quot;CF-Community"
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: FW: The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
> Time is shorter because you no longer have six hour days with PE,
> study hall and lunch worked in. That was only nine months of the year
> and when you weren&
It seems to be deeper than just the amount of stuff packed into a day.
I honestly think it's related to age, or perhaps experience, and the
way the brain works.
Time (and perceived time) is pretty fun, really. I keep just playing
with it tho, instead of really utilizing it the way I probably sh
Time is shorter because you no longer have six hour days with PE,
study hall and lunch worked in. That was only nine months of the year
and when you weren't in school you didn't have a car or money so you
probably couldn't do much anyway. At least that's how I remember it.
On Jan 3, 2008 2:54 PM,
Belief. It's what's for dinner.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dinner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community"
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:17 PM
> Subject: Re: FW: The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
>
>
&
;
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: FW: The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
> On Jan 3, 2008 12:57 PM, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Speaking of smoking
>>
>> lol!
>>
>
> You don't think time is mind-blowing?
On Jan 3, 2008 12:57 PM, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of smoking
>
> lol!
>
You don't think time is mind-blowing?
I'm still amazed at how slow it seemed to go as a kid.
And how fast it goes now, especially doing typing like this.
Guess I should focus more on my projec
On Jan 3, 2008 12:57 PM, Dinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 12:03 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 2008 8:52 AM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > But to stand there and bald-face say "it couldn't be *us*!" is pretty
> > > > ballsy.
> > >
> > > And en
Speaking of smoking
lol!
On Jan 3, 2008 2:53 PM, Dinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 12:32 PM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How so?
> > >
> > > Even if He does have a purpose for you, and is watching you, can't you
> > > always choose to tell him to take his p
On Jan 3, 2008 12:03 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 8:52 AM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > But to stand there and bald-face say "it couldn't be *us*!" is pretty
> > > ballsy.
> >
> > And entirely human.
>
> Neither one of you seem to be able to pay attention.
On Jan 3, 2008 12:32 PM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How so?
> >
> > Even if He does have a purpose for you, and is watching you, can't you
> > always choose to tell him to take his purpose and shove it?
>
> And wouldn't that, from a believer's point of view, *also* be included
> i
On Jan 3, 2008 1:32 PM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And wouldn't that, from a believer's point of view, *also* be included
> in the preordained?
I don't know...what's the "preordained"?
Here's the thing: the basic assumption is that '[deity] knows all.'
>
> Does it not follow, th
> How so?
>
> Even if He does have a purpose for you, and is watching you, can't you
> always choose to tell him to take his purpose and shove it?
And wouldn't that, from a believer's point of view, *also* be included
in the preordained?
Here's the thing: the basic assumption is that '[deity] kno
On Jan 3, 2008 11:17 AM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How so?
>
> Even if He does have a purpose for you, and is watching you, can't you
> always choose to tell him to take his purpose and shove it?
>
> Unless you believe that God is actively meddling in your life, causing you
> do to thing
On Jan 3, 2008 8:52 AM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But to stand there and bald-face say "it couldn't be *us*!" is pretty
> > ballsy.
>
> And entirely human.
Neither one of you seem to be able to pay attention.
I never said "it couldn't be us"
I said before wasting trillions on
How so?
Even if He does have a purpose for you, and is watching you, can't you
always choose to tell him to take his purpose and shove it?
Unless you believe that God is actively meddling in your life, causing you
do to things or not to do things, etc.then free will is still very much
intact.
> I wonder where free will fits into this picture... I love free will.
> My God loves it too.
That's one of the great logical fallacies of organized religion...
An all knowing, all seeing, ghod--that has a purpose for you and sees
you when you're sleeping and knows when your awake, by definition
On Jan 3, 2008 9:52 AM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But to stand there and bald-face say "it couldn't be *us*!" is pretty
> > ballsy.
>
> And entirely human.
>
> The Great Chain of Being leaps to mind.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being)
I wonder where free will
> But to stand there and bald-face say "it couldn't be *us*!" is pretty ballsy.
And entirely human.
The Great Chain of Being leaps to mind.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being)
A very handy guide to practicing the
'use-it-up-there'll-always-be-more' variety of stewardship rather t
On Jan 2, 2008 12:54 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The point of the article was that when bogus science fails to gain any
> > foothold in legitimate scientific circles they often resort to media
> > interaction as a way to generate popular buzz or provide faulty testemonials
> > ("As
On Dec 30, 2007 9:06 AM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An inconvenient truth.
>
> I have to agree with others here - Al Gore was not pitching science to the
> media with the movie. I think you can rightly say he was pitching it to the
> public at large tho'.
> As sensationalistic as "An
On Dec 28, 2007 10:35 PM, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm debating the scientific proof of Man Made Global Warming and
> >whether the debate is over or never happened.
>
> How about man made versus man enhanced? How about "ok it is 100% natural
> cycle", we are still not screwed how
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 3:39 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: FW: The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 11:29 AM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1.
starting?
>
> > > 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
> > observation.
> >
> > That is global warming.
>
> Say what? You know that statement even stretches the credulity of the most
> devout follower of faith based science. Its all very basic stuff, you heat
> something
>I'm debating the scientific proof of Man Made Global Warming and
>whether the debate is over or never happened.
How about man made versus man enhanced? How about "ok it is 100% natural
cycle", we are still not screwed how?
You confound me when in one sentance you speak to "Man Made Global Wa
On Dec 28, 2007 2:35 PM, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam wrote:
> > All lies. Gore and Hanson both admitted they exaggerated to create a
> > fear so people would take them serious. Is that how science is
> > supposed to work?
> >
> They are the ONLY TWO sources of Global Warming resear
Sam wrote:
> All lies. Gore and Hanson both admitted they exaggerated to create a
> fear so people would take them serious. Is that how science is
> supposed to work?
>
They are the ONLY TWO sources of Global Warming research? Does
exaggeration means that the data is completely false and tells
On Dec 28, 2007 1:04 PM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on research that has been presented in peer reviewed journals first,
> long before Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
All lies. Gore and Hanson both admitted they exaggerated to create a
fear so people would take them serious. Is
On Dec 28, 2007 1:07 PM, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since when did Al Gore discover global warming?
You're right, he didn't discover it. He's just the religious leader.
The one that took the theory to the media instead of the science
community.
> Since what year has science, research and
> On Dec 28, 2007 11:29 AM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
>
> An inconvenient truth.
Based on research that has been presented in peer reviewed journals first, long
before Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
>
> > 2. The discov
Since when did Al Gore discover global warming?
Since what year has science, research and facts about Global Warming
been brought in scientific documents, journals, and in the news?
What year was An Inconvenient truth released?
Your statement is tragically false as the discovery of Global Warming
On Dec 28, 2007 11:29 AM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
An inconvenient truth.
> 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress
> his or her work.
All "Deniers" are paid for by big oil.
> 3. The
How so? There is a fair amount of very reliable science that support his views.
But I guess that groups such as the AAAS and NAS are just fringe organizations
who have no scientific credibility, since their so-called science contradicts
the right-wingnut ideology.
>Al Gore gets a five out of se
Magnificent post, informative list.
Since we know which modern brand of Bogus Science is nearest and dearest to
my heart...i thought I'd test it against each of the warning signs:
On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to th
Al Gore gets a five out of seven :)
On Dec 28, 2007 11:29 AM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since we get into a variety of discussions involving at times very dubious
> science, I thought that this article from the Chronicle of Higher Eduction
> would be useful.
>
> larry
>
> http://c
34 matches
Mail list logo
