Area54

Your rejection of belief seems to be based upon a belief.

Attempting deep psychlogical examination based upon scanty news articles and internet discussion, without specialised training in the field seems a rather pointless exercise.

Since all he did was ask a question, how do you arrive at the conclusion he was almost certainly wrong? Meanwhile, back on topic, Dan said " I personally believe that this could have formed a body with density close to that of a neutron star but without the necessary density to initiate neutron formation, a failed neutron star if you will. " Dan, do you have any quantitative data to support this belief?

One can make an argument that the "social care crisis" is a product of fewer children to support aged parents, coupled with a disinterest in accepting that responsibility. That would be a social/cultural behavioural issue, independent of antibiotics. (And the housing shortage arises from political decisions, not e.coli.) Your implied solution carries with it the unpleasant odour of the eugenics movement. I wonder if you had considered that aspect of your thinking? The notion that bacteria might be "searching for the right people for evolution" betrays a misunderstanding of the character of evolution. Perhaps you were speaking with a very strong metaphorical twist, but it did not read that way. Further, bacteria do not really want to do anything. Their genetics compels them to attempt to survive and replicate to the maximum degree. They have no "purpose", or "drive", or "desire", or "intent" beyond that. I do not believe Zapatos was belittlling your wording. He was offering guidance to help you improve your posts by encouraging you to be more precise in your choice of language. Would you really have preferred that he had not pointed out your inappropriate use of the word "desire", that he had - instead - left you ignorant of your error? You should be thanking him for his objective honesty, not sniping at him. I've read, reread, then read again, then analysed the readings, deconstructed the sentences, reflected on the syntax and the vocabulary and had a final reading, and there is no way that anyone in this thread suggested that the brain helped us evolve from apes. (Although it is not difficult to make the argument that it did.) Zapatos was making the point that desire only becomes present in organisms with brains. (For all I know he may insist that true desire is only present in beings who are self aware.) Science is by its very nature harsh and argumentative. I recommend you accept this. If you choose to ignore or avoid every scientist, or science junkie, who is direct and forthright, you will seriously compromise your desire to learn.

Making it an ideal holiday destination for amateur astronomers!

Roger that Manticore. Mike, you said you had been plastered by -1s. I went through the entire thread and found only 2, for a couple of your most recent posts. Two downvotes is not equivalent to being plastered by them. I felt a momentary urge to give you a -1 for being deceitful, but immediately suppressed it, since I think you were just being imprecise. I admire your consistency in that regard. The -1s are not there anymore. Now can we please get on with it. I do make four requests. 1. Please try to genuinely respond to questions asked or arguments made by other participants. That means really reading what they have said and not shooting from the hip, or reading from your agenda. 2. Stop repeating the same tired old arguments in the same disjointed way. 3. Focus. 4. If there is something you could do about your abominable spelling/typing it would be appreciated.

I reserve -1's for trolling, extreme bigotry, persistent off-topic posts and the like. I see nothing in Mike's posts that merit a -1. He is wrong, but that can only be demonstrated to him by a well honed counter argument and open discussion, not by attacking his integrity. I am tempted to mock your own comments. "Oh! I am a spoilt child. Someone won't accept my arguments so I am going to give them a couple of anonymous -1s. That will show them." You are fully entitled, as I understand the rules of the forum, to give anyone a -1 for reasons you think appropriate. You are fully entitled to refrain from such action yourself, but to speak in support of those who do downvote. It is my opinion that in this case your actions are unwarranted and counterproductive. @Mike, you are aware, I think, that I believe you to be seriously misguided, misled and off the rails. But if you leave the discussion I shall never be able to persuade you of that fact. No downvotes have come from me.

The Sermon on the Mount provides an answer to the question "How shall I live my life?" You appear to be thinking of questions only in terms of questions that fall within the purview of science. And your comments are wholly valid for those. They are not valid for the metaphysical and spiritual questions.

Neither Moontanman, nor myself have suggested Chinese civilisation goes back 250,000 years. Moontanman made two clear statements that you have misread. Statement 1: Homo sapiens has been in existence for 250,000 years. Statement 2: Chinese civilisation was advanced at the time the Jews were following a nomadic existence. Are these statements accurate? I might make a minor quibble with each of them. Re Statement 1 - My understanding was that the first "true humans" appeared around 180,000 years ago. However that understanding requires two caveats. Firstly, Moontanman may have more up to date information than I. (He hints at this by referring to "modern thought" on the issue.) Secondly, classification of modern humans, or Homo sapiens is artificial. It is a matter of definition. The key point Moontanman makes is that this supposed God let humanity suffer for many tens of thousands of years before taking an interst in an obscure group of nomads (at which point he gave a thumbs up to circumcision and a thumbs down to prawn cocktails). Re Statement 2 - Moontanman's post could be interepreted to mean that China was the first civilisation. I understand that Chinese civilisation developed independently of those in the Middle East, the so called Fertile Crescent, but a little later. However, I think Moontanman was focusing on the Jews, at the time they were evolving their religion and were not a settled people, with writing and scholars and industry and burgeoning economies. (Moontanman, have I read you correctly?) Again, he is questioning the logic that God should decide to make his appearance to a bunch of unwashed, uneducated, goat herders,rather than a sophisticated and open minded people. (I never appreciate the "God works in mysterious ways" response.) The bulk of "our" history may come from the Mediterranean, because "we" are a European people and chance dictated that "we" should, for the present, come to dominate the culture of the globe. However, to deny the richness of cultures and civilisations and languages and histories and literatures and science that has developed or been practiced elsewhere is to take a disturbingly egocentric viewpoint. I know you mean well Mike, but it is that sort of thinking that leads to racial prejudice, bigotry and the gas chambers. You have an incredibly narrow minded approach to history. You have a belief that has spawned an agenda. You close your eyes to any facts that do not support that agenda, or twist them in a way that destroys their meaning. I sincerely wish you would stop it.

Which is a very honest statement of your ignorance. That is surely not something to be ashamed of. Nor is it something on which to base a worldview.

I'm no expert in these things at all, but the one thing that I believe I do know is that your idea of what science thinks space is, is faulty. It is not thought to be absolutely nothing, but - on the contrary - filled with fields and virtual particles and all manner of concepts well above my pay grade. Consequently, I think you are starting from the wrong premise.

Then it is a great opportunity to do so now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell's_law

I am automatically suspicious of any research that invokes the orgone concept of Wilhelm Reich coupled with a hitherto unidentified "force", KELEA. If I wasn't already a skeptic I think this would convert me.

The role of any country is what it chooses it to be, presuming it has the resources and tenacity to realise that role. At present the goal appears to be make reality TV reality.

So are the weeds.

I understood your emphasis was more 20th/21st century, but I couldn't resist a touch of British braggadocio. During the cold war period America has fought proxy wars with the Soviets, but I agree they have not attacked any nuclear capable country directly. I disagree with your last two sentences. Israel has likely had a deliverable nuclear weapons capacity since 1966. Egypt, Syria and Jordan planned to attack it in 1967, but Israel initiated hostilities and thuswon the Six Day War, so perhaps you can discount that occassion. However, Egypt and Syria did attack a nuclear-capable Israel in 1973. Then we have the case of India and Pakistan, both of whom have nuclear weapons and both of whom have been engaged in intermittent hostilities in Kashmir since partition. You could reasonably argue that these did not constitute war, but lobbing shells into a neighbours territory and firing shots across the border meet my definition of "attacking another country". I'm nit picking just for the sake of historical accuracy. (And while I'm at it, lets not forget the undeclared war along the Chinese-Soviet border in 1969 which was initiated, I believe, by the Chinese. Only US pressure on the Soviets prevented a nuclear attack on China, whose own nuclear arsenal was, at that time, not thought to pose a serious threat. The concern was over the strength of the Chinese conventional forces.)

The British did burn down the White House and fire the Capitol in 1812. Might that not be considered significant damage?

Only if you let it. It is choice that you have total control over.

@inverse - Some details that would help would be: Which branch of engineering do the projects relate to? How many people would be directly involved in the research? What period of time would be covered by the project? How much do you estimate the project would cost? What would be the technical and the financial benefits of the project? A passing comment. Your failure, so far, to specify the details of your intentions makes me think you will find it a major challenge to write a well structured project plan.

Speculation with minimal evidence is fine for writing fantasy stories. It is delinquent application of intellect when it is used to justify a worldview.

Not in this thread, but in others and on other fora, and in other places, the claim is made by some/many scientists. Not, I think, a majority, but a significant number. The Bible has been shown to be factually incorrect in places. That does not mean its underlying messages have been shown to be wrong. I suspect you think it was wrong about the "creation", but this is only because you adopt the same misguided interpretation as the fundamentalists, failing to understand the poetic and metaphorical nature of the Genesis stories.

It strikes me that reconciling science and religion is akin to trying to reconcile avocado salad and the internal combustion engine - an amusing intellectual exercise, relatively easy to achieve, but ultimately rather pointless. If we examine the character of science as understood by practicing scientists, or philosophers, with that of religion as understood by serious theologists there is little or no significant overlap. The conflict arises when militant atheists, such as Dawkins, or aggressive evangelicals, such as the ID mob, inappropriately seek to extend the boundaries of science and religion respectively. Some posters here appear to conflate religion with fundamentalist views. All the religions I am aware of are much more nuanced than that. Just as the scientists who claim science has proven the non-existence of God are misguided and unscientific, so to the fundamentalists insisting on a Young Earth are misguided and the antithesis of Christian.

This is a problem that eventually solves itself.

The pragmatic solution to a difficult problem may require that I lie. Since this is counter to my preferred behaviour I shall feel guilty in advance. I know people who, on a diet, cannot resist eating cheescake. They feel guilty before, during and after. Many more examples exist.

I don't find much that makes sense in DrDick's argument, but this particular counter of yours seems flawed. My parents didn't tell me they were speaking English, but over time the peculiar grunts and groans they were making began to make sense. I think that process may be part of Dr.Dick's argument.