homeschooler mom disproves evolution

newtboy says...

When the level of complexity of a system far outreaches the mental ability of the 'student', it looks like magic. The world must be a wonderful, mystical, magical place for this woman.

Star Wars The Force Awakens Teaser Trailer

Yeonmi Park - North Korea's Black Market Generation

Star Wars The Force Awakens Teaser Trailer

Drachen_Jager says...


Looks like they're trying too hard. Part of the appeal of the originals over the prequel trilogy was their simplicity.

I like how the big spaceship bursts into flames... in outer space.

Arkham Knight - Ace Chemicals Infiltration Trailer(1)

Jinx says...

Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009) - Rocksteady - 91%
Batman: Arkham City (2011) - Rocksteady - 91%
Batman: Arkham Origins (2013) - WB Games - 74%

When I first heard that Rocksteady wasn't making Origins I was baffled. When I played it I was surprised just how similar it was to City. Well, similar in that it felt like a rushed sequel in the same engine with the same assets. The only thing WB seemed to have added was bugs and poor design choices.

As it turns out, Rocksteady never lost Batman - the reason they did not develop Arkham Origins is that they were developing "an unannounced Arkham game". I guess WB didn't want to wait 4 years to make some more money off the back of recent success. I've no idea if it was calculated, but it's worked out very well that a cash-in failed to dent the reputation of the franchise because WB made their own development team the fall guys...

ps. Is smashing somebodies face into a fusebox really non-fatal Batman? Really?

Hottest Year Ever (Global Warming Hiatus) - SciShow

newtboy says...

That's not how science works.
You're just wrong. Models have not 'failed' just because Glen Beck said so.
The 'debate' in the scientific community ended over a decade ago.
You need to listen to someone else besides Faux news talking heads then. Scientists are out there, and right here trying to tell you the science, but if you don't like their data or conclusions you just claim they're liars and cut and paste a ton of right wing lies, confusion, and BS in rebuttal.
Find me a single SCIENTIFIC organization that still questions climate change as fact, and I'll show you an organization that's not really scientific but political masquerading as scientific.

Trancecoach said:

As I'm sure you know, empirical data needs a theory in order to interpret it and make sense of it. So far, climate change models (i.e., the theories upon which their data is interpreted) have failed, by the proponents' own admissions. And they have not been able to disprove counter theories either. So the debate goes on within the scientific community. Meanwhile, activists, politicians, and "journalists" don't know how to come up with these theories, so they rely on what they know how to come up with: ideologies, rhetoric (which they, themselves, may not believe), hermeneutics and other poor substitutes for rationalist theory through which to interpret the data.

So far, all of the "arguments" I've heard in support of climate change draws upon the IPCC as the source of its "evidence." What they don't realize is that the IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.

Since when do politicians decide on the "truth" about scientific fact?

Doubt - How Deniers Win

newtboy says...

I didn't say any such thing.
A large percentage of farm land is going to be lost by displaced people and lack of water.
A large percentage of people, those who live less than 1 foot above sea level will be displaced.
Just wow, you think we can build dykes around Florida? New Orleans is not the only low lying city in the world, you know.
We would have to start from scratch. The tech is abandoned, there's not a concord to get on no matter how much you pay, nor is there a rocket that can make it to the moon, no matter how much funding you throw at NASA, just plain old gone. We would have to start from scratch again. We're trying to use 40+ year old Russian rockets just to go to the space station, we can't even get there on our own, how do you assume we can just go back to the moon?

Food production where it's needed is the issue. The men with guns are also an issue, but even without them there's simply not enough food where people are starving. I'm not talking about instances where dictators starved their people intentionally, I'm talking about the billions of people who are lacking food because of either economic or climate pressures, or often both. If people in Africa could grow their own food, the men with guns could not stop them from eating, but no water, no fertilizer, and no seed make that impossible. We do NOT have 'more than enough food', we may have near exactly enough food if it were perfectly distributed throughout the world (accounting for spoilage, probably not though). Perfect distribution is impossible, so there's not enough food. Period.
Another reason Africa has massive crop failures is lack of water. It's a much larger reason than displacement, not smaller.

CO2 emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented. If you implement enough new tech to reduce emissions, the new industry will be more productive, create more jobs, and be better for the economy than 'staying the course' and giving it all to Texaco.
My point. No matter what we do, we are likely going to see the same climate changes through the next 100 years, it takes at least that long for the gasses to be absorbed.

Dude, did you read the link you posted? It said one glacier is stable, the rest are melting FAST. One glacier will not keep India, Tibet, Bhutan, Pakistan, etc wet, nor will it supply any other area that survives on glacier water. They showed that only one odd, incredibly high glacier was stable(they mentioned it's on K2, the highest mountain in the world, so don't even try to say there are lots more stable glaciers around the world, from what they said it's only this ONE mountain range, in the tippy top of the Himalayas, that's high enough and in the right weather pattern to be stable.)

bcglorf said:

Then slow down with theories of our impending demise, the IPCC doesn't support it. You want to talk about not denying the science, then you don't get to preach gloom and doom. Don't claim a large percentage of farmland is going to be lost to sea level rise by 2100. Don't claim coastlines are going to be pushed back 10 miles by a worst case 1 foot rise of sea level by 2100.

We are talking about advancements solving problems like a maximum sea level rise of a foot in the next 100 years, with best guesses being lower than that. I think it's modest to suggest our children's children will have figured out how to raise the dikes around places like New Orleans by a foot in the next 100 years.
The concord and moon trips are no longer happening because they are expensive. We can do them if we needed to, and more easily than the first time around. Finding out people aren't willing to pay the premium to shave an hour off their flight doesn't mean the technology no longer exists. Just because America no longer needs to prove they can lift massive quantities of nuclear warheads into orbit doesn't mean we couldn't still go to the moon again if it was needed. There's just no reason to do it, the tech exists still none the less.
Yes, there are social problems that confound the use of new technology. You fail to notice that is also the problem with feeding everybody. Food production isn't the problem, but rather the men with guns that control distribution. Stalin's mass starvation of millions was a social problem, not climate change or technology. Mao's was the same. North Koreas the same. All over Africa is the same. We have more than enough food, and plenty of charities work hard to send food over to places like Africa. Once the food gets there though the men with guns take most of it and people still starve. The reason Africa has so many crop failures is the violent displacement of the farmers. Exactly the same problem that saw millions starve in Russia, China and North Korea.
You are right that a changing climate could compound Africa's ag industry a bit, but it's a small hit compared to the violent displacement problem. Also, don't neglect to consider to impact of meaningful CO2 emission restrictions around the globe. A large scale global economic downturn probably means a lot more war, bloodshed, and starvation. If you do not reduce emissions enough to trigger that downturn and instead just 'marginally', you get stuck with both because Africa is still going to see virtually the same climate changes through the next hundred years.

And if you are worried about losing the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2100 there is very good reason to believe that's gonna be alright:

Yeonmi Park - North Korea's Black Market Generation

Star Wars The Force Awakens Teaser Trailer

Star Wars The Force Awakens Teaser Trailer

artician says...

Yeah, this is the authentic deal. Some of those shots look downright amateurish, so I'm guessing they're just pre-postproduction.

I can go either way. I've always wanted to see a new Star Wars with the original cast, so this is a dream come true there. Otherwise Abrams is going to create his own unique beast. It's exactly what the franchise needs but could also take it too far from the core. I was stoked to not hear the Williams theme music plastered all over the trailer, which is a huge first step in separating it from prior films.

homeschooler mom disproves evolution

FlowersInHisHair says...

Since this coward has disabled YouTube comments, I'll say this to her here: calling the appearance of early life "magic" is hypocritical in the extreme, given that's exactly what creationists think happened.

Munchkin the Teddy Bear gets her exercise


HOroscopo, hoy y sus predicciones

Forged in Fire

Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon