world did he get Hagee?!?), but clearly he also believed that yanking another George W Bush out of his pocket, in the guise of Sarah Palin, would harvest 50.1% of voting America.
Palin was a huge nail in his campaign’s coffin. Her obvious lack of qualification reflected badly on McCain’s decision making, and it also made clear the Marianna-trench depth of his cynicism.
US National Debt
As of October 15, 2008:
$10,326,055,380,264.11
Your share:
$33,807.90
grrrrrrrrr
“Once again, Maggotpunk looks like an scientifically illiterate fool for claiming that Evolution is an ‘irrefutable fact.’
“That is not science. That is your belief and not how science works.”
Given the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution (i.e. in this case common ancestry), calling evolution an “irrefutable fact” is not unreasonable. And considering your admission last week, Nathan, that you really don’t have a scientific basis to argue against it (instead, you presented a false dichotomy to Capn America about how believing in science and God are incompatible), you have really undercut your ability to logically argue the subject. Evolution is as well supported as the Germ Theory for disease.
Evolution.
Anybody who’s ever taken a university course in genetics is presented with overwhelmingly powerful evidence of how the exogenous environment can change DNA. In fact, I recall an experiment with my old buddies the Drosophilas (back in the day) where the introduction of a mutagen resulted in a countable proportion of sterile and reproducing subsequent generations, the ultimate result of which was that matings between generation 1 and generation…4 ? (this was back in 1979 folks)…was completely sterile. Sterility of offspring is one way to differentiate species, btw.
The real kicker, personally, was a course in vertebrate embryology. I don’t see how anybody who got a B or above in the class could doubt the power of the theory of evolution to explain vertebrate development.
I don’t think anyone doubts that evolutionary changes occur within species. They are demonstrable and falsifiable. When it gets past that, on into origins, it is not science, but rather speculation by scientists.
outlander
Posted November 8, 2008 at 9:52 am | Permalink
I don’t think anyone doubts that evolutionary changes occur within species.
—
Unfortunately too many doubt that evolutionary change results in entirely new species.
If you’ve ever taken a university course in genetics and/or vertebrate embryology, it’s pretty hard to avoid “believing” in common origins diverging as a result of species evolution.
“I don’t think anyone doubts that evolutionary changes occur within species. They are demonstrable and falsifiable. When it gets past that, on into origins, it is not science, but rather speculation by scientists.”
Outlander, point of reality, the distinction made between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” is phony. If significant changes within a lineage over generations can be observed, and they obviously can, then more significant changes can be observed over more generations. There is no rational limit to amount of significant changes that can occur given a sufficient number of generations. And Pendant just decribed a situation where two populations of fruit flies became unable to interbreed in the laboratory (which would satisfy at least one widely accepted criteria for speciation).
Put another way, if micro-evolution occurs, and many self described creationists and IDists will admit that it does, then there is no logical reason, none, that puts a limit on micro-evolution just going so far and stopping. And given that micro-evolution can occur and continue to occur, then at some point it would add up to “macro-evolution”.
XXX I haven’t turned on Palin. I never believed all of the ‘news stories’ being circulated. McCains campaign manager was on last night and denied that any of this stuff happened. She never shopped for herself. It was bought for her and delivered. She didn’t make the Africa remark in the manner in which the press played it. She appeared in a bath robe because she had been in the shower and didn’t realize that others were in the room until she came out of the bathroom and immediately went back in. I could go on but surely you get the gist.
Her aid say she is a very intelligent person and was a quick study. Sure she made some first time politician mistakes but that was to be expected. She handled herself very well against Biden with his 40 years of experience.
The only grousing I hear is coming from the left which is where I think McCain got most of his advisors. His was the worse campaign I have ever seen. I agreed with Billy Kristol. He should have fired them all. And now they come out with this juvenile sniping. Simply nonsense,
Glad to see the dems are afraid of her though. Exit polls showed that 69% of the voters thought she helped the McCain ticket. Thanks for the help.
Pedant, I’ve taken those courses and I understand the basics. I have a biology minor. I just don’t believe in science making overreaching claims that go beyond what can be scientifically proven.
When Ms. Palin was asked by an entertainment reporter if she would consider becoming a talk show host, she said, “I don’t have any idea of what the next chapter of life is going to open up into, and I look forward to just the surprises that life offers.”
—
If Palin actually said that, then for me it removes all doubt that she might be some kind of secret genius.
I’m almost a decade older than Palin, and even on Friday working at 8pm (at the end of a very long and exhausting week) I would never say that. That one sentence makes it pretty clear Sarah Palin has never appreciated a single piece of literature she most likely never read anyway.
The only way you can end up at age 44 talking like that is by avoiding reading in years 1-43.
Evolution is as well supported as the Germ Theory for disease.
hehehe
‘Germ Theory’?
What exactly is that? Chinese medicine, responsible for the health of 1.5 billion people doesn’t recognize the ‘Germ Theory’. They trea the cause of disease, not merely the symptoms.
For example, in your mouth right now are all the germs require to give you strep throat, if your immune system allows it. Western allopathic medicine treats the symptoms. The cause is not germs, it’s problem with your immune system.
But I respect your faith in the irrefutable fact of evolution. I’m glad that in your mind evolution is now a ‘law of nature’. Maybe sometime we’ll get together and you can explain to me, a mere layman, how in all of nature only humans have evolved one step beyond a brain to acquire a mind.
It warms my heart and is so encouraging when I hear Republicans who support Palin.
GO PALIN! Palin 2012
Pedant I know you would do better with a mike shoved in your mouth and people sniping at you 24/7 and whatever happens in the future I think Palin has a future in politics or the media. She is a natural. Many people are probably better than those in top places now but lacked the charisma to get there. Hillary would be one. She lost to Obama’s ability to pull the crowds and his ability to reach them personally.
He has the same type of pull Bill Clinton had. Palin has this. Her crowds were double what was expected. People stood in the rain to get in to see her.
okobserver
Posted November 8, 2008 at 10:01 am | Permalink
XXX I haven’t turned on Palin. I never believed all of the ‘news stories’ being circulated.
__________________________________________________
Okobserver, I never said you had. After re-reading my post, I can see how you may have gotten that impression. I guess I should have specified “some Republicans”.
My personal opinion is that since the election is over, McCain and Palin should be left alone. At some point there needs to be re-approachment. The issues that face this nation are so serious that we need to set aside our partisanship and for once, do what’s right for the nation as a whole. There’s plenty of fault to go around for both sides.
okobserver
Posted November 8, 2008 at 10:12 am | Permalink
Palin has this. Her crowds were double what was expected. People stood in the rain to get in to see her.
—
Palin’s favorability ratings fell steadily from early September through election day.
My guess is that Palin has “it” with exactly the same group of Americans for whom George W Bush has “it.”
If you have a heart that beats, you can’t wish her harm. If you have an IQ above your age, though, then you can’t wish her to be your POTUS (I can’t anyway).
Regular has not posted since 11/5/08 AM.
Neither has Boxlock, Max G, and others. Hmmmmm.
Pedant I am not talking about her qualifications to be prez. I am talking about her lure to the crowds. As for the stats you are quoting, you have just realized how the ‘news’ coverage can manipulate favorables and unfavorables.
With the coverage she was given I am surprised she didn’t go to a negative rating. But as the exit polls showed she had support where it counted. What does this say about the negatives you cited.
XXX I agree they should be left along. This is why what is happening to her now has to be put down. A group has been formed to do just that. It is centered out of New York. McCain should have put a stop to these annoymous stories when they started. He lost what respect I had for him.
okobserver
Posted November 8, 2008 at 10:26 am | Permalink
Pedant I am not talking about her qualifications to be prez. I am talking about her lure to the crowds.
—
Got it, sorry. Yes, no doubt she lured some in.
Quick story, a couple days after Palin was chosen by McCain I was in a class where there were 3 women in the front row all happily chatting away as women are wont to do. In full chatter mode one of them mentioned that Sarah Palin was a brilliant pick and would probably earn McCain her vote. This happy scene immediately disappeared as the other two women erupted into “HOW can you say that?!?” “Palin is an IDIOT!” “She’s a MORON!” until the poor offender finally shut up. I don’t think they shared much after that.
I felt sorry for the Palin supporter…but I noted that Palin was about as divisive as Karl Rove, intentionally so or not.
Pedant what you wrote is very telling. A couple of days after she was introduced to the public she hadn’t been exposed enough for anyone to make an impression about her IQ. This woman obviously was influenced by the MSM and their coverage which was in full attack mode after her convention speech was so well received. She then passed this tripe on to the others. Kind of like the game gossip.
What I am saying is that she was a conservative, someday it might be a liberal treated this way. How will that go over with you?
okobserver
Posted November 8, 2008 at 10:41 am | Permalink
What I am saying is that she was a conservative, someday it might be a liberal treated this way. How will that go over with you?
—
See 2004, Presidential Election.
outlander posted November 8, 2008 at 8:28 am
In fact, sources that the IPCC relies on show global temperatures have plateaued and are starting to fall.
———————
False.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/
okobserver posted November 8, 2008 at 10:41 am
What I am saying is that she was a conservative, someday it might be a liberal treated this way. How will that go over with you?
—
And see 2000, Presidential Election.
Pedant it wasn’t pretty was it? I agree this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. We need to know the truth. We need all of the facts necessary to make an informed vote. As for the tabloid journalism we now have – we should all let those responsible know about it. I do.
Sorry Cosmos I meant to aim that one at you.
“hehehe”
Well, there is no response to that. Clumsy attempt at derision.
“What exactly is that? Chinese medicine, responsible for the health of 1.5 billion people doesn’t recognize the ‘Germ Theory’. They treat the cause of disease, not merely the symptoms.”
Uh huh, and if in your mind the efficacy of (traditional) Chinese medicine in the treatment and efficacy of germ caused diseases (like, say, TB or AIDS or Smallpox) equals that of allopathic schools of medicine, we aren’t going to get very far in a discussion. I am not necessarily dismissing everything traditional Chinese medicine does, but anyone who presents it as a full blown alternative to allopathic medicine is proposing something very scary indeed.
“For example, in your mouth right now are all the germs require to give you strep throat, if your immune system allows it. Western allopathic medicine treats the symptoms. The cause is not germs, it’s problem with your immune system.”
And the immune system is protection against what, exactly? The underlying explanation for an immune system is, well, germs. That’s like saying that the fall of a house during a hurricane is “caused by” flaws in its construction to the exclusion of the actual wind from the hurricane, so therefore the “wind theory” of damage is not as well supported as the “construction theory”.
“But I respect your faith in the irrefutable fact of evolution. I’m glad that in your mind evolution is now a ‘law of nature’. Maybe sometime we’ll get together and you can explain to me, a mere layman, how in all of nature only humans have evolved one step beyond a brain to acquire a mind.”
It would be a short discussion, since the very premise of your rhetorical question is false. Human beings are most certainly not the only beings to have evidence of “minds” as well as brains.
#
okobserver
Posted November 8, 2008 at 10:26 am | Permalink
XXX I agree they should be left along. This is why what is happening to her now has to be put down. A group has been formed to do just that. It is centered out of New York. McCain should have put a stop to these annoymous stories when they started. He lost what respect I had for him.
________________________________________________
Okobserver, I think Palin is considered more of a threat to certain wings of the GOP than she is to Democrats. I think there’s no question that she’s something of a hero to the conservative base.
The GOP is in disarray right now; they really got handed their heads in this election. I think a certain amount of sniping and internal strife is to be expected. But the McCain campaign CHOSE Palin and to turn on her now is disingenuous.
‘Warming Trend Is Steepest in 5,000 Years‘
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/07/climate-change-warming.html?campaign=w01-101-ae-0002
“Nov. 7, 2008 — Research on Arctic and North Atlantic ecosystems shows the recent warming trend counts as the most dramatic climate change since the onset of human civilization 5,000 years ago, according to studies published Thursday.
Researchers from Cornell University studied the increased introduction of fresh water from glacial melt, oceanic circulation, and the change in geographic range migration of oceanic plant and animal species.”
More at link above.
H/T to http://www.desmogblog.com/humans-achieve-a-regime-change-for-the-climate
The age of Rove has come and gone, with his proteges leading the mccain campaign his practices have gone out of vogue. I wouldn’t expect to see a repeat in 2012.
Rove was smart, he abandoned bush before the bush burned up completely.
Human beings are most certainly not the only beings to have evidence of “minds” as well as brains.
__________________________________________
Name another species that has a mind, a conscience, a sense of right and wrong. Name another ‘being’ that feels joy and sorrow.
Then, explain how the feeling of joy evolved.
If five people with strep throat go to a MD they will all pretty much get the same symptomatic treatment. If the same five went to a Chinese medical doctor they would probably all get different treatments, depending on the perceived cause.
your analogy about a house in a hurricane is false. The germs in your life are like a gentle breeze. Unlike a hurricane, they are an every day, every minute fact of life.
When a gentle breeze blows your house down, it is the fault of the house. A house that weak can be destroyed by any external every day cause.
Strengthen the house and the ‘germ’ is of no consequence.
Cos, my friend, what are we to think? As a response to arguments made, you simply link to blogs, not even articles, as a response? And without comment. Yet will castigate someone who links to a non “peer-reviewed” source. My.
Agnatha,
The very nature of science is discovery, testing, and testing again. Evolutionary theory is rather new in the grand scheme of things.
Perhaps a thousand years from now Scientists will have come up with something different to explain the orgins.
Calling Evolution an “irrefutable fact” is extremism and has no place in science.
Evolution is far from being a law and the fact that MaggotPunk tries to push it as an “irrefutable fact” is only proof of his belief in Evolution not as science but as his own faith.
No where did I ever claim to not have a scientific basis to argue against Evolution either.
No where did I make any claim that “science” and God are incompatable either.
My claim is that at some point to accept God you must reject science at that point, not in general.
The fact that you can’t even argue against my points and have to create strawman says far more about your inability to argue logically than mine.
Agnatha,
“Put another way, if micro-evolution occurs, and many self described creationists and IDists will admit that it does, then there is no logical reason, none, that puts a limit on micro-evolution just going so far and stopping. And given that micro-evolution can occur and continue to occur, then at some point it would add up to “macro-evolution”
But you can’t test that or observe that.
You are making an assumption on that.
That is exactly why we make a distinction between Micro and Macro Evolution and people like you try to downplay it.
The simple fact is that you can’t really test or observe many of the claims that Evolution makes on the orgins of species.
Nathaniel
Posted November 8, 2008 at 11:29 am | Permalink
My claim is that at some point to accept God you must reject science at that point, not in general.
—
That sounds painful.
How do you “reject science at that point” without rejecting the objectivism at the core of science, thereby rejecting science in general?
Pedant,
That is my point. God is a supernatural being. There is not any scientific proof of his existence as far as being testable and observable.
I believe in God. It is faith.
You do not have to accept every theory in science or reject all of science.
IF God created all, including the capacity for learning, and knowledge… Then how can one reject the SCIENCE that GOD allowed for by creating the capacity for learning and knowledge?? Hmmmm???
“okobserver” observes the Moose-Dresser with –
“…I am not talking about her qualifications to be prez. I am talking about her lure to the crowds…”
Which really points to how the McPalin campaign was probably the worst political effort in American history.
They started out, and probably made some points, last summer snarking about Obama being a mindless celebrity. Then they picked Bible Spice as their estimation of the second-best person on the planet to lead the free world.
Even those who might have had legitimate reservations about Obama had no idea which McCain they’d be voting for. The guy for or against the Bush tax cuts? The guy for or against immigration reform? The guy for or against Roe v. Wade?
If the Republic Party really wants to stay relevant they’ll have to lose their winner-take-all primary scheme. Yeah, a proportional assignment of convention delegates led to an extended primary fight for Obama, but it also steeled him for fighting the big fight.
Someone should go back and see how the delegate count after Super Tuesday would have worked for Romney, Huckabee, et al, had there been something other than winner-take-all primaries fell to McCain.
All the Republic Party had left was attacking Obama. No one on WE Blog ever came up with reasons to vote FOR McCain; only with contrived reasons to reject the Muslim-Wright-listening-socialist-liberal-terrorist-pal.
One of the basic concepts of any election is “Who are you voting for?”
And the CONs never had an answer.
Chas,
I don’t reject “science”
Who is making that argument which you are arguing against?
Nathaniel
Posted November 8, 2008 at 11:29 am | Permalink
My claim is that at some point to accept God you must reject science at that point, not in general.
===========================================
Say WHAT???? “must reject science at that point” Hey, boy, those are YOUR words… not mine…. Now, read again what I just posted earlier….
So, mx….do you have ‘expectations’ of when people are supposed to post–according to you?
Second question…why are you so absolutely obsessed with what someone calls themselves?
Mccain screwed up in pandering to the rw with palin. The RW, as demonstrated by Kansas repubs. had no where else to go, and once they couldn’t get their huckaberry, quickly moved in line behind mccain. So with the R brand, the bush faithful were a given, he should have picked a moderate to draw in the middle.
There would have been whining and crying by the RR, but they would still have turned out.
“That whole anti-American, friend-to-the-terrorists thing about President-elect Barack Obama? Never mind.” …Doris Kearns Goodwin, the presidential historian, said she was hard-pressed to find a similar moment in history when the tone had changed so drastically, and so quickly, among so many people of such prominence.”
“The best answer I can give you is they don’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and they recognize how the country saw this election, and how people feel that they’re living in a time of great historic moment.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09memo.html?hp
outlander posted November 8, 2008 at 11:26 am
Cos, my friend, what are we to think? As a response to arguments made, you simply link to blogs, not even articles, as a response? And without comment. Yet will castigate someone who links to a non “peer-reviewed” source. My.
——————–
outlander,
I’m not your “friend”.
I’m tired of adding obvious comments, since you seem to lack the small mental capacity needed to comprehend.
Your outlandish source is an AGW denier “journalist”.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/presenter.htm
After graduating from Macquarie University in 1978 (BA, English), Duffy worked as a manual labourer and played in punk rock bands in Australia and England.
——————–
And your wattsupwiththat.com link to Duffy’s op-ed is a blog that earlier made the very stupid mistake of DIRECTLY comparing anomaly data sets that use DIFFERENT reference periods.
HLP,
While I don’t see the link between Chinese medicine and evolution v. creationism, nor do I care, I do have a question.
Which do you take, Astragalus or Echinacea?
Nathaniel
Posted November 8, 2008 at 11:59 am | Permalink
Pedant,
That is my point. God is a supernatural being. There is not any scientific proof of his existence as far as being testable and observable.
I believe in God. It is faith.
You do not have to accept every theory in science or reject all of science.
—
Whatever.
Sounds like weak thinking to me.
Looks like Obama may get another electoral vote from a “red” state, making his total 365.
‘Nebraska Commissioner: Obama victory in 2nd District likely’
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1130812&srvc=2008campnews&position=9
Someone like Nathaniel, who believes that the agricultural economist Dennis Avery is a credible source of AGW science, is a weak thinker.
Echinacea
Monkey I knew exactly what I was voting for and posted it numerous times. You and yours want to reject this so go on with your baseless arguments.
I also said months ago that if the dems didn’t win this race they would never win another. The GOP wrapped it in bright paper, put on a big bow and handed it over. A prez with 20% approval, an economy in the crapper, a war few wanted, the worst ran campaign in recorded history and yet the dems only pulled out a 7% lead in the election. For a while I wasn’t sure if either party wanted it.
As for Palin I posted the facts upthread and you choose to pull out your own spin. I don’t know if she will run for elected office again what I do know is that the press should be disbanded for doing what they have done both before and after the election to this woman.
They have lost their place in information gathering and discriminating. I’ll get my news from Drudge and Fox. There are more reliable.
okobserver posted November 8, 2008 at 1:43 pm
They have lost their place in information gathering and discriminating. I’ll get my news from Drudge and Fox. There are more reliable.
————–
okobserver, you could eliminate the middle-persons, and get the spin and lies directly from the RNC.
‘JUST LIKE AL SAID! Russert pushed them RNC points. Somebody go wake Fred Barnes!’
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120202.shtml
They have lost their place in information gathering and discriminating. I’ll get my news from Drudge and Fox. There are more reliable.
More reliable that what? A homeless guy talking to himself behind a 7-11?
I consider news something I haven’t heard. Affirmation of my own opinions isn’t news.
I read or heard (can’t find it again so maybe I dreamed it!) that more registered Democrats and more registered Independents went to the polls in 2008 than did in 2004; fewer registered Republicans in 2008 as compared to 2004. This has nothing to do with how they voted just who showed up to vote.
Anyone else have that kind of data? Or a suggestion of where it might be found?
I heard that as well Linda but can not pinpoint where it was.
“okobserver” gives us –
“…what I do know is that the press should be disbanded…
No comment.
Hank,
I’m an echinacea taker too. But I’m planning to switch to astragalus this winter. My best friend, who introduced me to echinacea, swears that astragalus has kept winter colds away for her. It’s much the same (immune system builder), but can be taken daily for an extended period, as opposed to the few days at the onset of a cold/flu that echinacea can.
Now Mary may say it’s all in our heads–a nurse friend of mine sure has–but I swear that I’ve cut down the intensity and length of my colds with echinacea. Colds used to hang on for 2-3 weeks or more, moving often to my chest, but if I religiously take echinacea (3 x 3 a day) at the first indication of that tiny tickle in my nose, by 3-4 days, the cold is gone.
I’ll let you know how the astragalus works. :) If I can find the bottle my grandson misplaced for me, that is.
I stumbled upon this article and thought I’d share here. It’s very thoughtful, although more about the U.S. and the world than about Obama.
My Chance Encounter With Obama in Hawaii
By PICO IYER
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081108/us_time/mychanceencounterwithobamainhawaii
Monkey just a little fairness doctrine for the press. Just kidding of course.
Rage you will always find a story first on Drudge. It comes from several sources. He isn’t his own source. Those curious enough can do follow up and get the complete story.
Like the story there now about two more bank failures. One in tx and one in ca. Source – Washington AP.
Predestined
Posted November 8, 2008 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
I stumbled upon this article and thought I’d share here. It’s very thoughtful, although more about the U.S. and the world than about Obama.
My Chance Encounter With Obama in Hawaii
By PICO IYER
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081108/us_time/mychanceencounterwithobamainhawaii
————————————————–
I suppose the bright spot in “bringing America to the Globe” is the immigration issue will take care of itself.
Going to be funny when fox loses its exclusive access to the W.H. propaganda machine. Poor Rush too, won’t be able to get a single w.h. official to sit in his station, much less the V.P.
“Now Mary may say it’s all in our heads–a nurse friend of mine sure has–but I swear that I’ve cut down the intensity and length of my colds with echinacea.”
No I believe it helps…taking vitamins on a regular basis will also help.
The one thing I have noticed in my practice is that long time vitamin users don’t age as much or as quickly as those who don’t take vitamin supplements. The doctors I work with say that it doesn’t make any difference, but seeing is believing for me.
“They have lost their place in information gathering and discriminating. I’ll get my news from Drudge and Fox. There are more reliable.”
You’re kidding right? I can’t believe you’re serious!
Fox News is the main one throwing Palin under the bus right now. Obviously they think nothing of eating their own.
Cosmos, just because you lack curiosity and believe without question or reservation, everything that is told to you by any AGW supportive source, is no reason to insult.
It is ironic that the same behavior conservatives get accused of in defending policies, you display times 10. Defend, deflect, accuse.
BTW, I hope that the libs are ready to change ends and play a little defense. They better be.
Nathan whines (as creationists do):
“Once again, Maggotpunk looks like an scientifically illiterate fool for claiming that Evolution is an “irrefutable fact.””
If it has been refuted then nobody in the scientific community is aware of it. No evidence has been presented to refute natural selection and no alternate theory has ever been presented. Thanks for proving that all creationists can do is whine.
I cannot imagine why anyone cares what N believes, much less belittle him for his unfortunate beliefs..
Hey, Predestined,
Do let me know how it works. I haven’t heard much about it.
I very seldom get sick or get a cold. I haven’t missed a day of work due to sickness since I retired from the Navy. (twenty three years).
If I feel a cold coming on, sore throat or stuffiness, I’ll take a massive dose of vitamin C and Zinc. I don’t take anything regularly.
I do try and take care of myself, but I owe it mostly to blind ass luck.
outlander posted November 8, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Cosmos, just because you lack curiosity and believe without question or reservation, everything that is told to you by any AGW supportive source, is no reason to insult.
It is ironic that the same behavior conservatives get accused of in defending policies, you display times 10. Defend, deflect, accuse.
————
outlander, please use your superior curiosity, intellect, and scientific research to explain why you believe that AGW can only be happening IF there is a steady, short- and long-term global warming trend.
Specifically, try to refute the following points:
1) Large volcanic eruptions (like Mt Pinatubo in 1991) released large amounts of aerosols which caused cooling for a few years.
2) A record warm El Nino in 1998 caused additional short-term warming during that period.
3) A La Nina and a solar minimum in 2007 have caused short-term cooling.
Please explain how the above short-term fluctuations refute the AGW theory.
Defend your opinion outlander, without deflecting or accusing.
Hey Libs! Is this your agenda?
A liberal manifesto
1a. Homosexual marriage nationwide.
1b. Remove “don’t-ask-don’t tell” in military.
1c. Equal Rights Amendment.
1d. Women in combat units
2. Abortion on demand nationwide (Freedom of Choice), government financing for indigent.
3. Energy independence
3a. Prohibitions against drilling for oil offshore, and in Alaska.
3b. Nuclear plants prohibited.
3c. Severe cap-and-trade restrictions on coal plants and oil refineries.
3d. Mandates on usage of ethanol, electrical appliances, automobile mileage, etc.
4. Socialized medicine.
5a. Religion confined to church property. (Don’t quibble on this, it’s the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church & State, and NPR position.)
5b. Legislation against “hate speech”.
5c. “Fairness doctrine”
6a. School children will be instructed to new sexual mores.
6b. Parental instruction contrary to accepted views is “child abuse”.
7. Make U.S. laws adhere to U.N. referendums.
8a. War on Terror conducted as criminal issues.
8b. Civil rights for all terrorist captives.
9.a Amnesty and citizenship paths for all illegal aliens.
9.b Remove restrictions on border crossings.
10. Withdraw military support from Israel.
11. Attempt to achieve world peace by negotiation.
12. Restrictions on firearm ownership.
13a. Tax increases on everyone making over $50,000/yr. (Yes, he lied.)
13b. Hidden taxes through corporate taxation.
14 Destroy Sarah Palin (and probably Bobby Jindal), since no other viable Republican is out there.
15 Severe reduction in military expenditures.
16 Reparations for slavery. However I suspect this is too hot to handle, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it came up.
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/08/whirled-views-118-3/
Methane credits anyone?
This might solve the liberal oratorial flatulence that is causing extreme global warming trends.
the current plan is here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
But yeah, more or less your list is pretty good except for 3b, 3d, 4, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7, 8a, 9a, 9b, 10, 13a, 14, 16
That is Obama’s plan, and since he does not have the corner on the market on all liberal ideas, how do you differ with his?
DavidB,
Question on 11. Attempt to achieve world peace by negotiation:
At what point do you think we should initiate military action, if attacked, after negotiations failed?
DavidB,
Please explain why you believe we should have # 15 Severe reduction in military expenditures.
DavidB,
So you believe this is one of Obama’s agenda items? # 13a. Tax increases on everyone making over $50,000/yr. (Yes, he lied.)
Obama talks Social Security in Ohio
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor June 13, 2008 01:55 PM
In his speech, Obama pledged to protect Social Security “today, tomorrow, and forever”
Obama also promoted his proposal to help shore up Social Security by levying further taxes on income above $250,000 a year. Now, the first $102,000 in income is taxed. Under his proposal, that wouldn’t change, and income between $102,000 and $250,000 also wouldn’t be taxed.”
In other words boys and girls: If you make income of over $102,000 Obama is ABSOLUTELY going to increase your taxes when he lifts the cap on social security.
6.2% of income over $102,000 will start being taxed (for the self-employed the rate is 12.4%).
For Obama to say he will reduce the taxes for 95% of Americans – and all Americans making less thatn $250K ($200K single) but then increase their FICA OASDI, makes him a liar.
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 8, 2008 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
“They have lost their place in information gathering and discriminating. I’ll get my news from Drudge and Fox. There are more reliable.”
You’re kidding right? I can’t believe you’re serious!
————–
Mary actually it was Hannity & Colmes that had on McCains campaign manager who refuted the smut being spread about Palin. Fox is balanced though because Oreilly and Carl Cameron used some ‘he/she said’ gossip to belittle her earlier in the week.
As I said they are balanced. I don’t believe even the left on here could believe all of the trash spread.
I suppose the bright spot in “bringing America to the Globe” is the immigration issue will take care of itself.
Mr. K, I hadn’t thought of it like that, and I’m not sure the author of the piece was either. I don’t think we have a choice about being a part of Global anything. Well, we do, but would being isolationists be better?
Do you think people in other countries are less French, Spanish, German, Dutch, Swiss, English, Irish, Icelandish, and on and on? Does Globalism weaken the “nationalization”, or whatever the apt word would be, of a country? Or, if you done right, could it strengthen it?
Ha ha, Mary! I wish I’d gotten on a vitamin kick years ago and made it a habit. It’s great that you see benefits in other things besides and in addition to pharmaceuticals. By the way, those do have their place. But I think we need to look more for preventative, and nature, whether in the form of vitamins and minerals or herbal, has provided that in many ways.
Knowing what we’ve learned in the past couple of decades about antibiotics, I’m glad I stayed away from them as much as possible as an adult. I’m also glad I didn’t take my kids to the doctor at every sniffle, begging a doctor for an antibiotic when it wasn’t needed…and getting it! While the discovery of penicillin was a God-send and saved millions of lives, we went overboard on the use of it and its “kin” and now are paying the price, although not as much with our wallets as with our health.
Hank, you obviously have an excellent immune system!
Do advice your doctor of herbs, vitamins, etc. you may be taking — especially if you are also taking pharmaceuticals. A dear friend of mine mixed the two (to an extreme), became more and more ill, never told the doctors what she was taking other than what had been prescribed and by the time they finally figured it out it was too late. She died too young.
Probably another area whee moderation is best.
Hank, I also take C and zinc at the very first inkling of a cold and haven’t been ill for many years. Plus my daily “mature” multi. ;-)
One thing I found out recently from my eye dr. Being type 2 diabetic eyes are something you have checked by an MD annually. He told me that a study recently released said that starting to take a good multiple vitamin in your 30’s would delay the onset of macular degeneration by up to 10 years.
My mom lost her eyesight to this in her late 80’s. I passed his advise on to my kids. They all take vitamins now.
okobserver,
Suppose Palin was talking at a high school, and one of the students complained that students could not influence government.
Suppose that Palin told them that important legislation was started by a letter from girl in high school, and the politician had credited the girl for it.
The politician said:
“. . . that [the problem in her letter] was the one that you didn’t hear of. But that was the one that started it all.”
Instead of reporting that the pol had credited the high-school girl, the “liberal”(sic) media misquoted it:
“I was the one that started it all.”
And some even corrected the grammar:
“I was the one WHO started it all.”
“… the one that started it all” was a farm well contaminated with toxins, near Toone Tennessee.
“have checked by an MD annually”
I see my opthamologist annually due to my own eye problem. Don’t forget to let your eye doctor KNOW if you are diabetic. They can’t always guess.
Won’t some simple exercise along with a change in diet render Type 2 diabetes asymptomatic?
How in the wide world of sports does anybody end up with Type 2 diabetes in this the year of our lord 2008?!?
eating.
I eat, and I ain’t got diabetes.
Try again.
Cosmos watching OSU/Texas Tech and your post went right over my head. Sorry.
Maybe I have Palinitis.
Lutein is a good supplement for eye health.
Pedant that is a question I have asked myself. I am the first in my family to get it. Not that you care but in my case I have a liver that for some strange reason dumps sugar at night. My liver and pancreas don’t work well together. I go to bed with a normal glucose count and wake up with one that is too high. Go figure.
I am not now nor have I ever been a sweets eater. I eat lots of veggies. Don’t know why I was so lucky.
Cosmos that is right and the ‘Mature Vitamins’ now contain it. That is the basic difference I have found between them and regular multis. That and a lot more of the B vitamins for energy for us older folks.
Pedant
Posted November 8, 2008 at 7:38 pm | Permalink
Won’t some simple exercise along with a change in diet render Type 2 diabetes asymptomatic?
How in the wide world of sports does anybody end up with Type 2 diabetes in this the year of our lord 2008?!?
———————-
Wow we have an epidemic in our nation of Type 2 diabetes. You make it sound so simple. I think tomorrow I will do some simple exercises and change my diet. If it works I will patent it and share the profits with you.
Prevention
Type II diabetes can largely be prevented through proper nutrition and regular exercise. A 2006 report by Harvard Medical School noted that “90% of cases of diabetes could be prevented with a healthy diet and lifestyle, including exercise.” [12]
Interest has arisen in preventing diabetes due to research on the benefits of treating patients before overt diabetes. Although the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that “the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely screening asymptomatic adults for type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, or impaired fasting glucose,”[13][14] this was a grade I recommendation when published in 2003. However, the USPSTF does recommend screening for diabetics in adults with hypertension or hyperlipidemia (grade B recommendation).
In 2005, an evidence report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality concluded that “there is evidence that combined diet and exercise, as well as drug therapy (metformin, acarbose), may be effective at preventing progression to DM in IGT subjects”.[15]
–wikipedia
Sorry for what must have seemed an insensitive comment, to anybody who takes these or any other medicines for diabetes. Pre-emptively as well for what follows.
An epidemic? No wonder the rest of the world speaks so derisively of Americans.
That would suck, if we Americans had to line up for our yearly diabetes screening test.
probably if you have any blood work done you are screened for it.
At the time I was diagnosed I was going to the Y at 5:30 every morning and eating right. I had been diagnosed with hypogycemia in my 30 and if I had know then what I do now I would have done some thing differently. Now they tell me this has a lot to do with a mal functioning pancreas. Adult stem cell research has made progress and hopefully will find a cure.
Early diagnosis is the key.
okobserver,
There were 2 points in my 7:28 pm post.
* Even non-voting age high-school students, and younger, can influence our government.
* Al Gore was trashed by the so-called “liberal” media during his 2000 campaign. That misquote was made by the Washington Post on Dec. 1 and 2, 1999. They, the NY Times, etc made many other misquotes and false attacks.
An epidemic? No wonder the rest of the world speaks so derisively of Americans.
Imagine that. We are in a recession in a nation full of fat overweight people.
My mother is a pancreatitis survivor, and I know she’s had a devil of a time with her pancreas. She’s also the only person I know with diabetes (that I know of).
The pancreas can be pretty tricky, it seems.
Take care, okob.
Thanks – my son has had pancreatitis twice and his doctor said he will be at risk in the future.
Bring on the research.
You know, the very fact that Faux News hid that she had done so poorly is quite telling how they were still trying to get her elected knowing what a disaster that would had been for the country.
They are not a news org, they should just be another PAC.
Pmom on what are you basing the claim that she did so badly. Stories that were out were falsified in the news. This has been admitted by many in the MSM. She drew record crowds. She is a good speaker. Why are we still fixated on her. That is very telling.
When the exit polls said that 69% of repubs said in the exit polls that she helped the ticket it makes me wonder if the dems are trying to marginalize her before the next election.
Grm, the reason why your blood glucose is too high is because you don’t have enough insulin in your bloodstream to move that sugar into the cells.
Thus is the problem with diabetes. It isn’t the SUGAR that is the problem.
Insulin is a helper- it’s like the gatekeeper for your cellular metabolism. Cells need glucose to make energy (ATP). Insulin is the gatekeeper that lets that sugar move from your blood into the cell.
Without enough insulin, the sugar you eat stays in your blood, or spills into the urine *which is why people who have diabetes and miss the toilet have sticky floors*.
The long term effects of those cells starving of glucose throughout the day, up and down, day after day… is where the damage comes from. It is why keeping diabetes under control is SO crucial.
Not all people with diabetes are fat lazy and eat poorly. However, type 2 has a HIGH coincidence with diet throughout the lifespan.
No really grm, she’s stupid, which is why she should never hold office. I mean like bonafide dumb.
Take the question about the duties of the VP. She said they would work within the senate to pass things that would help Brandon’s family.
Biden when asked by Katies Couric said:
‘Palin’s vice presidential rival Sen. Joe Biden, has also said that he would seek to use his role as vice president to work actively with the Senate – a body he has served in since 1972. When asked by CBS News’ Katie Couric which vice president impresses him the most, Biden named Lyndon Johnson, who served as vice president during President John F. Kennedy’s first term.
“He was able to be a significant facilitator of a new frontier, new policy. People in the Congress knew him, knew he knew a lot,” Biden said. “And so I hope one of my roles as vice president will be as the person actually implementing Barack Obama’s policy. You gotta get the Congress to go along with it. And it’s presumptuous to say, but I know it pretty well. And I think I am fairly respected on both sides of the aisle.”
Pmom did you see this in the MSM or did you just see people make fun of her answer which was correct as Biden demonstrated in his interview.
You need to get with a good dietician or diabetic nurse to teach you what foods will release their glucose sooner or longer. Complex carbs will digest over a longer period of time, which is why they’re better than refined sugars, which put out all the sugar at once.
Pmom give me some evidence of this more than just you saying it. I just showed you the VP gaffe that the MSM tried to show her as not knowing anything. It was a made up story. You were duped. This is a moot point here but I just can’t see why the left has so much hatred for this women.
Give me reasons.
I do work with the American Diabetes Office. I see Dr Guthrie there. He is very good. I am trying to manage it with only a small amount of meds or none at all if possible. This is a great resource for anyone with diabetes. They have classes with diet, medical, emotional support. They are a great group of people.
american, I sure hope the Equal Rights Amendment is part of that. What do you have against treating everyone as equals?
I guess you must feel quite superior to think its ok to look down upon others.
Gram, we’ve been through the reasons over and over again. If you can’t see them, that’s your problem not mine.
From her treatment of people who went against her, especially the book ban attempt, to her Couric interview which wasn’t even hard-line questions and you people acted as if O’Lielly screamed at her and cut her mic *oh wait, that’s only ok if eh does that to liberals*. Asking what the VP does, spending all the money on clothes, flying home while in labor….i thought it was truly unbelieveable earlier, but now I know..she did it because she’s just.. that.. stupid.
Grm you should use the amount of meds that keep it in check, not the smallest amount possible. It isn’t something to just play around with.
Pmom…Palin flew home while in labor because only those children physically born in Alaska get the oil revenue/welfare checks every year.
She’s really that much of a hillbilly welfare queen!
okobserver posted November 8, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Palin’s vice presidential rival Sen. Joe Biden, has also said that he would seek to use his role as vice president to work actively with the Senate – a body he has served in since 1972. When asked by CBS News’ Katie Couric which vice president impresses him the most, Biden named Lyndon Johnson, who served as vice president during President John F. Kennedy’s first term.
“He was able to be a significant facilitator of a new frontier, new policy. People in the Congress knew him, knew he knew a lot,” Biden said. “And so I hope one of my roles as vice president will be as the person actually implementing Barack Obama’s policy. You gotta get the Congress to go along with it. And it’s presumptuous to say, but I know it pretty well. And I think I am fairly respected on both sides of the aisle.”
—————–
okobserver,
1) Do you believe that Sarah Palin is as well known in Congress as Joe ’since the 1970s’ Biden is today? And LBJ was in the past? Besides her being ‘fer the “Bridge to Nowhere”, before she was ‘agin it?
2) Would Palin be qualified to be a “significant facilitator” in Congress, as Biden obviously is?
3) Do you really NOT understand the difference between “facilitator”, and “in charge”?
‘Sarah Palin: VP Is ‘In Charge Of United States Senate’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l40nrw3V3GA
(Warning! Watch her chirpy response above with an empty stomach.)
She never went clothes shopping. The clothes were bought and brought to her. She never banned a book. She had good reason to fire the man she did. The investigation pointed that out. The librarian wasn’t fired. Other than BJ who told you she tried to ban books. The list that went around were booked printed after she became mayor. As for flying home while in labor. This was her fifth birth and I am sure she knew what her labors were like. I’m not so sure I wouldn’t have done the same thing. Who wants to give birth in a strange city, without your own doctor when you know you can make it home.
Guys I really thought the election would end this discussion. I’m still not sure why the left is so insensed about Palin. You won. McCain/Palin lost. She was treated worse than anyone should have been. I don’t agree that she is stupid. She has achieved too much for that to be factual.
I guess we will just agree to disagree.
Pmom I am taking my meds just trying to do the things that will allow me to cut them down.
outlander, please use your superior curiosity, intellect, and scientific research to explain why you believe that AGW can only be happening IF there is a steady, short- and long-term global warming trend.
———–
Cos, I don’t recall writing that. Are you setting up straw guys?
Pmom you will understand this better than the men on the blog. She was leaking amniotic fluid. Her water had not broke. She wasn’t having regular pains. Whether what she did was medically smart. That would be between her and her doctor. I can’t fault her for it because I wasn’t in her shoes.
okobservser, as I have mentioned before, the lib crew is not happy unless they are trying to tear someone down.
Probably a low self-esteem symptom.
I guess that is true. I just don’t understand this hatred of a woman who did nothing wrong. Came in spoke well for the most part. Made some gaffs as did every politician running. Went back home and they still pile on.
Oh well, my Cowboys just got piled on royally by Texas Tech. Looking forward to the Big 12 winning the big bowl this year. TTs quarterback is awesome and the receiver floats on air. An unbeatable combination. Time to call it a night.
Tech is pretty unstoppable this year.
outlander posted November 8, 2008 at 9:55 pm
outlander, please use your superior curiosity, intellect, and scientific research to explain why you believe that AGW can only be happening IF there is a steady, short- and long-term global warming trend.
———–
Cos, I don’t recall writing that. Are you setting up straw guys?
—————————————–
outlander, do you have problems remembering what you post? If so, please take notes.
outlander posted November 8, 2008 at 8:28 am
In fact, sources that the IPCC relies on show global temperatures have plateaued and are starting to fall.
————-
outlander posted November 8, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Cosmos, just because you lack curiosity and believe without question or reservation, everything that is told to you by any AGW supportive source, is no reason to insult.
————-
Now outlander. . . please answer my earlier post.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/open-thread-118-2/#comment-465203
“Please explain how the above short-term fluctuations refute the AGW theory.
Defend your opinion outlander, without deflecting or accusing.”
Nobody’s piling on Palin. Here’s what’s happening:
Palin supporters are ignoring, or choosing not to view/read, Palin’s actual words. Instead they focus on the comfort it would give them to have somebody like them, somebody like them, in office come 2012 instead of some smart guy who they distrust.
Others note that (1) Palin is gearing up for a shot at POTUS in 2012, and (2) they’ve seen her talk. In her own words. Out of her own mouth. Which make it abundantly clear that she’s a moron.
Palin makes her camp feel comfy, but she reminds the other camp of George W Bush all over again.
That should clear up the mystery.
“For Obama to say he will reduce the taxes for 95% of Americans – and all Americans making less thatn $250K ($200K single) but then increase their FICA OASDI, makes him a liar.” [AmWay]
How so?? FICA isnt considered a TAX… Thats what all of the Rightie Tighties have always said!! NOW, you all want to claim that it IS a Tax…. Does it become a Tax, when Dems are in the White House, and NOT a Tax, when they arent???
IF it is a TAX, then it doesnt belong to the taxpayer anymore… BUT… since it is not technically included in the Revenue section, then it must not be a TAX, on the same order as INCOME tax…
BTW, Obama says he will not increase INCOME tax for those under $250,000 ($200,000 single)…. and SOME under $200,000 will see an INCOME tax cut…. See the Obama web site for citation….
As usual, AmWay…. You are trying to pull a Glenn Beck strategy…. Comparing Apples to Oranges….
Thank you.
Cosmos — The “deniers” — ALL of them — do not seem to understand how Global Warming really screws up WEATHER patterns… They see some place with “colder than normal” Weather conditions, and falsely conclude that Global Warming is bogus… They do not understand how WARMING convolutes the entire atmospheric system, thus creating “peaks and valleys” in ground(local) conditions…
If we cannot get that through their heads, all other arguments are nearly impossible…
Now, on the other hand, sometimes the GW “believers” get a bit overly enthusiastic in their “forecasts” —
I think the first thing necessary is to make CERTAIN that Global Warming is not discussed in terms of Local Weather conditions… and show those “deniers” that Global Warming isnt something you can track on the Doppler weather map, like some usual kind of storm front…
Your thoughts??? Thank you.
“Name another species that has a mind, a conscience, a sense of right and wrong. Name another ‘being’ that feels joy and sorrow.
“Then, explain how the feeling of joy evolved.”
Before I go on to address Hank’s weak argument, it should be pointed out that a presumed “unique” trait does not refute evolution. A trait can evolve after seperation from a common ancestor. And in fact, I have had several discussions over the years with people who are similar to Hank in that they assume certain cognitive and emotional traits are unique to humans, even though they also assume the reality of evolution, and therefore, common ancestry. Thus, Hank’s assumption that his assignment of certain cognitive and emotional attributes to be uniquely human is worthless as a refutation to evolution. However, since I think his assertion that such traits are unique to humans is simply an empty assertion on his part, I find no merit to his argument whatsoever.
There are several things wrong with Hank’s line of argument here.
1) He has already put himself in the position of argument from personal incredulity (i.e, whatever I say, he will simply not believe it). It is a no win situation, because he can always disbelieve what anyone tells him. However, from a factual and logical standpoint, an argument from personal incredulity is less than worthless.
2) Actually there has been quite a bit of research into the minds of non-human animals (and I have actually been fortunate enough to participate in some studies myself). I don’t know of any professional, even the most skeptical, who assumes that animals don’t have minds. The reality is, there is no qualitative difference between, for example, the human brain and the brains of other primates, particularly great apes. The differences are quantitative (human brains are larger, and they take longer to develop). However, the apparent differences between the cognitive abilities of human beings and non-human apes are quantitative reather than qualitative. And chimpanzees and other apes do have clear behavioral expectations of one another (i.e., a sense of right and wrong). For more information about how a sense of morality can “evolve”, I strongly recommend the writings of Frans deWaal.
3) Talk about subjective language, “joy” and “sorrow” are certainly subjective. Basically, they are considered more intense and longer lasting variations of the emotions of “happy” and “sad”. For Hank, who is such a dog lover, I have to wonder if he considers the reaction of his dogs when he returns home expressions of happiness. If an animal can feel happiness, there is no reason to assume such an animal can not feel “joy”. The common retort (that it is “anthropomorphic” to assume such feelings in other animals ignores the fact that the same neurology that is documented to underlie human emotion exists in many other animals, certainly other mammals, and most certainly dogs). In the end, once again, all Hank has in personal incredulity. And I have certainly seen evidence of grief in non-human animals. For example, I helped to document some profound changes in the behavior of a captive group of chimpanzees after their matriarch died.
“If five people with strep throat go to a MD they will all pretty much get the same symptomatic treatment. If the same five went to a Chinese medical doctor they would probably all get different treatments, depending on the perceived cause.”
Not quite sure what the point here is, except that he is claiming that strep throat is a “symptom” of ill health, rather than a disease in and of itself. Whatever, I see no refutation of the germ theory of disease in such an assumption.
“Your analogy about a house in a hurricane is false. The germs in your life are like a gentle breeze. Unlike a hurricane, they are an every day, every minute fact of life.”
1) My analogy is right on, and you fail to refute it here.
2) In the Harry Frankfurt sense again, you are relaying bullsh*t. “Germs” constitute several kingdoms of organisms, much less phyla and species. Some of benign, some are actually helpful, some are minimally harmful, and some are, well, virulant. The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 was not due to a bunch of people having weak immune systems, quite the opposite, it seemed to hit those who generally are most immune to severe flu systems the hardest (older adolesents and adults).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/influenza/sfeature/drjeffrey4.html
There are other diseases that are almost 100% fatal if contracted, and the AIDS virus, in the absence of drug treatments, overwhelms even health immune systems.
So, to go back to the actual strength of my analogy, some germs are like gentle breezes, but others are like more severe forms of disease weather, and some are like F-5 tornados.
“When a gentle breeze blows your house down, it is the fault of the house. A house that weak can be destroyed by any external every day cause.
“Strengthen the house and the ‘germ’ is of no consequence.”
As I illustrated above, that’s not true for every disease. Your assumption that “weak houses” are always the “cause” of diseases is false, and again, you ignored my question from my last post on this subject: Assuming the germ theory is false, then why do we have immune systems?
Agnatha says >>>>
“For example, I helped to document some profound changes in the behavior of a captive group of chimpanzees after their matriarch died.”
YES…. I have seen several programs on the grief phenomena of great apes, and other non-humans. (Dolphins, I believe was another)
And can anybody forget the Gorilla female, who had learned such a wide vocabulary, and learned to paint, and grieved heavily when her “kitten” had died??? Such heavy grief, that her keepers had to get her another kitty!!
No emotion?? No Joy??? No Sorrow??
Sorry, Hank, I think you lose heavily on this one… I leave the biological diatribes to otheres more knowledgeable…
And then there’s Nathan:
“Agnatha,
“The very nature of science is discovery, testing, and testing again. Evolutionary theory is rather new in the grand scheme of things.”
True enough, althogh the presumed “newness” of evolutionary theory (actually theories) is irrelevant.
“Perhaps a thousand years from now Scientists will have come up with something different to explain the orgins.”
Evolutionary theory will ocntinue to be adjusted and refined, certainly. The idea that the idea of common ancestry among forms of life on earth will be replaced is so highly unlikely as to be worthy of discussion.
“Calling Evolution an ‘irrefutable fact’ is extremism and has no place in science.”
Maggotpunk may be pushing your buttons, but your statement is simply one of opinion. The presumed fact of evolution does indeed underly much of the work done in biological sciences. Evolution (common ancestry) is so well supported by multiple, multiple lines of evidence (and I am greatly understating the case here) that calling evolution an “irrefutable fact” is a reasonable statement. Your claiming that such a statement is one of “extremism” is splitting rhetorical hairs. Furthermore, I suspect your presumed ability to identify who is an extremist, mainly because to an extremist, opposing views tend to look extremist.
“Evolution is far from being a law and the fact that MaggotPunk tries to push it as an ‘irrefutable fact’ is only proof of his belief in Evolution not as science but as his own faith.”
Uh huh. Actually, while I am aware of course of Newton’s “Laws” of Motion and “Law” of Gravity, in actual fact there is no meaningful distinction between laws and theories in modern science. Also, you are engaging in a favorite strategy of yours, which is to invoke a false argument of equivalence. More on that below.
“No where did I ever claim to not have a scientific basis to argue against Evolution either.”
Uh huh. Bullsh*t. You have at times made the claim that you could argue the issue without resorting to your religious beliefs. Other than you making those assertions, I have never even seen you make a real attempt to do so. In your response to Capn America (which I sort of complimented, by the way) you resorted to an argument where arguing for evolution was an argument from faith (once again, resorting to the argument of equivalence where faith in evolution is not substantially different from faith in a supernatural god-that argument is false-evolution as in shared ancestry is a testable claim, a supernatural god is not) and you attempted to describe a “contradiction” between Capn America’s “faith” in science (with regards to evolution and “origins” and belief in God). As I responded to you then (but then, as now, you may be inclined to miss it because my response was on a daily thread late in the day-hey, I work), the presumed contradiction is false, and confuses methodlogical naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
“No where did I make any claim that ’science’ and God are incompatable either.
“My claim is that at some point to accept God you must reject science at that point, not in general.”
And you were wrong (because the existence of god(s) is not universally untestable, because the intervention of a god in nature becomes a part of nature, and therefore within the purview of metaphysical naturalism). And since you invoke the argument against evolution, and the practice of science in the description and testing of evolution, you are clearly resorting to strategy outside of science to argue against it.
“The fact that you can’t even argue against my points and have to create strawman says far more about your inability to argue logically than mine.”
This is just rhetorical chest beating, and very weak at that. I am not resorting to straw man arguments, and your resorting to your typical thin skinned outrage at being mischaracterized won’t work. I stand by the accuracy of my comments about what you have said.
For example, from the 11/1 thread you said:
“Now, I am talking about science in general here. As a Christian I have no problem with science except for it’s rejection of accepting anything supernatural as an explanation.” (emphasis added by me)
So, I ask again:
I recall multiple times when you claimed that you could argue against evolution and for a young earth on a seperate basis from your religious beliefs. Does this constitute an admission that this is not actually the case? If so, and I think it is clear that this is such an admission, your claim that:
“No where did I ever claim to not have a scientific basis to argue against Evolution either.”
Because the fact of the matter is, if you reject methodological naturalism as necessary to the practice of science, you are rejecting science, and therefore if your argument is that you reject science’s rejection of the supernatural is not a scientific basis to argue against evolution. Neither, for that matter, is personal incredulity. And I have never, EVER, seen anything else from you on this subject.
And I have been paying attention.
One thing… I always thought strep(short for “streptococal virus” could CAUSE other related illnesses… rather than being a “symptom” of another disease…
Not sure how something like accupuncture, e.g., would treat a viral or baterial infection…
I CAN see how perhaps accupuncture might treat someone who presented with a sore throat caused from “dust” or “coal smoke irritation” — stick a needle in the bottom of my foot, and I will howl up a storm…. and it sure might free any dust in my throat OUT, thus relieving the “presented” symptom… especially after a nice cool glass of water… ROFL….
I know there are some good values in alternative medicine… But, I just trust the medical models a little better when it comes to viruses and bacteria….
As to herbs, and vitamins… that is still a wide open field of exploration, IMHO…
good night; good luck; god bless —-
whatever you conceive god to be!!
blessings ALL!!
so mote it be!!
Agnatha,
You claim that my saying that Evolution is not an “irrefutable fact” is merely my opinion. I think your correction of my statement helps here. Evolutionary Theory is indeed a culminatino of many different theories which comprise Evolutionary Theory. You then go on to say that Evolutionary Theory will be “refined and adjusted”
This is exactly what I am talking about. What part of Evolutionary Theory is Maggotpunk claiming to be an “irrefutable fact?”
As you said, there are many theories within Evolutionary Theory and these will be refined and adjusted. This proves that our understanding of Evolutionary Theory today is hardly an “irrefutable fact.”
Just as you claim that it is only my opinion, your claiming that it is reasonable to say that Evolution is an irrefutable fact is just your opinion as well.
Obviously you do not pay much attention to these discussions at all. Many of my discussions with CapnAmerica are not dealing with my trying to argue against Evolution at all. They are about arguing with CapnAmerica on his notion that my belief in Creation is a rejection of “science” while his belief’s are not.
That is the focus of many of my discussions with CapnAmerica and why you see me arguing more from the faith side than making a case against Evolution.
No where did I confuse methodlogical naturalism with metaphysical naturalism as you claim. You might have had a point on my arguing incorrectly, but to say that I am confused about the two? That is where you start making false attacks on me.
Your argument that somehow one day God can be tested so I am wrong is rather a moot point.
Of course, when God does come to judge us and Christ returns to take the believers to heaven, we will obviously know and be able to “scientifically” observe this happening.
However, right now, as a Christian, believing in God is faith. There is no substantial scientific evidence nor will there be to “scientifially” prove the existence of God until the point where “science” is pointless as we will be in heaven. (Again, my arguments dealing with God are directly in reference to the Christian God and not “god” in general.)
As of now, to believe in God, at some point you acknowledge that there is indeed a God and at that point science will not agree. Science will not accept God in the regard that a faithful believer does. Science has a theory in regards to everything from matter to the big bang to Evolution. No where is God any part of that explanation nor will God be. So my point to CapnAmerica is where does he reconcile God in that time line?
And when you answer that question of where God is a part of things, the question is does science accept that answer and of course that is a no.
The problem is that you are jumping into the middle of an argument which is not about Evolution as much as it is about God fitting into the equation as a Christian.
Then you sit here claiming that I do not argue against Evolution without using the supernatural or other religious arguments.
Most of the arguments I am a part of on this blog involve someone calling me names or making fun of me for my belief in Creation. I then argue against that, not neccisarily Evolution. And many times I have said that if you want to argue Evolution, fine, lets argue Evolution. But that is not what people want to do and that is not where most of the discussions go.
So, once again, I say that you have been paying very little attention at all.
I can indeed argue against Evolution on a seperate basis from my religious beliefs.
“I can indeed argue against Evolution on a seperate basis from my religious beliefs.”
Well, I am sure there are many who would like to see that argument…. Hmmmm????
Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?
BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!
JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road…
SARAH PALIN: BECAUSE, PRAISE JESUS, I WAS GONNA SHOOT HIS SORRY LIBERAL BUTT OFF FOR BLOCKING MY VIEW OF RUSSIA !
HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn’t about me.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where’s my gun?
COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of crossing?
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he’s acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I’m going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he’s guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmers Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
JERRY FALWELL: Because the chicken was gay! Can’t you people see the plain truth? That’s why they call it the other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay, too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like the other side. That chicken should not be crossing the road. It’s as plain and as simple as that.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the world’s chickens crossing roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2008, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2008. This new platform is much more stable and will never crash.(or crack)
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
“Please explain how the above short-term fluctuations refute the AGW theory.
—————
Cozmoz: I don’t think AGW exists, certainly not in the Chicken Little manner portrayed by you. You mention short term variations and how they don’t disprove AGW theory. AGW is BASED on a short term fluctuation!
Anyone who looks at a graph of the long term temperature estimates can see this type of variation is common. The Earth has buffers that are constantly keeping the planet in a livable range. Some of which, hell most of which, are not well understood. The current plateau is an example. You have no idea where the temperature goes from here. And everyone is hedging now, aren’t they?
The article I posted yesterday where the UN and Chinese officials claim that because of AGW Americans must reduced our lifestyle. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live like the Chinese. And I sure don’t want them telling us what we have to do.
We should live responsibly and take care of the world that God gave us. But not based on AGW alarmist’s fear mongering.
outlander posted November 9, 2008 at 7:56 am
“You mention short term variations and how they don’t disprove AGW theory. AGW is BASED on a short term fluctuation!”
———–
NO. . . AGW is based on the theory that humans have altered the chemistry (and radiative properties) of Earth’s atmosphere. Those changes have been causing a warming trend, and the warming will continue during this century.
outlander: “Anyone who looks at a graph of the long term temperature estimates can see this type of variation is common.”
———-
Do you mean earlier, naturally caused climate changes? Those natural changes do NOT refute the AGW theory.
outlander: “The Earth has buffers that are constantly keeping the planet in a livable range. Some of which, hell most of which, are not well understood. The current plateau is an example. You have no idea where the temperature goes from here. And everyone is hedging now, aren’t they?
———-
“Buffers”? Do you not understand positive feedbacks?
A warmer atmosphere allows higher moisture content = more warming.
Loss of Arctic sea ice = more warming.
Thawing of Arctic permafrost releases more GHG’s = more warming.
etc. . .
Human’s have overwhelmed the natural balancing process. For example, CO2 is higher now than anytime during the past 800,000 years.
AGW will cause more warming this century, even if solar goes into something like a Maunder minimum.
outlander posted November 9, 2008 at 7:56 am
The article I posted yesterday where the UN and Chinese officials claim that because of AGW Americans must reduced our lifestyle. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live like the Chinese. And I sure don’t want them telling us what we have to do.
—————-
Why do you believe that we have to do what the Chinese tell us to do?
Do you believe that Americans lack the ingenuity and determination to reduce GHG’s, while maintaining an equal, or even better lifestyle?
Why do you believe that we have to do what the Chinese tell us to do? -Cozmoz
————-
Why do you ask stupid questions?
*************
Do you believe that Americans lack the ingenuity and determination to reduce GHG’s, while maintaining an equal, or even better lifestyle?
————–
That would depend upon the amount of the reduction.
Of course the real question is; is it necessary to reduce American production of GHGs at all?
Are You Looking To Meet Someone Over The Holidays?
Mate1 Dating Site – Holiday Coupon Code – 3 Months Absolutely Free!
Mate1 boasts a membership of over 16 million online daters with a ratio of 50% men and 50% women for the most even playing field on the Internet. It’s by far the hottest dating site on the internet right now… You are guaranteed to meet someone you like!
Mate1 is running a special holiday promotion this week – They are giving away 3 months of free access to new members (Men and Women). Absolutely no credit card/payment required.
Instructions on how to get 3 months of free access to Mate1:
1)
Go to this link – Mate1 Website
2)
Signup for a free trial account.
During the signup process it will ask you if you want to signup for a ‘Free Trial Account’ or if you want to ‘Subscribe/Pay’ – You want to select “Free Trial Account”.
3)
Once you have successfully signed up and verified your email address and contact information proceed to the subscription link on the Mate1 website.
4)
On the subscription screen there is a place for a coupon code – Enter “HOLIDAY” and click Apply. You will now see you have 3 months of access credited to your account. Enjoy!
Note: Make sure you follow the steps above completely. During the initial signup process it’s important that you do not select subscription because the coupon code field will not be visible. You need to create a free trial account first.
Happy Holidays!
Mate1