Merry Christmas to our Accurate Reloading Members
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
One of Us |
Interesting, if nothing else... Link "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | ||
|
Administrator |
I am at the stage where I have stopped believing much from so called scientists. | |||
|
One of Us |
Which you say on a device designed by scientists, the signal from which was sent to space to be relayed by satellites designed and built by scientists, put there by rockets designed and built by scientists while other scientists calculated exactly where to locate them, and that can only be read by people using similar devices designed by other scientists, all of which was the stuff of science fiction 75 years ago and would have been considered magic 150 years ago... "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
Administrator |
Lots of difference my friend. When it comes to them trying to guess what happened millions of yeaago, they are always wrong. Next year someone will come up with another theory! | |||
|
One of Us |
Which is the beauty of science. This theory is an attempt to make sense of the available facts, and seems plausible. If a new theory better explains the known facts, or new facts become known, this theory will be left behind. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
One of Us |
Trunks make sense for a tall animal with a short neck that feeds on plants. ~Ann | |||
|
One of Us |
Thus the notion of “settled science” should never exist, correct? Yet how often is this phrase bandied about? | |||
|
One of Us |
According to this theory, particularly if the animal lives in open country. Related species in more closed habitat didn't develop the long, flexible trunks. They also died out when the climate shifted to favor grasslands. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
One of Us |
Science is rarely completely "settled", thus we discover new properties and applications for stuff like electricity after a century of widespread use. But it's settled enough that there's no danger of somebody discovering tomorrow that electricity doesn't exist. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
One of Us |
You are correct about that. The problem arises when someone with letters behind their name decides to state something that is not really proven (or provable) and then tries to give it the veneer of being a fact or scientific. Another name for hypothesis is guess. Your posted link is taking a finding (differences in precursor species anatomy) and trying to link it to something with little proof, if it is even possibly provable. It’s an attempt to use paleontology to justify current AGW theories. As an intellectual exercise, maybe… but how are you going to generate a reproducible experiment to test your hypothesis? You can’t. The paleontology is the past. You can’t even be sure of conditions then. | |||
|
One of Us |
There was not one word in the article linking anything to AGW. We have very good evidence of shifting climates in the past, and drier has always meant more grasslands/less forest. This particular drying period coincided with the sorting of three groups ancestral to elephants, only one of which was adapted to grassland. The others died out. I just thought it was an interesting abstract that might interest people interested in elephants. I now know better for the future. Everything has to be a goddamned argument for some. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
one of us |
Thanks for posting, Jefffive. Logic is often absent from many of these "discussions" and its introduction sometimes upsets those who have a vested interest in disregarding logic. | |||
|
One of Us |
I went to Catholic schools growing up. One day in science class the teacher asked one of the students (not me I promise) why something or other, can't remember what -- might have been why water expands when it freezes or something. The student had absolutely no clue, so his answer? "Because God made it that way." Long silence, but being a Catholic school the teacher couldn't really complain about the answer. That's my answer as to why elephants have trunks. | |||
|
One of Us |
How do Elephants make love underwater? They take off their trunks! Jesus saves, but Moses invests | |||
|
One of Us |
I got my trunks at Sears-----$3.99! They were white when I bought them----now they are yellow in the front and brown in the back! What a stupid topic! Hip | |||
|
One of Us |
Did anybody see this article? https://apple.news/ASoHV0gJKTkeZQAY-KAOfaQ It seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Certainly a hypothesis and not a theory. Written by whom? Possibly people with an axe to grind? Anyone who has traveled to any third world country knows this isn’t how the world works in those places. | |||
|
One of Us |
I saw no claims about how things work in present third-world countries, they were addressing our hunter-gatherer past. I know that among, for example, the Baka and related people of the Congo basin everybody participates in hunts, men, women and children, and see no reason to doubt it was true in the past. We have folks here with vastly better knowledge of the remaining hunting cultures in Africa, like the San, than I possess. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
one of us |
Stop beating your head against the wall, Jeff. You're arguing with people who like a bullet that "leaves a good blood trail" -- and the longer the better. | |||
|
One of Us |
Good point. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
One of Us |
What happens when a theory remains in place after a long time, as people fail to disporve it, is that the question shifts. For example with evolution. The question shifts from 'does it exist' to 'how does it work'. Where in the past many studies focused on finding evidence for (or against) the theory of evolution, now they try to find data to see how evolution works. This study is a good example of that. | |||
|
One of Us |
| |||
|
One of Us |
| |||
|
One of Us |
A definition of science that I particularly like is "a search for the truth, plus or minus 10%". If one wants absolute truth, that is only imagined, and that only on occastion. Most of my money I spent on hunting and fishing. The rest I just wasted | |||
|
One of Us |
I'll stick with because God made it that way. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia