Royston

So why bring it up, you silly mollusc.

You're welcome, I do have that effect on people. I apologize for getting heated, because that's just being hypocritical. No, I said 'when' somebodies belief has no consequence on you or anybody else i.e people who have their beilefs, but have the intelligence to seperate that belief from science, and don't it make their business to force their beliefs on others through dogma, or scaremongering et.c

The problem is inow, you appear to take exception to somebodies belief, when it has absolutely no consequence on you, or anyone else (see my earlier example.) You are also very dogmatic and vocal about your opinions, which is exactly the kind of behaviour I'd expect from an Arkansas Christian Fundamentalist. You really have the wrong audience here for such discussion, and it is insulting to the people that do have faith on here, I can think of three, who are incredibly good scientisits, who are provoked into responding. You started pushing your opinions on a thread about chemistry desktop backgrounds, of all things. So wtf are you pushing your opinions on them, and not the people who really are a threat ? I just don't understand it personally. I really hate to see it on here, where there's much better things to discuss...that actually go somewhere.

I received the marks and feedback for my second assignment yesterday, and it was very dissapointing, a drop of 15% from my first, and after an hour of sulking, and beating myself up over the result (something I'm really good at) I took it as an opportunity to make a concerted effort to do better. It's very easy when you compare yourself with other students, and people on here, who seem to reel out equations, and counter intuitive principles almost with no effort, to think that they never struggled with certain concepts. Despite getting high marks, you never see the points where somebody is tearing their hair out till 3 in the morning with frustration, and I'm sure many would not like to admit they do. So this is to share those problems, concepts, principles et.c that you really struggled with. Or, what is your main weakness, that has caused problems whilst studying towards your A-level, degree, Phd et.c That you'd probably rather not admit to. My tutor pegged my weakness perfectly, I forget basics, I can tackle harder questions with no problem (probably because I think too much), then make a right guff, later on in the question because I forgot some basic principle. I'm also careless with problems I feel I'm familiar with, and make some really stupid mistakes, because of over confidence and not considering the question with nearly enough thought. (TBH, it's been good to of been brought down a peg or two with my last assignment.) I also get easily confused with the wording of some questions, and I have a bad habit of going into too much detail with written questions, which is a big no no with physics, precise, concise statements is something I really need to work on. So share your struggles through your education...or are you just damn perfect

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject. The concept, and definition of God has been blurred through many interpretations, and I feel it's unfair to attack early interpretations by using scientific argument, as those early interpretations were rationalizations of God within the knowledge they had at the time. The point being, you can't rationalize or debate a concept such as God, because nobody can truly agree on an absolute definition of God, whatever God is, it's beyond our understanding. All we have are our own personal interpretations of concepts that lie beyond science, and both sides of this debate like to cherry pick which interpretation can be attacked. The whole argument is absurd to me, personally, and why it generally ends up with several pages of debate and no precise conclusion.

I was only pulling your leg thedarkshade, hence the smiley. It's not so much the arguments, i.e we're entitled to our opinion, it's the terminology used such as 'leprechaun farts and unicorns' et.c I used such comparisons when I was given my Gideon’s Bible when I was 10, and tossed it in the bin after reading it...I like to think I've grown up since then. What I find really embarrassing, is that on here, of all places, people are taking exception to others beliefs, when it has no consequence on the people questioning it. Now, is YT rallying for Creationism to be taught in science class...no. Is Severian writing journals claiming the Higgs Boson, is God's index finger...no. So why are certain people so inclined to question these irrelevances on 'here' not on a YEC forum for instance, where people are trying to mix their fervent beliefs with science. There was a very similar discussion a while ago, but I'll repeat my point. I had the same experience with a very good friend. We were just chatting one day, and I brought up evolution...and that was it, we got into a full blown argument, and nearly fell out. We ignored the 15 odd years we'd know each other, the passions we shared and hobbies we collaborated on, over nothing. I didn't even realize he had different beliefs to my own, despite knowing the guy for so long...why, because he doesn't force his beliefs on others, he didn't even mention his beliefs for all the 15 years I knew him, because it has nothing to do with our friendship. I can make the same comparison with Paranoia, on many aspects we share the same views, we both have a passion for writing music, and have PM'd each other a number of times, and it's been very cordial. But that one recent thread (profit from supernatural claims) I was close to putting him on my ignore list, which is just really immature, over one, which turned out to be, misunderstanding. We both misrepresented each other, AFAICS and it got heated, and let’s face it, one misunderstanding is waaaay more important than everything else we have in common. You have the same problems with the many denominations in religion, it could be one slightly different interpretation of a holy text, and two denominations which are almost indistinguishable can take exception to each other, over a formality, it's daft. You can go back to the 11th century, and even then there's examples where two denominations, celebrated their commonalities, just look at the famous minaret at Jam, if they can find common ground, then I would like to think so-called rational thinkers can do it in the 21st century on a science forum, which is why I think such discussions have no place on here. It's a case of taking exception, with the wrong people, and the wrong aspects of belief.

Well yes, that's essentially what Archimedes did, but without the integration. I guess you could use [math]\frac{C}{d}[/math] but that equals [math]\pi[/math] anyway. This may help... http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/Demos/Notebooks/CalculatingPi.html

To be blunt, because I give a shit, just like you, and I'd like to think that I can offer something that goes beyond the constraints i've been given. I never said that, all I said is that I have long term interests at heart, what's wrong with that ? Then I don't think we understand each other. I never said that my understanding of physics is an authority, or against any belief, and we're swaying way off topic. FYI I was a little drunk when I made my last post, but I still stick to my guns, in that I would like to contribute to our survival, I don't understand why you think that's a negative attribute ? Paranoia, you insulted me, so I retaliated, it's called human nature. EDIT: this is way too personal for my liking, so please PM me

Don't confuse arrogance with long term solutions. If you want to party on the way, go for it, I do it all the time. However, I make a concerted effort to redeem myself through understanding math, and physics. This isn't subjective, in fact I have long term interests at heart, i.e I have long term survival at heart, and if it wasn't for people like me, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so quench your bleating, and please don't label me as arrogant, because I have long term solutions to consider...I actually find your comment incredibly insulting.

I appreciate the response Paranoia, because like you (possibly), I'm getting worn out Certainly not a scientific theory, by any stretch of the imagination. I don't really understand how you're not getting, that making profit means you need to satisfy the customer and provide them with results, that keep the customer coming back. Products and services are an evolving process, that keep the fickle consumer happy, yet the products and services within this context are no different to the dark ages. I think you have me pegged all wrong Paranoia, and I find that observation quite insulting, I'm conservative with some issues, liberal with others. I just can't stand to see money pilfered away on such things...I can't stand to see money pilfered away on profit for profit companies, that spend millions each year on failed projects. I think many people have their priorities, on where money should go, utterly skewed. Believe what you want, but money should go into our survival, not squandered on individual self interest.

You ? My housemate bought The God Delusion quite recently, and I have been meaning to read it. From what I scanned through, there seems to be a concentration on the Christian fundamentalists in the States. I do take exception to some of Dawkins views, but I need to read this book, to get a more formulated opinion. I'm hoping my pre-prejudice won't get in the way. EDIT: Just an afterthought, but shouldn't the book review sub forum be strictly science, because, quite frankly, some of the comments I've read in this thread, are embarrassing to read.

Sorry Paranoia, I missed your response, I think I've covered my thoughts on the subject. We may have to agree to disagree, because personally I have zero tolerance to profit made through such questionable means, but I'll address your points all the same. Mystic Meg is claiming to predict the future, and the newspaper is using that claim to make money...pretty dishonest if they don't believe in said claim, don't you think ? As Dak pointed out, people also believe in it...so again, unless they make the claim, people won't read it...it's that simple No their obligated to say it's a crock. OK, gotcha, I didn't quite follow you're original point. The simple answer, tell your customers that there's no evidence that your pond water is beneficial to their complexion, and to get off your property. I'm not sure I follow the thirsty person comment, quite simply because word has got around that your pond water is rejuvenating for the skin, not refreshing to drink. Stop saying 'that simple', you sound like a physics student. It's your problem if you're charging him for that privilege, why charge him for it ? You can charge him for using your property, but nothing else. Oh dear oh dear, I can't think of one reputable pop sci book, that makes it abundantly clear that gaps in scientific knowledge are open ended, the same can't be said for palmistry. You can't, but people that profit from God, or the idea of God are in the same boat, and shouldn't profit from that idea. I know there are some churches in the States that do this i.e contributions are not optional, they use God as a means, to force people to part with their money.

There's nothing really stopping us contacting the Mythbusters team with our thoughts. You never know, we could be responsible for adding that extra sciencey rigor to their show. Just a thought.

Unfortunately the GW debate has suffered a bout of Chinese whispers. If you check the original IPCC report, it clearly states, that the primary cause of GW is due to a Mrs. Anne Thropic, who has particularly bad flatulence.

This thread reminds me of the workout DVD that was released, where you use your baby as an exercise aid. Boys on average are bigger than girls, so Mum's can rest easy by using their baby boy to fight off those extra pounds.

Really ? The sentence is a blatant contradiction, but if you want to explore the demographic it's aimed at, it still doesn't make any sense. How can she claim the future can be predicted for person X, but not person Y, because Mystic Meg has accommodated for the fact that person Y doubts her ability. That is such crap, just like anything in a newspaper, it's a selling point. As I said before, they are making the claim that Mystic Meg predicts the future, or people wouldn't read it, it's that simple. Right You would be if what the others say, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. See my last comment. What ? We're not talking about the right you have to your property, and people thieving your rejuvenating water. Again, it's not persuading people to not believe in unsubstantiated 'things', it's persuading people that profit making should be built on a sound basis, is that clear ? Please don't mix gaps in scientific theory with this discussion, it has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, nobody is denying them making a claim, just that they don't profit from said claim.

Really, I see it all the time... Mystic Meg predicts your week ahead. Mystic Meg predicts the week ahead for those who believe in astrology, for those who don't, then note, she isn't claiming she can predict the week ahead. The latter doesn't make any sense, does it. But that's back to front, how am I supposed to know your dirty water reduces the appearance of fine lines, and wrinkles ? Well you advertise it, to advertise you need to claim your product works. Also, what are you doing charging me for this product, that you know doesn't reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles ? Even if you believe it does, should you really be making money from that product, even if the claim is wholly inaccurate ? Again, nobody is stopping anyone, believing in this, that, or the other. Just that people shouldn't be making a profit from such activities. The intrusion is ensuring people don't get ripped off. They can still go and see a medium at a time of bereavement, but they should not be paying for that little bit of comfort, in fact that's one example I find particularly sickening. I leave you with this...http://www.theonion.com/content/horoscope/apr-01-2008

Just found this article, which could be another stepping stone in bolstering GR. What I particularly liked about this approach, was that professional and amateur astronomers were involved in taking measurements, please see the Physicsworld article below... http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33818;jsessionid=BE7D6AE627411F98A30D168DA0F28777

That reasoning is fine, until the person making the claim, is making a profit from that reasoning. You can't profit from a service based on those grounds, that's lunacy IMO. I welcome that this issue is being discussed seriously. Nobody is forcing mediums / psychics / astrologers from not practicing, just that they can't profit from their claims...I really can't see any problem with that. My first thoughts were the media, so I agree with Pangloss...I'm wondering what the daily horoscope will be replaced with. I can't see any ramifications associated with discrimination of belief, this is soley to do with making profit. I could however, fabricate a religion where it's written 'that I must have your money or pestilence will befall you' but that's just silly.

I'm struggling to think of a market for it...even if test tube meat seems viable for a mass production fast food chain, it will only take another fast food chain to advertise that their burgers are made from succulent prime fillet steak, from (and note this word) natural sources. Meaning cows, of course. So the competition will be in favour of the company who provide, natural meat, who in turn can charge more for the privelage, and then build huge farms to make even more money. (Speculating of course...the complete opposite may happen.) I don't think explaining the naturalistic fallacy on the side of a microwave Lasagne, will tip the balance for invitro meat. It would have to be ludicrously cheap, and probably aimed at the lowest common denominator of cuisine. On top of convincing people that it's ok to eat. It could have a market for pet food, but that's still subject for the owner wanting the 'very best' for their pet. I think the sentiment is fine, and people may shrug and just buy the stuff when they see how cheap it is, as many do when choosing over organic or non-organic produce. However, I think it will take a lot of time and convincing, for such an idea to work...by that time, the technology may be there to grow a nice marbled Argentinian steak in the lab.

Thanks ants...Thants Here's the math episode...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9UXw0fQmno Not really comparable to mythbusters, obviously, but yes, I used to really enjoy 'Look Around You.'

Well in the UK we have / had 'Brainiac', it hasn't been on for a while, which is quite frankly, a good thing. It's a really awful show, and pretty much, a mockery of the scientific method. We're quite a fan of mythbusters in our house, despite the rigor it lacks, it's certainly better than a lot of the guff you get on TV. 'I can do science, me'...<shudders> (Brainiac catchphrase)

As long as the subjectivity of that viewpoint is emphasized, plus you can't guarantee how much time was invested into forming that viewpoint. For example, it's easier for somebody to give up smoking if they've only been smoking for a few weeks, as opposed to a few years.

That's a nice way of putting it, but the difference with that example is that you've discovered something, that nobody else has. I guess, going back to the smoking analogy, it comes across as preaching, because I'm sure most smokers are abundantly aware that it's bad for them. It could be for some, that the non-smoker is highlighting a weakness, and makes that person feel uncomfortable, or maybe embarrassed. However, I can understand why that would be irritating, if said person knows full well of the risks, and the non-smoking activist is just regurgitating the same points, that have already been heavily considered.

I must admit, I never realized they existed, prescription goggles that is, not swimming pools. I guess, as I don't wear glasses, I didn't really think about it. Oh God no, although you're reason certainly seems sensible, I could never understand why people think that looking bright orange is a good look...but I guess that's due to overuse. If you come from a reasonably cold country, and even more so if you live in Alaska for example, walking around with a tan does look a bit daft, and I'd be struggling not to remark to said tanned person, that they look a bit of a tit, to be quite honest.