>> ^NetRunner:
Well, prices are set by market forces. You know, supply and demand. It's not necessarily the case that the Fed expanding the monetary base will lead to inflation.

Again, look at the last few years. Bernanke expanded the monetary base radically, but inflation has stayed low, and is on a declining trend.

And price changes from an increased "supply" of currency is called inflation.

Bernanke expanded the monetary base of the US dollar (ie world reserve currency) and people all over the world are in the streets rioting over the increased cost of living. PPI in the US has gone up 7.2% the last 12 months. And if you're referring to QE, most of that money is either parked at a bank or was used to buy toxic debt (to counter deflation). But when those TRILLIONS do reach the marketplace, inflation will be realized. That's why precious metal prices have blown up. The US dollar has lost 98% of it's purchasing power against gold the last 40 years.
>> ^NetRunner:
Oy. Okay, so here's how a bank works. People like you and me have some money. The bank offers to "hold" that money for us in an account, and at least used to pay us some small amount of interest on that money as incentive for us to keep our money with them.

But the bank doesn't just take our money and stick it in some vault for safekeeping, they lend that money out to other people, at a higher rate of interest than they offered us.

Problem is, we're allowed to withdraw our money from the bank whenever we want, so the bank has to keep some cash on hand (aka in reserve). However it will only keep a fraction of the total deposits in reserve, because otherwise it wouldn't be able to loan out money. That's what fractional reserve banking means.

That's what one would presume fractional reserve banking means, but it's not.




>> ^NetRunner:
I agree. Provided by "our system" you mean laissez-faire capitalism.

The banks take our savings and gamble them on risky, potentially profitable investments. That's sorta key to the functioning of capitalism though. Without that, the whole system crashes almost instantly.
LOL. The state stepping in to reward and cover up fraud is not laissez-faire capitalism. I don't get it. You defend the system, then you try to shift blame on free market capitalism?

>> ^NetRunner:
Artificially. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Prices are set by market forces, and according to free market advocates this is perfect/moral/only way they can or could ever be set, or else we'll go to hell be socialists.

There are plenty of unnatural "market forces" in our current system. Even inflation itself. Hence, prices are artificially set.


>> ^NetRunner:
Different economic models hypothesize different answers. I tend to think the Keynesian story is right -- it's aggregate supply and aggregate demand. When you have a shift in either one that would lead to a higher equilibrium price, then you see "aggregate price" (aka the CPI) rise.
Which is to say, you can get both inflation and deflation without the Fed doing anything. To stabilize inflation, you actually need the Fed constantly adjusting the monetary base so neither inflation or deflation get out of kilter. Look at pre-1913 interest rates if you don't believe me.

John Maynard Keynes on inflation: "By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft."

What you're talking about makes no sense. Prices in a market with sound money still go up and down. That's the way a market works. Calling it inflation and deflation doesn't make it so.

>> ^NetRunner:
I agree, if by "the ones that...extract value from that actually worked and earned their wealth" you mean any and all business owners, investors, and so on who have done nothing but collect interest on wealth they already own.

Maybe before you start going after people who are collecting interest on the wealth they presumably earned honestly, you will stop defending those who collect interest on money they created from nothing. Deal?

>> ^crotchflame:
BUT this came at the cost of a more serious threat of deflation and bank runs, which you can easily argue is much worse.


That's a false argument. You can't have deflation without first having inflation. And your argument is well we have to suffer inflation otherwise we might suffer deflation. That's illogical. Deflation is mostly good for us and bad for banks. Deflation would mean lower food and commodity prices. When a bubble pops, it's essentially canceling out that bubble's expansion of the monetary base. The realized inflation in prices is caught in an imbalance. If left to a natural correction, prices would fall and reach an equilibrium. But the government and central bank usually step in with a monetary solution to "stabilize" the economy. This is just horseshit excuse to keep the inflation from the bubble and pass on the cost to the tax payers.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
Why doesn't inflation cause wages to go up? Why do corporations get to raise prices, but labor never gets to raise the price of their labor? Is it because labor is in a weaker bargaining position?

Mostly because wages, like all other prices, are artificially set.
Artificially. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Prices are set by market forces, and according to free market advocates this is perfect/moral/only way they can or could ever be set, or else we'll go to hell be socialists.

If the cost of a corporation's inputs goes up, then they raise the price of their goods. If a laborer's costs go up, why can't he raise the price of his services?

No matter what your answer to that might be, it's obviously not "because the Federal Reserve won't let employers pay their employees more."

>> ^marbles:
Better question: Why does inflation occur to begin with?

Different economic models hypothesize different answers. I tend to think the Keynesian story is right -- it's aggregate supply and aggregate demand. When you have a shift in either one that would lead to a higher equilibrium price, then you see "aggregate price" (aka the CPI) rise.

Which is to say, you can get both inflation and deflation without the Fed doing anything. To stabilize inflation, you actually need the Fed constantly adjusting the monetary base so neither inflation or deflation get out of kilter. Look at pre-1913 interest rates if you don't believe me.

>> ^marbles:
You're sorta ignoring the fact that inflation numbers are intentionally manipulated (like excluding food and energy costs) to keep cost-of-living numbers low.

Well, then don't take the government's word for it. Take the market's.

>> ^marbles:
>> ^NetRunner:
Now let's get real about cui bono from inflation.
That's kinda obvious isn't it? The ones that can create money from nothing and then extract that monetary value from those that actually worked and earned their wealth.


Now you're just repeating assertions without responding to what I'd had to say.

But I'll just echo my closing line from the last comment. I agree, if by "the ones that...extract value from that actually worked and earned their wealth" you mean any and all business owners, investors, and so on who have done nothing but collect interest on wealth they already own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Friend_or_Foe.3F

Friend or Foe? is a game show that aired from 2002 to 2005 on the Game Show Network in the United States. It is an example of the prisoner's dilemma game tested by real people, but in an artificial setting. On the game show, three pairs of people compete. As each pair is eliminated, it plays a game similar to the prisoner's dilemma to determine how the winnings are split. If they both cooperate (Friend), they share the winnings 50–50. If one cooperates and the other defects (Foe), the defector gets all the winnings and the cooperator gets nothing. If both defect, both leave with nothing. Notice that the payoff matrix is slightly different from the standard one given above, as the payouts for the "both defect" and the "cooperate while the opponent defects" cases are identical. This makes the "both defect" case a weak equilibrium, compared with being a strict equilibrium in the standard prisoner's dilemma. If you know your opponent is going to vote Foe, then your choice does not affect your winnings. In a certain sense, Friend or Foe has a payoff model between prisoner's dilemma and the game of Chicken.

The payoff matrix is
Cooperate Defect
Cooperate 1, 1 0, 2
Defect 2, 0 0, 0

This payoff matrix was later used on the British television programmes Shafted and Golden Balls. The latter show has been analyzed by a team of economists. See: Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes are Large.

It was also used earlier in the UK Channel 4 gameshow Trust Me, hosted by Nick Bateman, in 2000.

Also, it's important to check out the Youtube comments and the video uploader's description. If you did that, you'd know his non-dying performances outweigh his dying performances. Someone did all that work and now you don't need to: http://www.compleatseanbean.com/deathbycow.html

HE DIES IN:
Airborne - bye bye Toombs
Caravaggio - Rannuccio gets his throat slashed
Clarissa - Lovelace is skewered by Sean Pertwee
Don't Say a Word - Patrick Koster is buried alive
Equilibrium - Death by Poetry - Partridge is blasted away by Christian Bale while reading Yeats
Essex Boys - Jason Locke meets a nasty end in a Range Rover
Far North - Loki is frozen. Naked. In the snow. A chilling end if there ever was one.
The Field - the infamous Death by Cow - Tadgh falls over a cliff, pursued by a herd of stampeding cows
GoldenEye - Alec Trevelyan falls a long way down and is crushed by a satellite dish thing
Henry VIII - Robert Aske meets a gruesome end
The Island - Death by Clone. Merrick is shot in the throat by a nasty grabber thingy with a sharp
hook and a cable that gets wrapped around his neck, and while he's struggling with Lincoln
Six-Echo, the catwalk they're on collapses, and Merrick ends up dangling by the neck. Currently
the most creative dispatch of Sean's career. Definitely well hung.
The Lord of the Rings (The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King) - Death
by Orc. Boromir. Arrows. Need I say more?
Lorna Doone - Carver Doone drowns
Outlaw - Dead Dead Dead. Was there ever any question? Dead.
Patriot Games - Sean Miller is beaten up, boathooked and finally blown up by Harrison Ford
Scarlett - Lord Fenton is dispatched
Tell Me That You Love Me - Gabriel Lewis is stabbed by Laura. Or he stabs himself. We're not
quite sure about this one, actually.
The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - Death by summoning a god's avatar. Martin Septim (the son of the Emperor, aka The Lost Heir) meets his X-Box end when he attempts to save the world.
The Hitcher - Surely you jest. You need to ask? (There were two different versions filmed. He dies
in both of them.)
War Requiem - The German Soldier dies, but returns in the afterlife


HE LIVES IN:
(Leo Tolstoy's) Anna Karenina
A Woman's Guide to Adultery
The Big Empty
The Bill
Black Beauty
Bravo Two Zero
Exploits at West Poley
Extremely Dangerous
Faceless
The Fifteen Streets
Flightplan
Fool's Gold
How to Get Ahead in Advertising
In the Border Country
Inspector Morse: Absolute Conviction
Jacob
Lady Chatterley
The Loser
My Kingdom for a Horse
National Treasure (But only because of a rewrite. In an early version
of the the script Ian Howe got eaten by alligators in the subways of
New York. Really. Honest. I wouldn't lie to you. I wouldn't.)
North Country
Percy Jackson (Zeus is more or less an immortal so death seems a bit
redundant, really...)
The Practice
Pride
Prince
Punters
Ronin
Samson & Delilah
Sharpe (14 films)
Sharpe's Challenge
Shopping
Silent Hill
Small Zones
Stormy Monday
Tom & Thomas
Troubles
The Canterbury Tales - The Nun's Priest's Tale
The Dark
The True Bride
The Vicar of Dibley
Troy
Wedded
When Saturday Comes
Windprints
Winter Flight

Major Theatrical Performances:
Macbeth ... Yes. He dies. And gets his head impaled on a spike.
Romeo & Juliet... What do you think?
Fair Maid of the West ... Spencer doesn't die!

How about this question: At what price would you cancel your internet subscription? A lot of people are paying $50-$75 a month. What if that went up to $100? $150?

I know I would cancel it when it got close to $100, and I f'ing live on the internet. But I have to be honest. It's my entertainment source, not my revenue source. At a certain point I would be compelled by my sense of entertainment value to find an alternative. I'd probably read more, go outside more, hang out with friends, etc.

But the biggest problem with this video is that it is equating one sector (technology) with the free market as a whole. It's just not true. In technology, you buy a product and you have the product. In other sectors, the market is more like a subscription style. You have to keep paying for things, day after day, month after month. Food, shelter, insurance, gasoline, electricity, and on and on. These are markets where the price does not go down without constant competitive pressure. In fact, once the competition settles into equilibrium, they steadily rise.

That aspect of the free market actually hurts the less wealthy disproportionately. If you are one of the working poor, the vast majority of your income is spent on costs that do NOT decrease over time. Any kind of market fluctuations or income loss can put your whole life at risk. But if you are rich, and your fixed costs are 10% of your net income, then fluctuations in the market or a slow steady rise aren't even noticeable.

It is true that many of us have wonderful opportunities around us that we take for granted. But that does not make us rich by any sane definition of the word.

So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source. I've got hundreds of these..it's not exactly a secret among palentologists that the evolutionary theory has more holes than swiss cheese. Another issue is just the dating itself..take these quotes out of context:

Curt Teichert of the Geological Society of America, "No coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings".

Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... " (Waterhouse).

richard mauger phd associate professor of geology east carolina university In general, dates in the “correct ball park” are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained

... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age." (Armstrong and Besancon)

professor brew: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it iscompletely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method.

In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.” Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9

Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209

A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), "K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia",-Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,-"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium/argon dating method) age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily-attributed to excess or loss of argon." In other words the potassium/argon (K/Ar) method doesn't support the uranium/lead (U/Pb) method.

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years old, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such `confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man." (“Secular Catastrophism”, Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21)

“The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” (O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53) (emphasis mine)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)

It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

"Material bodies are finite, and no rock unit is global in extent, yet stratigraphy aims at a global classification. The particulars have to be stretched into universals somehow. Here ordinary materialism leaves off building up a system of units recognized by physical properties, to follow dialectical materialism, which starts with time units and regards the material bodies as their incomplete representatives. This is where the suspicion of circular reasoning crept in, because it seemed to the layman that the time units were abstracted from the geological column, which has been put together from rock units."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1979, p. 49.

"The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity."—*B. Schaeffer, *M.K. Hecht and *N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," in *Dobzhansky, *Hecht and *Steere (Ed.), Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (1972), p. 39

"The paleontologist's wheel of authority turned full circle when he put this process into reverse and used his fossils to determine tops and bottoms for himself. In the course of time he came to rule upon stratigraphic order, and gaps within it, on a worldwide basis."—*F.K. North, "the Geological Time Scale," in Royal Society of Canada Special Publication, 8:5 (1964). [The order of fossils is determined by the rock strata they are in, and the strata they are in are decided by their tops and bottoms—which are deduced by the fossils in them.]"The geologic ages are identified and dated by the fossils contained in the sedimentary rocks. The fossil record also provides the chief evidence for the theory of evolution, which in turn is the basic philosophy upon which the sequence of geologic ages has been erected. The evolution-fossil-geologic age system is thus a closed circle which comprises one interlocking package. Each goes with the other."—Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972), pp. 76-77

"It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organism as has been determined by a study of theory remains buried in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain."—*R.H. Rastall, article "Geology," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10 (14th ed.; 1956), p. 168.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Let us begin with this definition of "quote mining" from Wikipedia: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
Thank you, shinyblurry, for your cut&paste, thought-free, research-absent, quote mining wall of nonsense. The only part you got right is that you should google each and every one of these quotes to find out the context, something you actually didn't do.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology..."

This Steven J. Gould quote is discussed in talk.origin's Quote Mine Project. Gould was a proponent of Punctuated Equilibria, which proposes a "jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change" in evolution. The quotes that are taken out of context are arguing that the fossil record does not indicate a gradual change over time as Darwin suggested. The specifc quote above is discussed in section #3.2 of Part 3. Far from an argument against evolution, Gould was arguing for a specific refinement of the theory.
More to the point, your own quote says "extreme rarity", contradicting your primary claim that transitional fossils do not exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal... ...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book... ...there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

Dr. Patterson is discussed on a page dedicated to this quote in the Quote Mine Project. This page touches on the nature of scientific skepticism. As Dr. Patterson goes on to say, "... Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else." This is the nature of pure science. We can say that a piece of evidence "indicates" or "suggests" something, but there is nothing that may be held up as "proof" unless it is testable. As a man of principle, Dr. Patterson would not indicate one species evolving into another simply because there is no way to be absolutely sure that one fossil is the direct descendant of another. We can describe the similarities and differences, showing how one might have traits of an earlier fossil and different traits similar to a later fossil, but that is not absolute proof.
Incidentally, this is probably where the main thrust of the creationist argument eventually lands. At this level of specificity, there is no known way of proving one fossil's relation to another. DNA does not survive the fossilization process, so we can only make generalizations about how fossils are related through physical appearance. This will be where the creationist claims "faith" is required. Of course, you might also say that if I had a picture of a potted plant on a shelf, and another picture of the potted plant broken on the floor, it would require "faith" to claim that the plant fell off the shelf, because I did not have video proof. The creationist argument would be that the plant broken on the ground was created that way by God.
>> ^shinyblurry:
David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) ... Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...

This quote is from 1974. Think maybe some of those gaps might have gotten smaller since then? Doesn't really matter, because the scientist in question goes on to explicitly state that this does not disprove evolution. He then discusses hypotheses which might explain his perceived gaps, such as Punctuated Equilibrium. A brief mention of this quote is found in the Quote Mine Project at Quote #54.
>> ^shinyblurry:
N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.

First of all, Nilsson is only famous to creationists. To scientists, he's a bit of a wack-job. But that neither proves nor disproves his findings, it only goes to show that creationsists will frequently embellish a scientist's reputation if it will increase the size of the straw man argument. His writings would naturally include his opinions on the weaknesses of what was evolutionary theory at the time (1953!) in order to make his own hypothesis more appealing. He came up with Emication, which is panned as fantasy by the scientific critics. Perfect fodder for the creationists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:
The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.
The popular press. Newsweek Magazine. 1980!!! What year are you living in, shiny???
>> ^shinyblurry:
Wake up people..your belief in evolution is purely metaphysical and requires faith. I suppose if you don't think about it too hard it makes sense. It's the same thing with abiogenesis..pure metaphysics.
Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.
The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2

Well, now you're just quoting some anonymous creationist. Any evidence whatsoever that the gaps between major groups are growing wider? No? Can't find anything to cut and paste in reply to that question?
>> ^shinyblurry:
You've been had..be intellectually honest enough to admit it and seek out the truth. Science does not support evolution.

I wonder, shiny, if in your "intellectually honest search for the truth" if you ever left the creationist circle jerk? Your quotes are nothing but out of context and out of date.

Let us begin with this definition of "quote mining" from Wikipedia: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Thank you, shinyblurry, for your cut&paste, thought-free, research-absent, quote mining wall of nonsense. The only part you got right is that you should google each and every one of these quotes to find out the context, something you actually didn't do.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology..."


This Steven J. Gould quote is discussed in talk.origin's Quote Mine Project. Gould was a proponent of Punctuated Equilibria, which proposes a "jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change" in evolution. The quotes that are taken out of context are arguing that the fossil record does not indicate a gradual change over time as Darwin suggested. The specifc quote above is discussed in section #3.2 of Part 3. Far from an argument against evolution, Gould was arguing for a specific refinement of the theory.

More to the point, your own quote says "extreme rarity", contradicting your primary claim that transitional fossils do not exist.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal... ...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book... ...there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.


Dr. Patterson is discussed on a page dedicated to this quote in the Quote Mine Project. This page touches on the nature of scientific skepticism. As Dr. Patterson goes on to say, "... Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else." This is the nature of pure science. We can say that a piece of evidence "indicates" or "suggests" something, but there is nothing that may be held up as "proof" unless it is testable. As a man of principle, Dr. Patterson would not indicate one species evolving into another simply because there is no way to be absolutely sure that one fossil is the direct descendant of another. We can describe the similarities and differences, showing how one might have traits of an earlier fossil and different traits similar to a later fossil, but that is not absolute proof.

Incidentally, this is probably where the main thrust of the creationist argument eventually lands. At this level of specificity, there is no known way of proving one fossil's relation to another. DNA does not survive the fossilization process, so we can only make generalizations about how fossils are related through physical appearance. This will be where the creationist claims "faith" is required. Of course, you might also say that if I had a picture of a potted plant on a shelf, and another picture of the potted plant broken on the floor, it would require "faith" to claim that the plant fell off the shelf, because I did not have video proof. The creationist argument would be that the plant broken on the ground was created that way by God.



>> ^shinyblurry:
David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) ... Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...


This quote is from 1974. Think maybe some of those gaps might have gotten smaller since then? Doesn't really matter, because the scientist in question goes on to explicitly state that this does not disprove evolution. He then discusses hypotheses which might explain his perceived gaps, such as Punctuated Equilibrium. A brief mention of this quote is found in the Quote Mine Project at Quote #54.


>> ^shinyblurry:

N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.


First of all, Nilsson is only famous to creationists. To scientists, he's a bit of a wack-job. But that neither proves nor disproves his findings, it only goes to show that creationsists will frequently embellish a scientist's reputation if it will increase the size of the straw man argument. His writings would naturally include his opinions on the weaknesses of what was evolutionary theory at the time (1953!) in order to make his own hypothesis more appealing. He came up with Emication, which is panned as fantasy by the scientific critics. Perfect fodder for the creationists.


>> ^shinyblurry:

Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:
The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.

The popular press. Newsweek Magazine. 1980!!! What year are you living in, shiny???


>> ^shinyblurry:
Wake up people..your belief in evolution is purely metaphysical and requires faith. I suppose if you don't think about it too hard it makes sense. It's the same thing with abiogenesis..pure metaphysics.
Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.
The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2


Well, now you're just quoting some anonymous creationist. Any evidence whatsoever that the gaps between major groups are growing wider? No? Can't find anything to cut and paste in reply to that question?

>> ^shinyblurry:
You've been had..be intellectually honest enough to admit it and seek out the truth. Science does not support evolution.


I wonder, shiny, if in your "intellectually honest search for the truth" if you ever left the creationist circle jerk? Your quotes are nothing but out of context and out of date.

context is everything.
for example:i just posted doug stanhopes "no refunds" full show but there are a number of clips from that very same show.
i also had a clip i posted from the movie "equilibrium" which zonbie had also posted but mine had an extra 2 mins which gave the clip context to understand what was going on while zonbies did not.
the way i handled it was to contact zonbie directly and see what he thought and gave him the opportunity to reclaim any votes if he felt it was a dupe.
another practice i try to engage in is if i have a clip that may be ..in part..another sifters posted video i link said video.
my feeling is it gives the viewer more content and also gives credit to my fellow poster.

its all about the sharing.......hug?

@imstellar28 that was pretty much a straw man argument, like Peroxide said.
>> ^imstellar28:

On the contrary, my position is that:
1. Multinational corporations like Serco are almost always evil, and should probably not exist.
2. Forcing people to fund multi-billion dollar corporations is not the right way to build a better world.
3. People should be able to vote with their dollar, and keep their money in their own communities.

I'd agree with the first two, for certain definitions of "corporations" -- specifically, rigidly hierarchical organizations dedicated to enriching shareholders above all else.

On the third, I think it's at least a first-pass attempt to propose some sort of alternative, but I think you've got to flesh out a lot more how people "vote with their dollar" when it comes to prison management. Do those who are to be imprisoned get to shop for the jail that suits their individual needs best?
>> ^imstellar28:
You are arguing against privatization, but Serco is not really a private company. Private companies are not funded by tax revenue. The Mom and Pop diner in your neighborhood, that is a private company.

I'm not sure why you're saying this as if it's at all contrary to what I believe. Maybe we're quibbling over semantics of what "privatization" means in this context, but to me, in this context, what governments are doing with Serco is the very definition of privatization.

As for Serco not being a private company, I don't think selling goods or services to a government makes a corporation a part of government. Serco doesn't have to turn its profits back over to the Treasury of any government, nor does one have to be elected to the position of Serco CEO. To me, that's the problem -- taxes are being siphoned off to make someone a profit, while accountability to the people is further diluted.

But I don't think selling goods and services to government automatically makes the company part of government. I don't think any of us begrudge Staples selling office supplies to the state legislature, or Ford selling cars to police departments, or AT&T selling telecomm services to the FBI.

>> ^imstellar28:
This is just one more way in which people get divided into two camps and waste their time arguing about things which are in reality the same position. Private vs. Public is irrelevant, it makes no difference in this situation as far as I can tell.
The real question here is what is the proper role of government, aka, what should the government be funding with taxpayer money.


So close and yet so far. Yes, this is one more way in which people get divided into two camps and waste their time arguing about things which are in reality the same position (see above!).

However, the real question here isn't "what is the proper role of government" so much as "how do we create a better society for us to live in?"

One may subsequently argue that society will be better with "less" government, but the bottom line is that things like the military, prisons, transportation infrastructure, and schools are all going to exist, and they're all going to be largely controlled by people who aren't you. You can either a) set up a framework of expectations within society so that anyone controlling those things must do so for the good of the people or lose that control, b) set up a framework where a small number of individuals control those things, with their only obligation being to enrich themselves, or c) let those with the guns make the framework what they want.

And yes, I realize that there's more of an equilibrium between those three than a real choice, but I want to push the equilibrium as much towards option a) as I can...

posted by enoch 11 months 1 week ago • 1337 views

I noticed this as I was watching your Equilibrium clip. I love when I notice things like this.

Of course you know 1337 is leet= elite= haxx0r !


I have just finished Equilibrium because of that clip I watched of yours, I have tried to watch it twice now since it came out. For whatever reason it never took, but today it did and damn thats a good movie. Not boring at all like I had thought previously.

>> ^bamdrew:

The ocean (biggest 'carbon sink')

It's also a huge source of that "water vapor" greenhouse gas too. And when average temperatures rise, so does the amount of water that persists as water vapor in our atmosphere, which makes temperatures rise. Our surface temps are cool enough that it stays in a rough equilibrium, but if we push the temperatures high enough to disrupt it...

It'd be a bad cycle. Venus probably had liquid water oceans at some point in the distant past. Now the surface of Venus hotter than Mercury's, despite being much further away from the Sun.

I find it so strange that people really think it can't happen here. We're not so different from Venus. Just a little cooler, that's all.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^criticalthud:
http://ne


ws.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110107/sc_yblog_thelookout/florida-temporarily-closes-runway-due-to-magnetic-pole-shifting
i'm not trying to open a can of worms, or threaten anyone's "beliefs". but this appears to be happening.

Yeah, and um, from THAT article: "The Earth's poles are changing constantly... "
You really liked the movie 2012 didn't you?
sigh

sigh.
that article is just a quick google to show that even mainstream media has noticed it.
the gov goes to great lengths to not alarm it's workforce. a steady diet of charlie sheen. sigh
sigh sigh
all theories can be conspiracy theories if you wish to label them as that. and you're trolling. fuck you.

I am so NOT trolling, I'm just sick of people like you that see some natural disasters and then start saying 'THERE'S SO MANY MORE NOW! THE WORLD IS ENDING!'
Really?
Where's the increase in earthquakes? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/other/quake1.html
Where? Take a look at the numbers and tell me you're seeing an increase over the last 30 years, because you aren't. Because there hasn't been, because it's bullshit.
Stop using just your perception that 'gee, there seems to have been a lot of earthquakes' as an empirical measurement, look at the ACTUAL FIGURES before you start saying such things. And stop relying SOLEY on nut job websites for all your 'facts'

fine. stop using comments designed to create an emotional response.
your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years.
what i'm saying that if you increase the total mass of the worlds oceans, and reduce mass at the axis of rotation, coupled with water current patterns that will concentrate these masses differently than what has occurred in the last, say, 1 million years, we may very well be seeing enough change to affect very unstable plate movements that occur on a fairly consistent basis.
this isn't a 2012 conspiracy. and the world isn't ending. and maybe i am crazy. i sincerely hope i am.
but we are just starting to understand how fragile our ecosystem is, and how dependent we are on the stasis of it....and that underestimating such fragility can come at a very high cost.
look at what we are doing to the rest of the planet, the rest of the ecosystem. why is it so inconceivable that we may also be affecting something that is constantly teetering as it is?


and what further alarms me is that with a system that has taken a few billion years to find a relatively stable equilibrium, it's adaptation to change also takes time, on a different scale than we're used to (a plantetary time-frame), meaning we may be now just seeing the effects of our changes to the climate, and meaning that these adaptations could continue well after we've ceased mucking about.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased
Source?

http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
and google "poles shifting"
we are looking at trends of course. and theory...ie: probability.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
It depends on where you look or who you ask. I could see higher sea levels affecting plate tension, but the end effect is unknown. The quake off the coast of Japan has likely been building tension for several thousand years, so it's a stretch to blame that on climate change.

As far as the poles shifting, that isn't new. They always move around at varying speeds and have even flipped entirely multiple times in the earth's history.


yes yes, of course this has always gone on. moreso with a younger planet, finding it's equilibrium. But we're looking at recent trends and recent changes to the ecosystem. recent increases that coincide with recent changes in other areas. that's all.
i'm not saying there is a definite correlation, i'm only saying that probability suggests that there may indeed be a strong correlation.
science is all about making hypothesis based on probability, then sorting it out from there.
i'm no geologist. i do neuro theory. however, any change in neurology requires that the whole system adapt, no matter how small the change is. and some aspects of the whole (the neurological aspect) create far more change to the whole than other aspects, regardless of relative size.

I'm not a marine biologist, but it is possible that punctuated equilibrium could lead to a new diverging lineage. If that were true, perhaps the genetic evidence to which they refer in the film has to do with the evolutionary history of hammerheads - in that the modern hammerhead appears to be much more genetically similar to other sharks (more recent) than it would if it had taken the millions of years to slowly evolve the hammerhead shape in the common path of evolution with which we're familiar.

In regards to some earlier comments, the hunting techniques would only have to be refined, not created from anew as almost all sharks have a lateral line system and other electrochemical sensing abilities that let them sense prey in the water without having to use vision.

Not sure if they have 360 degrees vision.. I'm no ichthyologist...