Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Using your own logic, you cannot take the word of the person giving the account. This is because he admitted to sabotaging. Therefore the person giving the account is lying in order to portray the Nazis in bad light and sabotage their movement.Are you talking about Wernher Von Braun? If you are, he claimed to be an honorary member of the SS and there is no substantial link between him and nazi war crimes other than that he witnessed them, was appalled by them, and was afraid to speak out about it.
Von Braun doesn't seem too appalled here by the atrocities of the concentration camps to me.
It was probably a stupid form of sabotage (because we in fact carried out much more elaborate forms of sabotage) by one of the deportees on night shift.
Oh so completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.I don't know what the music is. The video is 1929 science fiction movie from the silent movie era. This movie almost looks like a NASA launch.The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.What is that some sort of music video?
The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.What is that some sort of music video?
There is ample evidence of a flat earth. Use your eyes.What about the "globular" or "planar" pieces of evidence? Which model do those support?
The lack of evidence, in my experience, is on the spherical earth side. "The eye can't perceive the curvature because it's too gradual" sounds good and all, but isn't it easier to simply call it what it is? Flat.
Every locally observable piece of 'evidence' for a spherical earth could just as easily apply to a flat one. I simply prefer to call things as I see them.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the bitcoin algorithms serve any useful function, other than wasting CPU cycles?They actually mine coinye coins and send them to the developers.
All measurements are experiments. The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.
I've read all about the gravity space experiments. No controls were used what-so-ever. The data could have been controlled by repeating the experiment numerous times with different kinds of gravimeters, to see if the results changed over time or from device to device. Both land and space and land measurements could have been taken simultaneously to ensure a proper reading. Instruments used to test the strength of the earth's magnetic field could have been included in the system.
1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.
What are you talking about? We're talking about the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence argument is used to disprove the boogeyman in your example: "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."When you have searched the likely places for that evidence if it were to exist. We have already been over that.
So, is absence of evidence a perfectly fine rebuttal now?
in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...
The point is that Person 2 went and did the legwork to back up his claim. If Person 1 wants to refute that claim with another claim, Person 1 needs to do the legwork. Person 2 cannot just say, The bogeyman does not exist, prove me wrong as you seem to think you can by making negative claims without backing them up.Who said anything about a child's drawing? I said pictures. Or should I have been more exact for your pedantic self and said photographic pictures?. And note, person 2 collected the pictures. He supplied support for his claim.
Also, if Person 2 did refute a child's drawing and came to the conclusion, Person 1 would say that Person 2 did not sufficiently meet the burden of proof.
Posting a few photographs from the internet and explaining them as the result of over exposure or other photograph issues does not prove that the boogeyman does not exist.
The absence of evidence argument is used to disprove the boogeyman in your example: "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."
Who said anything about a child's drawing? I said pictures. Or should I have been more exact for your pedantic self and said photographic pictures?. And note, person 2 collected the pictures. He supplied support for his claim.No Tom, that's called "refuting evidence". Person 2 collected evidence and then showed why that evidence is not valid.I see.Person 2: Here are some reported pictures of the boogey man. This is why they are not genuine. All pictures that have been reported of the boogeyman have been looked at and determined to be either faked or a case of mistaken identity. Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman. Because these pictures are the most likely source of proof of the boogey man, I have concluded that the boogeyman does not exist.
Person 1: Does the boogeyman exist?
Person 2: No...
Person 1: Ha! You just claimed that the boogeyman doesn't exist! Now you have to prove it!
That's an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" argument.
Person 1 did not present any evidence. If Person 2 collects a child's drawing of the boogeyman from the internet and criticizes it, it is not a "refutation of evidence".
The absence of evidence argument is explicit: "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."
I see.Person 2: Here are some reported pictures of the boogey man. This is why they are not genuine. All pictures that have been reported of the boogeyman have been looked at and determined to be either faked or a case of mistaken identity. Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman. Because these pictures are the most likely source of proof of the boogey man, I have concluded that the boogeyman does not exist.
Person 1: Does the boogeyman exist?
Person 2: No...
Person 1: Ha! You just claimed that the boogeyman doesn't exist! Now you have to prove it!
3. People in love – In a situation where a mother would sacrifice her life to save her child, the mother is not necessarily being selfless. At this point I would like to introduce something I have labeled “The happiness threshold”. It could very well be called the suicide threshold, but I am an optimist. Any level of personal satisfaction above the threshold represents a desire to live and experience perception. Anything below the threshold represents a lack of desire to live; it is a desire to die. A mother who lets herself die to save her child is gambling that if she were to let her child die, she would dip below the happiness threshold and experience overall dissatisfaction. She is gambling that life would not be worth living. She is making a decision based on her own desires and satisfaction.
I have an exception.He also threw it in the trash bin because he wanted to keep his city clean.
I was in London waiting for someone a few weeks ago. A man placed his half eaten lunch into a street bin. A homeless guy came and fished it out and then ate it.
The homeless man benefitted and the guy putting his stuff in the bin helped him, without any benefit to himself.
The Op is basically just word games.
Normally I agree, however going from 8 to 8.1 is pretty similar to installing a service pack.Except UEFI doesn't prevent you from installing service packs.
Thork is right about modern atheists. You can claim that you aren't part of the movement all you want, but when you start quoting Dawkins and Hitchens and (a new favorite, it seems) Krauss in your support of the evils of religion, you are a new atheist like it or not. And most modern atheists get a hard-on at the mere mention of any one of those names.
But yes. Let's not make this thread about Thork. Back to the topic at hand.
I don't think it's as simple as the Matrix or Tron. I think our simulation runs far deeper than both of those. In both of those pieces, the laws of physics in the simulations were at least approximations of the laws of physics in the "real" world, and I believe that we have at best a very rudimentary set of rules that we interpret as the laws of physics.