34
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 251:
Line 251: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness (view source)
Revision as of 16:47, October 2, 2009
, 16:47, October 2, 2009no edit summary
::::::Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about the paper you cite, but I believe there was another paper just a couple years ago arguing that redshift observations imply that gravity isn't an inverse-square law on very large scales. I'll see if I can't dig it up. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about the paper you cite, but I believe there was another paper just a couple years ago arguing that redshift observations imply that gravity isn't an inverse-square law on very large scales. I'll see if I can't dig it up. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.
2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.
3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.
4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.
5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.
6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.
7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.
8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.
9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.
10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.
11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.
12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.
13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.
According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)