Officer1473

Oh hey, War! I can support this.

It's logic like that which allows many to come to the conclusion that those who claim that they were taken by UFOs are correct because there are so many who claimed it. Even if 500 was an accurate number, there's no evidence that who they saw was actually Jesus, or someone who looked like Jesus. Edit: in response to the post below me, it's weird how often people have changes of heart when their words could conceivably not be their own... For instance, a friend of mine said he was stronger than me, until he died. Now he tells me that I'm stronger and much more handsome. There is nothing he has written and no evidence which can be used to dispute his change of heart (aside from my giving the secret away). Also, he never existed. Funny, that.

Yeah, parents indeed play a part. In fact, if there's any banning of happy meals to be done, it should be by parents. So close, and yet, so far...

Well, I just heard about San Francisco attempting to ban happy meals. If there is any wonder why, we'll have to look at a concept that should be quite familiar to the onling world. The random drop. While training animals (of which people are a part), there must be a goal to be obtained. There must also be an incentive to reach that goal. Usually, it's a clicker, followed immediately by food. The animals associate the noise of the clicker with receiving food. This is called a conditioned stimulus. The whole point of conditioning the stimulus is for the animal to continue doing what you have trained them to do, even without the reward. In essence, McDonald's is setting up a conditioned stimulus within children. They are rewarded with a toy when they eat McDonald's, thus associating toys with eating McDonald's food. Ever notice how, when there is a group of toys that come with the happy meal, the one you wanted is the one you would least likely to receive? This should be a familiar concept to video gamers, and MMORPGs in specific. Random drops are less random with McDonald's, as evidenced with their Monopoly distribution. If you give little rewards, the customer will more likely come back for bigger rewards. How many monsters would you slay if you thought you had the chance of getting a great reward? For some, as many as it takes. If the odds were weighted (which they are), you would have to wait quite a long time (though not too long, or else the conditioned stimulus effect would go away). How many large fries would you buy if you thought you had a chance of winning a large screen TV? How many happy meals would you buy if you really wanted that one toy? All while associating the food you're eating with nice rewards. While I disagree with banning the happy meal, I do see McDonald's as training young children to become loyal customers. Heck, it even works on Adults, too. And that's a tad scary.

Ruler Name: Officer1473 Nation Link: [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=215185"]Link[/url] Resource 1: Rubber Resource 2: Wheat Circle Interested in: B2

In a study published last week, it was verified that there was millions of barrels remaining in the ocean. It indicated that there was little signs of reduction in oxygen concentration, which would indicate that microbes that feed on the oil were not present. Put another way, the 22-mile long oil plume was going to remain in the ocean for the time being... However, we can safely disregard that study, as another study released 4 days ago conclusively finds that not only is there evidence of microbes in the area, but they were working at degrading the oil faster than expected. The time frame for both studies shows that they were researching during the same time frame. Wait... what's this? "The research was supported by an existing grant with the Energy Biosciences Institute, a partnership led by the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP." The Huffington Post found that? Well, at least we can send independent scientific teams to investi... OH COME ON! "My students and I couldn't discuss our data, results or experiences for three years or until the litigation against BP is settled. More importantly, we couldn't publish any of our results. I couldn't write this essay. The data could be tied up for years in litigation just like that of the scientists who participated in NRDA after the Exxon Valdez incident." In other words, there is someone preventing scientists from doing research on the Gulf oil spill without signing a confidentiality agreement that prevents them from communicating their findings with the public without permission from the government. Which means that the team of scientists that is being funded by BP and the U.S. Department of energy are able to broadcast their findings without worry that their findings will be contradicted within the next three years (pending BP's litigation). “A government assessment earlier this month calculated that about 75% of the oil had been skimmed, evaporated, safely burned or dispersed. Several independent research teams, however, have argued that much of the oil still contaminates Gulf waters.” I don't blame them...

Didn't STA only respond because of the "Attacktorate" on GGA? It's not that they were protecting GGA, they just didn't want the "attacktorate" to become the Status quo by raiding alliances. \m/ did something, STA responded by saying "don't do that". \m/ stopped doing it.

Wait... Park Place? Insert joke about Monopoly here. It has been said that any publicity is good publicity. In this case, I'd wholly disagree. By fighting against the "mosque" being built because it's near ground zero, those who follow radicalized versions of Islam have yet another reason to be upset with the western world. Turning the other cheek in this case would have been the perfect response.

"to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. " - Charles Darwin Wait... what? Darwin thought that evolution was absurd? Well, according to Answers in Genesis (and billions of other websites), that's all that he said. Wait, there's a whole other paragraph that follows it... Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. ...Which is why quote mining is awful. Yeah, it's not the only thing Darwin said that was taken out of context. Why would someone use Darwin's own words against his idea? Quote mining specifically uses the author's words to make a statement that they never intended. The use of their credibility is far more persuasive than if someone else said the same thing. Quote mining is a double edged sword. Without research, the out of context quote can be a valuable weapon by not only those who use it to support their contrary views, but it can also convince those who support the author that his views were actually incorrect. In fact, it was the other side that misjudged him. It's a gambit we see often in difficult to understand fields of science, like climatology and physics. In fact, it's a common gambit that is used in many scenarios. The other edge is that, with the internet, it is easier to find the original quote, and sometimes the context. Using a part of what someone said without context is akin to taking someone's voice away. So, yeah... quote mining sucks.

In a classic case of double confirmation bias, two groups are able to use a single incident to show how the other group is nothing but a bunch of liars. Those who use climategate to support their ideas of a conspiracy in Climatology found that many of the words used sounded bad. This despite the actual words having entirely different meanings than what laymen understand. Those who use climategate to show that the deniers are able to use misunderstood words were found to be factual. Let's look at the most popular quote... "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Egad, that sounds horrible... until you understand what was said in the proper context. Let's define what was said above. Mike's Nature trick: Referencing Michael Mann's study on using proxy temperature to numbers with modern temperatures. "Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked." Hide the decline: The decline references the divergence problem mentioned above. Tree-ring proxies begin diverging from the temperatures recorded by modern instruments. The way we get accurate numbers from this data is by using Mike's Nature trick. Now, we'll translate the email... "I corrected the divergence problem in our data by using separate proxy temperatures compared to those that were recorded by modern instruments." That actually sounds reasonable. In conclusion, please stop using "Climategate" to show something that it doesn't show.

"All science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things coincided directly." - Karl Marx (Thanks Vladimir) Sometimes, our worldview is challenged by a field in science. Science would be so much easier if it matched our preconceived notions of how the world works. However, as we have observed in our history, what we see is not always all that is to be seen. The easiest way to fix that problem is to just flat out ignore it. We humans are a superstitious bunch, and not without purpose. Our ability to learn from others, including those that were our ancestors, is but one way we have separated ourselves from our relatives. However, when what we have learned is challenged, we tend to deny the new information is valid. We prefer to cling to what we know. I read recently about a study that was conducted which provided two groups with information regarding homosexuality. One group received positive information which supported homosexual marriage, the other negative information. Each group had to use the information to develop their arguments for a debate. After the debate, the two groups were asked to find issues with each argument. Those who reported that they supported homosexual marriage outside of this study found faults in the argument that attacked it, and vice versa. However, they each missed similar faults in their own arguments. Cognitive Dissonance is powerful. Its brother, Confirmation Bias, is the topic of later discussion. So much of science challenges personal experiences and superstitions with objective observations that many prefer science to be incorrect. They may even give excuses, such as "they were wrong before", "they are wrong now", "it's only a theory", or "there is no definitive proof". This is not the fault of science, but of ourselves. This is not to say that we should all accept anything scientists say. Each and every study should be challenged. To do so is good for science. To flat out deny a study (or worse, a field) without understanding the concepts behind it is not only wrong, but not at all helpful. Especially when the only reason to do so is that it challenges how we see our world. Science grows and evolves because we are always learning new things. We must all grow with it, or be left behind with our heads in the ground.

Oh wait, that's not the purpose of the study? It's to once again test the power of prayers for healing. Deja vu. Wasn't there a similar study previously that failed? Oh, this one's different. It actually passed. Wait... what? "Western and Mozambican Iris and Global Awakening [two evangelical/missionary organizations that cooperated with the research] leaders and affiliates who administered PIP all used a similar protocol. They typically spent 1-15 minutes (sometimes an hour or more, circumstances permitting) administering PIP. They placed their hands on the recipient's head and some- times embraced the person in a hug, keeping their eyes open to observe results. In soft tones, they petitioned God to heal, invited the Holy Spirit's anointing, and commanded healing and the departure of any evil spirits in Jesus' name. Those who prayed then asked recipients whether they were healed ." Hmm... something seems fishy about this study... although it was peer-reviewed. Oh, I see where I bolded. It's entirely subjective. But what if they say they're not healed? "If recipients responded negatively or stated that the healing was partial, PIP was continued. If they answered in the affirmative, informal tests were conducted, such as asking recipients to repeat words or sounds (e.g. hand claps) intoned from behind or to count fingers from roughly 30 cm away. If recipients were unable or partially able to perform tasks, PIP was continued for as long as circumstances permitted." So if they said they were healed, they were retested compared to their results prior to the PIP. Okay, that's all fair and such, surely they tested against a control group that conducted the same test without magical healing. Didn't they? Err... no. No control group whatsoever. The study wasn't even single-blind or double-blind. This is the definition of bad science. As for the title to this post... Conducting similar studies under controlled clinical conditions in North America would be desirable, y et neither Iris nor Global Awakening claims comparable results in industrialized countries ( arguing that "anointing" and "faith" are lower where medical therapies are available )—see Supplemental Digital Content for our unsuccessful attempts to collect data in the US. That's pretty awful. Thanks, Templeton Foundation, for absolutely nothing of any use. Source

Ha, now that's Bad Science®! If the world was created 6,000 years ago, or 10 seconds ago, it would make no difference. The evidence suggests that the fossils were there prior to that. So there is no difference between believing the Earth was created "with age" and the Earth being as old as the evidence shows. Though, it does take mental gymnastics to come up with a reason why that would be the case.