Hellbender

21/m/us

One problem: are you familiar with astrology? Astrology is the unfounded belief that the alignment of the stars at your birth affects what you are going to be like in life, thus lumping people who were born in the first half of july in the category "cancer", for example, and dictating that your personality traits are the same as everyone else on that group. It is also the assumption that the stars alignment during your day will affect what happens and dictate what decisions you should make. Your view of what astrology is sounds like you are indeed confusing it with the science of astronomy, and yes, astronomers do study stars (among other things). Its a very honest mistake, as the two words do sound very much alike.

How can you say astrology has little to do with this topic, and then in the very next breath, say that "astrology is a true aspect...". Astrology is not true! Get that through your head. You can believe it all you want, but do not attempt to discuss it here without getting that belief called into question. We discuss here, not soapbox. And then, when we consider it (ask for evidence, discuss it), you get all mad, and say "thats not what I want to do here!!!". I said "profoundly", but its your job as the person making this claim to show that stars do at all, and make sense about it and give examples. Expect that when you try to make a point, that it will be challenged and discussed. No one comes here to just tell their ideas/beliefs and then have everyone else say "wow" or "I agree with you". One should always be able to back up there claims with a good argument and/or evidence. It simply doesn't do to say "here's my ideas, don't question or criticize them, I just wanted to tell you what I think". Thats boring, and defeats the purpose of a discussion and debate board. Sharing your ideas is fine, but my point is that they can be called into question. Actually, we are discussing your topic. The fact that it has no validity, and that you are not forthcoming with any support for it, doesn't affect the fact that we are indeed discussing your topic. If you don't want to discuss it anymore, then fine, get someone to close the thread. And I made the point that it is not "Science Soapbox and Debate". Scientific discussions are not based on unfounded claims and beliefs. Fine, but I am not the only one here who will ask for evidence when you make claims like this. This is your thread, and we are discussing your topic, which is astrology's supposed link to evolution. We went off topic a little, yes, but I don't know where you are getting that I am "forcing you to debate in whatever arouses my interest" on this thread. If I did that, we would have been talking about video games or salamanders for a while already .

Don't put words in my mouth. I never disagreed with this claim. What I do disagree with you on, I will make clear here. 1) Astrology exists, it works and it is useful, outside of the placebo-effect. 2) Evolution is guided directly by the stars or "astrological seasons". 3) Starlight has a profound effect on evolution. 4) We don't have the right to ask that you back up your beliefs, even if you use assertions of them in place of evidence and expect us science people (who logically demand that all claims in a scientific disscussion should be backed up be evidence) to accept that. 5) Disagreement with your beliefs is a blatant attack on them. 6) We are all close-minded, dogmatic scientists who hide our head in the sand whenever we hear a claim that on a topic that science doesn't support. We disagree with pseudoscientific claims not becuase we don't like the nature of the claim, but because they are usually fanciful and not supported by evidence at all. Thats where I stand, I felt I had to list them to clear things up, for future reference.

Its completely sleight of hand. I will try to find some links for you about it.

Yeah, I didn't get Contact at all. I thought the her father was an alien that only looked that way so she wouldn't be scared of it or something. My religious mother caught the significance. Either way I hated that film. 2001 is another one that is still talked about, but I didn't get it and hated it.

Don't get me wrong; I love bearded dragons, but with all the varieties and interesting options, I kinda wanted to go against the grain (thats just the way I am). Beardies are popular herps, in fact, I dare say the cause-du-jour these days (in the 80's it was iguanas, right). You are right, but America is capitalist, so getting ripped off is inevitable . But thanx for the advice. There are actually pet stores around here that have some good deals on tanks. I think besides the animal, the tank is the single biggest expense.

Thanks a lot for the info, Mokele. I do like colubrid constrictors, and you made a great case for them. The reason I don't already have a herp is that I admittedly still live at home and my mother won't let me (man, do I feel like a loser lol) A lot of resources I read are from vets, but I think its better to get the info directly from a herpetologist who owns herps. My girlfriend is not afriad of snakes, which is good, but again, she won't let me keep anything that I need to feed live rodents too (she has a pet rat and loves it). What sort of dead prey do they prefer? I assume it would be mice.

Thanks for all the info guys. To address klanger's question, my girlfriend is involved with the decision, and you are right, I shoukd have mentioned that she is a big part of my decision. She doesn't really want me to have anything I will have to feed small live mammals to, such as a kingsnake or boa. Other than that, she doesn't really care. I mentioned it as an option simply becuase there might be ways around having to do this. I never actually considered iguanas, I guess becuase I always thought the individual lizards and their huge enclosures were really expensive. But that changed when I went to a pet store near school that was selling one for twelve bucks. Not much a demand for them anymore, I guess. Iguanas, as well as is everthing Phoenix and BenSon suggested, are good options. I might have also clarified that I have been researching this a lot lately (peteducation.com is my main resource) and decided I want something large that I can handle. Again, thanks for the help guys.

I have been wondering about what kind of pet I want to get once I move in with my girlfriend. I am definitely set that I want some form of medium or large type of reptile, but I don't know which one would be best. Here are my options; Bearded dragons are friendly and easy to keep. They are a good option, but I kind of wanted something more interesting. Varanids such as water monitors are said to be aggressive at first, and require large enclosures but are beautiful and make great pets. Snakes such as ball pythons or kingsnakes are beautiful and easy to handle, but I don't really want anything that has to eat live food. Turtles can be interesting, but I have had Red-Eared sliders that were completely boring. There is a wood turtle in the herp lab at school that is very friendly and attractive, but I don't know if they are available for the pet trade. I guess I am indecisive, but given the long life span of reptiles, its a commitment worth evaluating.

I actually liked anaconda and anacondas. The second one was more scientific than the first. Jaws is pretty good, aside from some of the stuff thrown in for the sake of it being a movie, and the fact that it added greatly to the demonization of large sharks, I dare say you might learn something about sharks from watching it. I kind of liked lake placid as well, it had some good moments. Also, off the top of my head, the Aliens series is pretty scientific as well, as long as you don't acknowledge Alien: Resurrection as a part of the series, that movie is such a mess.

LOL I like how you put this. Very Hellbender-ish

you, of all people are in no postition to lecture about reality. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be entertained and have fun, no one wants to lead a boring monastarial existance.

LOL it would be in the water, and salamanders are strong swimmers. Plus people are more repulsed by some salamanders. Sort of on a side note, tourists up here are afraid of every little creature in the water when they swim, but come from places like Long Island where they would normally be swimming with white sharks and poison jellyfish.

I'm not saying thats all you have to do here, but it is what discussions turn into most of the time. We aren't going to learn anything if you simply tell us what you think. You seem to have a deal with providing evidence, then turn around and say how you want us to learn from you. It doesn't really follow. I might have jumped the gun a little in saying that you have to debate here, but in a scientific discussion, making a claim is always followed by what evidence and how you think it logically relates. That is how we will best learn what you have to say. Most of us here don't make assertions on people's personality or motives the way you do. Like I said, I may a have jumped the gun a little. Discussion and debate are slightly different things, and you aren't necessarily obligated to do only one or the other. However, discussions usually turn into debates here, and I felt that right now, in this thread, we are debating, as is evident with our point-by-point exchanges. If you do not want to pursue the point-by-point format, then simply stop posting responses to us. However, this is not "Science Soapbox and Debate". Expect your points and claims to be evaluated and criticized.

Look CS, I certainly don't hate you, but you need to realize a few things; 1) When you bring up topics such as astrology in a science forum, expect that, given the nature of this site and its members, pseudoscientific ideas will be strongly challenged 2) You need to realize that this is a discussion and debate forum, and we try to do precisely that. Yes we can google the claims you make, but the rules of honest debate dictate that the person making the claim is naturally the one who should provide support for it. 3) If an idea or argument is challenged, don't get all mad about it. Again, that is what we do here. Criticism of claims is a healthy aspect of science and debating. If you make a claim, we aren't simply going to all say "interesting" and thats it. We are going to naturally discuss it and find faults in it. If your claim cannot stand up to this, it wasn't a very good claim in the first place. 4) Stop accusing members of qualities or behaviors you imagine them to have. No one is playing the victim, I am not a child and we are not all close-minded. We are science-oriented individuals, and members such as Swansont and Mokele are the real deal. We ask that you support your claims and at least know the scientific method and apply it to your arguments. If you do not, then it makes sense that you may not fit in with us.

I would become a hideous salamander man, with poison skin and the ability to breathe under water. That would be fun. Then I could go and slime all the obnoxious tourists at the beach in summertime.

Christ Slave telling us to be realistic? Oh brother now I've heard everything.

I crack my knuckles a lot, plus my neck, back, toes, knees and shoulders always need cracking. I have been cracking my fingers the longest, though and they have very flared joints and are slightly bent, plus they hurt every now and then. I don't know if it truly causes arthritis, but like what Dak said, it certainly seems to.

He'll eventually go away, just like others have done in the past. But swansont is right, banning him probably wouldn't be a good idea. I am annoyed with him too. Asking him to support his arguments gets under his skin becuase I guess he doesn't realize that is was the rest of the world does when they make a claim.

I am not flattering myself! From what orifice are you pulling these assumptions from? Stars have an effect on culture I guess, but I fail to see any evidence that they so profoundly affect evolution as you say. So? See above point. Whaaa..... They don't teach us that much about the universe. They exist, they are pretty on summer nights and thats mostly all they do. They don't even provide that much light at night. Don't get me wrong, stars are pretty and interesting, but the truth is that they don't really affect culture as much as you think, and they certainly don't move in astrological cycles that can directly shape evolution. Our bodies would scarcely be different. They don't illuminate the night as much as you think. maybe I will rebut the other points later, but I am getting bored with this conversation....

NASA has certainly contributed to our culture and our understanding of space, but I don't see how space exploration has or could directly affect evolution. I guess I should ask again HOW you propose that stars directly affect evolution.... Its not undeniable. You haven't showed any ways that stars *could* do what you say they do. So take your own advice, your position nay, fantasies, are hardly supported by logic and reason (or anything but belief for that matter). you don't get it. i don't agree with you for more reasons that "just opinion". Opinions may carry weight in the politics forum, but there are little things called "facts" and "evidence". These two little words naturally should factor greatly in a scientific discussion, and in my disagreement with your pseudoscience as well. Are you? After all, I am the one being rational (rational being a quality generally thought of as mature) here, and you are the one who is choosing to keep this discussion in the realm of sheer fantasy.

The placebo effect is very real an accounts for lots of stupid things "working". But it is an aspect of the human brain to delude itself, it in no way supports astrology. In fact, it makes it all the more silly. You haven't provided any support, just long-rambling posts containing metaphysical nonsense and pseudoscience. It is hardly "ignorant" for members of a science forum to ask someone making wild claims to provide evidence for them. Then prove us all wrong by showing that your arguments and opinions are logical and reasonable. So far, you haven't given us any reason to really ascribe these qualities to you, so its hardly stubborn. Word of (objective, so it may sound harsh) advice: It hasn't shown to be a good idea to go into a science forum and start talking about crazy stuff like astrology, and then complain when we ask that you provide evidence for your claims. We all are either scientists, or have an interest in science, so maybe taking these topics to a more like-minded audience is a good idea, you may have learned that we aren't going tell you what you want to hear from most of us.

No, I was actually trying to be rhetorical. Are you trying to be annoying by bringing up this point so many times? We already went over this, and I am not going to clog up yet another with this discussion. I said before, if you still can't let it go, start another thread somewhere, or better yet, PM me so we don't waste any more space on any forums. If you don't want to try either of those options, then I'm done for good with this.

Do you have any idea what the term "colloquial" means?