Good lord, wtf are you talking about? My statement literally had nothing to do with evolution. I was talking about how shit humans are. And that's not how evolution works. It doesn't magically ignore people with immunizations. "Oh, that guy had a vaccine! I'm just not going to apply to him!" If you successfully reproduce, passing on your genetic material, that's it. Job done. It doesn't matter if you're faster than a predator, outsmarted a virus, or got a mutation that allowed you to grow aerobically on citrate.foilholio wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:12 amHow about we kill all the Dolphins so they can eat them and not go hungry or die? When they have more kids we can then kill another species for them and another after that? You don't seem to understand Evolution, it involves selection. That means somethings die and some don't, some reproduce and some don't. If you have no selection, i.e. death there is no evolution. Fortunately this is a scientific fact unlike stupid climate models. So whether you believe in it or not whether you try to circumvent it with immunizations or free hand outs and other silly tricks you ultimately will not bypass it, the death is just delayed and the selection is inevitable.
No there wasn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
Reading this site was very interesting. I haven't much looked into anti-GW stuff as I previously dismissed it as tinfoil hat nonsense. This particular page was well put together and even references the report it says the IPCC is "trying to hide" (because it tells the truth). Thankfully, they somehow managed to find it after it was "hidden" because of Google's wayback machine. I was shocked when the report was exactly as this the site said. It talked a lot about this medieval warming period the IPCC is trying to hide from us. I was quite astounded. I even found it so interesting, I decided to read a little more. Turns out the global mean stayed relatively the same, while there was a period of warming for about 250 years, mainly isolated to Europe. Damnit, I knew I should've stopped after I read only the supporting information for the website, but I stupidly just had read a couple more paragraphs.
Do you anti-GW people even read this stuff? Or just find a couple quotes, take them out of context, then sing, "HAHA! GOTYA!!!"? Please don't reference anti-global warming conspiracy sites. It's the same nonsense over and over with a complete lack of understanding of anything science related. Ironically, they seem to have the ability to disprove themselves with their own references, just as you seem to have a problem with doing in this thread..
So, you're telling me that because we're not 100% sure that physics hasn't changed and have seen no evidence of it changing in the past 13.7 billion years, we should just assume it may have been wildly different? Well, then perhaps I shouldn't assume gravity won't suddenly reverse so I should put pads on the ceiling?foilholio wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:12 amWhat model is your time machine? The belief that rules of the universe have never changed is a theory in science that things are as they always have been. The big bang theory stems solely from observation of movement of the universe, it is moving from a point so it must have come from a point. It is as it has always been. What happened at the point? well lets just make up some religious sounding story about that should we? Ultimately these are all guesses at best, there is no way we have to confirm them, like for what is at the center of the sun or is the temperature of venus, until well we send something there.
I think it is great we have more educated guesses than well GOD WILLED IT, but they are still guesses. They are of actual little help for us, unless they stimulate more thought to find something applicable to now. They actually given discussions like this around climate seem to be a negative as they like religious belief or any dogma stifle thought and discussion. Science can ultimately only prove what it can test and create, let me know when they stay start making big bangs and resulting universes. Yes I am fucking aware of colliders and attempt to recreate the same "conditions" but they won't make a big band, black hole maybe but big bang highly unlikely. It is just approximation of approximation etc. Certainly interesting things will be found, and I am a huge supporter of science in that regard. I am just not a supporter of pseudoscience, social science, economics, bullllshit, etc. Everyone has a right to carry any line of thinking that they want, just don't fucking ask me to pay for crap like Gender studies and SLS rockets to nowhere.
Perhaps there's another set of physics that explains things on a universal scale that we haven't yet discovered. As for now, it's by far the best fit for the observable evidence using existing mathematical models. Also, the big bang has neither a start point nor an end point. Your presupposing human limitations on an infinite platform. Lastly, please stop talking about astrophysics, physics, and astronomy. Everything you said shows a significant misunderstanding and your reframing of information is dangerous (admittedly, I don't think you're doing it on purpose).
In case you needed a refresher on the scientific method: https://www.ducksters.com/science/scientificmethod.php. There's quite a lot of information there on physics and astronomy for you as well. https://www.ducksters.com/science/ Should help bring you up to speed at least a little .
I don't know what you're trying to say. If it was to back up my statement about theories need adjustments when they don't work in specific areas, or that they're replaced with something that explains it a bit better, but the original stands true for the set it was designed for...thanks? You do know there's a whole field of physics trying to unite quantum mechanics and relativity, right? Actually, probably not.foilholio wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:12 amhttps://www.newscientist.com/round-up/c ... -einstein/
This is a very excellent article you've referenced. So unbelievably perfect for this response to you.
"What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete." - About 5/6 the way down the page.
Also, Asimov was one of the first well known science communicators (and scientists!) coming out in support of global warming. In 1989 he gave a keynote address and said, “They wanted me to pick out the most important scientific event of 1988. And I really thought that the most important scientific event of 1988 will only be recognized sometime in the future when you get a little perspective.”
So, instead of doing a degree, you're going to spout off about stuff you know literally nothing about? And since you brought him up as someone you admire and enjoy reading, Asimov wrote many, many series on science education, including a 3 volume on Understanding Physics.foilholio wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:12 amBlackened wrote:
If you disagree with almost every scientist and have some insight on data that has not been shown, perhaps you should do a climate science degree and get some papers published in reputable science journals.
I am not interested to that level. I think you will find Economics and Politics are the most dire problems we face in the immediate. We will be lucky to survive Trump. I struggle to think of solutions to them, I think principles of openness and freedom are the only thing that will work. It is sad to see the lack of leaks after Edward Snowden and now the torture of Julian Assange in the UK. Ability to leak information from real conspiracies that do evil are the only real defense we have against them. The increasing suppression of freedom and polluting of discourse with bots and propaganda is having a toll and will I think lead to the down fall of the current enlightenment. The Navy now has an army of bots engaged in political discourse on things like twitter. It's insane. Only defense is to largely disengage from the worst platforms and harden up on logic skills.
"Anti- intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov