Kyrisch

The double slit experiment could technically be interpreted as so, but that's not really related to the OP.

I'm sorry if I insulted your intelligence, and I'm sorry if I'm greatly simplifying the issue. Unfortunately though, a lack of imagination is not enough to dismiss a theory. Just because we have little knowledge how one specific component might work, if the evidence is consistent with the rest of the theory, and more importantly, if we have no other working theory, one can't just dismiss it based on incredulity alone.

But, unfortunately, it validates the people whose "thing" isn't really being challenged and further reinforces the idea that, if the gays ever get the title of marriage, it will be some huge victory, causing whiplash in the bigoted population. By making such a big deal about "everything but marriage", it is exonerating the ideas of the people who are being "placated," who see gay couples as illegitimate, as well as the homophobes who feel threatened by gay rights. You learn in history class that appeasement never works.

This is largely semantics, but it's still irrelevant. You see how we have one, neuter word for genitals? That applies to both? For further clarification, you can say female and male genitals, just as one would say marriage and gay marriage. Genitals are still genitals regardless of gender (and even though they pertain to two entirely different things). So I ask you, people call male and female genitals by the same broad term, why do straight and gay couples need discrimination in how we describe them?

Yes, and we're discussing whether or not that is moral. I'm glad you could join us. You still have not given any reason why anyone has any right defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual. Your appeal to authority is no proper lieu for a logical argument.

Yes, I can, because that all came about through evolution. As soon as you have an (imperfectly) self-replicating entity, evolution begins -- even without genes! You see, the chemical identity of the genetic material itself could have strengthened or weakened the lipid bubble through electromagnetic interactions. Soon, instead of more nucleic acids linking up in correspondence to the existing genetic material, an amino acid finds its way. A crude, simple, entirely random protein is formed. Whether or not this protein helps will determine whether or not that length of code is propagated more or less than any other. Have you taken biology? The same way that the base pairs are attracted to each other, specific amino acids are attracted to specific base pairs, too. This is how the 'digital code' came about. It was a natural consequence of the interaction between nucleic and amino acids.

I understand that, but for what reason must it exclude gay couples other than to reinforce prejudices? This is what iNow's been getting at. It may not be discrimination if equal rights are given, but there stills stands no reason to stop short of marriage in the first place.

I asked you a direct question. Do you think that homosexual and heterosexual couples are equally legitimate?

You're misunderstanding me. You are hung up on the "mysterious formation" of the genetic material as being code. The thing I was trying to point out was that the nucleic-amino acid relationship need not arise until after the protobionts were many in number and the full force of natural selection was acting on them. Abiogenesis concerns itself with the first self-replicating molecule that was able to pull it off before being destroyed, and nothing more than that. All the intricacies of modern cells were absent in protobionts. Most theories describe them as some stray nucleic acid in a lipid bubble.

I've seen the argued back and forth, left and right, and I've come to the conclusion that it's between two unalterable opinions. Either you evaluate homosexual relationships as equal in validity and quality as heterosexual relationships, or you don't. If you see them as equal, you have no problem with gay marriage. If you (as many do) view homosexual relationships as inferior to heterosexual ones, then it is only rational that you require that there be something 'higher' that is exclusively for heterosexuals, e.g. the 'titular treasure' of marriage. But this only makes sense if you take are of the opinion that gay couples are degenerate. So let me ask you this direct question, Scrappy. Do you view straight couples and gay couples on even ground? If so, then why shouldn't they be afforded equal rights? And if not, what rationale might you possibly have?

Look, I've pointed this out at least twice before. The role of 'genetic material' as a 'code' for protein synthesis only came about after the protobionts started 'replicating' through normal lipid interactions. The genetic material of protobionts were just simple self-replicating molecules that were lucky enough to find themselves inside a protected lipid layer. The nucleic-amino acid relationships developed AFTER these protobionts had been around for awhile. There is no issue here.

It has to do with the 'frame speed' of your eyes. Your eyes, like a video camera, produce the motion picture you see with a very real frame speed. As such, things that move faster than this frame speed become blurred. The same effect is obvious when you watch the hubcap of a tire get up to speed from rest. It seems to accelerate and then start to go backwards. This is because the frame speed of your perception is so slow that your brain is interpreting the few frames it receives into a model that the wheel is going backwards when you know very well it is not.

Good so far. Topic sentence, leading into explanation... Which? 'Bad'? For some reason, I'm doubtful that adjective that might appear in any Biology texts written for non-elementary grades. If you're positing an explanation, then do so. "Bad" is no more a scientific word than "sort of," "tall," or "big" is. Hah. Ha-ha. Like that isn't the case now?! Really? If stopping racism was such a high priority, then your 'God' figure really sucks at achieving what it's set out for, doesn't it? Add 'normal' to my list of completely un-scientific words (i.e. meaningless words of varying shades that really gives no information). No. Fail. Epic, epoch, e-pooch phale. 'God' discussion is not allowed because whenever it comes up, posts like the above happen, which, as I have pointed out quite clearly, are not scientific. As this happens to be a science forum, they are not pertinent nor conducive to the cause of the Board and are thus locked. Nice try though. Good day.

:doh: Did you even see the video posted three posts above yours? Or did you just look at the OP and then add your own ignorant, and obviously closed-minded two-cents for no other reason than to make waves? The irony (at the closed-mindedness of your very statement) and the extreme disrespect is just too much for one post. Yet, you pulled it off. For that, you deserve a reward; you know, the kind that appears in that neat sticky that only moderators and admins can edit. Good day.

I would hope you mean .25 or .30%. If your blood were one-quarter pure alcohol, you'd be more alcoholic than most drinks. That, and dead, of course.

Philosophy reminds me of being so open-minded your brains fall out.

The environment now is much, much different than it was on early earth. Also, any stray biotic matter is gobbled up by microorganisms. In a way, the extant life is out-competing any viable protobionts. I explained why, once it is concluded that abiogenesis is possible, it is only logical to assume that it occurred on Earth because we're here. It's a logical fallacy to scrutinize the winning lottery ticket as to why it happened to belong to the winner. Each ticket had an equal chance; it's only logical to conclude that the person to whom all the money went possessed the winning ticket.

The primitive genetic material acted as the "digital alphabet". It copied spontaneously, grew too big for the lipid bubble and split off, creating a second bubble with similar 'code'. You see, it didn't function as code in the beginning; its role as a digital code for proteins came later, with the nucleic-amino acid bonding, which also occurs spontaneously. And why did it all have to happen on Earth? Think about this question for a moment. Say you roll 10,000 dice. Somewhere in the middle segment, there appear 10 sixes in a row. Is it a logical question to ask, "hmm, why did those ten sixes just happen to appear in a row at positions 3 978, 3 979, 3 980... etc. ?" No. Because each section had an equal probability of repeats, that it happened somewhere is not reason to think there was a special reason for the place where it ended up happening.

So that's where Buzz Lightyear learned it from!

I'm going to point something out. This 'evidence' is all well and good, but a mechanism still needs to be identified. A suspect cannot be convicted without a murder weapon. The how is what science is all about -- the theory extrapolated from the data. Dr Emoto says "this happens" and may be able to demonstrate it in semi-controlled experiment, but until a mechanism is established (like in the Cold Fusion fiasco), it is more likely statistical noise, bias, or lack of control. This is especially important in cases in which the apparent findings contradict most of established science (i.e. that little pieces of paper with graphite or pigment designs on them should not affect the freezing of water inside a glass, or that fusion cannot occur under the circumstances described by Fleischmann and Pons). So, in the words of Mooeypoo, put up or shut up. Do the experiment yourself (it really isn't a high-tech endeavour), or wait for more evidence. Talking about Columbus is going nowhere fast, especially since you're stuck on the false belief that everyone thought the Earth was flat anyway. Most of all, stop ignoring my posts. I have posted three times in this thread and you have not addressed me once. It's disheartening and implies that you cannot, which will only hurt your reputation of intellectual integrity. EDIT: Cross-posted with Bignose. Forgive me for any apparent redundancy. It seems to me that his post is more thorough anyway.

THEN DO THE EXPERIMENT. Have you done the experiment? No. You and Columbus are so far off that you might as well be on opposite sides of the world (pun intended).

This rant-like post, however, was incited by a commercial on a homeopathic joint pain remedy in the form of a mouth spray which received ridiculous praise from all the testimonials about lifetime pain sufferers whose pain has disappeared. I know the placebo effect can be powerful, but I sensed a bit of dishonesty in the raving reviews. And I'm more curious in why it has bypassed all the testing that other drugs usually need to go through. My guess is that the FDA leaves it alone because it's not dangerous (because it's water!).

Have you tried to run the experiment yourself? And the references you asked for: Excerpt from a public newsletter 23 May 2003

Two posts apart! Does this guy have multiple personality disorder? He responded quite well at first... It's almost as if the youtube videos got him angry, not the users here.

Homeopathic 'remedies' are comprised of WATER. At normal doses, there is literally no medicine in the medicine. The analogy of a pinch of salt in all of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans is a valid estimate. It is mostly administered in pill form, where a drop of water is placed onto a sugar pill, or pure form, where it is sprayed into the mouth or consumed like syrup. Either way, why does anyone buy into this at all? Further, why do I see it in pharmacies?! I mean, I understand why some people may believe in the stuff (the world would be an amazing place if homeopathy was the craziest thing anyone believed in), but how in the hell is it among normal medicine on the shelves of my local drug store?