If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
(Sigh) Once again, Ed doesn't read.... well, he probably did, but he likes to cherry pick people's statements in a vain attempt to make them look stupid. This is his technique, and why he should be ignored in the debate over AGW.
But astute readers will note that I said reincarnation is fact, but it's NOT proof of an afterlife, strictly speaking. Duh! Did you read that part, Mister Ed?
So how could reincarnation be fact and not be proof of an afterlife? When people are hyptonized into a past life, they do not recall any between time spent on the other side (these memories are deliberately purged, as Sylvia has explained in her writings). Thus one could theorize ( try and understand, Ed, I know that word gives you trouble ) that it isn't the soul that is being transferred from one living being into another, along with all it's memories, but it's the INFORMATION only.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Vlad Drkulec What have you got against unification?
One of the proofs shall come in due course. Eventually we all die and pass on. If you are right, there will be nothing. If Paul and Sylvia Brown are right it will be reincarnation. If I'm right based on my reading of the Bible it will be sleep for a while and then eternity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have nothing against unification I just don't believe there is any evidence of our whole universe being unified due too it's complicated and chaotic nature.
That is a good way of thinking of it, now if religions could stop discriminating, and getting in the way of science we could all get along.
then shut up about your beliefs, I have no interest in blind faith about the garbage of any religion.
Researchers who believe in the evidence for reincarnation have been unsuccessful in getting the scientific community to consider it a serious possibility. Until that happens I will have nothing to do with your so-called 'fact'.
Yeah maybe you should read my article a bit more clearly, that was just in the general information section, scroll down to the facts section to see why it can be ignored because of modern neuroscience ("It does prove that an NDE is not proof of an afterlife").
Ian Stevenson was one of the lead reincarnation researchers and has come to the conclusion that reincarnation is a fact...but,
Critics contend that no line of research has demonstrated the existence of reincarnation and that work seeking to show that reincarnation is scientifically proved has either been ignored or considered pseudoscientific.
His methodology was criticized for providing no conclusive evidence for the existence of past lives. In a book review criticizing one of Stevenson's books, the reviewer raised the concern that many of Stevenson's examples were gathered in cultures with pre-existing belief in reincarnation.
To his detractors, he was earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition(a.k.a pseudoscience).
Most of the scientific articles I've read on reincarnation claim it to be a pseudoscience nothing more. So I DO reject that reincarnation is a fact despite all your irrefutable evidence, scientists disagree so maybe you are overestimating your case quite a bit. Scientific evidence is certainly lacking when it comes to reincarnation. Reincarnation=pseudoscience and is therefore garbage...
No one can definitely prove or disprove the afterlife? Then shut up about it and we'll find out who's right when we die.
You keep saying "shut up" about beliefs that require faith, yet you are here telling everyone AGW is a fact when you ignore that it is a theory that requires faith. You couldn't even understand why I brought up the ball bearing. It's existence requires faith, even according to the most eminent particle physicists.
Sorry Adam, you are just another blowhard. Between Ed with his cherry picking of people's statements to try and make them look stupid, and you with your self-delusion that you are Spock and can be objective about any subject, and Beckwith with his weekly weather reports trying to convince us that they somehow indicate AGW is real, none of you can see past your own noses.
Ian Stevenson: he has addressed in interviews this "concern" that many of his examples were in cultures that had pre-existing belief in reincarnation. If a 3 year old child "remembers" names and events that happened long before the child was born in a location hundreds of miles away where the child has never been, and those names and events can be corraberated independantly, the culture's pre-existing beliefs have no bearing on the matter. And not just one child, but hundreds of them! And he does have examples from more modern, reincarnation-averse cultures as well. And he is not the only researcher, there are other proven instances. Keep digging, my child!
Maybe we should disregard all your "facts" on AGW because you have a pre-existing belief in AGW? Maybe you actually believed in it before you gathered any facts? Maybe the facts you gather are filtered, and those that disagree are discarded? How would you ever disprove any of this? Well, by presenting us with irrefutable factual proof of AGW, which not only I but many others have not yet seen despite all your links and quotes and statistics. Even Penn Jillette is not convinced!
You mention Stevenson's detractors, critics, even an anonymous book reviewer, as if these people and their OPINIONS somehow amount to evidence against reincarnation. Look deep into your soul, my child. AGW has many such detractors, critics, and book reviewers, and yes, even SCIENTISTS who do not agree with it. Therefore by your own methods and logic, AGW is not proven.
BUSTED!
Now YOU shut up about your AGW=pseudoscience. "I have no interest in blind faith" blah blah blah.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
You keep saying "shut up" about beliefs that require faith, yet you are here telling everyone AGW is a fact when you ignore that it is a theory that requires faith. You couldn't even understand why I brought up the ball bearing. It's existence requires faith, even according to the most eminent particle physicists.
Sorry Adam, you are just another blowhard. Between Ed with his cherry picking of people's statements to try and make them look stupid, and you with your self-delusion that you are Spock and can be objective about any subject, and Beckwith with his weekly weather reports trying to convince us that they somehow indicate AGW is real, none of you can see past your own noses.
Ian Stevenson: he has addressed in interviews this "concern" that many of his examples were in cultures that had pre-existing belief in reincarnation. If a 3 year old child "remembers" names and events that happened long before the child was born in a location hundreds of miles away where the child has never been, and those names and events can be corraberated independantly, the culture's pre-existing beliefs have no bearing on the matter. And not just one child, but hundreds of them! And he does have examples from more modern, reincarnation-averse cultures as well. And he is not the only researcher, there are other proven instances. Keep digging, my child!
Maybe we should disregard all your "facts" on AGW because you have a pre-existing belief in AGW? Maybe you actually believed in it before you gathered any facts? Maybe the facts you gather are filtered, and those that disagree are discarded? How would you ever disprove any of this? Well, by presenting us with irrefutable factual proof of AGW, which not only I but many others have not yet seen despite all your links and quotes and statistics. Even Penn Jillette is not convinced!
You mention Stevenson's detractors, critics, even an anonymous book reviewer, as if these people and their OPINIONS somehow amount to evidence against reincarnation. Look deep into your soul, my child. AGW has many such detractors, critics, and book reviewers, and yes, even SCIENTISTS who do not agree with it. Therefore by your own methods and logic, AGW is not proven.
BUSTED!
Now YOU shut up about your AGW=pseudoscience. "I have no interest in blind faith" blah blah blah.
Actually AGW is a fact recognized by the National Academy of Sciences. It is not erroneous at all to claim AGW is a fact. Given that all other hypotheses to date have been exhaustively ruled out, it has been demonstrated that man causes global warming.
“It is a fact that humans cause global warming.” The real question is how much, 100%-1% we do not know the exact amount, that is where the word theory would be applied(or maybe hypotheses).
Why don't you just leave? You are becoming just as annoying as your arch-nemesis Jean Hebert. You haven't really done any research on AGW at all, you are completely ignorant about the entirety of the subject, go read another Slyvia Browne book and continue to reject reality because of some psychic lunatic.
Paul Beckwith has given massive amounts of evidence in the past that you and other deniers continue to ignore and the more links we put up the more you ask to see the evidence, it is logically fallacious. Trying reading some of the links and maybe you'll realize why we are posting them in the first place.
97% of climatologists have gone through the evidence and come to the conclusion that global warming is real, man-made and a problem and Paul Beckwith has given some of their peer-reviewed articles in the past.
Penn Jillette is not convinced that is your winning argument, except when I say stuff about critics disagreeing with reincarnation as a fact you get all offended, wow, you are a complete hypocrite.
Now you are just being stupid, lets compare reincarnation to AGW
AGW
-recognized by the majority of the scientific community
-stated as a fact by the National Academy of Sciences
-exact % of man-made influence is a theory/hypotheses
Reincarnation
-NOT recognized by the scientific community
-stated as pseudoscience
-not even a hypotheses let alone a theory exists for reincarnation in the scientific community
They are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum, AGW doesn't take faith, it's not a religion, it is a fact!
While the critics of AGW are diminishing as more and more evidence piles up against them, the critics of reincarnation are not going away,if the scientific community rejects reincarnation then it is really a pointless subject until you obtain more of your 'irrefutable' evidence.
The conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences on the topic of climate change couldn't be more clear,
"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems".
Again you are completely ignorant about climate change and I suggest you try to educate yourself instead of looking like a complete idiot.
Ed, I'm going to respond to your stuff about theory before I get to your points about CO2. Read all the way through, because although I'm not too nice to you because of your ill-chosen methods, I do admit at the end that you presented me with some new food for thought:
And now we see that Paul hasn't the faintest idea of what a scientific theory is. Actually dark matter is not yet a theory because a theory requires us to know what the dark matter is. And we don't, so we can't produce a theory about it. Now the existance of Dark matter is pretty much a proven fact, but what exactly it is still eludes us... blah blah blah...
From Wikipedia:
As important as dark matter is believed to be in the universe, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws, and quantum gravitational laws.
So Ed's semantic balderdash notwithstanding, Dark Matter is a scientific theory, and there are at least a few competing theories. Therefore the existence of Dark Matter is definitely not "pretty much a proven fact".
Don't want to believe Wikipedia? How about NASA, writing about Dark Energy (another theory):
Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.
Oh, my, Ed has egg all over his face. Go back to studying chess opening theory, Ed. :D
Then Paul, as usual, is ignoring the evidence. The rational among us might like to have a look at this web page, which explains why we are sure that the current global warming is caused by human activity.
Well, I see a few logical flaws right off the bat. This site tries to list 10 Indicators of human fingerprint on AGW. The problem is, only the first Indicator (30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year) is a human indicator, the rest are all observations that could be based on the 30 billion tonnes or it could be based on something else. I've seen posts on this main thread that claim water vapor has a much larger effect (the nine other indicators) than CO2, and nobody that I've seen on this thread has been able to refute that. But just based on this site trying to convince me there are 10 human indicators and then show me only 1, I put this site in disrepute.
It is easy for scientists analyzing atmosperic carbon dioxide to discern it's origin. The main sources of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in the past few million years has been traced to volcanic action. However the recent rise in carbon dioxide is sourced from organic compounds. We know this because of the relative abundances of various isotopes of carbon, and it is not in doubt. And the only way organically sourced carbon can get into our atmosphere is through burning organic compounds. Oil, coal, natural gas are all fossil fuels and there is no doubt that this is the main source of organically sourced carbon in our atmosphere. It could only come from burning fossil fuels or burning living organisms, such as trees for example. We know very well how much CO2 has come from burning living organism and how much from burning fossil fuels, because we have records. It's mostly from fossil fuels.
Well, Ed, you surprised me here, this is the first I've read on this entire huge thread about isotopes of carbon and scientists being able to distinguish CO2 sourced from fossil fuel burning versus CO2 sourced from volcanic or other sources. This could lead somewhere. Why hasn't this been mentioned before? I'm pretty sure it hasn't, not even by Beckwith, but if I've missed it and it was obvious (not buried in some web link), then my bad. But anyways, this is much better than your efforts to try and make people look stupid.
Now what you need to do as a follow-up is to provide more info on this, with some actual amounts of CO2, not just absolute amounts, but relative amounts. 30 billion tonnes sounds huge, but in relative terms, i.e. compared to Earth's volcanic past, is it really?
You see, Ed, I can be reasonable. If you are on to something here that can prove the "A" part of AGW, and show beyond reasonable doubt that it is real, that could convince me.
Stop with the semantics of the word "theory" and the cherry-picking of people's posts to make them look stupid, and the other insults. It's too easy to just assume people are "ignoring" the evidence, maybe they just haven't SEEN all the evidence. Since you seem compelled to prove AGW (unlike me with reincarnation, I'm not compelled to prove it so I tell people to do their own research), you should provide more of this type of evidence. I'm pretty sure isotopes of carbon hasn't been mentioned on this main thread before, but it's a big thread, I could easily have missed it.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
But astute readers will note that I said reincarnation is fact, but it's NOT proof of an afterlife, strictly speaking. Duh! Did you read that part, Mister Ed?
Nobody with any rationality could believe that statement. It is plainly and obviously self contradictory.
Look, if I am reincarnated that means I will have a life after I die, that is, an afterlife. Proof of reincarnation would of necessity be proof of an afterlife. What is the Christian afterlife if not a reincarnation into an imaginary heaven?
So how could reincarnation be fact and not be proof of an afterlife? When people are hyptonized into a past life, they do not recall any between time spent on the other side (these memories are deliberately purged, as Sylvia has explained in her writings). Thus one could theorize ( try and understand, Ed, I know that word gives you trouble ) that it isn't the soul that is being transferred from one living being into another, along with all it's memories, but it's the INFORMATION only.
This is just babble. What is this supposed "other side"? It is just a figment of the imagination for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Reincarnation without memory of a past life isn't reincarnation. It is just a meaningless concept. But even so, if it's the same "person" in incarnation 1 as in incarnation 2, then that is an afterlife, by definition.
Paul is all mixed up between the Hindu concept of reincarnation and the Buddhist concept because he is ignorant of both religions and is bespelled by the ravings of a fraud artist.
Now actually there is no scientific evidence for a "person" separate from the body and mind, so there is actually no one to have either an afterlife or another "incarnation".
Now as I recall this was a thread about climate change, so I would respectfully ask Paul to get back on topic.
No, I won't do that. You are a loony and you aren't my boss either. I would tell you what to do with that idea but I won't because it would involve some bad language beginning with the word "go".
Well, Ed, you surprised me here, this is the first I've read on this entire huge thread about isotopes of carbon and scientists being able to distinguish CO2 sourced from fossil fuel burning versus CO2 sourced from volcanic or other sources.
Whereas I already knew about it when I was in my teens, because I learned some science.
This could lead somewhere. Why hasn't this been mentioned before?
Such information is freely available on the web and in your nearest public library. I didn't make Paul a scientific ignoramous, he did that himself. I have provided plenty of links to such information in the past on this thread, but Paul hasn't followed them, and now he is trying to blame me for his own ignorance.
Go get yourself some scientific literacy guy, and come back when you actually know something about it.
All you are doing here is repeatedly exposing yourself as a man entirely ignorant of science and religion as well as being unable to construct a rational argument.
Such information is freely available on the web and in your nearest public library. I didn't make Paul a scientific ignoramous, he did that himself. I have provided plenty of links to such information in the past on this thread, but Paul hasn't followed them, and now he is trying to blame me for his own ignorance.
Go get yourself some scientific literacy guy, and come back when you actually know something about it.
All you are doing here is repeatedly exposing yourself as a man entirely ignorant of science and religion as well as being unable to construct a rational argument.
Awww, Ed, you're just PO'd because I made you look such a fool with your BS about scientific theory and dark matter being "pretty much a fact" LOL. Egg on your face, you lash out with anger. Oh well, some people never grow up....
Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for your detailed info on isotopes of carbon and on how 30 billion tonnes of CO2 from human sources relates to past volcanic eras of global warming.
Of course, you could continue calling anyone and everyone who doesn't have this info "scientific ignoramous", and not provide any sources to it, but then guess what, no one is going to believe you. Duh!
Readers should notice that Ed, Adam, and Paul Beckwith are together stressing that everyone should have this kind of scientific knowledge, and if you don't have it, you should be cast aside while the more scientifically knowledgeable decide everything for you. This seems to be becoming the overwhelming direction of their agenda. Beckwith coyly asks everyone, "What is your scientific background?", Seedhouse calls anyone without his level of scientific knowledge an "ignoramous" (while laughingly being a total ignoramus about scientific theory and not even knowing it!), and Cormier argues that anything that isn't examined and declared as fact by the National Academy of Sciences is "bullshit".
Beware of these three and their insiduous message: they are only the foot soldiers in a very dangerous movement taking place in society.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Awww, Ed, you're just PO'd because I made you look such a fool with your BS about scientific theory and dark matter being "pretty much a fact" LOL.
Ed usually manages to make himself look like quite a fool without anyone's help.
Egg on your face, you lash out with anger. Oh well, some people never grow up....
Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for your detailed info on isotopes of carbon and on how 30 billion tonnes of CO2 from human sources relates to past volcanic eras of global warming.
Not to mention the medieval warm period that they are oh so carefully trying to ignore. The significance of the medieval warm period is that if it did not portend a disaster for man's survival then neither does any present global warming. Further it indicates that warming if it is indeed occurring may just be the result of natural forces.
Of course, you could continue calling anyone and everyone who doesn't have this info "scientific ignoramous", and not provide any sources to it, but then guess what, no one is going to believe you. Duh!
Readers should notice that Ed, Adam, and Paul Beckwith are together stressing that everyone should have this kind of scientific knowledge, and if you don't have it, you should be cast aside while the more scientifically knowledgeable decide everything for you. This seems to be becoming the overwhelming direction of their agenda. Beckwith coyly asks everyone, "What is your scientific background?", Seedhouse calls anyone without his level of scientific knowledge an "ignoramous" (while laughingly being a total ignoramus about scientific theory and not even knowing it!), and Cormier argues that anything that isn't examined and declared as fact by the National Academy of Sciences is "bullshit".
The most amusing thing is that any academic could tell you that the scientific background purported to give Mr. Beckwith authority is one that would earn him contempt in any discussion of academic credentials. He has no standing.
I have discussed AGW with one scientist who did manage to finish his doctorate and a lot more and his pithy summary was, "Its all bulls**t but you can't say that publicly. It would cost you too much money in grants."
Adam is young. There is still hope for him. He may yet turn from the dark side.
Ed is dumb. There is no hope for him. He has the soul of a spider.
Beware of these three and their insiduous message: they are only the foot soldiers in a very dangerous movement taking place in society.
I seriously doubt this statement. Back it up if you want anyone to believe it.
I don't care two figs if you believe it. Your need in this post to claim "victory" followed by reams of bolded text show quite clearly how much you yourself doubt your own lies.
I don't care two figs if you believe it. Your need in this post to claim "victory" followed by reams of bolded text show quite clearly how much you yourself doubt your own lies.
I knew it, Ed's just blowing smoke, that's all I've seen him do in this entire thread and elsewhere.
Ed, you are a disgrace to the science that you champion.
Even if you don't care whether I believe something you claim, you should at least care if others, possibly wanting to believe in AGW, believe the things you claim. Has this thought even crossed your selfish mind?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Even if you don't care whether I believe something you claim, you should at least care if others, possibly wanting to believe in AGW, believe the things you claim. Has this thought even crossed your selfish mind?
As we all know, Paul is a saint and would never ever be selfish. That's why he throws all his chess games. Oh, wait...
I have of course provided links to the evidence for all my claims, but it doesn't matter to Paul so he never ever checks them out. He is desparate, you see, to be seen as so much more intelligent, unselfish, honest and just goldarned better than all of us selfish louts. But the truth is he wouldn't know what evidence was if it smacked him in the face.
Tweet
Comment