Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/07/2020 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    it doesn't. what goku and i mentioned was respect for the officer, it isn't required, and it certainly doesn't result in "fatal consequences". showing respect like this goes a long way to avoiding a ticket, nothing more nothing less. we are glad you don't drive here as well. there is nothing scarier than a disoriented brit driving around on american roads.
  2. 3 points
    Was it this one from earlier in the thread, or something else that you should be providing a link to? The first thing that is notable is that this study was of people actually admitted to the hospital, which means we aren't actually seeing the overall outcomes for the general population. It wouldn't surprise me if once people get in the door of the hospital and start getting treatment that things tend to even out, but the questions are what's causing them to need treatment in the first place, and how likely are they to be able to get in that door when they need it? Of the 2,541 patients hospitalized with a COVID-related admission that they studied, 56% were Black. Which is strange, because according to this report from 2013, the area that hospital system serves is 64.5% white. The naive assumption would be that the virus would be equally likely to infect someone regardless of race and we would see the demographics of infection more or less match the general population. So some factor (or more likely some set of factors) is distorting the racial makeup of population who are admitted to the hospital from that of the general population. And if we look at Michigan's overall COVID-related statistics, it becomes a little clearer why looking only at inpatient numbers is flawed. The number of cases and deaths per million is dramatically higher for Black people in the HFHS service area as well as state-wide. So what might be happening? The report I mentioned earlier might offer some clues. Deaths from pretty much all causes are higher among the Black population, and coverage and access to healthcare is lower, so Black people are more likely to have conditions that make COVID more severe, and are less likely to be able to afford treatment. I don't have specific numbers, but given disproportionate poverty rates my guess would be that Black Michiganders are less likely to have jobs that will let them work from home, and are less likely to be able to afford to not work for a while, which means they likely can't do as much to limit their exposure. It doesn't really seem to though. You found a single statistic that in a vacuum makes it look like white people have a higher risk from COVID, and you're trying to extrapolate that into some extremely tenuous conclusions. Speculation as to the motive for fishing so hard for such statistics can be left to the reader. I guess you could try to make the argument that there's no racism at play and attribute the disparity in things like healthcare entirely to the disproportionate poverty rates, but to deny there's even a disparity at all is just denying reality. That reminds me of this comic from 1953. Sad that only some of your generation seems to have learned anything since then.
  3. 3 points
    Who decides what's really stupid? Doesn't matter and has nothing to do with the First Amendment....
  4. 2 points
    Here's one where the DEA stole a man's life savings from his daughter as she was flying it home to deposit it with her bank. Here's CBP trying to steal another man's life savings as he was flying to buy and fix up some property. Here's the DEA taking $15,000 from a woman based on a tip her estranged husband was dealing drugs, then screwing her out of being awarded attorney's fees for suing to get it back. Here are some Wyoming cops trying to take $90k from a man by pressuring him into signing a waiver that he was giving them the money. Here are a bunch of cases from Detroit of people losing vehicles that were only tangentially involved in crimes committed by other people. Even if it were only being used against other than "normal" people, it seems like a pretty straightforward violation of the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty. The potential incentive to abuse the process also seems pretty obvious to me.
  5. 2 points
    Thank you, my pleasure. Here we go: Computer processors are basically made of transistors, and the more there is, the more powerful the processor is. The reason the processors have been getting more powerful is that the transistors have been getting smaller. Right now they are around 10-20 nano-meters, some newer even under 10, which is very small. However, as we go so small, we enter the realm of particle physics. Computers work with electricity, and electricity is the flow of electrons. When observing particles individually, they have difficult properties described by the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It basically says, that particles do not have clear defined locations, but an area where they are likely to be found. With electrons in a processor this is about 3 nano-meters, depending on the elements used in the processor. They are most likely found on the middle of the area, but they have a small chance of being even bit further than the 3 nano-meters, again depending on the insulation and such. So as the transistors get small and close together, the chance of finding an electron in a wrong transistor or crossing a circuit that is closed grows. This phenomena of particles crossing borders the should not normally cross is know as quantum tunneling, and as the processors get smaller and more powerful, the tunneling makes them less stable and more unreliable. So that is the hard limit for transistor miniaturization. You will relatively easily find articles on tech magazine talking about this with search words like "cpu transistor size limit".
  6. 2 points
    "Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.” WHICH IS, OF COURSE, ABSOLUTELY 100% TRUE.. DO YOU DENY IT? IF SO .... WHY?.... BE SPECIFIC PLEASE!!! This drives Schweitzer crazy. IRRELEVANT, WHY SHOULD DATA UPSET HER? (UNLESS IT CAN COST HER HER CUSHY JOB!) Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, THEY HAVE "ESTABLISHED NO SUCH THING..!!! THEY HAVE "WISHED" IT TO TO BE SO!! AND WITHOUT A TIME MACHINE, WHO CAN PROVE THEM WRONG??? "and so are the bones buried in it." LOL "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data." SHE HAS HIDDEN THE TRUE MEANING OF THE DATA!!.. GUILTY AS SIN!!! (PARDON THE PUNNY) INSTEAD OF SIMPLY ADMITTING THAT GENESIS IS TRUE, SHE DECIDED SHE WANTED TO KEEP HER JOB SO SHE MADE UP SOME INSANE AD HOC STORY ABOUT IRON CONTENT IN DINO BLOOD ACCOUNTING FOR THE MIRACLE OF 100,000,000 YEAR OLD PRESERVATION!!! .. AND THE LIKE MINDED WANNABE APES ATE IT UP AS A "RESCUE HYPOTHESIS" GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM!!!! “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”  NO.. THEY SIMPLY EXPOSE HER HYPOCRISY "Not sure how the article helps your cause" OH YOU DONT LIKE THAT ARTICLE ABOUT MARY,? WHY? RED BLOOD CELLS ARENT RED BLOOD CELLS NOW? MAYBE THIS ONE WILL BE MORE TO YOUR LIKING!!.. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/75-million-year-old-dinosaur-blood-and-collagen-discovered-in-fossil-fragments Now, if you have an emotional attachment to Evolutionism because its IMPLICATIONS happen to align with your philosophical worldview, you REQUIRE for Dinosaurs to be 100 million years old!! I suggest you run away from me as fast as you can and pretend you never met me because this conversation will NOT end well for you.. 100% guaranteed.. I am pretty much the LAST person on the planet that you want to defend Satan's lie of Evolutionism against.. Believe it!! HOWEVER If you are REALLY interested in the TRUTH irregardless of whether that Truth is comforting to your ears.. Let's do this!! Would you like for me to address measurable C14 found in Dinosaurs today in my next post? Or would you just like to let it be... Up to you!! "It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." (Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong)
  7. 2 points
    this basically goes back to what i've said earlier. the black situation is basically the result of lack of introspection, most of them are doing NOTHING to improve themselves. the idea of a fatherless family has some merit but even this doesn't come close to explaining the black situation. there are just too many successful and respected blacks to say this country is across the board racist, and i find it disgusting that BLM has painted that kind of picture.
  8. 2 points
    "And you also did say that if one is an atheist and they become a theist and a believer in Jesus Christ and they repent of their sins (and I would add they are baptized because the Bible plainly says that) that they would not be EVEN taking a step in the right direction." ANOTHER DISHONEST LIE.. That is the ONLY STEP in the right direction!!! STOP LYING AND EDITORIALIZING WHAT I SAY.. I said that the Holy Spirit would convict them and they wouldnt believe in Satans lie of Evolutionism FOR VERY MUCH LONGER... Your baby with milk is a good analogy. What else can explain why when I ask an Oval-Earther if they are born again of the spirit they NEVER answer?? ANY IDEAS?
  9. 2 points
    i believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are honest. sure, there are some that have their pet hypothesis and some that fudge their data, but peer review catches most of this. the real problem with science is in connection to this "allusions to ID" nonsense. for some strange reason science has resorted to outright cooking its data in regards to this. in regards to evolution a lot of science papers are either incomprehensible, contains outright known bad data, or can be interpreted in a number of ways even to the point of being exactly opposite of one another. and you can be sure it's a concerted and deliberate effort. this is what evolution has done for science.
  10. 2 points
    New predictions are that if things don't change, we could reach 244,000 dead by Nov. 1. They also say that strict adherence to face masks and social distancing can save 40,000 lives between now and then. Except for one photo-op, the "leader" of this "war" on an "unseen enemy" REFUSES to wear a mask in public. That little symbolic move could save thousands. He DEMANDS schools open on campus classes on schedule full time and makes no consideration of doing so safely. Where have we seen that before? How's that working? In the early days of this tragedy, before we had even lost 10 people, I was asked if Trump held the losses to 500 dead would I vote for him. At that time, I knew 5,000 was unrealistically low. So I responded We are now on a path to lose 500 for EACH of those original 500 ..... a QUARTER MILLION dead. Where is our leader? He holds an hour long campaign speech disguised as a press conference and barely mentions it.
  11. 2 points
    Blitz .... aren't you the one who suggested I shouldn't comment on things if I don't know about them? Let me help.... the 95% confidence level is two standard deviations. The standard deviation is a measure of how concentrated the data is. For example 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 will have a mean (average) of 300.... so will 298, 299, 300 301, and 302. The smaller the spread in the data, the more confidence we can have in it. Without calculating it, in the first group, the standard deviation will be around 100 ... in the second group it will be about 1. The margin of error for a poll is how far from the stated result the expected outcome is expected to be. The standard is to set that at two standard deviations. What it means is that a poll that claims a +/- 2% margin of error will match the actual result 95% of the time. If the poll has a +/- 4% margin of error, the input data has a much "wider" spread. Now, if a poll says Hillary will win 51-49 with a +/-3% margin of error that means if the result is between Hillary winning 54-46 and Trump winning 52-48, the poll has met the criteria of being "right" because the actual result was within the expected values. It wasn't an "assertion," Blitz. It was a statement based on an analysis of multiple polls with full reference to the original material on which the analysis was based. If you don't understand the analysis, that's YOUR shortcoming, not mine. This whole situation of "Ask Pi, he's the one who ASSERTED it" reminds me of my interview for a job as a computer tech at the Kennedy Space Center. They used "Modcomp" computers. The interviewer asked me what I knew about "Modcomp" computers. I told him: "I don't know anything about them." His eyebrows shot up to his hairline and I continued: "But I've repaired <list of a half dozen computers>, Modcomp won't do anything all that different." I got the job. The "moral" of the story ..... Ya know, some of us focus on one field and become true experts in that specific area.... for example a board game. Others of us take a broader approach and learn more than the average person on a variety of topics like mathematics, physics, and astronomy. Stick with chess.
  12. 2 points
    me: piasan, if you walk into that buzzsaw it's going to be a very bad day for you. piasan: ok. (walks into it anyway)
  13. 2 points
    You called him gullible for his comment concerning polling data and confidence intervals. I'm just wondering if you know anything about such things...
  14. 2 points
    Let me guess...I'm sure it's because we are not enough like Finland Seriously, try to act like an adult. I know you are capable of that. Behaving like this is devaluing the whole forum and everyone participating.
  15. 2 points
    No, it isn't. I called this out earlier when you said 65%, which turned out to be an "eyeball estimate". This site, using data from 2015 says that Black men make up 36% of murderers (and 52% of victims). What is baffling is that those numbers still support the idea that Black men commit a disproportionate amount of murders. Does 36% just not sound impressive enough to you? Your distorted estimates are exactly the point. If some combination of an incorrect understanding of the statistics and an inaccurate picture being provided by the news are distorting your estimates, what else do you suppose they might distort?
  16. 2 points
    Evolution is the diversity of all species from common ancestors, if that has been overturned then whatever you are calling evolution is not evolution. Evolution theory is the theory Darwin put forward, right? Or have I entered the twilight zone or something? We are talking about descent with modification, yes? I am using current arguments. I am dealing with the evolution theory and abiogenesis as the scientific community argues it. That 0.0001% of the community accepts your take on it is irrelevant to me. All I see is a naturalistic fairytale story each time the evidence refutes evolution. When the theory has to adapt and change to fit the facts every decade then at some point you have to stop listening to their storytelling. What is obvious is that there are no answers for evolution, there is simply no reason to believe it designed life, the intelligence in life is smarter than human intelligence anyway which is evidence of design not evolution.
  17. 2 points
    You just don't get it. It has nothing to do with whether or not HCQ ultimately works or doesn't work. As your quote said, back when Trump was advocating HCQ as a near miracle drug, the scientific evidence was that it "may" be effective. I hope it is effective. In fact, I hope every potential treatment is effective (I am on team "human"), but that is not a realistic expectation. Things with promise end up not panning out all the time in medicine. As an aside, I suspect that HCQ is effective in some circumstances, but isn't for every covid case, and its use should be on a case by case basis as determined by the patient's doctor. Based on the available data at the time Trump started advocating HCQ we simply didn't know if HCQ would be good or bad, and that's the point. HCQ could just as easily have been a disaster. It was dangerous and irresponsible for Trump to advocate it the way he did.
  18. 1 point
    Talking about running away... How about you give me your answer for why the dino bones carbon dates in the link you post ad nauseum vary so much, even between different samples from the same bone. You know, that answer you claim you have but steadfastly refuse to say...
  19. 1 point
    use your head indy. do you actually believe the police would practically destroy this house given the current climate surrounding "police brutality"? this is garbage and i seriously doubt it happened.
  20. 1 point
    "I hope you never lose your faith" This is the part that you dont understand, I am WAAY past having faith Goku.. I know God personally I know that he exists as he has revealed himself to me in many incredible ways, EVERY SINGLE born again Christian will tell you exactly the same thing.. It requires MUCH MORE "faith" that I am talking to a real person (Goku) then with God.. I am a child of God and a member of Gods eternal kingdom NOT because I deserve it, because I was WISE ENOUGH to accept Gods provision for my INABILITY to to do so.. You never "lost faith" Goku, you simply adopted a DIFFERENT faith that allows Goku to be the master and commander of his OWN life.. And frankly, The amount of FAITH required for what YOU believe in (If you are honest about it) simply DWARFS the faith of ANY Christian who ever existed.. Would you like to compare which one of US has MORE "Faith" right now? Trust me, you dont want to as it will be shocking and embarrassing and I have no wish to humiliate you. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" John 316. Yeshua Hamashiach i
  21. 1 point
    You forgot about .. CLIMATE RACISM. AND ENVIRONMENTAL.... drum roll please..... R A C I S M... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_racism https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/06/30/need-talk-racism-climate-movement/ But they got.Pis vote !!!
  22. 1 point
    And what do the REAL and OBJECTIVE experts say about the ability of wind power to take over even half of the coal and gas powered electricity plants? Tell me that. As soon as the wind powered generators would start to take hold, the environmentalists would attack them also anyway. They already ARE. PUT YOUR CHIPS ON FUSION. As soon as that is practical, then we can talk about ending natural gas powered plants. In the meantime, you should be very grateful that fracking has dramatically reduced the use of coal and has reduced CO2 emissions.
  23. 1 point
    So I would need a note from my doctor that I have comorbidities? Two-thirds of the states allow mail-in voting with no more reason than: "I want to vote absentee." What's wrong with that? Why not send applications for absentee ballots to all registered voters?
  24. 1 point
    To be fair, the combination of your unorthodox views and your extremely vague language makes it pretty much impossible for anyone to know what it is you are actually trying to say. Informed people may be able to make educated guesses, but then your unorthodox views more or less nullifies any educated guess one could make. In my experience you misinterpret a lot of what you read, and just indulge in conspiracy theories. At this point I've given up trying to decode your cryptic posts. Until you can express yourself clearly, I'm just like, so what? Epigenetics, transposons, and HGT are mainstream science. Evolution is mainstream science. Exactly how each concept fits into evolution and how it shaped evolutionary history is an area of ongoing research. So what? Neither epigenetics nor transposons were ignored for 70 years. That is something you just made up. Epigenetics has been an area of active research since the 1950's. Yes, McClintock's research into transposons during the 1940's and 50's was initially ignored until other scientists confirmed it in the 1960's. She was then awarded a Nobel Prize for her discovery of transposons in 1983. I don't know about you, but I'm not seeing some big conspiracy here. I'm going to guess it is a combination of when you went to school and the highest level of biology you took. IIRC you have literally one example of this. On a more general note, scientists have become more aware of the creation-evolution debate in the public, and as a result many of them are more careful about their word choices so as not to be quote mined by anti-science movements. What other sorts of things do you do that should have exposed you to these things? Just for fun I googled epigenetics and transposons with "Scientific American", the layman magazine for science, and they have articles on both topics.
  25. 1 point
    carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, and the world is pumping megatons of the stuff into the atmosphere. unless you have some evidence that CO2 is being removed as fast as we are creating it then it's inevitable that it WILL lead to climate change.
×

Important Information

Our Terms