By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
akuma587 on 15 November 2008
Edit Thread
thetonestarr said:
akuma587 said:

That's completely false.  That's like saying that the same evolutionary adaptation occuring more than once in nature is impossible because it is statistically improbable.  But that is blatantly disproved by actual data.  Mammals and birds evolved four-chambered hearts independently of each other and birds and bats evolved wings completely independently of each other.  The evolutionary model says this is extremely unlikely, but the model is still true even though these deviations have occurred.

Just because a model predicts that something is less likely to occur does not mean that is impossible or that the deviation from the prediction disproves the model.  In math, sometimes a function crosses an asymptote at one or two points, but as the function approaches infinity it moves infinitely closer to the asymptote without ever touching it.  You are completely ignoring the fact that statistical deviations in science are extremely common and do not automatically disprove theoretical models.

For someone who claims to know a lot of about global warming, you sure as hell know very little about science in general.

 

Lovely how you pick and choose what to reply to and what not. Pay attention to the rest of the post, and pretty much everything you just stated is entirely null and void.

 

I never even claimed global warming was true.  You are simply assuming that one year's worth of data means something, and then you prove that your own claim is ridiculous by citing as authority records that go back as far as possible (based on millions of years worth of data, which you can actually draw reliable inferences from).

Its just laughable that you claim to have an informed viewpoint on a scientific issue when you have the scientific reasoning skills of a middle school student.  You would look equally ridiculous if you were trying to argue for global warming.  Bad reasoning is bad reasoning, no matter what side of an argument you are on.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson