Skull Valley lawmaker wants both side...

Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

There are 1632 comments on the Verde Independent story from Feb 5, 2013, titled Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students. In it, Verde Independent reports that:

Saying students are getting only one side of the debate, a state senator wants to free teachers to tell students why they believe there is no such thing human-caused "global warming.' The proposal by Sen.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Verde Independent.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#506 Mar 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>John von Neumann was the first to "prove mathematically" that no "natural mechanism" could possibly exist that is consistent with the equations of quantum theory. If natural mechanisms are to be excluded, then only the "supernatural" ones remain.
Oh look, here’s another one, more bogus claims

I on searched on Google for

Von Neumann equations of quantum theory

And found NOTHING you claimed, he was in fact a prolific writer on the subject of artificial life and is know for his contribution to the density matrix of quantum theory and much, much more

I also searched for

Von neumann If natural mechanisms are to be excluded

With exactly the same result

And

von neumann only the supernatural ones remain.

And here I did find some variations of the search string appeared in several forms - all “quoted” by creationist sources and godbot/church inspired sites, not by the man you claim

Finally I searched

And I hit paydirt, over 6 million results and of the first 2 pages show repeatedly that a constructor mechanism can be passive however and here is the thing that shoots you in the foot, he is discussing the constriction of “artificial” units.

So it seems that once again, you and your band of IDiots are misrepresenting a brilliant mind by combining totally unrelated work in to whatever suites your screwed up mindsets.

Under normal circumstances this would be known as lying but seeing as it’s you it’s just lying

I wonder is such delusional lying keeps you awake at night?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#507 Mar 8, 2013
Edit

... Finally I searched

Von Neumann natural mechanism

And I hit paydirt,...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#508 Mar 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Edit
... Finally I searched
Von Neumann natural mechanism
And I hit paydirt,...
I guess that means the natural isn't supernatural...who'da thunk it?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#509 Mar 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
.... However you contradict your self by claiming there are no experiment and then claiming that the experiments you claim don’t exist are not feasible and then claiming that not one of those experiments that you claim don’t exist shows how it would help or how much it would cost. Honeybitch, you are a hypocrite Wrong, climate change is real and the accepted consensus of climate change science as I and several other posters have shown you and you have conveniently ignored.
The question of climate change mitigation is simple; cite the most compelling experiment you've found. I haven't found any experimental tests of climate change mitigation; that's why I say its a hoax.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#510 Mar 8, 2013
No hoax, its scientific science fiction. If you believe in it then it’s a hoax.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#511 Mar 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
I on searched on Google for
Von Neumann equations of quantum theory
And found NOTHING you claimed,
Well that proves it for morons, I suppose. However, for persons smart enough to wait for my defense, I advise them to consider the bottom of page 98 (i.e., 4) of http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S... and then try to research what the nonexistence of "hidden variables" implies. There is a vast amount of literature on that topic.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#512 Mar 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>John von Neumann was the first to "prove mathematically" that no "natural mechanism" could possibly exist that is consistent with the equations of quantum theory.
No he wasn't.
Shubee wrote:
If natural mechanisms are to be excluded, then only the "supernatural" ones remain.
Except you have none. For if you did, they would then BE natural by default, due to their being scientifically verifiable. The simple fact is that quantum physics doesn't support creationism, no quantum physicist claims otherwise, any quantum physicist invoking "super"-naturalism is doing so not in a scientific paper and therefore only offering their philosophical opinions, and you are still nothing more than yet another crank among a large throng of cranks one can find on the internet who pretend that quantum science supports their particular brand of woo.

Your only hope is that your ego is loud enough to catch people's attention.

And unfortunately the only attention you can get is from people who couldn't give a fig about you because you're not a full picnic.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#514 Mar 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I guess that means the natural isn't supernatural...who'da thunk it?
Most definitely natural is not supernatural

Natural exists, it can be seen everywhere in nature, look at your hand, look at a tree, look at the stars. The immensity and wonders of nature are mind blowing.

However there are some people who cannot hack that and need to make a claim for supernatural, which does not exist, it is a figment of imagination. Without out evidence for such an occurrence you can confidently say there is no evidence.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#515 Mar 9, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Well that proves it for morons, I suppose. However, for persons smart enough to wait for my defense, I advise them to consider the bottom of page 98 (i.e., 4) of http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S... and then try to research what the nonexistence of "hidden variables" implies. There is a vast amount of literature on that topic.
Sorry because nothing exists you say that proves it?– are you dumb? Oh sorry, that really was an irrelevant question, of course you are dumb

There is NOTHING THAT YOU CLAIMED, therefore you are using a secret supply of unpublished data or you are a liar.

Non-existence of hidden variables means that the hidden variables are non existent you dumb fool. The statement is irrelevant to your claims unless of course you choose to lie about it and we already know you are a liar.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#516 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No he wasn't.
<quoted text>
Except you have none.
1. Ask a mathematician.
2. You are just not capable of understanding.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#517 Mar 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Non-existence of hidden variables means that the hidden variables are non existent
Yes, now try to research what the nonexistence of "hidden variables" implies.
justhefacts

United States

#518 Mar 9, 2013
Obviously the Dems flunk MATH… The U.S. is LESS then 4% of the 7 billion on the planet and what the WTF does the Dems think the 4% going to Change.

How about it Dems. Lets me see you STOP the Pollution in your voting Ghettos and then MAYBEI I will think Dems live in reality.

Lets Look at how the DEMS polluted the Planet.

When Clinton signed the Free Trade Act at the end of his 2nd term as president. This CAUSED the Recession,. U.S. lost over 42,400 Factories in 9 years, 6 million factory Jobs. For every one-job loss 15 others are affected putting 90 million jobs in play and or lost. Also that 30 million Obama says has no Insurance 12 million were from Clinton Free Trade Act job loss effect..

2006, U.S. traded with 127 countries China 70 by 2012 US traded with 76 countries China 124 countries. And all you DUMB people thought we sent all these jobs aver seas. Clinton lowered the tariffs and opened up the floodgates.

Now the Dems Residuals, China has been putting on a COAL plant on line a week for Years, which a coal plant is the Biggest polluter un controlled..

Lets look at the UN meeting back in when the Dems Met at the U.S. Lets look at how they BS people on wanting to save the Climiate.

I quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/un-conference-strugglin...

More than 120 climate-vulnerable countries signed on to the EU vision calling for all countries to be held accountable for their carbon emissions in the future, not just the industrial countries. The U.S., China and India, all for slightly different reasons, refused.

Dem try to HIDE this type “UN conference struggling to reach Climate deal” and see how many 404 site not found..

This carbon emissions Ruse… Gore was involved with a Company that was developing a Universal Carbon emission monitor device to be set across the planets counties. After that Base line was established the ‘Carbon Rights” amounts will be established in seeing how much your country can emit. Hers the Kicker, a more developed country can BUY carbon rights/permits from another country that didn’t use up its allotted amount. thus stopping another country from advancing and keeping them as buyers of goods not suppliers of goods.

Think of this Trillion dollar Stock trade. Market controlling the Global carbon rights to get rich.

Advice to all you Dems , time to learn and use basic Math and then ,maybe you wont look so STUPID.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#519 Mar 9, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>1. Ask a mathematician.
2. You are just not capable of understanding.
1 - I did.

2 - Invoking the "supernatural" is merely a demonstration you're not capable of understanding and are therefore appealing to ignorance. Which is why you can't present any mechanisms.

Which is why underneath all your egocentric blather, you are really no different from your garden-variety creationist.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#520 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
1 - I did.
Step 2: believe what you were told.
The Dude wrote:
2 - Invoking the "supernatural" is ...
I did not invoke the supernatural. I simply assert the axiom that events that happen in nondeterministic ways are supernatural.
everythingimportant.org/naturalism
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#521 Mar 9, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Step 2: believe what you were told.
Yet people should believe you when you tell them?
Shubee wrote:
I did not invoke the supernatural. I simply assert the axiom that events that happen in nondeterministic ways are supernatural.
Semantics. And incorrect.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#522 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Semantics.
Correct. You're complaining about a pure definition that happens to be extremely reasonable. For instance, if the event illustrating quantum mechanics happened as mentioned here http://www.youtube.com/watch... then what's wrong with calling that supernatural? It fits the dictionary definition perfectly. everythingimportant.org/naturalism
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#523 Mar 9, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Correct. You're complaining about a pure definition that happens to be extremely reasonable. For instance, if the event illustrating quantum mechanics happened as mentioned here http://www.youtube.com/watch... then what's wrong with calling that supernatural? It fits the dictionary definition perfectly.
The only definition I could find to support your contention was this one:

"behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings."

Unfortunately you have no mechanism of nor evidence of this supernatural being.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#524 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The only definition I could find to support your contention was this one:
"behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings."
I'm not surprised because you always search with your eyes closed.

The World English Dictionary
supernatural
— adj
1. of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2. characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3. of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4. exceeding the ordinary; abnormal
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#525 Mar 9, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not surprised because you always search with your eyes closed.
The World English Dictionary
supernatural
— adj
1. of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2. characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3. of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4. exceeding the ordinary; abnormal
None of which applies to quantum events. You always search with your eyes open but ignore what you see and say what you want instead.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#526 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
None of which applies to quantum events.
You must live a sheltered existence to have never heard a physicist describe quantum theory as "exceeding the ordinary" and "unexplainable."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Regolith Based Li... 48,823
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 15 min Starman 179,740
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Dogen 216,894
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr ChristineM 1,046
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Aura Mytha 23,562
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr It aint necessari... 154,814
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
More from around the web