LazyLemonLucas

So! It is true. Roe V. Wade is gone. Just got back on the forum after awhile.

Intelligent design IS related to creationism. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Dover changed its curriculum to accommodate intelligent design in its biology classes. The court ruled that the change was not related to any scientific consensus, but rather a political and religious with the pretense of science. Furthermore, the court ruled that intelligent design was unscientific and a form of creationism (which even then is not hard to deduce since the theory explains a creator). I suggest watching the video I linked. It answers your questions and arguments and I'm not to regurgitate something that has been already said.

All peoples of all sorts of races have managed to conjure up discrimination based on someone's race. It is quite unfortunate that these events happened before and still continue to happen. However, my question is not about racial discrimination but I thought I'd clear that up beforehand. I was watching a video (which I believe I can't link here as that would be an advertisement) that was essentially explaining the role race plays in sports. According to the video, there seems to be a relationship and correlation with race/ethnicities and what sports these people dominate in (ex: East Asians tend to dominate in weightlifting, Europeans tend to dominate in swimming, West Africans tend to dominate track and etc). My question is: How can the physical differences between race/ethnicity be explained? I ask this question on a forum like this one because it seems to be filled with people who have more qualifications than me.

Oh yes, this is true. I believe I read somewhere that using robots that would multiply across different planets, systems, and galaxies would be very efficient.

At times, I like to think what we know about the universe, we can assume that aliens (especially intelligent ones) would know about it too. In fact, we could assume that intelligent aliens would be thinking about the same issues we propose like the scope of the universe and its relations to us. If we are interested in finding other aliens, we can assume they would be too. Chances are, aliens would be more technologically advanced if aliens came to us. Just a thought...

Apologies. I mistook Einstein's theories in which he had no preconceived notions as an attempt to disprove his theory. Though I can't say the same with Freud who did have preconceived notions.

It was not a good idea searching that up.

What Haha, "swans no tea" Poor swan.

K

That seemed to be awhile ago with different people I though it was pronounced "swan-sont" not "swans-on-t(ea)" Good to know

Awesome.

How did you all formulate your usernames? My username is LazyLemonLucas. One, I'm not lazy I just had to put it in there to make it an alitteration. Two, I'm not a lemon, again, I just had to put it in there to make an altteration. Three, my real name isn't Lucas either. It was actually one of my old buddies who I met in school and I just thought that it would be cool to have my username as his namesake. Lazy. Lemon. Lucas. Triple L.

My views on it is that the central thesis doesn't need a book to explain it. It's not even scientific either. What Behe is trying to argue is a trivial and primitive argument in which he strawmans Darwin's theory. I suggest watching Qualiasoup in which he disproves Behe's unscientific claim.

Karl Popper read about Sigmund Freud's theories and listened to Albert Einstein's lectures which helped him formulate the theory that makes "pseudoscience" (as he coined it) and "science" distinct. What he realized is that Sigmund Freud could warp evidence to conform to his theory. For example: Sigmund Freud could explain how a child might feel lonely by explaining that they were hugged too little as a child (lack of affection; induces alienation to affection) or being hugged too much as a child (affection becomes a normal occurence it is taken for granted). Sigmund Freud seeked to prove his theory which ultimately leads him to cognitive dissonance and bias--something unscientific. Albert Einstein did not do what Sigmund Freud did. What Albert Einstein did sounds counterproductive, but he seeked to disprove his theory. The solar eclipse of 1919 was heavily watched by Albert Einstein as the way light would travel to Earth would've disproven the Theory of Relativity, but as we all know, it becomes the most well-known scientific theory today. (The solar eclipse proved the Theory of Relativity as Einstein observed how the light warps or bends) What seperated Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein was unorthodox and seemingly contradicting, but we can never trust how we "feel" but rather what we "know". We know that theories that seek to disprove are scientific because they do not have the bias that a theory that would seek to prove. It sounds weird, I know, but Karl Popper thought that seeking to disprove eliminates more bias than seeking to prove ever would. In his eyes, every "wrong" theory that we assume gets us that more closer to the truth, because we have just crossed off one wrong idea to be replaced with a right one.

Joe A minecraft reference out of all things... haha

I don't remember the ten comamndments having amendments.

Well I suppose what conservatives see as "progressive" is more so referring to "socially progressive". The main problems that Republicans have with social progressivism is that according to them, it is decadent. Now to the extent in which something can be considered decadent (and even more difficult if it is a society) is debateable. However, according to the Republican Party it is a huge issue.

Why would the 2nd amendment be troublesome? haha

Good point.

I always loved prehistoric sharks growing up. It is sad to see that there are not many freshwater sharks in modern day times. (atleast not in considerable numbers or strictly freshwater) Good to know there is appreciation for these creatures.

Let us hope that the people who do contemplate suicide do not miscalculate their misfortune.

I have a textbook called "Understanding Abnormal Psychology (Eighth Edition)" and it reads on page 412 and 413: "The following letter captured worldwide attention when a twenty-one-year-old paralegic, Vincent Humbert, wrote a special appeal to French president Jacques Chirac asking to end his own life: Mr. Chirac, My respects to you, Mr. president. My name is Vincent Humbert, I am 21. I was in a traffic accident on 24 September 200. I spent nine months in a coma. I am currently in Helio-Marins hospital in Berck, in the Pas-de-Calais region. All my vital organs were affected, except for my hearing and my brain, which alllows me a little comfort. I can move my right hand very slightly, putting pressure with my thumb on each letter of the alphabet. These letters make up words and the words form sentences. This is my only method of communication. I currently have a nurse beside me, who spells me the alphabet separating vowels and consonants. This is how I have decided to write you [sic]. The doctors have decided to send me to a specialised clinic. You have the right of pardon and I am asking for the right to die. I would like to do this clearly for myself but especially for my mother; she has left her old life to be by my side, here in Berck, working morning and evening after visiting me, seven days out of seven, without a day of rest. And all this to be able to pay the rent for her miserable studio flat. . ." There is more to this letter but I stopped here to save character space. I am sure you can find more of it online (though it might be in French), but I digress. My point is: I would say, yes. The right to die is as important as the right to live, or the right to a pardon according to Humbert. Suicide is caused by a lack of hope. With an invalid like Humbert, there is no doubt in my mind that there cannot be more hope for him. It is simply a recognition of reality and he himself knew this.

No wonder why the correlation between slavery and abortion (since it centers on personhood) is so often brought up.

I would not be surprised somebody would make this argument; this is an argument that has been made regarding the issue of free states and slave states during the mid-1800s. Dare I say, history repeats itself...

"If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law." -Al Gore The people who are trying to overturn abortion rights or diminish the level at which it is allowed have the advantage of the law.