User talk:Sterile/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 26 November 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <4>

, (new)(back)

hmmmm...

I have been reading this. What really got me thinking though was that even in a total "nothing" the potential for something to happen is something. So even a lack of time, space, anything...if something could potentially happen then you can't have nothing. So a true void, which is outside of human comprehension, would be an absence of not only anything but the potential for anything. Mind...Fucked. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like good times. I know it's still physics, but it sounds philosophical. I wonder if that's where information comes from... sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 11:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You

04:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The more you know. ...

Atheopathic evolutionary storytelling

Many atheopaths and their compromising churchian allies claim that biblical belief and science are mortal enemies. Yet historians of science, even non-Christians, have pointed out that modern science first flourished under a Christian world view while it was stillborn in other cultures such as ancient Greece, China and Arabia. The historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33). - Jonathan Sarfati [1]

Sounds like confusion between correlation and causation to me. Science probably flourished because people had more time to do things other than manual labor because of the industrial revolution. Not to mention the oppression of Galileo. And the fact that modern science is general said to start with Bacon. What happened for the first 1600 years of Christianity to promote science? Even if it did, what conceptually or procedurally about Christianity allows science to happen? Pretty box, though, you must be getting good at those divs. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Strawman! pt. monkey chicken monkey monkey chicken duck

He begins with a logical fallacy known as a non sequitur, namely that the immense numbers of stars in the universe “make thinking about aliens perfectly rational”. The universe is big only to us mortal finite beings, so if God created the stars, as He says He did (Genesis 1:14–19), then a much more rational thought is: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).[2]

If God doesn't exist, he's a zero. Everything divided by zero is infinite. God is small. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 14:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That scientist talking about something relavant to his field is a complete nonsequitor. Because god yellow 42 oh look a squirrel! 15:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

But creationists don't use fallacies. That's only part of the evolutionists' strategies. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 15:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh course you're correct. 16:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I win. Therefore god. Plus, get fucked, compromiser!

Strike 3. You have failed to substantiated your claim, which is therefore shown to be false. Further, you have wasted my time that I spent reading the paper right through again because you failed to provide the sufficiently-specific information you were asked to provide to support your claim. - Philip J. Rayment [3]

"Uh, I'm a Christian, Philip." "You're not doing it right."

That's coming within spitting distance of "No True Scotsman," and very close to questioning my Christianity. Shame on you, Philip. I'm not questioning your Christianity, but the basis for your Christianity. - Philip J. Rayment [4]

I've got a lot of work to do. This is a maddening waste of time. Creationists are my daily outrage. I struggle with positivity on days I ruin my mood with this drivel. 16:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No true Christian

If your Christian friends truly believed what the Bible says, that you are heading for an awfully bad eternity, they would be making every effort to see you repent (change your mind). If they are not doing this, they either don't believe the Bible or they don't really love you. You could even gauge the reality of their Christianity by how much effort they are making to see you converted (even if it offends you).[5]

Oh, great, my "friends" have to badger me or they're not friends. A self perpetuating fungus. There will be kudzu all over my page by evening. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 12:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Like your portal icon.

Much better than my heart. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RW has made me far more proficient at many software programs, esp. Inkscape & yed and some chem programs! Thanks! sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 02:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I can't unblock myself, but I will respond here

Hmm, I'll look and see what the trouble on the technical side is. Gimme a few. Humorless fascist^sociopath 22:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Works for me, via Special:Log/block. Humorless fascist^sociopath 22:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't usually had to actually go to the block log to unblock myself. Usually I go to my user page, hit block user, and re-block myself for a few secs. I didn't see block user there, but maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, I figured it out. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 22:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes to MW. You now get a warning when you block yourself, blocked users editing their talkpages are no longer patrolled, better sock-blocking effect. Humorless fascist^sociopath 22:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I liked it the other way, but as long as it's great! sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 22:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I was sort of worried the jquery I wrote traversed a few too many trees. :-0 03:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mod

You got my vote. And happy fucking birthday. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep! Happy birthday. Tomorrow. 23:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

WIGO World

I moved your Organic Food/Autism WIGO from World to Blogs as it's not a news item. Генгис^mutating 19:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Haven't WIGOd for a long time. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 19:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Livers are for the weak.

Healthy men like me have no need for a liver. Instead I have an empty coke can with a whistle taped to it. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Snarky ass me, today, but...

I'm pretty ticked off at the whole place today, and bitter, and think nothing ever gets done or changes. That said, if you withdraw, nothign will change. NOt that i'm trying to tell you what to do. ;-) And like i said, yo've not seen the posts i've typed, but not submit. I don't think anything will every change around here, we are so flipping disfunctional on all levels. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In some ways it is too late. A lot has changed. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 18:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Board candidacy

I would like to ask you to re-consider it. For every cool head that steps aside, the hot head of a drama queen is likely to take its place. Time, I assure you, will not be an issue. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, why not? sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 18:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Penguin face

Has been warned several times and has failed to change their signature to conform to standards. The block is, as I said, a way of forcefully reminding them to make the change. Blue (is useful) 13:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be the standards on the page that begins "These are not site rules but rather a list of standards we as a community try to live up to. Please do your best to live up to them."? rpeh •T•C•E• 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about the community standards, I'm talking about the kind of standards that prevent me from making my signature size 72 font. Right now, whenever user:penguin face makes an edit, you have to look at the page history to see it was them, because their "signature" does not give any indication of who made the edit. Blue (is useful) 13:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're just making shit up to back up your own position? YOU were the one who talked about forcing a user to "conform to standards". Those standards are voluntary so stop fucking about. Fuck's sake. You've been back as a mod for a month and you're fucking up again already. Why couldn't you have kept your nomination withdrawn? We'd all be better off. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You have provoked me sufficiently. All shall now despair. Blue (is useful) 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't ever remember someone micromanaging a signature, and your offense isn't a good reason to block someone. "Explorations of authoritarianism" does not mean you should be authoritarian. Seriously, who the hell do you people think you are? sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 15:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Psh, me. She hit that one out of the park. What a heartening display of sound judgment. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on being Elected to the Board of Trustees!

Congrats on being elected to the Board of Trustees! :-D I guess all those goat posters paid off, lol. :p Good thing you reconsidered withdrawing your candidacy, look at ya now! hugs & kisses & best wishes. :-) Refugee^{talk page} 03:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the shit out of his moderator poster. Made it good. And look what it did! Got an unreasonable punk with zero years of experience as a professor at a university who serves on university committees and is a faculty liaison to the university board of trustees elected to the RWF! 04:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I still cant believe my Warhol goats poster didn't get this total incompetent who is super duper at promoting his minuscule skillset elected as a moderator. 04:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, law enforcement is for peons. (Hee-hee.) sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 11:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And thanks, Refugee, for your support! sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 11:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The wrong kind of creationist

Dear Rabbi,

No, we will not stop mentioning Jesus in our articles. We are glad you enjoy reading them but don't give a flying fuck whether you or any other Jews feel alienated from the central message of creation because we would be infinitely more glad if you worshiped the God of Israel and your messiah, Jesus Christ.

Suck it.

Sincerely yours,

Carl Weiland.

00:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, offense to CMI never stopped them. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 11:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Email

Email about Board stuff. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We shun empirical evidence except when we don't shun empirical evidence

But unless you understand the philosophical/theological background to our understanding of geology, then you’ll most likely be left trying to launch a positivistic critique against a worldview that shuns positivism in any sort of historical study. (This doesn’t mean we leave no room for science, only that science doesn’t always get the final say.) - Creation Ministries International

02:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That is, "Suck it, scientistz." ^talk 15:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You have upset PJR -

Hi, after a long rest from Asok I pop in to look at emptiness and I find you and Ace have upset PJR ! well done. Hamster (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, I wrote one sentence! Albeit, a somewhat sarcastic one, although it need to be interpreted that way. And I ♥ Rayment. I think he really misses us. ^talk 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sterile for mod

Sterile.

preferred e-mail

Can you please send me: ttoulouse@gmail.com your preferred e-mail address for contact about the board election?

You do the research. I'm busy doing science.

“”This author is very aware of the speculative character of the last few paragraphs. Nevertheless it is in the nature of science to attempt hypotheses whenever new data is available, leaving it to future research to confirm or reject the respective hypotheses. It is also my conviction that an integrated, fact-based model of the Genesis Flood is likely to emerge by including various elements from presently competing diluvial models.

—Emil Silvestru

15:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Geology is such a young science. Give it time, chap! ^talk 23:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well which is it? Is it science or history? But seriously, I get peeved when people make the blanket assertion that creationism is not falsifiable, as if that was the only metric for determine what is science. Some of these factual claims are susceptible of proof. It ought to be regrettable to these guys that they're not doing the research if they are bothering to make factual claims. But as this creationist days, we'll leave it to future research to confirm or refute his theory. The problem is that the future is in the last century and it didn't even need a DeLorean. 00:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say that physical predictions (and, in the creationist snide tone, "postdictions") of geology, biology, etc. are falsifiable but the intervention of the supernatural is not (omnipotence screws everything up). There should be evidence of the Flood and a young earth provided God wasn't screwing things up along the way. (And don't get me started on Adam's testimonial evidence....) ^talk 01:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Order as an analogy for SLOT

Sorry if this isn't a great place to put this (I'm new to wikis, so I'm not very familiar with the conventions). I was perusing the recent change logs (again, new here, so I like getting an idea of what's up), and I just wanted to say that I completely agree with your comment on order. I'm nearly finished my MSc. in physics (quantum information to be specific), and as a result I've done a fair bit of statistical mechanics. I absolutely hate the order analogy, as I think it completely misses the mark. That's just my two cents of course. - GrantC (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a PhD in physical organic chemistry and my job is teaching. The more I teach about entropy and the more I read about it, the more screwed up I've found the order analogy. The article just kinda is in my head; I think if you edit it, disorder would just end up creeping back in. (In fact I think I did that once a long time ago...). All the best--- ^talk 17:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, throughout my research I've noticed the same thing. For me, the big kicker was realizing that in quantum mechanics, the idea of "order" isn't immediately obvious. Rather, the von Neumann entropy is better described as a measure of our ignorance (or lack thereof) of the state of a system. I think part of the conflation comes from the idea that in plain old statistical mechanics, macrostates with lower entropy do indeed seem to be more "orderly", despite the fact that each individual microstate still looks just as jumbled as the rest. - GrantC (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think from my perspective, the image of "ordered" brings to mind crystalline or regular (such as double-stranded DNA vs. single stranded DNA). It implies that liquids are somehow "oriented" more regularly than gases. I suppose that some intermolecular forces imply some sort of relative orientation (well, for dipoles and hydrogen bonds at least), but it's clear that entropy isn't decribing that, especially when you take into account partition functions. And temperature changes don't really make sense either. Explaining parition functions and distributions qualitatively is a challenge, however. ^talk 22:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Very true. It's always somewhat difficult to reconcile macroscopic quantities with microscopic meaning, and I think "order" is a pleasant construction because it's something generally well-understood. As you say, partition functions and distributions are not easy to explain. I think it's a difficult quandary, however, as the level of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics necessary to really understand entropy is comparatively vast. Considering humans in general have an incredibly poor intuition of probability and statistics in general, providing a quick and dirty explanation tends to be difficult at best, I find. - GrantC (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thought of you

when I put this on repeat

02:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

♥ ^talk 02:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Actually, it's probably time for a Main Page redesign...."

Don't let that post get lost in the shuffle. There are some important ideas there. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been on my radar for a while. I'm going to sandbox that a wee bit now, although I'm on vacation after today. Probably best to get past the CP discussion first. ^talk 21:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Awc returns to aSK

Awc has popped into aSoK and reverted some of PJR recent edits. It could be entertaining ;-) Hamster (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Saw it. But I still think I'm staying away. PJR's way too entrenched in his narrow view of the world, and I fear our interaction only makes him more steadfast. ^talk 23:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Gosh. Philip actually thinks he's good at arguing (in the academic sense). I wonder if he realizes he has to have a positive, evidence based argument for Creationism for that to be remotely true, rather than his "arguing." ^talk 01:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Philip just becomes more and more of an obstinate asshole the more people call him on his bullshit. Like Andy funnily enough. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Shame on you,putting sciency stuff on aSoK. And ACe too. Hamster (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

<<hangs head in shame>> ^talk 22:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need an aSoK intervention group ;-) Hamster (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

He gets so upset when anyone makes fun of creationists and then he says something so, well, absurd, it's hilarious. You have to edit for the sheer humor of the whole thing. ^talk 10:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Redesign - color options

Do you mind if I think of a different choice of colours? Some of the logos (ie. global warming, creationism and conspiracy theories) still irk me. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't care, but I will warn you, it's a black hole of a discussion, and I don't really think they mean as much as people think they do. The colors are what were discussed here, and you may wish to consult those folks about the options. ^talk 01:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if you don't know how to edit SVGS, just send me the 8-digit hex numbers and I can edit File:MainPageColorOptions2.svg ^talk 01:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being so picky about this:

Global warming denialism - #f9b876 or #f19b46 (from the surface of Venus, if you want a lighter or darker shade just use the eyedropper)

Alternative medicine - #00a791 (same as current sidebar)

Ufology - #9696dd (same as current sidebar)

Conspiracy theories - #1b621b (same as current sidebar)

Denialism looks fine, IMO, and I'm so-so about Logic/Rhetoric. I really don't like black for Creationism (maybe a light grey, but what would you do for Paranormal then?) Osaka Sun (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page? Lots of people complained that the sidebar colors lead to a lot of blues and greens. I'd be far more inclined to change the navboxes than the other way around. The global warming ones look rather light to me with the white lettering. ^talk 00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this looks quite decent. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I liked it the other way, but we can see what people think when we get closer to implementation. ^talk 00:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitions

Have you noticed a certain person is a bit hard to nail down with a precise definition ? I am trying to nail his feet to the floor and avoid the tapdancing about leading , true, meaning, etc . Its fruitless I know. Dont you have a dinosaur to ride and a goat to pet ? Hamster (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't end up going. Not sure about Nutt-nutt. ^talk 01:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sterile was deathly afraid he wouldn't be able to keep his homo hands off my lithe young ass, so he totally wimped out like a homo. I ended up having to flake out too (sorry OU) to take care of my friends' house and some family stuff because the wife is bearing their first kidlet. 04:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have chickens, btw. But they don't like getting petted and they're not creationist goats. 04:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I started looking at population figures. Genesis 10 and 11 have huge implications on the rest of creationist dating because Peleg is the reference point for dating Babel. Sterile and I are talking about the ice age, which CMI says happened right after the flood. So you've got these people fucking like rabbits into their 200's, twinning, whatever, while the world is essentially turned into a desert as glaciers descend from the north. And within a few hundred years you've got all these civilizations that are far more technologically advanced than the Hebrews. I wonder what the definition of "moronic" is. You should put that up and see if you get tq'd. 05:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

one of the creationist ideas is that the continents broke up at the time of peleg. That way everything could walk from the ark on a single continent. Most bible scholars use the breakup of Babel instead of rapid continental drift. Its fun to see Awc getting snarky Hamster (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know any more certain creationist population numbers and when they broke off to go to what place so I can model the whole thing and get a global growth rate. This has some dates, but, alas, no population numbers. ^talk 11:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You have chickens? No one ever said anything about chickens. ^talk 02:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you keep chickens in a very large city ? Hamster (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

They live in a little chicken house in the backyard. It's only unlawful to have a rooster, but people do that too. Lots of chickens all over the place in Wicker Park. I'm surprised they're not out in the streets and up on people's cars and roofs. 12:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)