RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (335) < ... 313 314 315 316 317 [318] 319 320 321 322 323 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1580
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2018,14:00   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 27 2018,12:15)
Again:

Seriously, who talks like that?

Someone should visit Monserrat to find out if HocusPocus is such a pompous windbag in person, or if it's just when he has time (LOTS of time, apparently) to write it.

I wonder what the first drafts in his wastepaper basket look like.

Probably full of removed carriage returns, punctuation and sensible sentences. But I will bet that there is not a single Plato, Lewontin, agit-prop, strawman, fellow travellers, or ilk in the entire lot.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1087
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2018,14:33   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 27 2018,12:15)
I wonder what the first drafts in his wastepaper basket look like.

All full of sober, self-aware, respectful analysis of his and his opponents' claims.

Ha ha!  As if he's written anything like that in his life.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2767
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2018,16:00   

I bet they could build a brilliant KF bot here.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2247
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2018,03:27   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 27 2018,16:00)
I bet they could build a brilliant KF bot here.

I'm not sure if a kf bot is a brilliant idea, or one of the worst ideas in human history.

I do know that using a bot like that in a Turing test would be evil.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
sparc



Posts: 1999
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2018,03:43   

Mullers_ratchet is my hero but like all good heroes he didn't last
Quote

49
mullers_ratchetJanuary 27, 2018 at 2:36 pm

Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.

 
Quote
If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.


“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.

 
Quote
IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.

   But, of course, it doesn’t


But, in fact, it does. Check out Figure 1 here. The correlation coefficient for human cumulative CO2 emissions v atmospheric CO2 is 0.997!

So, let’s review the thread.

You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.

It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.

You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.

Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.

You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.

What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?

UD Editors: Mullers_ratchet is no longer with us.

(emphasis mine)

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1580
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2018,09:29   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 28 2018,03:27)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 27 2018,16:00)
I bet they could build a brilliant KF bot here.

I'm not sure if a kf bot is a brilliant idea, or one of the worst ideas in human history.

I do know that using a bot like that in a Turing test would be evil.

Objectively evil?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2767
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2018,15:05   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 28 2018,07:29)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 28 2018,03:27)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 27 2018,16:00)
I bet they could build a brilliant KF bot here.

I'm not sure if a kf bot is a brilliant idea, or one of the worst ideas in human history.

I do know that using a bot like that in a Turing test would be evil.

Objectively evil?

Credits dept.: "they" is actually Janelle Shane

eta: all she needs is a generated word cloud... just sayin'...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2247
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,02:35   

The latest at UD is titled "Are these stats for ET just “barking mad”?".  Provide your own punchline...

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
JohnW



Posts: 3011
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,12:27   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 25 2018,18:18)
PaV using inflow and outflow of water in a sink as an analogy to CO2 in the atmosphere:
   
Quote
IOW, let’s say you were filling up a sink with water, depending on the flow rate out of the sink, and the flow rate into the sink, there would be an equilibrium level of water in the sink. Now, if you increase the flow of water into the sink by 4%, you should expect the level to rise about 4%. If you restricted the flow by 4%, you’d expect the water level to drop by 4%.

UD link
PaV, you will always be one of my favourites!

ET, who is not Joe, rises to the challenge:
 
Quote
61  ET  January 28, 2018 at 9:37 am
All of that added CO2 and we are now only about 1.7 degrees F warmer than 1880. Heck it changes more than that day to day.

... a comment so staggeringly stupid that it's too much for the other loons at UD, who are ignoring it.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
stevestory



Posts: 10780
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,12:37   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 28 2018,04:43)
Mullers_ratchet is my hero but like all good heroes he didn't last  
Quote

49
mullers_ratchetJanuary 27, 2018 at 2:36 pm

Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.

   
Quote
If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.


“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.

   
Quote
IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.

   But, of course, it doesn’t


But, in fact, it does. Check out Figure 1 here. The correlation coefficient for human cumulative CO2 emissions v atmospheric CO2 is 0.997!

So, let’s review the thread.

You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.

It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.

You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.

Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.

You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.

What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?

UD Editors: Mullers_ratchet is no longer with us.

(emphasis mine)

That is awesome.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10780
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,12:48   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 27 2018,01:52)
 
Quote
34
PaV
   January 26, 2018 at 6:34 pm

muller’s ratchet:
Did you look at the graph? Please explain the exponential rise of CO2 levels in the Antartica ice cores starting in the 1800’s. Was the ocean “gaining” CO2 then? And, if it was, then WHERE did all the extra CO2 come from?
If you can’t answer that question, then realize you stopped thinking a long time ago.


 
Quote
35
mullers_ratchet
  January 26, 2018 at 6:53 pm

You may have heard of the industrial revolution…

…since the industrial revolution!

You can't beat UD for being simultaneously clueless and insulting. God I hope this site is up forever.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1580
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,12:52   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 29 2018,12:27)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 25 2018,18:18)
PaV using inflow and outflow of water in a sink as an analogy to CO2 in the atmosphere:
   
Quote
IOW, let’s say you were filling up a sink with water, depending on the flow rate out of the sink, and the flow rate into the sink, there would be an equilibrium level of water in the sink. Now, if you increase the flow of water into the sink by 4%, you should expect the level to rise about 4%. If you restricted the flow by 4%, you’d expect the water level to drop by 4%.

UD link
PaV, you will always be one of my favourites!

ET, who is not Joe, rises to the challenge:
 
Quote
61  ET  January 28, 2018 at 9:37 am
All of that added CO2 and we are now only about 1.7 degrees F warmer than 1880. Heck it changes more than that day to day.

... a comment so staggeringly stupid that it's too much for the other loons at UD, who are ignoring it.

What makes you think they are ignoring it? I'm sure that most of them agree with it.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1580
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,12:56   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 29 2018,12:52)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 29 2018,12:27)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 25 2018,18:18)
PaV using inflow and outflow of water in a sink as an analogy to CO2 in the atmosphere:
     
Quote
IOW, let’s say you were filling up a sink with water, depending on the flow rate out of the sink, and the flow rate into the sink, there would be an equilibrium level of water in the sink. Now, if you increase the flow of water into the sink by 4%, you should expect the level to rise about 4%. If you restricted the flow by 4%, you’d expect the water level to drop by 4%.

UD link
PaV, you will always be one of my favourites!

ET, who is not Joe, rises to the challenge:
   
Quote
61  ET  January 28, 2018 at 9:37 am
All of that added CO2 and we are now only about 1.7 degrees F warmer than 1880. Heck it changes more than that day to day.

... a comment so staggeringly stupid that it's too much for the other loons at UD, who are ignoring it.

What makes you think they are ignoring it? I'm sure that most of them agree with it.

Then you better hope that the elderly Dense and Dreary lives forever. Because whenever she stops looking at her news aggregator, UD will only be left with insulting OPS by Barry and indecipherable fishing reel porn from Kairos (don't call me Gordon Mullings) Focus.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3011
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,12:58   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 29 2018,10:56)

Therefore Jesus.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1580
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,13:01   

Boy, what I would give to see this baby with her cowling off and her intermeshing gears exposed.


  
stevestory



Posts: 10780
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,13:09   

Quote
70
daveSJanuary 29, 2018 at 9:07 am
Quote
The question in light of the study posted above @66 on 20% decline.

Did Mauna Loa show similar decline during that period?

I too would like to know more about this. The paper is way too technical for me, but the linked phys.org article states:

Quote
But the scientists found that between 2002 and 2014, the rate at which CO2 increased in the atmosphere held steady at about 1.9 ppm/year.

Eyeballing the graph in the OP, the blue curve is indeed quite straight between 2002 and 2014 (and is even slightly concave-down), as opposed to its concave-up behavior on average.
Whichever one of you jerks is DaveS and forgot the word 'convex' should say a mea culpa :-p

Edited by stevestory on Jan. 29 2018,14:10

   
stevestory



Posts: 10780
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,13:20   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 29 2018,13:56)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 29 2018,12:52)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 29 2018,12:27)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 25 2018,18:18)
PaV using inflow and outflow of water in a sink as an analogy to CO2 in the atmosphere:
     
Quote
IOW, let’s say you were filling up a sink with water, depending on the flow rate out of the sink, and the flow rate into the sink, there would be an equilibrium level of water in the sink. Now, if you increase the flow of water into the sink by 4%, you should expect the level to rise about 4%. If you restricted the flow by 4%, you’d expect the water level to drop by 4%.

UD link
PaV, you will always be one of my favourites!

ET, who is not Joe, rises to the challenge:
   
Quote
61  ET  January 28, 2018 at 9:37 am
All of that added CO2 and we are now only about 1.7 degrees F warmer than 1880. Heck it changes more than that day to day.

... a comment so staggeringly stupid that it's too much for the other loons at UD, who are ignoring it.

What makes you think they are ignoring it? I'm sure that most of them agree with it.

Then you better hope that the elderly Dense and Dreary lives forever. Because whenever she stops looking at her news aggregator, UD will only be left with insulting OPS by Barry and indecipherable fishing reel porn from Kairos (don't call me Gordon Mullings) Focus.

Some of this bullshit comes from watching oversimplified animations on Nova and believing that's really what it looks like. For instance the actin or myosin or whatever molecules that seem to step one after another in an orderly way along microtubules. I had a girlfriend who worked at UNC on visualizing those things. She said those animations were ridiculous. "How do they actually move?" I asked. "They take about 1.1 steps forward for every step back. They barely work at all. In real life it just looks like random bouncing junk."

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1580
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,14:19   

This, from Occam's Aftershave, was too good to leave over on Joe's thread.

Hey, I found a picture of Joke hard at work. :)



POTW?

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1062
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,23:16   

Early contender for the Gabby Johnson Gibberish 2018 Award spotted at UD. Try reading just the first sentence:
 
Quote
1
Tom Robbins  
January 29, 2018 at 6:06 pm

More Gullible warming propaganda – I find it obsense to suggest prominent scientists that have virtually disproven that man is causing a warm up that has reached its peak long ago, and shows ever sign of staying flat or a trend doward, that can clearly be shown to be caused by solar cycles and the warming of the oceans and their cycles -PDO etc., have shown that warming is never preceded by increases in c02 but that c02 levels always rise AFTER the warming, by using some peer review scam. When once again, it is the grant hungry, agenda driven, data corrupting, ever changing and failed predictions (can you say climategate emails? MWP, early 20th century warming then sharp cooling into the 70’s simply made to disappear!!), ever divergent with even the IPCC’s findings, that have never proven man’s tiny addition of c02 is responsible for any or part of the warming, – NEVER, THAT use the good old boy peer review. Basically, if it agrees with the narrative, they can publish any ridiculous claim and call it science. This is all one giant game to them, but the survival of liberty and the middle class rest on the US and other free nations from resisting even MORE control of their lives by Big Brother. Absolute nonsense…

And all with no obsensities!
UD link

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1062
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2018,18:35   

Denyse is having trouble comprehending timescales again. Her post title is
Quote
Earliest crayon (possibly) discovered so far, at 10 mya

The first sentence of her quoted article reads
 
Quote
Archaeologists say they may have discovered one of the earliest examples of a ‘crayon’ — possibly used by our ancestors 10,000 years ago for applying colour to their animal skins or for artwork.

UD link, with credit to UD regular vmahuna for mentioning the mistake there.

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1580
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2018,19:35   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 31 2018,18:35)
Denyse is having trouble comprehending timescales again. Her post title is
 
Quote
Earliest crayon (possibly) discovered so far, at 10 mya

The first sentence of her quoted article reads
 
Quote
Archaeologists say they may have discovered one of the earliest examples of a ‘crayon’ — possibly used by our ancestors 10,000 years ago for applying colour to their animal skins or for artwork.

UD link, with credit to UD regular vmahuna for mentioning the mistake there.

Oops!

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1605
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2018,22:42   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 31 2018,18:35)
Denyse is having trouble comprehending timescales again. Her post title is
 
Quote
Earliest crayon (possibly) discovered so far, at 10 mya

The first sentence of her quoted article reads
 
Quote
Archaeologists say they may have discovered one of the earliest examples of a ‘crayon’ — possibly used by our ancestors 10,000 years ago for applying colour to their animal skins or for artwork.

UD link, with credit to UD regular vmahuna for mentioning the mistake there.

Still a smaller error than 4.5 billion = 6,000.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 10780
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2018,12:45   

Quote
12
PaV January 25, 2018 at 5:41 pm
...
IOW, let’s say you were filling up a sink with water, depending on the flow rate out of the sink, and the flow rate into the sink, there would be an equilibrium level of water in the sink. Now, if you increase the flow of water into the sink by 4%, you should expect the level to rise about 4%. If you restricted the flow by 4%, you’d expect the water level to drop by 4%.
Quote
13
mullers_ratchetJanuary 25, 2018 at 6:00 pm
OMFG… did you even think about ths?

IOW, let’s say you were filling up a sink with water, depending on the flow rate out of the sink, and the flow rate into the sink, there would be an equilibrium level of water in the sink. Now, if you increase the flow of water into the sink by 4%, you should expect the level to rise about 4%

If the amount of water going into the sink is more than the amount draining from it the water level will rise constantly. It doesn’t stop when it get’s to 4% more.

Human emissions are considerably greater than the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere in recent times, largely because the oceans are gaining not losing dissolved CO2 (you may have heard of ocean acidification).

I guess there was a learning moment in here after all.


https://uncommondescent.com/intelli....-650076

   
stevestory



Posts: 10780
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2018,12:56   

oh god the best one yet.

Quote
31
mullers_ratchetJanuary 26, 2018 at 3:52 pm
Why are you like this? What would happen if you just admitted you didn’t know very much abotu this topic, and perhaps you had it all wrong?

This last comment is just strange.

Quote
The “acidification” scheme reminds us here at UD of evolutionary explanations: all of them are ex post facto. Another name for them is this: excuses.

Global warmists, intent on explaining why temperatures are not rising even as CO2 levels are rising–that is, the Keeling Curve, have come up with this notion. It is no more than ‘hand-waving,’ a la most ‘evolutionary’ explanations of the facts.


Where did you get this from? Acidification is not made up, it’s very clear that the ocean is absorbing CO2 and pH is lowerig as a result. It can’t be an “excuse” for the failure of temperature to rise because (i) it doesn’t provide an explanation as to why temps wouldn’t rise and (ii) temperatures are rising.

So what the hell are you on about?

Quote
As to the 4%, again, if humans stopped producing fossil fuel emissions, would the total CO2 in the atmosphere “go down” 4% each year until it became 0% And since CO2 levels won’t keep going ‘down’ if fossil fuels are no longer burned, then what makes you think that CO2 levels will keep going ‘up’?


Remember, you first made the ignorant claim that adding 4% to the flux would only lead to a 4% increase in the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you at least admit you had that wrong?

If we take fossil CO2 that has been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years and pump it into the atmosphere it will stay there (and be absorbed by the ocean). We know we are responsible for all of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere because our emissions are considerbly greater than the amount added. It’s really as simple as that.

Quote
This makes no sense. So, we look for another answer (and, it’s easy): CO2 condensates found in the ocean are slowly finding their way into the atmosphere because the oceans are warming up, ever so slightly.


If the recent increase in CO2 is coming from the oceans, where does all the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels go? Rememember, the year-on-year increase is in the atmosphere is less than the amount we release (because a lot of it goes into the ocean).

If the extra atmospheric CO2 is coming from an unknown source in the ocean, where is all out CO2 hiding?


"why are you like this?"

Could be any number of reasons. Tetraethyl lead from gasoline?

   
stevestory



Posts: 10780
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2018,13:52   

Quote
72
Molson Bleu February 2, 2018 at 12:01 pm
“IOW, if you increase the population of plankton by 4%, I don’t see how this increased population size wouldn’t absorb man-made emissions. ”

CO2 is not a limiting nutrient in the world’s oceans. The size of the phytoplankton populations, and therefore the amount of CO2 that they can convert to biomass, is not dependent on the CO2 concentration. It is dependent on nitrogen and/or phosphorus. So, unless you want to increase the amount of raw sewage that we dump into the oceans, which will cause all sorts of other problems, the amount of CO2 that the oceans can process is finite.

   
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2018,20:37   

I am amazed that ud is still around. Has dembski washed his hands of ID yet?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2247
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2018,03:39   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 02 2018,20:37)
I am amazed that ud is still around. Has dembski washed his hands of ID yet?

More or less, I think. He's handed off to Barry & Denyse, two intellectual giants.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1580
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2018,08:49   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 03 2018,03:39)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 02 2018,20:37)
I am amazed that ud is still around. Has dembski washed his hands of ID yet?

More or less, I think. He's handed off to Barry & Denyse, two intellectual giants.

Don’t forget about the Einstein of ID, Gordon Mullings.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10780
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2018,10:48   

Quote
7
bornagain77February 3, 2018 at 6:39 am
 
Quote
A Doctor’s Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life – video
Quote: “It’s not like a dream. It’s like the world we are living in is a dream and it’s kind of like waking up from that.”
Dr. Magrisso
http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-a.......91.html

Medical Miracles – Dr. Mary Neal’s Near Death Experience – video (More real than real quote at 37:49 minute mark)
https://youtu.be/WCNjmWP....?t=2269

“More real than anything I’ve experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death.”
– Don Piper – “90 Minutes in Heaven,” 10 Years Later – video (2:54 minute mark)
https://youtu.be/3LyZoNl....M?t=173

Exactly how is it possible for something to become even ‘more real than real’ in a NDE unless the world we currently live in really is just a shadow of the heavenly paradise that awaits us after death as is held in Theism and in Christianity in particular?

In fact, whereas, atheists have no compelling evidence for the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth,,
 
Quote

Multiverse Mania vs Reality – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....4fH6kMo

,, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.
 
Quote

Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....H8jO0pk

In fact, whereas Darwinists have no clue how the basic ‘form’ of any particular biological organism might be achieved during embryological development, or how that basic ‘form’ might be maintained for precisely a lifetime, and not a moment longer,,,
 
Quote

Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....NPgjM4w

The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010
Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?
Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
per – The New Atlantis

Christians, and the other hand, can appeal directly to breakthroughs in quantum biology to support their belief in a ‘soul’ that gives the material body its basic form and also to support their belief in a soul which is capable of living past the death of our material bodies:
 
Quote

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am....2Am1g5Y

“Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
– Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
https://youtu.be/jjpEc98....o?t=300

Verse and Music:
 
Quote

Matthew 16:25-26
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

Jewel – Who will save your soul – Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....Eq643Mk
 
Quote

8
Latemarch February 3, 2018 at 7:11 am
BA77:
 
Quote

In fact, whereas Darwinists have no clue how the ‘form’ of any particular biological organism might be achieved during embryological development, or how that basic ‘form’ might be maintained for precisely a lifetime, and not a moment longer,,,

Thought experiment:
Take a few billion bacteria. Place them in an ideal nutrient media. Now gently disrupt all the cell walls and let the contents spill out into the media. The ideal starting point for life! Everything is there. The complex molecules required for energy from nutrient. The programming in the DNA. Even the membranes to enclose it all. The perfect little warm pond.

Now let’s wait for life to arise……still waiting…..

Odd isn’t it that the only thing disrupted was the ‘form.’

Colossians 1:16-17
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
I can't keep up with all the cutting edge science at UD!

Edited by stevestory on Feb. 03 2018,11:52

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1580
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2018,10:57   

Batshitcrazy77 was absent for several months. Do they not have internet access in the sanitarium?

  
  10043 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (335) < ... 313 314 315 316 317 [318] 319 320 321 322 323 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]