what year to get pregnant

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
At this rate, it will stay alive forever. The OT thread has been a little quiet lately. This one, however, is still hopping. I give it one to two weeks before this thread is the longer of the two.

I agree, though, this is quite the entertaining little thread. We went from talking about pregnancy, to abortion, to dating and the notion of equality vs. chivalry, to religion, to basketball ****-talking, back to religion, to the Hilljack accent, back to religion, and there was a smattering of other ideas thrown in here and there.

why red now? no more blue?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I think the ONLY topic missing from this thread is Affirmative Action! :laugh:

I think its sucks. Anyone else? (yes, I know I am going to get flamed but I don't give a **** b/c Affirmative Actions SUCKS!)

I agree. Race-based affirmative action is nonsense in today's day and age. Class is much more predictive of systemic discrimination than race, so I would accept SES being used rather than race. Yes, certain groups are wrongfully discriminated against but affirmative action is a band-aid solution to a much broader societal problem, a solution that fails to address the roots of the problem. I think it breeds so much contempt too, it's unfortunate that policy is still around in some places, particularly because it is often misunderstood by the general public.
 
I think the ONLY topic missing from this thread is Affirmative Action! :laugh:

I think its sucks. Anyone else? (yes, I know I am going to get flamed but I don't give a **** b/c Affirmative Actions SUCKS!)

We're missing the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, as well as if vaccines cause autism debate.

Not that they're really debates, as science has proven as much as it can prove that vaccines don't lead to autism.

And while details of evolutionary theory are going to change, well, evolution is as close to being proven as possible, too.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I agree. Race-based affirmative action is nonsense in today's day and age. Class is much more predictive of systemic discrimination than race, so I would accept SES being used rather than race. Yes, certain groups are wrongfully discriminated against but affirmative action is a band-aid solution to a much broader societal problem, a solution that fails to address the roots of the problem. I think it breeds so much contempt too, it's unfortunate that policy is still around in some places, particularly because it is often misunderstood by the general public.

I think SES is a bigger problem as well. Society needs to work on being less racist, but it's your socio-economic status that will really help or hurt you in determining your future. Especially these days when it can cost so much just to apply to college.

And no one seems to have much of a problem when people are discriminated against when they're poor. Or even appear to be poor. When I was in high school, my dad ended up not buying cars at several places in Northern CA because we were treated rather badly, once because we were assumed to be poor because we dressed grungy at a mountain bike race and once because the car we drove up in (the one I had in high school and college) was pretty old and had the paint peeling off.
 
I agree. Race-based affirmative action is nonsense in today's day and age. Class is much more predictive of systemic discrimination than race, so I would accept SES being used rather than race. Yes, certain groups are wrongfully discriminated against but affirmative action is a band-aid solution to a much broader societal problem, a solution that fails to address the roots of the problem. I think it breeds so much contempt too, it's unfortunate that policy is still around in some places, particularly because it is often misunderstood by the general public.

College applications should just include 1) test scores, 2) GPA, 3) EX activities/experiences and 4) SS#. Thats more than enough info right there to tell you if the student has potiental or not. NO other info is needed.

There is NO NEED to ask for gender, sex, family income, race, ethnicty, religion, sexual orientation, martial status, age OR even the name.

why does my name matter? what matters is only my test scores, my GPA and my EX activities/experience. Why should someone get better or worst treatment b/c of their name or their sex or their family income?? ALL that **** shouldn't be asked!
 
We're missing the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, as well as if vaccines cause autism debate.

Not that they're really debates, as science has proven as much as it can prove that vaccines don't lead to autism.

And while details of evolutionary theory are going to change, well, evolution is as close to being proven as possible, too.

Of course evolution is the answer. If you want proof just read a book. (Sorry, no imaginery guy name God "making" people to life...that just a bunch of BS, I might as well believe in I Dream of Jeannie instead.)

I would add to this topic but I haven't done my research on vaccines...however I have nothing against vaccines, so I guess they are good. :laugh:I have no idea though since I never really looked into it. However vaccines are required to attend any school/college so even if you are against it you will be getting it or NO school!
 
Of course evolution is the answer. If you want proof just read a book. (Sorry, no imaginery guy name God "making" people to life...that just a bunch of BS, I might as well believe in I Dream of Jeannie instead.)

I would add to this topic but I haven't done my research on vaccines...however I have nothing against vaccines, so I guess they are good. :laugh:I have no idea though since I never really looked into it. However vaccines are required to attend any school/college so even if you are against it you will be getting it or NO school!

In most places, vaccines are technically required to attend school, but parents can sign a waiver saying they have philosophical or religious exemptions to vaccination. This is leading to a decrease in herd immunity and an increase in whooping cough, measles, and other infectious diseases across the US that were almost eradicated.
 
College applications should just include 1) test scores, 2) GPA, 3) EX activities/experiences and 4) SS#. Thats more than enough info right there to tell you if the student has potiental or not. NO other info is needed.

There is NO NEED to ask for gender, sex, family income, race, ethnicty, religion, sexual orientation, martial status, age OR even the name.

why does my name matter? what matters is only my test scores, my GPA and my EX activities/experience. Why should someone get better or worst treatment b/c of their name or their sex or their family income?? ALL that **** shouldn't be asked!

Besides your GPA and your test scores, it also matters what school district and school you attend. If you go to a larger school with lots of extracurricular options and with lots of AP classes, you'll have a much better application and a higher GPA than students that go to smaller, poorer schools.

As well, if you need to work to help support your family, you won't be able to do as many activities and you may have a lower GPA.
 
In most places, vaccines are technically required to attend school, but parents can sign a waiver saying they have philosophical or religious exemptions to vaccination. This is leading to a decrease in herd immunity and an increase in whooping cough, measles, and other infectious diseases across the US that were almost eradicated.

Wow I had no idea they were allow to sign waivers. That would be not be a good idea, you are right!

Well doctor's letters are very easy to forge anyways....I had a friend told me that she forgot to go to the doctor to get her TB skin test and the school email her and told her if she doesn't get it done in 2 days that they will DROP all her classes and you know what?
She typed a letter pretending to be the doctor and signed the doctor's name at the bottom and mail it in! And it worked!!! so its very easy to forge doctor's letters anyways.
 
Besides your GPA and your test scores, it also matters what school district and school you attend. If you go to a larger school with lots of extracurricular options and with lots of AP classes, you'll have a much better application and a higher GPA than students that go to smaller, poorer schools.

As well, if you need to work to help support your family, you won't be able to do as many activities and you may have a lower GPA.

Good point, GPA, Test Scores, EX Activities, School NAME, and WORK experience.

I think having a job will look just as good as being a cheerleader or tennis player while in school. Good point! :thumbup:
 
I agree. Race-based affirmative action is nonsense in today's day and age. Class is much more predictive of systemic discrimination than race, so I would accept SES being used rather than race. Yes, certain groups are wrongfully discriminated against but affirmative action is a band-aid solution to a much broader societal problem, a solution that fails to address the roots of the problem. I think it breeds so much contempt too, it's unfortunate that policy is still around in some places, particularly because it is often misunderstood by the general public.

I completely agree. SES should be absolutely be used instead of race in affirmative action.
 
I think where affirmative action should be practiced is in arrests and prisons...

My husband went to school with a large population of African Americans. One was a very good student and came out of a play practice, I believe, and found some one who was stabbed. Witnesses were sure he was the one that had stabbed the person, and he was arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The jail personnel used ethnic slurs against him for being black. He was eventually released when the witness re-canted.

This is just one minor story, but I've heard others like it. Blacks are pulled over more often, arrested more often, and charged more often. It's really a horrible situation.
 
We're missing the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, as well as if vaccines cause autism debate.

Not that they're really debates, as science has proven as much as it can prove that vaccines don't lead to autism.

And while details of evolutionary theory are going to change, well, evolution is as close to being proven as possible, too.


But alas, evolution, while proven says ZERO about how we were created. The formation of our universe is subject to intense study and at present there is no definitive proof of anything. Is the universe eternal? Static? Expanding and contracting? They just don't have the answers.......
 
Members don't see this ad :)
But alas, evolution, while proven says ZERO about how we were created.

If by "we," you mean "the universe," then you are partially correct.

If by "we," you mean "humans," then that is exactly what evolution explains: how humans were created.

The formation of our universe is subject to intense study and at present there is no definitive proof of anything.

No definitive proof of anything? Old Timer, are you old enough to remember the Stanley Miller experiments of the 1950s?

Is the universe eternal? Static? Expanding and contracting? They just don't have the answers.......

At least when scientists don't know the answers, they admit to this, and work towards finding the answers rather than making up stories.
 
If by "we," you mean "the universe," then you are partially correct.

If by "we," you mean "humans," then that is exactly what evolution explains: how humans were created.

It's obvious I mean the universe.



No definitive proof of anything? Old Timer, are you old enough to remember the Stanley Miller experiments of the 1950s?



At least when scientists don't know the answers, they admit to this, and work towards finding the answers rather than making up stories.

That is total crap. Scientists say stuff all the time and they might as well make it up.

Remember Global cooling in the 1970's?????

By proof anything, I mean about the formation of the universe. There are a great many theories and they are changing rapidly right now.

And by the way, none of them preclude the existence of God. They may preclude the Biblical account of creation, but that really only effects a few YECS...
 
And by the way, none of them preclude the existence of God. They may preclude the Biblical account of creation, but that really only effects a few YECS...

Yeah...because its all abstract in nature. Hell, I can theorize any amount of things magically operating outside of the known physical universe and proclaim that nothing out there exists to disprove it.
 
It's obvious I mean the universe.





That is total crap. Scientists say stuff all the time and they might as well make it up.

Remember Global cooling in the 1970's?????


By proof anything, I mean about the formation of the universe. There are a great many theories and they are changing rapidly right now.

And by the way, none of them preclude the existence of God. They may preclude the Biblical account of creation, but that really only effects a few YECS...

They make stuff up all the time? News to me....
Actually, I have never heard of global cooling from the 70s. So I google'd it. here is what I found on Wikipedia:

"
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]"


Here is the reference, I couldn't find the above info within that reference though: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

And I am not trying to argue against the existence of a god. I'm actually trying desparately to believe one exists :oops::(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#cite_note-grida7-0
 
General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

Well that's just plain horse****. "Scientific opinion" is short for consensus.

Consensus is not science.

There is plenty of contradictory evidence to suggest that GW is scam. Given the fact that we cannot predict with any degree of certainty the weather will be doing over the next several weeks, I would argue that the current models and understanding are not sufficient to draw such a conclusion.

It simply doesn't pass the "smell test".
 
Well that's just plain horse****. "Scientific opinion" is short for consensus.

Consensus is not science.

There is plenty of contradictory evidence to suggest that GW is scam. Given the fact that we cannot predict with any degree of certainty the weather will be doing over the next several weeks, I would argue that the current models and understanding are not sufficient to draw such a conclusion.

It simply doesn't pass the "smell test".

Okay, global warming deniers? Seriously? Really? And you're a practicing pharmacist? That is embarrassing. Now this thread officially has everything.

Real scientists measure the carbon levels in the earth's ice sheets. But you can smell things if you prefer.

By the way, scientists do look for consensus. They're called lit reviews. In fact, several have been done on the issue of global warming. The first one that comes to mind is by Naomi Oreskes, in the journal Science, you know, Science, as in the most respected scientific journal in the world.

This post is so incredibly ignorant to the facts, I don't know where to begin. I guess this is as good as any start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 
I agree with old timer and others -- science gets more credit than it deserves .. what it can do, it does well, but it is fundamentally limited by the boundaries it sets for itself .. relying entirely on testable models based on empirical data that is itself, in the true sense, only subjective anyhow.

People shouldnt expect science to explain everything, since there's always a level above what it can explain.. for example, if the creation of the universe could be modeled and simulated, there's still no way to prove that there arent alternate universes too far away for all known avenues of data gathering to detect. If God created the universe or a hypothetical multiverse, what makes you think that he/she/it would be observable by empirical evidence anyway??

People need to stop trying to mix science and religion, keep them where they belong and then use them to solve separate sets of problems.
 
Okay, global warming deniers? Seriously? Really? And you're a practicing pharmacist? That is embarrassing. Now this thread officially has everything.

Real scientists measure the carbon levels in the earth's ice sheets. But you can smell things if you prefer.

By the way, scientists do look for consensus. They're called lit reviews. In fact, several have been done on the issue of global warming. The first one that comes to mind is by Naomi Oreskes, in the journal Science, you know, Science, as in the most respected scientific journal in the world.

This post is so incredibly ignorant to the facts, I don't know where to begin. I guess this is as good as any start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I'm not on the global warming band wagon yet. I prefer climate change. The climate is clearly changing. The cause and effect and the predicted results are where the scientists go off the rails. I think, from my limited world view, the earth is getting warmer. Winter in Philadelphia is way milder than when I was a kid. Less snow, less cold. But speak to me in 10 years and my opinion could change.

That being said, I am certainly in favor of reducing green house gasses as the less crap we put in the air the better. I'm just not an Al Gore doom and gloomer.
 
I agree with old timer and others -- science gets more credit than it deserves .. what it can do, it does well, but it is fundamentally limited by the boundaries it sets for itself .. relying entirely on testable models based on empirical data that is itself, in the true sense, only subjective anyhow.

People shouldnt expect science to explain everything, since there's always a level above what it can explain.. for example, if the creation of the universe could be modeled and simulated, there's still no way to prove that there arent alternate universes too far away for all known avenues of data gathering to detect. If God created the universe or a hypothetical multiverse, what makes you think that he/she/it would be observable by empirical evidence anyway??

People need to stop trying to mix science and religion, keep them where they belong and then use them to solve separate sets of problems.

You mean science and religion are about two different things? Do tell? There is a difference between truth and Truth. Science is all about how things happen. Religion is about answering other questions.
 
But alas, evolution, while proven says ZERO about how we were created. The formation of our universe is subject to intense study and at present there is no definitive proof of anything. Is the universe eternal? Static? Expanding and contracting? They just don't have the answers.......
On the contrary, Einstein did prove that the universe is not expanding. Some people go to music concerts, I go to 3 day long Albert Einstein seminars. :D
 
No one expects science to explain everything, and science doesn't ever prove anything, but that doesn't mean people should dismiss science. We use scientific thought for a lot of the decisions we make and reasoning in our daily lives.

God and whatnot can be explained in the realm of science, but there is no tangible evidence to suggest God or any almighty being exists. Theists like to think there's a lot of evidence, but the evidence they suggest isn't stringent enough to be used in scientific thought. Evidence like "this banana fits my hand, therefore God made it" isn't good enough. Further, since this evidence isn't stringent enough for scientific thought, it also isn't within the realm of reason. If you believe in God, then you are unreasonable and only going on faith. I don't think anyone would deny this. The type of reason we use to make our decisions and conceptions is not the same as one that believes in God.
 
No one expects science to explain everything, and science doesn't ever prove anything, but that doesn't mean people should dismiss science. We use scientific thought for a lot of the decisions we make and reasoning in our daily lives.

God and whatnot can be explained in the realm of science, but there is no tangible evidence to suggest God or any almighty being exists. Theists like to think there's a lot of evidence, but the evidence they suggest isn't stringent enough to be used in scientific thought. Evidence like "this banana fits my hand, therefore God made it" isn't good enough. Further, since this evidence isn't stringent enough for scientific thought, it also isn't within the realm of reason. If you believe in God, then you are unreasonable and only going on faith. I don't think anyone would deny this. The type of reason we use to make our decisions and conceptions is not the same as one that believes in God.
:laugh: This is the first time I've ever heard of the "ergonomic fruit argument" for God.
 
Well that's just plain horse****. "Scientific opinion" is short for consensus.

Consensus is not science.

There is plenty of contradictory evidence to suggest that GW is scam. Given the fact that we cannot predict with any degree of certainty the weather will be doing over the next several weeks, I would argue that the current models and understanding are not sufficient to draw such a conclusion.

It simply doesn't pass the "smell test".

Please, tell me this contradictory evidence that global warming is a scam. With sources. And not websites, as you obviously don't think much of wikipedia.

I'm glad to see you chose a career as a pharmacist, a career that depends largely on science, believing that scientific opinion is nothing but consensus.
 
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Bananas:_The_Atheist's_Worst_Nightmare

The argument against bananas being perfectly designed by God for human consumption.

Reference #5 is particularly funny, although not something to be shared in polite company (and probably not so safe for work, either).

Yea, I'm gonna go ahead and live life as if I'd never seen or heard anything to do with the banana argument. :eyebrow:

I'm sticking with my static universe theory and piggybacking Einstein for believing in God.

Also, to be fair, science is a consensus. Like gravity is a consensus... :)

And for practically everyone who thinks believing in God is pure faith, wouldn't you say that God (if he existed) would be able to scientifically provide strong evidence for his existence? So if there was ever a chance that humans could evolve to have "godly intelligence," wouldn't we also be able to scientifically prove his existence?
 
Yea, I'm gonna go ahead and live life as if I'd never seen or heard anything to do with the banana argument. :eyebrow:

I'm sticking with my static universe theory and piggybacking Einstein for believing in God.

Also, to be fair, science is a consensus. Like gravity is a consensus... :)

And for practically everyone who thinks believing in God is pure faith, wouldn't you say that God (if he existed) would be able to scientifically provide strong evidence for his existence? So if there was ever a chance that humans could evolve to have "godly intelligence," wouldn't we also be able to scientifically prove his existence?

You have enough trouble with science. Please try to stay away from logic. Believing in the existence of God is faith, by definition. Since God is, by definition, supra-natural (above nature), you cannot prove by scientific methods God's existence.

As I explained earlier, who cares what someone believes? It's irrelevant. It's how they act that's important. Theology does not impress me. Deeds impress me. Does it matter that Mark Sanford believes adultery is a sin? Do you think his wife cares what he believes? It's what he did that counted. Or to phrase it differently, God judges hearts, I judge deeds....
 
On the contrary, Einstein did prove that the universe is not expanding. Some people go to music concerts, I go to 3 day long Albert Einstein seminars. :D
\
N.A.S.A disagrees with you:

The expansion or contraction of the universe depends on its content and past history. With enough matter, the expansion will slow or even become a contraction. On the other hand, dark energy drives the universe towards increasing rates of expansion. The current rate of expansion is usually expressed as the Hubble Constant (in units of kilometers per second per Megaparsec, or just per second).
Hubble found that the universe was not static, but rather was expanding!
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html
 

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

This dude, whoever he is, makes a good argument for static universe.
Since Hubble's discovery is the crux of the expansion argument:
If the redshift of galaxies is not due to expansion velocity, then what might cause the redshift? Over the years, a surprising number of proposals have been made. A recent summary article lists 20 non-velocity redshift mechanisms.14 Basically, anything that causes light to lose energy will cause it to redshift. The trick is to have an energy loss mechanism that doesn't scatter the light. The absence of observed scattering is the main objection to the so-called "tired light" theory, in which intergalactic matter is supposed to be responsible for the energy loss of light.

Also the Einstein seminar I went to a few years ago, blew me away with static universe propositions. I can't say I can teach the math behind it, but I'm a believer in a static universe.
 
Last edited:
And for practically everyone who thinks believing in God is pure faith, wouldn't you say that God (if he existed) would be able to scientifically provide strong evidence for his existence? So if there was ever a chance that humans could evolve to have "godly intelligence," wouldn't we also be able to scientifically prove his existence?

Or, conversely, disprove the existence of a deity.
 
You have enough trouble with science. Please try to stay away from logic. Believing in the existence of God is faith, by definition. Since God is, by definition, supra-natural (above nature), you cannot prove by scientific methods God's existence.

As I explained earlier, who cares what someone believes? It's irrelevant. It's how they act that's important. Theology does not impress me. Deeds impress me. Does it matter that Mark Sanford believes adultery is a sin? Do you think his wife cares what he believes? It's what he did that counted. Or to phrase it differently, God judges hearts, I judge deeds....

I'm not trying to prove anything... except maybe that there are possibilities of things... things like proving something someone will say is impossible to prove. :hungover:

I enjoy learning how people derive their beliefs, whatever their beliefs may be and however different their beliefs are from mine. Deeds we perform outside of this forum; theology we discuss inside of this forum---at least, that's why I'm here. I mean, what "deed" has anyone performed in this forum but to give one's advice and share one's understandings to others? What is the point of this whole forum if not to discuss what we believe?
 
Please, tell me this contradictory evidence that global warming is a scam. With sources. And not websites, as you obviously don't think much of wikipedia.

I'm glad to see you chose a career as a pharmacist, a career that depends largely on science, believing that scientific opinion is nothing but consensus.


Once again, Consensus is NOT science. Science is a matter of evidence, it is not based what a majority of scientists think. Peer reviewed and reliable scientific journals do NOT rely on consensus.

Anyway, here are your references. There are a bazillion more, if you actually cared to look for them.



1. Robinson, A. B., Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1998) Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons 3, 171-178.
2. Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Rob inson, Z. W. (1999) Climate Res. 13, 149-164.
3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508.
4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Science 308, 675-677.
5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H.
F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Boundary-Layer Mete orology 92, 3-26.
6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geophysical Res. 106, 31717-31727.
7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions.
In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Informa tion Analysis
Center,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of En ergy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/treglob.htm
8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.
9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.
10. Na tional Climatic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007)
11. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003) Energy & Env. 14, 233-296.
12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Di oxide and Global Change
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.
13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769.
14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253.
15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085.
16. New ton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027234.
17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) International Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf
18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies,
Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18.
19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication.
20. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of climate research anomolies.
21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.
22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research
Letters 23, 1697-1700.
23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Science 293,
474-479.
24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geophysical Res. 111,
2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/
25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Marine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, His tory, and the Mod ern World, Methuen, New York.
27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equilibrium Therm. 32, 1-27.
28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A.,
Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077.
29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112,
2005JD006881.
30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866.
31. Christy, J. R. (1995) Clima tic Change 31, 455-474.
32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute.
34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700.
35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901.
36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001) Nature
411, 290-293.
37. Jiang, H., Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Geology 33, 73-76.
38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15.
39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Ed wards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C.
A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857.
40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 438, 269-287.
41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Nature 446, 646-649.
42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831.
43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T.
(2006) Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.
44. Hammel, H. B., and Lock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.
45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1998) Nature 393, 765-767.
46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 165-168.
47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 168-170.
48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007) Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13.
49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207.
50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027142.
51. Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 3-4; Goodridge, J. D. (1998) private comm.
52. Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atm. Envirn. 29, 1957-1961.
53. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1987) J. Geophysical Res. 92, 13345-13372.
54. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1988) Geophysical Research Letters 15, 323-326.
55. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., and Sato, M. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1665-1668;
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/56. Schimel, D. S. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 77-91.
57. Houghton, R. A. (2007) Annual Review of Earth and Plan etary Sciences 35, 313-347.
58. Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T. V., and Ono, N. (1992) Science of the Total Environ. 114, 227-284.
59. Segalstad, T. V. (1998) Global Warm ing the Continuing Debate, Cambridge UK: European
Science and En vironment Forum, ed. R. Bate, 184-218.
60. Berner, R. A. (1997) Science 276, 544-545.
61. Retallack, G. J. (2001) Nature 411, 287-290.
62. Rothman, D. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4167-4171.
63. Petit et. al., (1999) Nature 399, 429-436.
64. Siegenthaler, U., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1313-1317.
65. Spahni, R., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1317-1321.
66. Soon, W. (2007) Physi cal Geography, in press.
67. Dettinger, M. D. and Ghill, M. (1998) Tellus, 50B, 1-24.
68. Kuo, C., Lindberg, C. R., and Thornson, D. J. (1990) Nature 343, 709-714.
69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.
70. Yama****a, E., Fujiwara, F., Liu, X., and Ohtaki, E. (1993) J. Oceanography 49, 559-569.
71. Keeling, C. D. and Whorf, T. P. (1997) Trends On line: A Compendium of Data on Global
Change, Carbon Dioxide In formation Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm72. Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057.
73. Ar cher, D. (2005) J. Geophysical Res. 110, 2004JC002625.
74. Faraday, M. (1860) The Chemical History of a Can dle, Christmas Lectures, Royal In stitution,
London.
75. Serreze, M. C., Hol land, M. M., and Stroeve, J. (2007) Science 315, 1533-1536.
76. Bentley, C. R. (1997) Science 275, 1077-1078.
77. Nicholls, K. W. (1997) Nature 388, 460-462.
78. Davis, C. H., Li, Y., McConnell, J. R., Frey, M. M., and Hanna, E. (2005) Sci ence 308,
1898-1901.
79. Monaghan, A. J., et. al. (2006) Science 313, 827-831.
80. Kullman, L. (2007) Nordic Journal of Botany 24, 445-467.
81. Lindzen, R. S. (1994) Ann. Re view Fluid Mech. 26, 353-379.
82. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Work ing Group I Report (2007).
83. Kyoto Pro tocol to the United Na tions Framework Con vention on Climate Change (1997).
84. Sun, D. Z. and Lindzen, R. S. (1993) Ann. Geophysicae 11, 204-215.
85. Spencer, R. W. and Braswell, W. D. (1997) Bull. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78, 1097-1106.
86. Idso, S. B. (1998) Climate Res. 10, 69-82.
87. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, S. B., Kondratyev, K. Ya., and Posmentier, E. S. (2001) Climate
Res. 18, 259-275.
88. Lindzen, R. S. (1996) Climate Sensitivity of Radiative Perturbations: Physi cal Mechanisms and
Their Validation, NATO ASI Series 134, ed. H. Le Treut, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 51-66.
89. Renno, N. O., Emanuel, K. A., and Stone, P. H. (1994) J. Geophysical Res. 99, 14429-14441.
90. Soden, B. J. (2000) Journal of Climate 13, 538-549.
91. Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M., and Hou, A. Y. (2001) Bull. Amer. Meteorlogical Soc. 82, 417-432.
92. Spencer, R. W., Braswell, W. D., Christy, J. R., and Hnilo, J. (2007) Geophysical Research
Letters 34, 2007GL029698.
93. Lindzen, R. S. (1995), per sonal communication.
94. Khalil, M. A. K., Butenhoff, C. L., and Ras mus sen, R. A. (2007) Envi ronmental Science and
Technol ogy 41, 2131-2137.
95. An nual Energy Review, U.S. En ergy In formation Admin., Report No. DOE/EIA-0384 (2006).
96. Essex, C., Ilie, S., and Corless, R. M. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
97. Pen ner, S S., Schneider, A. M., and Kennedy, E. M. (1984) Acta Astronautica 11, 345-348.
98. Crutzen, P. J. (2006) Clima tic Change 77, 211-219.
99. Idso, S. B. (1989) Carbon Di oxide and Global Change: Earth in Tran sition, IBR Press.
100. Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON. Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
 
Last edited:
Yeah guys, an argument is worthless unless you have hard evidence or you can back it up somehow. I hate how people on here just say things as if they know what they are talking about. Especially, when it comes to religion, race, etc.
 
Red implies hot, which ties into my new motif if you look at my new avatar/location.

Cool! I like red better than blue! Red and Pink are my favorite colors. :D
 
No one expects science to explain everything, and science doesn't ever prove anything, but that doesn't mean people should dismiss science. We use scientific thought for a lot of the decisions we make and reasoning in our daily lives.

God and whatnot can be explained in the realm of science, but there is no tangible evidence to suggest God or any almighty being exists. Theists like to think there's a lot of evidence, but the evidence they suggest isn't stringent enough to be used in scientific thought. Evidence like "this banana fits my hand, therefore God made it" isn't good enough. Further, since this evidence isn't stringent enough for scientific thought, it also isn't within the realm of reason. If you believe in God, then you are unreasonable and only going on faith. I don't think anyone would deny this. The type of reason we use to make our decisions and conceptions is not the same as one that believes in God.

EXACTLY!!!! Just b/c something isn't explained clearing by science doesn't mean its automatically the works of this imaginery man name "god". Religious people don't understand everything, so they just assume everything is made my this "god" person.

I mean its very easy...if I don't understand something, I will just say god did it or make it and everything will be clear right? SO stupid.
 
As I explained earlier, who cares what someone believes? It's irrelevant. It's how they act that's important. Theology does not impress me. Deeds impress me. Does it matter that Mark Sanford believes adultery is a sin? Do you think his wife cares what he believes? It's what he did that counted. Or to phrase it differently, God judges hearts, I judge deeds....

I agree actions are more important than words. Words are easily said, but actions are hard to come by.
 
Once again, Consensus is NOT science. Science is a matter of evidence, it is not based what a majority of scientists think. Peer reviewed and reliable scientific journals do NOT rely on consensus.

Anyway, here are your references. There are a bazillion more, if you actually cared to look for them.

But scientists base their consensus on the evidence they see. People used to believe atherosclerosis was just a part of aging. Eventually, enough evidence came that no, it could be prevented in part by reducing the amount of certain fats and cholesterol in your diet. The scientific consensus changed because of that evidence. Then, in the mid-1970s, scientists came up with the thought that atherosclerosis was also due to inflammation. So far, the evidence that has been gathered supports that. If a new hypothesis comes out and the evidence supports that, scientific opinion will change. Scientific opinion is constantly changing and fluid on exactly how lesions form. There's about three theories at least right now, and no one knows which, if any, are correct.

I don't spend my time looking for references on global warming being fake, because I'm not a climatologist. I don't have the area of expertise to completely analyze their data, even if I wanted to. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I believe that too much bad fat in your diet can lead to heart disease, that 9/11 was not an inside job, bigfoot does not exist, vaccines will not give your child autism, and global warming exists. Many scientists do have an open mind (this is helped partially by new grad students coming in with fresh ideas), and if the consensus of educated minds changes on any of the areas of above, I'm willing to change my opinion.

That being said, thanks for the references. I'll check them out after I finish writing my thesis on the scientific consensus that dyslipidemia and inflammation leads to atherosclerosis.
 
You have enough trouble with science. Please try to stay away from logic. Believing in the existence of God is faith, by definition. Since God is, by definition, supra-natural (above nature), you cannot prove by scientific methods God's existence.

As I explained earlier, who cares what someone believes? It's irrelevant. It's how they act that's important. Theology does not impress me. Deeds impress me. Does it matter that Mark Sanford believes adultery is a sin? Do you think his wife cares what he believes? It's what he did that counted. Or to phrase it differently, God judges hearts, I judge deeds....


It's how they act that's important.

How people act is dependent on what they believe. Since believing in God and other religious doctrines is unreasonable, then you would expect people to act unreasonably when under the influence of religious doctrines, as we observed throughout history. On the other hand, there are people who "act" good because of religion but have lots of repressed emotions and fear in their hearts, so I'm not sure how judging deeds vs. hearts has anything to do with being happy or Truly good (with a capital T). Ugh, I don't think I presented a good argument here :(

you cannot prove by scientific methods God's existence.

Again, if you understand science, then you'd know science doesn't prove anything. Science makes theories based on controlled experiments and observations that are repeatable. Also, God can be theorized by science. For kicks, say you do an experiment where the Pope sits in a room, praying to God that a basketball you drop outside the room will stay afloat. God would be theorized if every time the Pope prays, the ball stays afloat, but when he doesn't pray, then the ball drops normally. Follow up studies would be needed to lead to a more stringent theory... lol

Anyway, a consensus in science doesn't mean it's "right" or "wrong." Even if the scientific community has a strong consensus on something, you can stir up the community with a good experiment that shows something likely to be different than the consensus. That's why there's no "proof" in science; there's always the possibility of a new experiment coming along with different conclusions.
 
Last edited:
How people act is dependent on what they believe. Since believing in God and other religious doctrines is unreasonable, then you would expect people to act unreasonably when under the influence of religious doctrines, as we observed throughout history. On the other hand, there are people who "act" good because of religion but have lots of repressed emotions and fear in their hearts, so I'm not sure how judging deeds vs. hearts has anything to do with being happy or Truly good (with a capital T). Ugh, I don't think I presented a good argument here :(

Are you an infant or have you lead a sheltered life? Have you really observed what people in this world do? Beliefs don't mean sh**. Just look at the number of right wing religious nuts who have violated their beliefs. Who cares what the governor of South Carolina believes about adultery. Look at what he does that counts. I'll bet you Jenny Sanford would rather have a husband who thought adultery was OK and kept his Johnson out of Argentina than the other way around. Actions matter, NOT beliefs....



Again, if you understand science, then you'd know science doesn't prove anything. Science makes theories based on controlled experiments and observations that are repeatable. Also, God can be theorized by science. For kicks, say you do an experiment where the Pope sits in a room, praying to God that a basketball you drop outside the room will stay afloat. God would be theorized if every time the Pope prays, the ball stays afloat, but when he doesn't pray, then the ball drops normally. Follow up studies would be needed to lead to a more stringent theory... lol

Science proves things all of the time. Science has proved the earth revolves around the sun. Science has proved simple Mendealian genetics is true. Science proves certain drugs are effective to treat certain conditions. The number of things that science has proved would stun a team of oxen. To make the statement:
Again, if you understand science, then you'd know science doesn't prove anything.
shows a remarkable lack of understanding.



Anyway, a consensus in science doesn't mean it's "right" or "wrong." Even if the scientific community has a strong consensus on something, you can stir up the community with a good experiment that shows something likely to be different than the consensus. That's why there's no "proof" in science; there's always the possibility of a new experiment coming along with different conclusions.

The first part of your statement is true. Consensus is not proof. That is my assertion about the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe.

How people act is dependent on what they believe. Since believing in God and other religious doctrines is unreasonable, then you would expect people to act unreasonably when under the influence of religious doctrines, as we observed throughout history. On the other hand, there are people who "act" good because of religion but have lots of repressed emotions and fear in their hearts, so I'm not sure how judging deeds vs. hearts has anything to do with being happy or Truly good (with a capital T). Ugh, I don't think I presented a good argument here :(

You have made some sweeping generalizations that you have no proof to back up. None, less than none and you call me unreasonable. You know me well enough to know how repressed my emotions are, and the amount of fear in my heart? You fail to make any coherent arguments. I'll take them one by one:

1) You would expect believers to act unreasonably as we have observed throughout history.
This means all atheists behave reasonably. Like Stalin and Mao the reasonable people who between them killed more people than all of the unreasonable theists in the history of the world to a factor of 10. Maybe, just maybe human nature is to blame and belief has nothing to do with this. Maybe religious people are just as susceptible to human failings as non believers. Just a thought you might want to mull over with your vast knowledge of the history of the world and human activity therein.

2) On the other hand, there are people who "act" good because of religion but have lots of repressed emotions and fear in their hearts.
This is the only valid point. Religion does cause guilt. If you were to poll psychiatrists from the 1960's when religion was much more prevalent in the USA, the largest single problem they faced was guilt and religion was no doubt the cause. If you were to poll psychiatrists today the largest problem they face is narcissism. Personally I'll take the guilt and you can keep the narcissistic a-holes. If you don't think the society today is both more narcissistic and less religious than it was 50 years ago, again I question your ability to observe the world around you.

3)so I'm not sure how judging deeds vs. hearts has anything to do with being happy or Truly good (with a capital T). Ugh, I don't think I presented a good argument here.
Of course you don't define Truly good so I don't know what you are driving at. If on the other hand your implication is atheists are happier than believers than you have no basis to back this statement up either. In fact there are number of studies that have shown happiness correlates to religious observance. I think this is true, but it has nothing to do with belief. It is my view the single greatest contributor to happiness is gratitude. Most western religions attempt to inculcate gratitude in their practitioners. I think this gratitude rather than any particular belief leads people to be happy.


 
I don't think you'll change your views no matter what I say, but since I have a lot of time on my hands, I'll just express my views.

Science does not prove anything. We use the word proof because the evidence presented is stringent enough such that we don't normally imagine that the conclusion can be false. For example, you say science has proved that the earth revolves around the sun. In casual conversation, I would say you are right. However, this conclusion is based on measurements and the human perspective (i.e. our eyesight, technology, logic, etc.). It's possible, albeit very unlikely, that everything we've measured and observed in terms of the earth revolving around the sun has been a result of flawed measurements or an optical illusion (e.g. a tear or warp in space and time). Before Einstein's time, when we saw a star in space, we would conclude that the physical star existed at that location. However, Einstein's theories have shown that the light from the star can actually bend, so now, we no longer believe our old conclusion, which seems to be OBVIOUS. The reason it is not PROOF is because if a new good experiment comes along that concludes the earth does not revolve around the sun, then the previous conclusion is no longer true. If something is proved, then it represents an infallible conclusion, which is NEVER the case for any scientific conclusion. People will always attack evolution because it's a "THEORY," but in terms of how stringent the theory of evolution is, it is pretty much as stringent as evidence based medicine. Sure, there are rare cases where the medication doesn't work, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss the overall effects of a medication...

Are you an infant or have you lead a sheltered life? Have you really observed what people in this world do? Beliefs don't mean sh**. Just look at the number of right wing religious nuts who have violated their beliefs. Who cares what the governor of South Carolina believes about adultery. Look at what he does that counts. I'll bet you Jenny Sanford would rather have a husband who thought adultery was OK and kept his Johnson out of Argentina than the other way around. Actions matter, NOT beliefs....

I see what you mean, and I agree that some specific actions are seemingly contrary to one's belief system. You like to use Sanford as an example, but I'd say he doesn't actually believe in adultery in the same way you do. If he did, he wouldn't have done what he did. What I mean is that your belief in adultery is supported by other beliefs, and this combination of beliefs make up the category for adultery. For example, you may associate adultery as bad because you believe your wife treats you well or that it's never worth it, no matter what, to commit adultery. In Sanford's case, he may believe adultery is bad, but maybe he doesn't believe his wife treats him well and that it is SOMETIMES okay to commit adultery. Do you see the difference? In one case, your belief is already solidified; in the other, the belief is more amorphous. I know I'm getting into vague and ambiguous territory, but I think it makes some sense.
 
Top