 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I've _heard_ this suggestion, but since salt doesn't occur anywhere on
> Earth except in the sea, that doesn't make a lot of sense...
The Earth's crust has 2.6% sodium by weight, making it the sixth most
abundant element on Earth.
There's a relative abundance of chlorine in the seas because of how the
seas were formed and due to things like underwater volcanoes, which
release quite large amounts of chlorine.
Sodium chloride is soluble in water, unlike most other minerals, which
makes it significantly more prevalent in seawater than other minerals.
There are also complex phenomena happening that keep the balance of
seawater salinity.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
> > order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
> > they write, even if they are just quoting facts.
> The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except
> that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's
> interests).
*sigh*
That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
position.)
Why do some people swallow creationist propaganda without any kind of
fact-checking? Also, that claim makes absolutely no sense. What possible
interest woud these "sponsors" have to make scientist come up with
conclusions that are opposite to creationist claims? (For example, what
possible interest would these "sponsors" have in making scientist claim
that the Earth is billions of years old? That claim just doesn't make
any sense.)
The worst thing about all this is that creationists lie all the time
while at the same time claiming to uphold one of the cornerstones of
Christianity: Honesty.
> As long as it's plain, easily verifiable numbers, I see no reason to be
> wary of creationists than of anyone else
I do because creationists are infamous for constantly cherry-picking,
distorting, quote-mining and outright fabricating data. If you want any
credibility for your data, don't take it from creationists. Take it from
a reputable source. It doesn't even matter if the data is identical; just
the fact that you are linking to a creationist website decreases the
credibility and trustworthiness. Link to some better place.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.08.2013 22:29, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Regardless, I'm still waiting to hear why the hell the sea has *any*
>>> salt in it to start with... I never did understand that part.
>>
>> Never heard of minerals being washed down by rain into the oceans?
>
> I've _heard_ this suggestion, but since salt doesn't occur anywhere on
> Earth except in the sea, that doesn't make a lot of sense...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater#Origin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> *sigh*
> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
> position.)
I apologize for snapping like that. It's just that creationists irk me
to no end. I have had lengthy conversations with young earth creationists
both online and in real life, and their insincerity and stubborness just
drives me crazy. They are exactly in the same league as the worst
conspiracy theorists.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.08.2013 00:18, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
>>> order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
>>> they write, even if they are just quoting facts.
>
>> The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except
>> that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's
>> interests).
>
> *sigh*
>
> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
> position.)
I don't consider it a lie, nor is it a position I have taken on from
creationists. Normally I don't believe shit of what they say.
> Why do some people swallow creationist propaganda without any kind of
> fact-checking? Also, that claim makes absolutely no sense. What possible
> interest woud these "sponsors" have to make scientist come up with
> conclusions that are opposite to creationist claims? (For example, what
> possible interest would these "sponsors" have in making scientist claim
> that the Earth is billions of years old? That claim just doesn't make
> any sense.)
I'm not specifically talking about scientific studies related to the
creationism-vs-science debate, but generic stuff like whether iodine is
good for your health, whether the global warming is due to the decline
of piracy in the caribbeans, and other some such.
Of all those studies, I'm not necessarily buying their results, but I
see no general reason to distrust the numbers they present, as long as
they can easily be verified.
> The worst thing about all this is that creationists lie all the time
> while at the same time claiming to uphold one of the cornerstones of
> Christianity: Honesty.
Ho - stop right there! To say that "creationists lie all the time" is an
oversimplification or, to put it differently, an outright lie.
/Never/ believe /anyone/ who oversimplifies things. (*)
>> As long as it's plain, easily verifiable numbers, I see no reason to be
>> wary of creationists than of anyone else
>
> I do because creationists are infamous for constantly cherry-picking,
> distorting, quote-mining and outright fabricating data. If you want any
> credibility for your data, don't take it from creationists. Take it from
> a reputable source. It doesn't even matter if the data is identical; just
> the fact that you are linking to a creationist website decreases the
> credibility and trustworthiness. Link to some better place.
>
Any suggestion in particular? Because if you don't have a better source
for the particular topic at hand, I'll stick to what people have come up
who happen to be creationists.
That applies to the numbers, mind you - not their conclusions.
(* To be applied recursively ;-))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.08.2013 00:24, schrieb Warp:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> *sigh*
>
>> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
>> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
>> position.)
>
> I apologize for snapping like that. It's just that creationists irk me
> to no end. I have had lengthy conversations with young earth creationists
> both online and in real life, and their insincerity and stubborness just
> drives me crazy. They are exactly in the same league as the worst
> conspiracy theorists.
One simple recommendation:
Don't.
I mean, have lengthy conversations with them.
Their model of the world differs from any scientific model by the
inclusion of the fundamental axiom that their model is built on
irrefutable axioms (vs. the scientific fundamental axiom that /any/
model is inherently wrong, as it is just a model), so you simply
/cannot/ convice them, nor can they convince you (or so I hope ;-)), so
what's the point?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > The worst thing about all this is that creationists lie all the time
> > while at the same time claiming to uphold one of the cornerstones of
> > Christianity: Honesty.
> Ho - stop right there! To say that "creationists lie all the time" is an
> oversimplification or, to put it differently, an outright lie.
> /Never/ believe /anyone/ who oversimplifies things. (*)
I'd say that "creationists lie all the time" is more accurate of an
assessment than anything that creationists say about scientists, much
of natural sciences, and atheists.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/24/2013 3:18 PM, Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
>>> order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
>>> they write, even if they are just quoting facts.
>
>> The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except
>> that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's
>> interests).
>
> *sigh*
>
> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
> position.)
>
> Why do some people swallow creationist propaganda without any kind of
> fact-checking? Also, that claim makes absolutely no sense. What possible
> interest woud these "sponsors" have to make scientist come up with
> conclusions that are opposite to creationist claims? (For example, what
> possible interest would these "sponsors" have in making scientist claim
> that the Earth is billions of years old? That claim just doesn't make
> any sense.)
>
The problem here is that there "are" now paid shills (lots and lots more
of them than back when the people paying them thought science would
vindicate their ideas, not disembowel them), like Cato, and those
working for certain corporations/interests, who do both cherry pick
their data, and lie, to promote the positions they are *paid* to.
Unfortunately, unlike doctors, you can't pull a scientists license to do
research, even blatantly bad, or false, research. All you can do is
refuse to hire them at reputable institutions. The problem being, the
public isn't stupid, and they know they people exist, but they don't
know enough to tell which ones are presenting facts, and real evidence,
and which ones where paid to muck up the details, then present gibberish
to policy makers, or anyone else that decides to listen. And, the direct
result of this is that you are as likely to find people believing the
"experts" who are paid to push bullshit, as they are to believe the real
science. And, this is *especially* true when the bullshit a) will
protect their job, b) makes false, but, to them, believable, promises,
or c) is made out to be, by various similarly paid shill news agencies,
to be one of two options, and the difference between those a "controversy".
Just look at things like Dr. Oz, and Dr. Phil. Both are obvious quacks,
both promote things that are just plain nuts, Phil had his medical
license taken away, and I can't imagine that Oz will last either, given
his insane tendency to use aroma therapy, and who the hell knows what
else, as "part" of his surgeries. Not only is at least one of them still
working in his field, both have prominent jobs as spokesmen for things
that imho, should get both of them permanently banned from even
suggesting they know anything about medicine. And, neither even works
for a so called "think tank". Those, can also promote any bullshit they
want, but they *must* do so in a way that is actually believable, to
people that should know better.
Sometimes they are doing "applied science". And, here is the thing -
that doesn't generate new information, since its directed at getting a
specific result, and producing a specific end product, and they only
give a damn whether it works, or it doesn't, not what gets "learned"
from it. They also, in such cases, all sign NDEs, and rarely, if ever,
will the public ever hear "anything" from them.
So, yeah, if some scientist has a "sponsor", you might want to question
what they are doing, especially if they spend like 90% of their time
writing papers about other people's work, and not doing any actual
research. Such people are not, however, conducting science, they are
"marketing", while presenting the sale, to the buyer, as though it was
science. Creationists are only notable in that they do this, with a
absurd purpose of, on one hand, trying to use as much real information
as they can, without undermining their argument, they think, all so they
can prove that the universe was created by a being that, by definition,
didn't need to use science to do any damn bit of it. Of course, they
can't manage it without claiming that he did such and such X way, but
didn't do it Y way, and did so in a way we can't detect, even though we
detected it, and on, and on, while often claiming two contradictory
things in the same sentence..
Most real scientists never so much as speak to the public, even if they
work for some "sponsor" company, are more often than not pissed when
they find out how their results got misused (or just misinterpreted),
and/or are doing their research on the government dime, not on the
behest of private companies/interests. At most, some of them might work
for colleges, who got some money, from some private source, but.. those
people are not looking to "make up" results, they expect to actually do
the research, find a real result, and only report on the details, when
they actually know what the hell is going on, whether its "useful" for
someone or otherwise. They are most certainly not expect to "produce"
such results. The very idea presumes they already know enough about what
they are experimenting on to know the outcome, or how to believably fake
one. Which makes, logically, about as much sense as an explorer thinking
they can get by with "describing" a location no one has been to, without
bothering to actually go there and look, because, of course.. no one
else is going to either, right? lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/24/2013 3:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
>> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
>> position.)
>
> I don't consider it a lie, nor is it a position I have taken on from
> creationists. Normally I don't believe shit of what they say.
>
The man Paulin, who came up with the idea of "megavitamins" was Nobel
prize winner, at one point, but was considered, by the scientific
community to have become a complete bloody nut, by the time of his
death. In 1994 the bloody congress decided they would rather believe
him, than the FDA, about the possible dangers of massive doses of
chemicals being added to people's diets, purely due to them being "natural".
In the same time frame, another scientist put out "preliminary" results
studying anti-oxidants, which was, in part, touted by Paulin as a great
discovery, and helped him push his ideas. This was a "preliminary"
study, which every idiot from the press, to the new-age/altie-med
community took off with. A year or two back he released new results -
animals that had their own natural anti-oxidant production disabled
lived 25% "longer" than the ones who had it, and given them supplements
reduced there life spans back to normal. The conclusion - taking more of
them might actually kill you faster. Might, that is. Its still
"incomplete", but.. since all the idiots ran with it the last time...
Oh, wait, no.. they didn't run with it this time. Why? Could it be
because they are making more money selling crap, on the idea that it
will make you live forever, than they can by telling you to not buy it?
Nah...
You will note that Paulin was not a biologist, nor made any pretense at
it. He was a physicist and mathematician (sort of the engineer effect -
i.e, if your are an engineer, or physicist, you are like twice as likely
to be a total idiot about biology, biochemistry, or any other less
mathematical/well understood, and messy, science). He never did any
research, at all, just read a bunch of (and misunderstood) preliminary
studies, and took one bbbiiiiggggg leap with it. The guy who actually is
a scientist, never fell for the vitamin craze, and waited for the actual
results, and is still working on understanding what is going on. He
probably only released his second "preliminary" study on anti-oxidant
disabling to make some limited attempt to stop the madness already
generated by Paulin, and his absurdities.
There is a lot of total BS out there. And, the general public often
can't, especially when news programs, magazines, etc. refuse to fact
check their own reporting, which of it comes for people guessing, making
things up, misunderstanding the details of real studies, and writing up
total gibberish about it, or actually reporting real information. Worse,
the real information is often behind pay walls, or inaccessible to the
public, even if they could understand the studies any better than the
news people, or magazine writers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (Fun fact: The bodily fluids of almost every large land animal have
> almost exactly the same salinity as sea water.)
Does this mean that the salinity of a Finn's tears will be less than
that of a colombian, since the salinity of sea water changes between the
equator and the 60th parallel?
;)
Fun fact #2: We've all evolved from sea-dwelling animals who had to deal
with sea water's osmotic pressure for millennia, so there's nothing
really surprising about fun fact #1.
Fun fact #3: It's also why you should boil seafood in salt water.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
