All you global warming skeptics, deniers, and court jesters better stow your potables, combustibles, and sharp objects safely from proximity of electronic equipment, because it was absolutely a frigid August day in the Big Apple Tuesday.
HOW COLD WAS IT?
Well, as reported by WCBSTV.com, this is the coldest August day in New York City in almost a century (h/t NBer Dave in Texas, emphasis added throughout):
The city along with the rest of the tri-state region is feeling the chilly effect of a cold front sweeping through the region, accompanied by cool rain showers.
Tuesday's high temperature in Central Park was just 59 degrees. The normal high for today is 82 degrees. The normal low is 67.
Hmmm. 23 degrees below normal. Think that will be featured on any of the network evening news broadcasts tonight? Or this:
"This unusual blast of cold air smashed our previous record for the coldest high temperature on August 21, which is 64 degrees, set back in 1999," CBS 2 meteorologist Jason Cali told wcbstv.com.
In fact, the 59-degree high tied the record for the coldest high temperature ever for the month of August in New York City, when it reached just 59 degrees in 1911.
Think New Yorkers would love to see a little global warming right now?
Surely I jest.
Comments Policy
Philly too!
August 21, 2007 - 18:43 ET by NoMoreClintonsIt was chilly in Philly as well today - 60 degrees tops.
Kiss my butt Heidi Cullen.
Blame everything
August 21, 2007 - 19:08 ET by MojaveFrom my global warming alarmist friends, I've learned that it's perfectly acceptable to blame both record highs and record lows, record low highs and record high lows, etc. on global warming. In fact, whatever the temperature is right now, it's because of global warming.
Everything is because of AGW
August 21, 2007 - 19:12 ET by third eyeMojave, I believe tecnically speaking, youve just defined the first "law" of AGW.
So does this mean I can
August 21, 2007 - 19:14 ET by Clear thinkerSo does this mean I can blame my growing waistline on AGW?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
CT, that is a great big
August 21, 2007 - 21:14 ET by MikeBCT, that is a great big "yes" to your question. Because of global warming it is too hot or too cold or too windy or too rainy or too dry for you to get outside and do some exercise to keep your figure trim. And, of course all of the above weather conditions are directly traceable to the Bush-Rove-Cheney-Halliburton combine that has run roughshod over the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this country to commit treason, feed from the public teat, to speak truth(erism) to power, etc., etc., etc.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention in your re-education classes, else you wouldn't have even had to ask that question.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Mojave, N' Noel, Record cold days V.S. hottest EVER?
August 22, 2007 - 02:27 ET by upcountrywaterNoel,
I know you can compile this in a hurry.
"the record cold days V.S. the record hot days"
What is it like 6 to one,, all those dazes in Africia, and South America cold stuff. Where's the "hottest ever" dazes and dazes to off set this cold?
Mojave,
your statement covers the climate change devotives . AKA carbon taxers. no matter what the weather we shall tax you.
The Boston tea party went off over a 1/2 % tax!
Don't forget to Factor in the urban heat thinggy, over NYC ..!
Entitlement over infrastructure every SINGLE time.
But didn't you know? This
August 21, 2007 - 19:11 ET by Jinx McHueBut didn't you know? This proves global warming, too. As one person once told me, "Some places will get hotter and some places will get colder." Some glaciers will grow, some will shrink. So everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it. That makes it an invalid non-falsifiable theory.
oh ohh
August 21, 2007 - 19:18 ET by the mad poleHeads up Floridians, better book tee times.
You can't use the isolated
August 21, 2007 - 19:23 ET by ckc1227You can't use the isolated record low temperature of one city to disprove global warming. It is "global" warming, you know?
The temperature of one city is only relevant if that temp is a record high, which proves beyond all doubt that we are on the brink of global disaster because of man-made global warming and requires that we spend more money to solve the (non)problem than the problem itself would ever cost if it did exist.
Seriously, Noel, you should know better. ;)
But when the temp in NYC
August 21, 2007 - 19:46 ET by Jinx McHueBut when the temp in NYC soars into record highs, it's perfectly alright to use it as proof of global warming.
Go figure.
second law of AGW:)
August 21, 2007 - 22:46 ET by TruthMongersecond law of AGW:)
Yeah, well..... here's the
August 21, 2007 - 19:59 ET byYeah, well..... here's the bit I don't get, on this site.
If you don't believe in global warming/climate change, does it have to affect everyone else?
I mean, I am an atheist, and I can share the planet with religious people, and we all go about being nice to each other, and I'm just as nice as them. We just put it down to different reasons.
So, if you choose not to believe that humans have changed global conditions, that's fine. That said, why should someone be seen as a moonbat for fighting for cleaner air, more efficient cars, more forests, more efficient power stations, recycling, soil rehabilitation, etc?
Another question, and a technical one.... I understand the Bush Admin has passed legislation on the auto industry, to make mandatory an average fuel economy rate of 35mpg "across the model range" for all vehicles sold in the US, and I'm not sure of the deadline.
My question is; How will they measure it? Presumably, it has to be on models available, and not models sold. Will this mean a sudden scourge of re-badged Asian cars, with GM and Chrysler badges on them, just because they get 60mpg?
Also, I presume that the legislation has been partly conceived with exports in mind (like the Jeep Patriot, available with diesel engine in Australia and Europe) but I was wondering; would the 35 mpg be based on the US gallon or the Imperial gallon?
You are an
August 21, 2007 - 20:14 ET by bigtimerYou are an atheist...
'Nuff said for me.
Hello Bigtimer! Not sure
August 21, 2007 - 20:23 ET byHello Bigtimer!
Not sure what religion has to do with it. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Enlighten
August 21, 2007 - 20:25 ET by bigtimerEnlighten you....
Impossible.
And how does my atheism
August 21, 2007 - 20:43 ET byAnd how does my atheism affect the argument?
This is how:While the
August 21, 2007 - 22:51 ET by TruthMongerThis is how:
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Genesis 8:22
I believe this and you don't:)
But they will cease
August 21, 2007 - 22:58 ET by balboaBut they will cease eventually, right?
actual infinities
August 21, 2007 - 23:07 ET by botgdo not exist in this universe
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Eyecare, you have it backwards
August 21, 2007 - 20:14 ET by RJ"If you don't believe in global warming/climate change, does it have to affect everyone else?"
The problem is, the theories of the AGW people keep falling apart, but instead of working to prove they're right with better scientific validation, they claim consensus, attack the doubters, refuse to debate, etc, etc. The media constantly fawns over AGW people and accepts whatever they say without speaking with anyone who dissents.
In spite of all of the above, they "affect everyone else" with stupidity like Ethanol, which is the second worst idea to come out of this entire debacle. (The worst idea is to make Ethanol mandatory.)
So, you have it backwards. It's the AGW gang who, in spite of the above, are forcing stupid behavior changes on the rest of us.
Ok... I'll need to process
August 21, 2007 - 20:22 ET byOk... I'll need to process that. Do you know about the fuel economy bit?
fuel economy
August 21, 2007 - 20:30 ET by RJActually, I can't answer your questions with authority, except to say Ethanol gives poor gas mileage.
While I'm at it, I doubt there's a person on this site who isn't for cleaner air and water, etc. It's an AGW falsehood to claim that if you don't agree with them you must not care about the environment.
Thanks RJ. I never
August 21, 2007 - 20:41 ET byThanks RJ.
I never mentioned ethanol. I don't know how it got associated with me. I was mainly about conservation and fuel economy.
It's like bigtimer's religious stuff. Nothing to do with me. See what I am up against? (in reply to your question on another thread)
Cheers anyway.
No Eye... You are the one
August 21, 2007 - 20:49 ET by bigtimerNo Eye...
You are the one who mentioned that you were atheist in this all...
I did not... nor do I rarely mention my religion....
I responded to you saying you were atheist...which had nothing to do with subject.
You did not like it evidently.
I'll go out on a limb
August 21, 2007 - 20:55 ET by BlazerI'll go out on a limb here bigtimer, and say our boy Eye here mentioned athiest because he feels it's an entitled, and protected group. But what he doesn't mention is he would probably have no problem with our religions being outlawed.
Athiesm simply put is a vexation on morality, or a vaccum of the human spirit if you will.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
"Athiesm simply put is a
August 21, 2007 - 20:58 ET by balboa"Athiesm simply put is a vexation on morality, or a vaccum of the human spirit if you will."
...or just self-reliance.
hmmm, self reliance, yea,
August 21, 2007 - 21:01 ET by Blazerhmmm, self reliance, yea, now coming from a supporter of the nanny state, and entitlement socialists, I'll bet thats exactly what it is.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Nanny what?
August 21, 2007 - 21:06 ET by balboaNanny what?
not sure I get your point.
August 21, 2007 - 21:10 ET by mandrakenot sure I get your point. Is it ok for for a conservative to be an atheist?
boa... When you are
August 21, 2007 - 21:05 ET by bigtimerboa...
When you are dying...are you going to say or think you are just sucked up and you are not talking to God...as we all do?
If you are an atheist?
I'm just saying that
August 21, 2007 - 21:07 ET by balboaI'm just saying that self-reliance is another way you could look at atheism. I have no idea what happens when you die. I know what I hope.
I'm not an atheist.
Oh, This is Rich
August 21, 2007 - 23:56 ET by BlondeBal the self-proclaimed liberal is advocating for self-reliance.
Does anyone see the delicious irony here?
Anyone?
Noel?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
hi blonde
August 22, 2007 - 00:01 ET by botggoodnight
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Or self-delusion,
August 21, 2007 - 21:27 ET by MikeBOr self-delusion, bal.
I do not subscribe to any particular religion. However, I find it mathematically impossible to deny the existence of God. The origin of life is a binary solution set: either life began by chance, or life began by design (God). The British astronomer Robert Jastrow calculated the probabilities of life beginning by chance as one in ten to the forty-thousandth power. In decimal form that would be a zero followed by a decimal followed by 39,999 zeroes followed by a 1. Conversely, the probability for life beginning by design would have to be one minus the above decimal, which would be a zero followed by a decimal point followed by forty thousand 9s.
When calculating probabilities, anything with a probability less than one in ten to the fiftieth power is considered impossible, so, Bal, apparently you wish to believe in something that is 39,950 orders of magnitude beyond impossible. Self delusion.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I'm not an atheist. I'm
August 21, 2007 - 21:30 ET by balboaI'm not an atheist. I'm just saying.
boa... Really as a friend
August 21, 2007 - 21:37 ET by bigtimerboa...
Really as a friend for a lomg time....
What exactly does ...'Just Sayin' ..//mean?
I'm saying that one could
August 21, 2007 - 21:40 ET by balboaI'm saying that one could look at atheism as a form of self-reliance.
Self reliance towards what
August 21, 2007 - 21:48 ET by bigtimerSelf reliance towards what boa?
Exactly?
Self-reliance in terms of
August 21, 2007 - 22:42 ET by balboaSelf-reliance in terms of moral guidance, ethics.
morals don't come from self.
August 21, 2007 - 22:49 ET by botgmorals don't come from self. morals are imposed on self. do you have kids? if so were they ever two year olds?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Well, not FROM the self,
August 21, 2007 - 22:56 ET by balboaWell, not FROM the self, but an atheist can determine what moral code he will adhere to without religion.
Bal I agree with you - not
August 21, 2007 - 22:59 ET by TruthMongerBal I agree with you - not sure what all the fuss is about here - atheism and agnosticism are about self-reliance...
I don't know. I guess it
August 21, 2007 - 23:05 ET by balboaI don't know. I guess it sounds like I'm assigning a positive trait to atheists, and that's a no-no?
maybe, but quite often it
August 21, 2007 - 23:09 ET by TruthMongermaybe, but quite often it seems people here get knee-jerk contrary just for the sake of it:)
Hardly a day goes by that
August 21, 2007 - 23:13 ET by balboaHardly a day goes by that I'm not accused of that. :-)
well, you are a non-neo-con
August 21, 2007 - 23:19 ET by TruthMongerwell, you are a non-neo-con behind enemy lines:)
oops a new moniker is born:(
FROM where then Bal?
August 21, 2007 - 23:05 ET by botg???
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
From life experience? From
August 21, 2007 - 23:11 ET by balboaFrom life experience? From watching the actions of others and determining if those actions are something they agree with or not? From books? From friends? From Bazooka Joe comics?
from, from, from
August 21, 2007 - 23:17 ET by botgjust pushes it back a notch -- where's the grounding? do you notice the US getting more self-indulgent? can this last?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
I notice more
August 21, 2007 - 23:24 ET by balboaI notice more self-indulgence, but then there are plenty of religious people who are self-indulgent. Wildly successful people who are avid church-goers.
ah Bal
August 21, 2007 - 23:33 ET by botgeven i at times am the hypocrite. does that mean the moral code is wrong or the person is wrong?
but back to the grounding question: each of your examples of where one might get their morals had to get their's somewhere else (even the writer of Bazooka Joe) that's why i said it just pushed it back a notch. So, notch, notch, - - - -notch where does it start (ground)?
Also, once you get to being able to make up your own morals how do you tell some else that rape is wrong? or beastiality? or slavery?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Sure, most of man's morals
August 21, 2007 - 23:41 ET by balboaSure, most of man's morals eventually come from religion, but an atheist, I assume, would rather determine for themselves what a "good life" is instead of having it told to him from something he doesn't believe in.
Society determines whether your morals fit with the population at large.
It's the old country buffet
August 21, 2007 - 23:44 ET by TruthMongerIt's the old country buffet approach - you maybe try a little Christianity, maybe also have some Judaism, a cup of Hindu, a glass of Bhudda, mix and match - create your own platter:)
That's also "No. 7 w/ snow
August 21, 2007 - 23:46 ET by balboaThat's also "No. 7 w/ snow peas" I believe.
society determines
August 21, 2007 - 23:47 ET by botghere we go again, same ride different name.
have a goodnight balboa
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
An objective evaluation of
August 21, 2007 - 23:44 ET by KhyrisAn objective evaluation of the behavior.
Does behavior X affect someone else?
If yes, would I dislike being affected in the same way.
If yes, then it is not a behavior to engage in, as engaging in it will raise the rate of its occurance.
Common occurances are generally accepted.
If the behavior is generally accepted, then that will raise the odds of it happening to me.
Therefore not engaging in "immoral" behavior can merely be an exercise in physical self-preservation, regardless of whether it is an act of spiritual self-preservation or not.
Does behavior X affect
August 21, 2007 - 23:53 ET by botgDoes behavior X affect someone else?
what objective basis do you have for qualifying this as a moral absolute? why not 'every man for himself' or 'might makes right' these could be argued to be equally objective as yours.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
It's not a moral
August 22, 2007 - 00:01 ET by KhyrisIt's not a moral "absolute." That's the point. It's a logical conclusion. It may not lead to the same moral set as most religions (masturbation being morally wrong for example) but is sufficient to lead to a peaceful and prosperous cohabitation.
Examine your "every man for himself" and "might makes right" concepts using the process I just outlined.
If you take advantage of others, you make taking advantage of others a common practice, thereby making it likely that you will be taken advantage of.
It also applies to positive behaviors like charity.
Most know this as the "Golden Rule"... you just don't HAVE to get it from religion. You can get it just by watching cause and effect between individuals, groups, societies, nations... Analyzing visible data is called... science? Good morality is scientifically sound.
khris
August 22, 2007 - 00:05 ET by botgwhat logical conclusion? it's an assumed premise. you want a safe society?
1 Pax Romana
2 Communist China
3 Stalinist Russia
4 Jonestown
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
It's a logical conclusion
August 22, 2007 - 00:22 ET by KhyrisIt's a logical conclusion that to preserve one's self, one should not engage in behaviors that would damage one's ability to be preserved.
I don't see why this is a difficult concept.
One effectively builds the world they wish to see by setting precedent.
You cite examples of societies where the constituents did NOT abide by the methodology I described. They assumed morality would be provided by the society, rather than taking a concious self evaluation of each behavior as I have described again. I'm glad you merely reinforce my point: morality can come from self, and is most effective when it does.
bal, maybe it's time for you
August 21, 2007 - 23:17 ET by TruthMongerbal, maybe it's time for you to try a more scientific method on some of these issues:)?
MikeB
August 21, 2007 - 21:35 ET by mandrakeDo you have a link to the paper in which Robert Jastrow calculated these odds? I would like to do a 'peer' review.
Mandrake, check your
August 21, 2007 - 22:04 ET by MikeBMandrake, check your PM.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
ditto.. I think? dang these
August 21, 2007 - 22:29 ET by mandrakeditto.. I think? dang these computers...I never can figure them out :)
That's not really
August 21, 2007 - 22:37 ET by KhyrisThat's not really a meaningful analysis of the statistic. Looked at another way, others would say your numbers DISPROVE the existence of a God.
Stated differently one could claim that if there existed 1x10^40 celestial bodies (which there are significantly more than that) it would nearly GUARANTEE life would exist in the universe. And again, that's merely life as we know it. Who are we to declare as fact that "life" is only "life" if it is in the form that we know it?
To other posts... I strongly object to the notion that atheism is some "moral vacuum." If you've never been an atheist, how can you claim to know what morals you would or would not have? Not having a book to look at which supposedly defines everyone (and laughably so) of the creed in question makes it rather difficult to take such generalized statements seriously without a shred of evidence.
It might not have occured to you that morality is the logical result of evaluating long-term costs and benefits to personal happiness and survival of the species. This conclusion is wholey reachable without some threat of supernatural fire and brimstone. Religion does NOT manufacture morality, but it does provide a convenient delivery mechanism to those who would be so base, obtuse, and short-sighted as to reject morality without some threat of reprisal.
In that regard, you may find many atheists to be MORE moral than some of the religious who are good merely because of some fear of eternal torment.
I for one am glad that religion as a happy by-product keeps those sheeple in line who would otherwise be jerks (or worse), in addition to its more noble primary functions such as promoting altruism and providing senses of worth and meaning to life for those who need it.
That said, atheists who find the mere existence of religion offensive to their senses are just as illogical as terrorist zealots who take offense at the existence of other major religions beyond their own. Those whiney babies that feel they should be entitled to life in a bubble free from exposure to different ways of life need to grow up.
I have no problem sharing the planet with the religious, so long as they're not crashing my flight into a building because I'm not "one of them". I feel my morality has guided me to success in dealings with others, and I have yet to receive any complaints of wicked "moral vacuum" to the contrary.
But back to the question really at hand:
Conservation is a great policy... today's environmental policy makers are practicing anything but. Just ask the founder of Greenpeace why he left his organization. Ask Latin America how much corn tortillas cost these days (Ethanol was mentioned before). Lowering TOTAL energy usage at any cost is NOT a wise thing to pursue. Making energy use more efficient AND cost effective IS. Civilization, just like any ordered system, uses energy to be maintained or expanded. The bottom line is, if you make energy usage more efficient, you dont' have to FORCE people to adopt it, as it will be in their best interest. Just look at the energy efficient microchips being built into newer servers; large corporations can realize cost savings on their electricity bills. No one is twisting their arm with regulations to adopt energy efficient systems at some exhorbitant price that will threaten profitability and harm economic development. This is the free market at work, encouraging innovation.
When a hybrid costs the same as a non-hybrid at sticker, and provides the same power and features, it will be in my interest to adopt. But regulating that a certain percentage of all vehicles sold must be hybrids is silly... and yes that's an actual law now. By removing choice, you damage the free market system. Somehow car sales must meet this quota, even by becoming un-profitable on their sales, or face stiffer penalties. And then we wonder why Daimler decided to ditch Chrysler?
khyris
August 21, 2007 - 22:53 ET by botgthere are 10 to the 22 stars if each has 10 planets thats 10 to the 23.
most are in those portions of galaxies where radiation would make life impossible
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH
August 21, 2007 - 23:11 ET by Khyrishttp://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/
7x10^23 is merely the number of stars visible with current telescope technology. Interested to see where you pulled your # from.
Any extension of distance creates a new sphere of visibility with an enormouse order of magnitude.
It's not unreasonable for there to possibly be 1x10^40 celestial bodies, and again your statement about radiation is making the assumption that life would only exist as we know it (which was the premise of the 1/1E40 number to begin with).
But the point remains just the same... no amount of math will ever prove or disprove the existence of a God... or that a room full of monkeys with typewriters will or will not ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare in an eternity. The NYT is as close as we get to proving a bunch of underdeveloped simians write amusing fiction.
Sorry, Khrys, but you are
August 21, 2007 - 23:03 ET by MikeBSorry, Khrys, but you are off on your numbers by a long way. 10^40000 is a number larger than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. Here is one site that gives the estimate.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
thanks mike
August 21, 2007 - 23:12 ET by botgone huge a$$ed number indeed. (and that's only 80)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
I admit that I misread
August 21, 2007 - 23:24 ET by KhyrisI admit that I misread 1E40000 as 1E40, but even so, consider that using the snapshot of celestial bodies as a guage is flawed in that it is only 3 dimensional. As time passes, as infinitely as the universe, I think you will easily arrive at 1E40000 combinations of places vs times, or "situations" where life could begin. Multiplied by the 1E-40000 probability of life beginning in a situation, that's 1.
All I'm saying is that others will read it differently. If the universe is infinite "enough" and time is infinite "enough" then your statistic will become "1."
Again, a probability is NEVER a proof, one way nor the other.
Khrys, review your post and
August 22, 2007 - 19:31 ET by MikeBKhrys, review your post and your probabilities. The probability of life existing in this universe is already 1. We are here, we are alive, therefore the probability of life existing is 1. The probabilities of the different ways life started must add up to 1. Again I assert that it is a binary solution set: either life started purely by chance, or life started by intent (God). The probability of life starting by chance has been calculated as one in ten to the forty thousandth power (which is thirty nine thousand, nine hundred fifty orders of magnitude beyond mathematical impossibility). Therefore, the probability of life begining by intent is one minus one in ten to the forty thousandth power (expressed in decimal form as a zero,decimal, and 40000 nines). This probability would be true anywhere in the universe. Just as "dice have no memory", neither would the different atoms throughout the universe. If you flip a coin, the probability of it coming up heads is one in two, no matter if you are standing on earth, or on a planet that is in another galaxy. The coins have no memory. For both coins to come up heads, the probabilites are one in four (one chance in two for both coins). So, if the probability of life occurring by chance on earth is one in ten to the forty thousandth power, and the probability of life occurring by chance in another part of the universe is one in ten to the forty thousandth power, the probabilty of life occurring by chance in both places is much less than one in ten to the forty thousandth power, as the two occurrences would be independent of one another.
Additionally, neither time nor the universe is infinite. The universe began around 14 billion years ago (estimate), and with the recent photographic evidence of dark matter, it has been proved that the universe is also finite. The probability calculations still stand unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Flat out wrong. A coin
August 23, 2007 - 14:35 ET by KhyrisFlat out wrong. A coin sitting on the sidewalk head-side up does not have the probability of coming up heads equal to 1 if you flip it. You misrepresent how statistics work and what they mean.
The assertion of a Binary Solution set is unimaginitive. Consider the possibility of time travel and life going back to create itself. Consider the possibility that time loops upon itself. Consider all the myriad physical laws we have yet to understand (why does gravity work?) and then say there are only 2 possible reasons? Before you scoff at merely 2 more possibilities, consider that they are no less unreasonable than an "all powerful consciousness that controls everything." Heck, consider the possibility of a coin landing on edge.
I have a B.S. in Applied Mathematics, and you are badly misrepresenting the application of statistics. Yes, coin flips and dice have no memory and are independent events, but the probability of having "at least one" positive event DOES increase as you increase the COUNT of events. You just asserted that the if I flip a coin 10 times in 10 different places, the odds of it coming up heads would be exactly the same as if I flipped it once. That is flatly FALSE.
The probability of "at least one event" is 1 minus the probability of 0 TOTAL events. Of a single coin flip, it is 1 - .5, or .5
But of ten flips, the odds of getting heads is 1 - (.5^10) = .999 or 99.9% NOT .5 as you just claimed.
This is called the Archimedean principle, and it is the same reason how the probability for life was the 1E-40000 number you gave (if that's even correct) as opposed to just being .5 probability of the "binary set" of life exists or life doesn't exist. Count affects probability... because the coin having a COUNT of 2 sides is the REASON it's event probability .5 If a coin had 3 sides, its event probability would be .333 not .5..... NOT "the side you want" vs "not the side you want."
Assuming binary solution sets is a faulty premise. If you over simplify the model, you can make the numbers say anything... but that's not mathematics, and that's not a proof. The entire POINT here is that Math CAN NOT prove or disprove a God, UNLESS you assert that God is mathematically quantifiable, and even THEN not through statistics. If you have the equation for how God works in your back pocket, let us know. Infinity is a representation of a concept, not a mathematical quantification.
The rest of your post is just silly... How can you assert you know that time and the universe is finite when we have no idea that we even understand the NATURE of time. There may be theories, but there are no proofs. Your timeline is of course referring to the rate of expansion of nearby bodies by calculating doppler redshift in light spectrum.... which is a nice guess, but doesn't even account for the possibility that the "center" or "origin" of such expansion might not be a static point. Nor does it account for the possibility that the visible universe may merely be a localized concentration of matter, much as a rain droplet is a cohesion of water particles from a cloud. Nor does it account for the possibility that the universe has expanded and contracted before, or may do so again. NOR does it necessarily describe the nature or "limit" of space itself, merely the movement of matter within space. Dark matter, of course, is some invisible and undetectable theoretical substance (much like God) that might create a gravitational field to account for the deceleration of expansion beyond that of what visible mass could account for. I've seen the photographic evidence (which is evidence of symptoms, not DM itself), and while supportive of the DM theory, it's hardly conclusive, any more than a runny nose is conclusive of pneumonia.
If you look at it philosophically:
If science could prove God, faith would have no value. If God is omnipotent, he can decide whether science may prove him or not.
Ergo, if God intends faith to have value, he would not allow science to prove him.
So, if you claim science proves God, then your faith in him is worthless. If you value your faith, pray you haven't proved him.
Don't worry, the good news is that you haven't proved him, not even close, even less than you've proven this absurd 1E-40000 number, or dark matter, or finite time and space. Even with the premise of the 1E-40000 number, look here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2283
Is it 1E-40000, or is it .95 x .333 = 31.3%??? Why is your source any more or less knowledgeable of the existence of God than this one? Or any other human on the planet?
The best news is that you haven't disproved God either.
Khrys, either you have no
August 23, 2007 - 15:10 ET by MikeBKhrys, either you have no knowlege of probabilities, a very bad reading comprehension problem, or are being disenguous. A coin sitting heads up on a side walk has a probability of one of being heads...it's already there. Now, if you pick it up and flip it, it has a one in two chance of coming up heads (assuming a fair coin), a one in four chance of coming up heads twice in a row, a one in eight chance of coming up heads 3 times in a row, etc.
The probability of life existing in the universe is one. It's here, we are alive, we exist, the probability is one. How life came to be is a binary solution set, the probabilities of each possibility of how it came to be must add up to one. Go back and read my comments, and then get some knowlege of probabilities.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Thank you for not actually
August 23, 2007 - 20:14 ET by KhyrisThank you for not actually replying to any of the math I presented, we'll see who needs to "get some knowledge of probabilities." How about option D, YOU have have very poor reading comprehension of what YOU wrote:
"So, if the probability of life occurring by chance on earth is one in ten to the forty thousandth power, and the probability of life occurring by chance in another part of the universe is one in ten to the forty thousandth power, the probabilty of life occurring by chance in both places is much less than one in ten to the forty thousandth power, as the two occurrences would be independent of one another."
But the RELEVENT fact you would gain from a PROPER application of statistics is that :
"the probabilty of life occurring by chance in at LEAST one of two places is much HIGHER than one in ten to the forty thousandth power, as the two occurrences would be independent of one another." Because life does not NEED to spontaneously develop in TWO (or more) places to satisfy YOUR premise that it might occur by chance AT ALL.
Here's another quote from you:
"if you pick it up and flip it, it has a one in two chance of coming up heads (assuming a fair coin), a one in four chance of coming up heads twice in a row, a one in eight chance of coming up heads 3 times in a row, etc."
Again, I have no problem with your 5th grade arithmetic, but your knowledge of statistical relevency is pathetic: Why do you assert the coin has to come back heads ALL 3 TIMES for "heads" to spontaneously appear in the universe? ever? It's wrong!
Let me fix your quote for you:
"if you pick it up and flip it, it has a one in two chance of coming up heads (assuming a fair coin), a THREE in four chance of coming up heads at least once in two flips, a SEVEN in eight chance of coming up heads once in three flips, etc.
The chances of "at least once" will increase with every flip.
Big surprise, picking up that ridiculous 1E40000 sided coin (which is already heads, as life exists here) and flipping it somewhere else in the universe is relevant, because it has, does, and will continue flipping all the time, everywhere.
Your argument, that God exists because life began ANYwhere is faulty. God would be likely to exist only if life began EVERYwhere AND the probability was the same 1E-40000 as only then would the lower probability of MULTIPLE successes (which you did present correctly) be relevent. Except, if it began everywhere, then it wouldn't be unlikely, and the "probability of life spontaneously beginning" would have originally been determined to be close to 1, not 1E-40000.
Do you see why your logic is circular yet?
Probabilities of complicated models are built from results of experimentation and observation, they are not usually pre-conceived and then the results expected to follow. Something so simple as a coinflip is an exception to that rule.
You can't use a pre-conditioned state to determine a probability. So you can't use the coin's state as heads to extrapolate that the next flip will end up heads. THAT's what I said. I never wrote "a coin that is heads only has a .5 chance of being heads" as you obviously mis-comprehended.
Bottom line... if you flip that coin enough times, no matter how many sides it has, it becomes MORE likely that it will come up heads at LEAST once. Every place, at each point in time, is an independent flip. That's a LOT of flips... more than 1E40000.
The obsession with a "binary solution set" is unproductive and unimaginative when dealing with something as incomprehensible as the universe. What if the universe tends towards life? Why can't that be a third option? Much like how gravity always tends towards the attraction of all mass ... yet you can't perceive the attraction of our nearest star (Proxima Centauri) to yourself. Maybe if you had some advanced equipment 100 years down the line, but in the meantime, we can only estimate through math what that affect should be. What if you just can't perceive the universe's slow but present hypothetical natural tendency towards life?
Ever consider the possibility that your solution set may include coin-faces you haven't perceived? Obviously you hadn't perceived option D above, yet D is what clearly satisfies occam's razor.
Despite your absurd 1E-40000 number, despite your fascination with binary sets, despite your circular logic, despite your lack of writing comprehension (let alone reading), despite your ignorance of Archimedean sets, despite your flawed application of independent events, despite not addressing ANY of the mathematical figures I posted, are you still willing to cling to the assertion that God is proven fait accompli? In an indirect way, you've only addressed the philosophical portion of my last post... blind faith obviously IS important to you.
The good news is that's the most convincing reason you've posted for God to exist. At least for you anyway: Cogito Ergo Sum ... "If you think it, then it is so." It's an alternative interpretation of "I think therefore I am."
Math will NEVER prove nor disprove the spiritual. That's why it's called spiritual... meaning "not of the physical world." I'm sorry that's difficult for you to accept.
I'm still waiting to see the rationalization behind this magical 1E40000 number... I showed you mine.
Khyris
August 23, 2007 - 20:32 ET by botgYou make many claims to possibilties for origins (one drop of many, time curling on itself, life going back in time and seeding itself) there is no need to go into them without you first providing some reason for taking them seriously. They are on a par with me saying that since no one has ever seen Einsteins brain.......(he was an alien, he was a robot, he was pick something) Points is just because there is possibility does not mean an intelligent person has to take a claim seriously. Like when your five year old says the cat ate the cookies (you don't really think well it is possible the cat opened the cookie jar ate some and put the top back on.........do you?)
Your denial of big bang cosmology (which has an amazing record of scientific verification) would need some basis of substance before you call someone silly for claiming time has a beginning
Now to some of your philosophy:
If science could prove God, faith would have no value
Same logic: if science could prove your spouse exists love would have no value. Your first premise is faulty the argument fails.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
I have not once "denied"
August 23, 2007 - 20:59 ET by KhyrisI have not once "denied" big bang cosmology.
I deny that mediocre mis-applications of statistics "prove" life was created by God.
Nothing more and nothing less.
But do tell, why are these possibilities to expand the solution set not worth considering? Even one of them? One drop of many perhaps... If I've seen one universe, why can there not be more?
"The ground in front of me is flat, surely the entire world around me must be flat as well! There is no other explanation!" Perception is reality.
Your comparison is not on par...I'm the one claiming that because we've seen OTHER people's brains, Einstein STATISTICALLY, probably had a brain too.
Because other possibilities improve as you increase the set towards infinity, then STATISTICALLY, the probability of life occuring by chance increases as well as you increase the set (universe) towards infinity.