Is this the first double-blind acupuncture study? I'm sure I've read about people using retractable needles in double-blind acupuncture study before. Maybe they were referring to this one and the results hadn't been released yet? Hm.

So this religion of "Science" as you call it No, you call it a "religion". And you're a dumbass for doing so. Next. with your pious little "Science Priests" in their little white lab coats (men of the white cloth?) ...have you ever met a scientist? Is all your knowledge of science based on TV? they sure know the truth, don't they?! Science doesn't work on 100% truths, no; and no, scientists don't know everything. But scientists actually provide evidence for their hypotheses (if such evidence exists). But the ID crowd doesn't do that and, strangely, neither do you. It's in their Holey Scriptures You know, you'd think someone decrying science in favor of creationism could at least spell "holy" correctly. the Journals of Science! Scientific journals aren't "holy scriptures", you imbecile. Holy scriptures are made-up nonsense that's declared to be "revealed truth", which people then agree to believe to be true no matter how much reality contradicts it. Articles in science journals, on the other hand, provide evidence for their assertions (remember evidence?), explain how they come to their conclusions, etc. And these results are not declared inviolable truth--other scientists will try to replicate these results and confirm or invalidate them. Exceptionally different from religion. Where's the empirical evidence? There is none. Say what? Evidence is presented in hundreds of thousands of journal articles over the ages, and you pretend that it doesn't exist? Now let's ask you the same thing (well, I'll actually specify what I want evidence for): where's the evidence for intelligent design creationism? We'll wait. So how about YOU hang with your little religious sect and stop bashing people that have a different faith than you do? Yawn. Again with the "science is a religion". Like Skeptico said, grow up. I don't think I've seen a stronger example of bias, intolerance and hypocrisy in years. Probably because you don't even read the writings of the creationists you're defending.

Circular logic is always funny very entertaining. You're good at it! *re-reads Jimmy_Blue's comments* ...I don't think you're actually aware of what "circular logic" is.

What is my biological mother's name? Hortense. If you think otherwise, then clearly the person you think is your biological mother is not, because my choosing a random name--I mean, astrology--couldn't possibly be wrong.

If you prefer chocolate that is an opinion. It is not a truth claim. I’ll agree that it might be objectively true that that is your opinion, but you are just playing semantics. I’ll agree that it might be objectively true that that is your opinion ... . All right, then. We're in agreement.

When you say you prefer vanilla, you are just expressing your opinion. True, you are expressing your opinion. The fact that you have this opinion is an objective truth which has just been expressed. It is only the opinion itself that is subjective, not whether or not you have it. An opinion cannot be objectively correct or incorrect. Agreed. But whether or not one has opinions can be objectively correct or incorrect.

"I prefer vanilla to chocolate” is you expressing an opinion. It cannot be correct or incorrect. Of course it can be correct or incorrect. It is correct if I do, in reality, prefer vanilla to chocolate. It is incorrect if I do not prefer vanilla to chocolate. Even though one's preferences cannot themselves be "correct", one can make statements about one's preferences, and these statements can be correct or incorrect.

You are confusing truth statements with opinions. You like vanilla. I like chocolate. Neither are objectively correct – they are not truth statements, they are opinions. A truth statement would be “qi is real”. It is either objectively true or it isn’t. “I prefer vanilla to chocolate” is neither correct or incorrect – it is just an opinion. I have to disagree with that. Saying "I prefer vanilla to chocolate" is an objective statement about one's subjective preferences. It has a truth value--one can prefer vanilla to chocolate, or one can not. That statement can be true or false. On the other hand, saying "vanilla is better than chocolate" would be just an opinion, a subjective statement whose truth value can't really be determined. What that has to do with the fantasy of qi is anyone's guess.

To the people minimizing how much of a sacrifice the crucifixion would have been -- there aren't a whole lot of ways to die that are more drawn-out and agonizing than that. And why would you presume that Jesus would have known he'd be resurrected a few days later? Simple: because Jesus supposedly is/was God. And God supposedly is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal. Therefore he (A) knew the future and/or (B) planned the whole thing himself, including the resurrection. Plus, (C) since Jesus/God is all-powerful, he couldn't really be killed anyways. Going through the motions of a crucifixion when you're all-powerful is not an action of sacrifice. If we take the Christians at their word that Jesus is God--and I should remind you that most Christians would find it blasphemous to claim that he isn't / wasn't--then the crucifixion was nothing but an elaborately staged event. There was no sacrifice involved.

What really gets to me is the belief that some people have that Jesus being crucified was somehow a noble act of sacrifice on his part. But he supposedly comes back just three days later. Is giving someone your life's savings a sacrifice on your part if you know you'll get it back three days later? If you could save someone by donating a vital organ, knowing that it would regrow good as new three days later, wouldn't you? Would that be a sacrifice on your part? It would be a temporary inconvenience, I'm thinking. And if Jesus is God, then all this is madness. A supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immortal being is nailed to a plank of wood, and we're supposed to be in awe at this "sacrifice"?

These are called "reversible destiny houses" Holy crap that's awesome! I want one of those now!

Incidentally, if y'all are tired of the posts all being in italics, I discovered something. Instead of clicking on a link to the most recent comment, click on the link to this post. Then at the bottom, click the "Show more comments" link. All the comments that are displayed after you click that won't have the italics problem.

So why not have a jury instead of one judge?We do. They're called scientists. Apparently Howard has never heard of peer review.

Yakaru: Mr. Ferrets? C'mon, that sounds stupid. Hmm... if you're the King of Ferrets, who's your queen? If you don't have one, I nominate Ferretina, the Weasel Queen.

If I had watched Oprah and used the Secret and thought happy sunshine-filled thoughts I might have stepped outside and slipped on that check for $1000000 that I new-age-magic sent myself and cracked my head open on the front porch! THEN I'D BE DEAD! Yes, but it'd have been your own fault for attracting your death with your thoughts.

As I have been saying for some time, the rate of change, shown in that second graph, and for a much longer period here Akasofu does indeed show that the world is warming. Well, then we're in agreement. Your assertion that global warming has ceased is false.

Do the slopes of the temperatures, from the two main data bases shown on the linked graphs, really look positive to you? Well, it looks more to me like trying to fit eight years of climate data to a linear model is pretty foolish, and proclaiming that this manufactured slope is negative and therefore global warming has ceased is just contrived nonsense. The second graph of your own source seems to make it fairly clear that global temperature is fluctuating but the overall trend is one of warming. The fact that we have been in a down-turn of that fluctuation doesn't change that.

Explanation of why global warming has ceased for almost ten years despite the increase in CO2 levels Simple: it hasn't ceased. Global warming has continued.

That's a myth? O.o Yes, assuming that he meant "golden shower" literally and not as a euphemism. Zeus was into weird sex: Zeus came to [Danaë] in the form of golden rain, and impregnated her. Soon after, their child Perseus was born.

Woah, I meant no disrespect! Oh no no no, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm sorry if I came across that way. I do feel it's important to point out the existence of advanced sub-Saharan (read: black) cultures, though, so I burst in here.

If Atlantis was such a great power, where are the archeological remains of its trade with other nations and empires? We find well travelled trade goods and fragments at dispersed archeological sites all over Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Hey, it's not just North Africa. There were major civilizations in south Africa that also traded internationally.

Isn't this taking human denialism and contempt for science to the ultimate extreme? That does seem to be an accurate assessment of your comments thus far, yes.

Have you got some evidence that could justify this "global warming" racket? Surely you would have something if you were being true to the stated aims of this blog. I guess you just skipped over the part at the end that was headed "Evidence for AGW"?

And so is Sylar! He kills because evolution tells him to!

I just noticed... in the "Bulleted Lists" section, you correctly state that the "codes used here are 'ul' and 'li'", but your example uses 'ol' instead of 'ul'.