Re: Opinions on Carvin basses?

Benj <bjacoby@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 18, 6:00 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Benj <bjac...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hey Rich I really don't want to highjack the Carvin thread like
alt.guitar.amps, but you are being reasonable so I'll keep it short.

Occam's razor.

Actually proves nothing. As Einstein said: Explanations should be as
simple as possible, but not simpler!

The burden of proof is on the creation science crowd to explain why
an additional, unobservable variable is needed to provide an
explanation.

Well, actually "creation science" is a step further than "intelligent
design" which is a step beyond "we don't know" which is a step WAY
beyond "evolution is fact"!

But "evolution is fact" is a straw man.
No self-respecting scientist is claiming that.
However, it is by far the most completely and exhaustively probed
hypotheses concerning the origin and changes in the earth's species. If
it were considered a done deal, there wouldn't be so many people working
to refine it, would there?

The problem is with the dumbing down that occurs in our educational
system, not with the underlying science.


And if you're really a scientist, you know that the fact that natural
selection theory is incomplete is insufficient *unless and until*
your introduction of that as-yet-extraneous variable is capable of
better explaining observed phenomena *and* of making more accurate
predictions.

Absolutely. If the current theory is insufficient, then clearly other
ideas are needed. How can other ideas be generated if no discussion is
allowed? THAT is the real issue here, not "who is "right".

Again, I haven't seen much actual evidence that "no discussion is
allowed".

It's entirely possible that life forms higher than man exist
somewhere in the physical universe. Point?

Point? Point is that if those lifeforms are engaged in "planet
forming" here, then that is an "explanation", right?

Where's the evidence? The Big Bang has plenty of supporting evidence.
Alien lifeforms forming planets and creating beings has none.

The argument has been made by evolutionists that even if this is true
then one still has to ask how the OTHER higher lifeforms evolved? By
"chance" could still be valid there too, no? Valid point, and would
depend on the data for THAT civilization, but if no discussion is
allowed, then what does it mean?

Sun goes around the Earth, right?

Now you're being silly. Technically, it's a matter of the reference
frame. "Earth goes around the Sun" is closer to being correct in an
inertial frame than "Sun goes around the Earth". Of course that
neglects the Sun's motion.

Actually I'm NOT being silly for a number of reasons. The first is
that the old scientific argument of the sun going around the earth had
EXTREME political overtones in the day as "evolution" does today.

But from where I sit, the political overtones surrounding the issue of
the Copernican universe and those surrounding evolution come from the
same side of the political fence: the right. Mainstream biological
science didn't get caught up in politics until the Biblical literalists
took a look in their book and said, "that can't be right. It conflicts
with this!" Hence, creation science and then, later (dressed up more
prettily), intelligent design, both of which, when stripped of the BS,
attempt to work backwards from the desired answer.

Hence the analogy. And Secondly, allow me to point out that we DO NOT
KNOW if the sun goes around the earth or not!!! To answer that
question in the absolute, one would have to know with absolute
certainty where the precise center of the universe is located!

We may not know the universe's center with absolute precision, but we
know pretty certainly that it's *not* located at either the Sun or the
Earth!

IF that
center is located on the planet earth then the statement is clearly
true. If it located elsewhere, it is not. But how many times have you
ever heard someone point out that the sun indeed MIGHT be going around
the earth? School kids are taught that the earth goes around the sun
as FACT when clearly is it not known to be a fact! I suspect that part
of that is a reaction to the politics of the older times still
reaching out to today! See how it works when politics gets involved?
This argument has NOTHING To do with the fact that astronomical
calculations are much easier if you use the sun as a center. {not that
they can't be done the other way!}

No, it has to do with which "center" comes closer to accurately
representing an inertial frame of reference. Both are approximations,
but using the Earth as the universe's center is a much worse one.

School kids are taught that the Sun is at the center of the *solar
system*, not of the universe! And if you considered the solar system as
an isolated system, that would be correct! (Granted, some teachers may
mess this up, but that's a function of our poor educational system, not
of politics in science.)

Simply poking holes in an admittedly incomplete theory does nothing
as far as validating any alternatives. But you knew that.

Yep. The issue is why is a incomplete theory being promoted as
absolute fact?

I disagree that it is.
You remarked that it's "just a theory". Well, so's electromagnetism!
Both are pretty sophisticated theories, and as a scientist you should
know that the expression "just a theory" belittles an awful lot of
scientific endeavors, even some non-controversial ones!

Nothing in science is "absolute fact".

Ah, now we get down to the crux of the matter. This has nothing to
do with science; it has to do with ideology. Interesting that you
should raise this issue, since the right has consistently, over the
past 20 or so years, attempted to turn scientific issues into
political ones, motivated not so much by their religious beliefs as
by their utter distaste for the left. As a prime example I give you
"global warming" as portrayed by the right as the brainchild of Al
Gore as opposed to the scientific version.

AMEN! However, Anthropogenic Global Warming if not a "brainchild" of
Algore, is certainly having him as one of it's most visible salesmen.
Note even the term "anthropogenic" (means man-caused) is used to beg
the question and win the argument even before discussions begin. I
hope you DO understand that the Algore version of AGW is NOT the
scientific one! [see below for more]

You're confusing the pitchman with the pitch. Gore's not a scientist,
but James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, is,
and his views represent mainstream scientific thought in this area.
Heck, even Bush is coming around. McCain is already there.

Would it surprise you if I told you that I know many conservatives
who are atheists? The entire atheist -> leftist association is a
straw man.

No, especially in the Science community. Still there is a grain of
truth the leftist-atheist connection in general. As well as a
connection between atheism and evolution theory as clearly pointed out
by one of the evolution scientists in the Stein movie.

Again, I'd say that just because a large percentage of atheists support
evolution does not mean that most people who support evolution are
atheists. The number of people who, in polls, support evolution is much
larger than the number who identify themselves as atheists.

And yours? To check out all the Michael Moore "documentaries". You
know they're objective, right? No one would make a documentary with
a slanted point of view, right? Go see them; you may come away from
it with a whole set of new "facts" that might not have dawned on you
otherwise.

A bit extreme example in that I do not believe Ben Stein dropped so
low as to fake footage and edit to make people say what he wanted so
he probably won't win an Oscar. But, the point is still clear. When
politics get involved in a scientific issue be it crime or biology or
climate change, facts tend to get bent to an agenda. This is where
science leaves and politics begins. The problem is when nobody speaks
up and says HEY! Dig?

But I'd argue (as above) that the political pressure comes from the
right! As is the case with global warming, evolutionists were doing
their thing long before politics got involved. (Granted, there was the
Scopes trial, but after that politics largely moved to the background
before the last 20 or 30 years.)

Next thing you know everybody is acting like a
talking head on TV blindly parroting everything Algore says as
absolute truth.

But none of them are scientists! The scientific community had largely
achieved a consensus on this before the politics got involved. I don't
get my science from Al Gore or from Bono for that matter!

Sorry people, it's lies. CO2 CANNOT cause enough of an
effect to cause global warming!

The bulk of the scientific community thinks otherwise.

Al's data is backward (probably on purpose).

It's not "his" data.

He says increased atmospheric CO2 causes the rise in sea
temperature. Actually it's the opposite: a rise in sea temperature
means it can't hold as much CO2 and releases it to the atmosphere.
(like warm soda pop) So now we must ask just WHO is in on the ground
floor of "carbon credit" trading? Plus ca change!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of
the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the
mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" via an enhanced
greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined
with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial
times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty
scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the
national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings
of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate
change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."

Does this mean that it's "fact"? Of course not. There's room for
scientific debate. The only place the politics does and should come in
is in deciding what should be done. Does it make sense to wait until
everyone agrees that it's "fact" before acting? I think that would be
foolish. You may think otherwise.

And yeah, A Carvin is a nice modern bass that is very well made and
one of the best features is the "custom" options you can order (if
new) to make it just the bass you love. Carvin electronics are some of
the most quiet out there too!

Yer Welcome! :-)

I'm holding out for a Ric 4003 that some rich kid's mama bought him, who
doesn't know what they're worth ;-)



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... If you assert that I am referring to science as a "new god" you are ... It was accepted because the evidence showed that the events ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... You should try reading articles from scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading