I consider myself knowledgeable on basic science. I disagree with these statements. Hypothesis and theory are quite closely related. Scientists often use the word hypothesis to indicate an educated guess or untested theory. Once tested, a hypothesis may be considered a theory, but this is a loosely held distinction. A scientific LAW is nothing more than a widely agreed upon theory, tested many times through inductive reasoning. As Regguheert points out, a theory (based upon induction as scientific theories are) can not be proven. A good theory can however be shown to be false. This is the whole point of the idea of progression in science through falsifiability. Again, the simple example would be Newton's laws of motion. These are theories that became so well accepted as to be agreed upon as laws of physics. They have since been shown to only be accurate when distances are neither very, very small, nor very, very large. In such cases, the theories of quantum mechanics and relatively are used. Unlike a hypothesis, theory, or law, a fact is presented as this magical thing we might think of as the absolute truth. In science, when we say something is a fact, we mean that it is the 'truth'; when we say something is a theory, we mean that it is an explanation or description that seems to fit the facts, but any good scientist knows that all explanations and descriptions are inherently flawed.

I want to respond to this, but I don't have time right now. However, the above is a response to my claim and examples that evolution is falsifiable, yet it does not address this important point. Given my examples, do you agree that evolution is falsifiable? If so, given your admission that creationism is not, do you concede that evolution is a scientific theory with respect to falsifiability and creationism is not? OK, I know you don't concede, but I have to ask the question. :)

:iagree: So we have a change in the genome, new information, that creates a structural change that is an advantage. And this is just the standard textbook example of many more.

I take issue with much of your response. However, in the interest of narrowing the discussion and in acknowledgement that I am not trying to change your mind, please allow me to address only two things. We can look at the classic example used in bio 101 texts when I was young: Sickle Cell Anemia. If I recall correctly, the mutation caused b the selective pressure of this disease is an example of a single nucleotide substitution in a gene that codes for a single protein in a hemoglobin molecule. The substitution did not result in the LOSS of information, but instead the alteration of a single amino acid in a single protein in the hemoglobin molecule. This change in the genome provided the benefactor partial defense against malaria. It also is the cause of the disease Sickle Cell Anemia which is characterized by the alteration of the physical structure of hemoglobin under low oxygen conditions. This is a single nucleotide substitution. Three nucleotides code for an amino acid. Hundreds to thousands of amino acids make a protein. There are four proteins that make up hemoglobin. This is a well documented change in genome resulting in an important change in structure due only to a minor mutation. This is information for a new structure. I have studied many more examples, but certainly there must be thousands of other documented cases. They are particularly convincing in less complicated structures such as viruses and bacteria. I disagree. (BTW: Let's not pretend that anyone believes that man evolved from chimps.) If bones of a modern human were found dating back 4 million years to the time of australopithecus or before, this would be strong evidence that man did not evolve from australopithecus. Or, if man's DNA were found to resemble fish more than apes, that would be yet more evidence tending to falsify the theory. Or, if there were no examples of mutations and genetic recombination leading to new structures, that would be evidence against evoluation. If the different finches from the Galapagos islands were found to more closely resemble different finches from the South American mainland than to resemble each other and this trend proved true around the world, that would put a big hole in the theory of evolution. I could really go on and on with ways to falsify evolution. Come to think of it, the fact is, the theory of evolution HAS been falsified, resulting in changes to the theory. The name has remained, but the theory has changed and adapted to fit our current knowledge. I think it is a misunderstanding of any theory to state that it is fact or TRUTH. A scientific theory is nothing more than a discription of nature. When science is at its best, the accepted theory is our best description based upon simplicity of falsifiability. Newton's laws (like his law of gravity and motion) are not fact. THey are, in most circumstances, reasonably good descriptions. Evolution is the same.

REgguheert, First let me say that, given our previous discussion on this thread, I have found you to be well-read and found that you genuinely believe what you argue. Furthermore, you are a gentleman. Sadly, I find myself, once again, to be arguing against you. To clarify my position, I believe that evolution currently offers the closest explanation of how the earth came to its present state. I also believe that it says nothing about the existence of God. It is not a fact, nor is it THE TRUTH. It is, however, as respectable a theory as any other scientific theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory. I try to present the facts as I know them and allow my children to make their own decisions. However, there is no reasonable way to present creationism as a viable scientific theory. You have said a few things that don't make sense to me. They are: How about any fossil evidence of an animal that no longer exists when compared to an animal that does exist and is proposed as the former's descendent? Regardless of how you interpret it, this is evidence, isn't it? Just as I would concede that the bible is evidence of the existence of God. If you want proof, don't look to science. It is based upon inductive reasoning and doesn't offer proof of anything. I don't understand this point at all. If you concede that no two individuals have exactly the same genetic make up (yes, including twins, not that this is relevant), then it seems that you would have to concede that new information is entered into the genome each time an individual is born, no? Furthermore, what about all the various types of mutations and genetic recombination. Don't these result in new information being added to the genome with every occurrence? The genome is a collection of A, G, C, and T in a certain proportion. As soon as this proportion changes (i.e. a new individual [always unique]), we have a change in the genome. Evidence is just a fact or collection of facts that may lead one to believe something. How can anyone who has seen even a couple of the PBS specials argue that there is NO evidence for evolution? There is evidence for creationism. The reason that creationism is not a viable scientific theory is that the theory is designed in such a way so as nothing would count as evidence against creationism. I don't understand this statement. Inside the event horizon of what? An object must be inside the event horizon of some occurrence in space and time. To what event are you referring? Time would stand still and does stand still with respect to any other object moving at the speed of light relative to the first object. I fail to understand how being inside the event horizon of an occurrence would make time stand still? I looked at this link and was highly skeptical. I examined a few of the references and was not surprised to find them to be from sources written by authors with obvious agendas. In other words, I do not find this information credible. BTW: There is a basic misunderstanding about scientific taxonomy that seems to be held by many taking part in this discussion (not you regguheert). "Species" is a loosely defined level of taxonomy having as much to do with politics as with definition. A basic rule of thumb (with many exceptions) is that animals of different species do not reproduce in nature. This may be due to geography, behavior, physical attributes on the macroscopic level or on the gametic level. However, there are many examples of animals from different species mating and producing fertile offspring in nature. One more thing: Do you really think that there is a conspiracy within the government to crush creationism and promote evolution? If so, who are some of the individuals behind it, and what is their motivation? Certainly there is a conspiracy among scientists to keep creationism out of the SCIENCE classroom. But that's because it is not science.

Again, Peek a Boo, name calling only makes your argument sound desperate. Peek a Boo, "right w/o error" is redundant. Even if we ignore that, your statement demonstrates some confusion about basic logic and deductive reasoning. With this in mind, I think it pointless for me to address your other comments before we agree upon some basic principles of logic. Simply speaking, a logical argument is built with one or more premises that lead to a conclusion. The argument may be attacked by either demonstrating one of the premises false or by claiming that the premises don't lead to the conclusion. The first of your difficulties with logic seems to be founded in the very basics; the definition of a premise. A premise is a proposed fact. It may be true or not, but it is proposed as fact. Saying "Your premise is based on your belief that you are right" seems to indicate that you believe that one might logically propose an argument to be correct while building it with false premises. You also seem to believe that logic can't make predictions about the unknown such as the future (peek a boo - "that can't logically be since we are discussing what the FUTURE may hold."), when in fact, that is the only thing that logic does. Your statement "Logic isn't always synonymous with 'correct.' Especially when you are dealing with unforseen variables in a future that none of us have lived." Let's examine a simple argument. Premise: Mary always goes to the store on Sunday. Premise: Tomorrow is Sunday Conclusion: Mary will be at the store tomorrow. Do you see here, Peek a boo, how logic predicts the unknown and the future? Perhaps Mary will not be at the store tomorrow, but if that is so, one of the premises must also be wrong. Also, whether or not we believe in a premise has no bearing on the validity of the argument. The argument stands on logic alone. Nor does calling me names affect the argument. Although basic mistakes, your errors in logic and your resulting reliance upon name-calling are common in heated debates. If you agree with these points, and which to continue in a civil tone, it may be fruitful for me to continue and explain your misunderstanding concerning "not necessarily". How about it? :D

How are the standardized exams? Do they take several days, or are they just one day exams? Is it difficult to find a homeschool friendly advisor? I keep a daily log of my kids homeschooling and they spend far more time schooling then the required time. It sounds like a pain, but not prohibitive.

very helpful. Thank you.

We are considering moving to PA. Specifically Monroe, Northampton, lehigh, or bucks county? Currently we live in CA. My 11 yo goes to nonpublic school from 9am to 3pm and then receives 20 hrs at home each week with college students certified in ABA. My 13 yo goes to public school (not main stream) from 8:40am to 3:10 with 15 hours of home program per week. How are the PA public school programs for autistics? How available are the after school programs? in home and outside the home?

I am thinking of moving to PA. Specifically to either Monroe, Northampton, Lehigh, or Bucks county. Are the Homeschooling regulations rigid and time consuming? Do they allow High Schoolers and Elementary Schoolers to participate in school sports? Specifically, wrestling.

:iagree:Except for some minor details (like what others are arguing), I agree with you. I am alarmed at the rapid use and depletion of the world's oil reserves. I am aware that the 2 trillion is shale oil and, as yet, we don't even know if we can get at it economically. I will very likely make my next house a solar home. I am arguing here against the idea that there is an imminent depression (greater than the Great Depression) due to oil production outpacing consumption. I am arguing that preparing for depression immediately before an inflationary period is more damaging than not. I am even arguing (with some) that the world is not about to collapse into a road warrior scenario. By the way, electric and fuel cell cars do not answer the problem of finding a new energy source. Electricity and hydrogen are not a sources of energy like oil, they are (roughly speaking) forms of energy requiring an energy source like solar, hydro, wind, natural gas, or oil.

I've been gone for 10 days. I noticed the abuse to which I was subjected during those ten days and decided to respond. Some have responded thinking that they are defending regguheert's argument when they have actually misunderstood it. Some, like yourself, still are not using reason to argue. I have laid out an argument with premises and a conclusion. Regguheert attacked my premises and I defended his attacked by pointing out that they his facts, even if accepted, do not contradict my premises. Thus, by the rules of logic, my conclusion stands. This is how reasoning works; it is far from saying "I am right and you are wrong." Emotional responses such as yours to a reasoned argument are somewhat mean and demonstrate a certain desperation. You are confused about the arguments that have been presented here; both mine and regguheert's. There are two premises made by regguheert that I have attacked. They are: 1. oil is reserves are almost used up. 2. Even if oil is not almost used up, the rate at which oil can be taken from the ground is at a maximum. Statement number 1 was conceded by regguheert when he agreed that "2 Trillion barrels located 1000 feet below the surface of the Rockies". This is more oil than the entire world was previously thought to have. Your statement indicates the reason that oil is at a peak is because the oil wells run dry as fast as new oil wells in new fields can be drilled. I do not believe that anyone but you is making that claim. Neither regguheert nor his experts in the books and links claim that 'peak oil' is caused by not being able to build oil wells as fast as they are running out. Do you agree regguheert? There is a theory that, at some number of oil wells for a specific field, more wells in that same oil field will not increase oil production from that oil field. This theory has then been applied to the world oil reserves and called 'peak oil'. (In my opinion, it has been applied incorrectly.) 'Peak oil' is someone's theory. All Experts do not agree with that theory as applied to the world's global reserves. In fact, in order for it to be correct, it assumes that we have tapped most of the worlds oil reserves. Yet, the 2 trillion barrel field discussed and agreed upon (peek a boo) means that we are not at peak oil production (even if you agree with the peak oil theory as applied globally). Regguheert clearly sees that this is a problem with his theory and he defends by adjusting his premise with the following: Although this point, (if agreed upon and I do not agree) defends regguheert's argument well after only a small adjustment, it also demonstrates that he agrees with me that the rate of oil production has not peaked. Despite this, he does not amend his next sentence "The issue at hand is that we will never be able to extract more oil each day than we currently do." by saying " to extract 'much more' oil each day" or "a 'significant amount more' of oil each day". Thus, rather than moving the argument along to his new premise which is "oil production can be increased but not at a rate comensurate with consumption", he keeps the focus on his initial premise which is false logic is applied to his own interpretation of the facts. Regguheert's argument that oil consumption is about to outpace oil production and thus we are headed for a greater depression' stands upon either of the two premises numbered above. I have demonstrated, with logic and agreed upon facts, that these two premises are false. He countered my argument by saying that drilling more wells in already tapped fields or where there is no oil will not increase oil production. However, this did not address my premise of drilling in untapped fields. Thus, my premise still stands; and my argument has not been shown to be invalid and unsound. We don't have to wait 300 years to see who is correct. It is a debate and can be won or lost right here if the parties agree upon certain key facts. We have agreed on most of these key facts. That's the beauty of this particular debate. This is incorrect. Perhaps regguheert would like to clarify since it is his statement. However, 'not necessarily' indicates that speaker believes that the veracity of the statement depends upon some circumstance. The statement may be wrong but, under some circumstance, the statement may be correct. It does NOT mean that the statement is wrong under all circumstances, as you are claiming above. Why did you add the word "completely" when you misquoted me? This word is superfluous and inflammatory and I don't believe that I used it.

I disagree. 1. My argument was simple, well reasoned, and based on mutually agreed upon facts. 2. When someone claims to be pointing out fallacies in your argument and you demonstrate that they are not fallacies. There is no reason to restate the same argument. "My reasoning stands" is sufficient. Also, if someone does not address one of the premises in your argument, a restatement of your argument will not improve your argument. In such a case, "My reasoning stands" is a sufficient reply. The discussion went as follows: I made no such premise that we should drill new wells into already tapped fields. This was an attempt by Regguheert to obfuscate. It did not weaken my argument and required no response other than "My reasoning stands." Notice the "not necessarily" in Regguheert's response. This is as much as an admission that drilling new wells will increase production. Again, Regguheert attempted to cloud the issue by making an assumption that drilling can only take place in old fields rather than new fields. As he admits in another post, he is aware that even in the US there are untapped fields. And back to regguheert alledging fallacies in my argument... This point does not address my premise and again a "My reasoning stands" is sufficient. Notice that Regguheert never addresses my argument which is that it is only logical that drilling more oil must increase production. Notice also that my argument has nothing to do with opinion. My argument is as simple as oil production is at a rate of x (doesn't matter what x is). Drilling oil has a positive rate of production. Starting with rate x and adding some positive rate of production is an increase. The assumption that drilling is done on an oil field that has already been drilled is an unnecessary assumption (given the acknowledgement that there are untapped oil fields) and thus an attempt to obfuscate. The theory that a depression is coming because we cannot increase oil production is unsound. My reasoning stands.

I have eight kids, two diagnosed with autism and one de-diagnosed. One of my girls, who does not have autism, toe walks. We feel it is part of the spectrum, but other than the toe walking, she has no symptoms at all. We have done nothing about it and have no plans to do anything. She is quite normal otherwise. I have symptoms of autism myself. Believe it or not, even as an adult, I have overt stimming behavior. Of course, as an adult, I can control it until I am alone or I can hide it. I too was ridiculed as child for this behavior. My parents would get upset with me and sometimes make fun a little. It wasn't too bad for me in that respect. Just as an aside to perhaps help parents of stimming children understand: When I stim, I go into an almost trance where I can think more clearly than when not stimming. I wouldn't want to be prevented from stimming. My two autistics have stimming behaviors. Although the teachers try to stop this behavior, I never do. I think I know how they feel when they stim. I am not certain that people that don't stim can think about things vividly. It is almost like a gift.

But I didn't say that. I do think the idea is outrageous. So instead of calling anyone crazy, I tried to explain that I find the idea outrageous without using adjectives or being personal.

OK. I can see that, and I agree that the founder of the thread has been quite gracious. Please understand my point of view when I wrote that. The concept of civilization collapse was so foreign to me that I didn't think anyone would take him seriously. I was obviously mistaken. I actually thought that he had posted his thread specifically to get someone to listen to his theory. I thought that he had tricked me into asking for him to explain his theory. I felt a little stupid for falling into his trap. I see now that there was no trap, that many accept his theory openly, and I am clearly in the minority I believe that he was sincere when he said he didn't really want to discuss his theory. I had no idea that so many educated people would believe in a collapse of civilization theory. I suppose I owe him an apology. I apologize. Of course, that does not change my opinion on the subject. BTW: Thanks for pointing that out. I always try to be courteous, but Idon't always succeed because I am contentious by nature.

I am confused. Where have I been rude? On the contrary, I have been treated rudely by some.

My reasoning stands THere are wells that are untapped. My reasoning still stands My reasoning stands In my opinion you have misunderstood. Time will tell. You obviously believe the collapse is near.

That's not a very nice thing to say. So you agree with me, that the rate of oil extraction is not at a max. I do not believe that you are following reguheert's argument. I have a bachelor's from Columbia University. I have studied and taught at several universities and Colleges. (However, I am not a professor nor have I ever been.)

???:001_huh: :001_huh: I did not imply otherwise. However, if their conclusions contradict one of them is incorrect.

Incorrect. The limit on resources is not the point being addressed. The point was clearly made "The issue at hand is that we will never be able to extract more oil each day than we currently do."

OK. Obviously most people posting on this thread believe that there is a depression coming soon and the best way to prepare is to buy a small farm and prepare for the collapse of civilation. This belief is based upon a series of false statements such as "The issue at hand is that we will never be able to extract more oil each day than we currently do." You don't have to be an economist, sientist, or oil expert to realize such a statement is false. Just reason through it. If someone builds another oil well and starts extracting oil, more oil is being extracted than previously. For all practical purposes, there is no end to the number of oil wells we could dig. Doesn't this make sense? (My understanding is that the biggest problem for the US is refineries, not oil extraction.) What about new technologies for extracting oil. Won't these new technologies change the rate of oil extraction? Another problem is the economic theory. As far as I know, most economists are not predicting a depression. RegGuheert's theory sounds like the same doomsday theory that predicted the collapse of the economy when the dollar stopped being backed by precious metals. This theory, as all doomsday theories, proved to be false. Why does it matter when a bunch of people get together on a website and start agreeing that we all better prepare for the end of civilization? Because when that happens, vulnerable people are convinced and get hurt (like my brother and then like me when I have to bail him out). Haven't you all seen enough false prophets not to be taken in yet again. What about the mormon who was just put on trial? What about the 7th day adventist "Michael" who claimed to be the son of God and that the end of the world was coming on October 31st, 2006? That's not to mention the really extreme cases where people end up committing suicide. End of the civilization predictions have been going on since the beginning of civilization, how many examples do you need before you become a little skeptical about their veracity? Theories of this kind can be quite attractive to people who are down on their luck or feel ostracized by society. These people can sometimes be convinced to make dramatic changes in their lives that they and their loved ones will later regret. Your depression theory is based upon economics and science. Which one of you claims to be an expert at either? Do the rest of you really believe anyone of you who would claim to be an expert at both? My background is science. I took economics at Columbia University, but I don't claim to know anymore about economics than anyone else. Though I am certain there are some extremists economists out there, I have yet to hear any economist predict a depression. The few 'facts' (and there haven't been many) that have been introduced into this argument are unsubstantiated and certainly don't begin to add up to an argument for economic collapse. What's wrong with commisserating about doomsday? Nothing as long as there is room in the discussion for dissent so that vulnerable people at least have a chance to form a reasonable opinion on such a dark topic. By the way, I couldn't find "snarky" in the dictionary. If it is a word, what does it mean. If not, what do you propose for its meaning? Finally, what's wrong with 'preparing' for the end of civiliation if it never comes? It hinders your preparation for what really does come. For instance, let's assume you think there will be a depression, so you hoard your money or buy gold. Instead the economy booms and there is inflation. Your hoarded money becomes less valuable or the price of gold doesn't keep up with inflation. BTW: when folks remove themselves from the economy, it weakens the economy. I am preparing for the future by investing conservatively, and steadily increasing my earning power and net worth. Of course, in any economy it is smart to keep a handle on your dept. If a 'greater' depression hits, I will be just fine financially. I say it is smarter to maintain a healthy skepticism and keep your wits about you when people start claiming the end is near. I guess I want to say one more thing. It saddens me that there is so much support for such a theory on a forum that I had considered to be supported by educated people of like mind to me.

REally? I suppose you assumed that everyone was already well versed in your theory on the coming depression. "Why?" was the obvious question that you knew had to be asked. Of course I knew you would have an answer. That's why you asked the question. You wanted someone to ask why. Not even close. of course we can. We haven't even begun drilling in many places. We don't even know where all the oil is. The middle east controls the rate at which their oil is extracted in order to control the price of oil. US oil production. Of course, congress won't drill in the US anymore. While other countries drill in our off shore reserves, we refuse to drill our own oil. Congress has made the decision to rely on others for our oil needs, so of course, production has droppred. Did you take that poll yourself of what people thought in 1970 about Hubbert or are you making it up? How many people in 1970 even knew who Hubbert was and therefor had any opinion at all. When you say "most" people you are making a sweeping generalization that adds nothing but emotion to your argument. Again, are you taking your own polls on what most people thought or what? Your making sweeping generalizations, and like all such statements, they are untrue and somewhat meaningless. Did you move there because of Y2K? If so, what happened to Y2K? But there is no depression now. This is a recession, not near a depression. Does your banker understand the difference? Do you? Throughout history people of predicted incorrectly that the end is near. The damage is done to those who believe these false prophets and follow them. Incredibly, even after the predictions don't come true, the prophets are able to adjust their prophecies and the followers still believe. I have to admit, I am apalled at the number of sympathetic responses to your question. However, after thinking about it, I am certain that we could get the same sympathy for theories such as OJ was framed, there was a shooter in the grassy knoll, Jonathan Edwards spoke to my dead father who told me that he saw bigfoot being abducted by aliens, etc... You say the sky is falling. I've heard that a few times before. It sounds to me like you don't have your facts straight. It also sounds like you have been making these predictions for at least 10 years since at least 1998. Don't you think that in all that time the economy was bound to make a downturn? Don't you think the real estate market had something to do with that down turn? Anyway, I don't know why it bothers me so much. Perhaps it's because I had to bail out my brother after he fell for someone else's doomsday theory.

Wow! Did you ever sucker me into asking that question. You were just dying to share your theory, but wanted some poor fool like me to ask for it first, right? Well, it doesn't make sense to me. I think we can all agree that there is plenty of oil to last for many years (can't we?). The rate at which oil is being drilled can be increased. The amount of solar energy thoeretically available is more than we could ever use. The amount of geothermal energy is large as well. Nuclear energy for all practical purposes is limitless. There are many other sources not currently being used to capacity as well. I don't see it. Care to make a prediction on when this depression will come? In the mean time, I will just continue working to increase my income as opposed to hording resources. BTW: In 1999 my brother quit his job, sold his house, stocked up on food, and moved to Idaho in preparation for Y2K. He called me and advised me to do the same. By 2001 he had basically lost everything he had worked for all his life.

There is nothing wrong with letting a 5 year old go out and play in the neighborhood.