toastywombel

It was suggested that this be put into a new post, so that is what I did.

I am not excluding God or God(s) from possibilities by simply saying that Science should be secular. The following two definitions are from wikipedia, "Secularity is the state of being separate from religion." "Religion is any systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one's origins, one's place in the world, or a responsibility to live and act in the world in particular ways. Religion is often equated with faith and belief in a higher power or truth" As you can see arguing that Science should be secular is not saying that science should be free from the possibility of God(s). I am arguing that science should be separate from organized sets of beliefs that are simply not based on facts but instead on faith and most of the time set in stone, and this is for obvious reasons.

Thank you.

Still, that does not address the main concern I have, science should be secular. Furthermore, we had a creationist come on a pretend to be a scientist (Dr. Sullivan) just a couple weeks ago, if someone is willing to go to that much trouble 100 posts doesn't seem that hard. Again, at least lets not feature the religion posts on the front page, like we don't feature the politics posts on the front page.

This still does not address the main concern that Science should be secular. I think if one wants to discuss religion they can go to various religious forums. If one wants to discuss science they can come here. I think that such a religion forum might discourage the type of people we might want to join SFN and attract the type of people we don't want on SFN. I think at least the posts in the religion section should not be featured on the front page. That is the last of what I have to say about this.

Well said, and much agreed, and my 400th post

It is somewhat hard to ignore it for new members, or new readers, especially when the topics from the religion section are included on the featured posts on the front page. At least they could be omitted from the front page of the site like the politics section posts are. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I doubt SFN will be able to bring 'better understanding' between these two parties when it seems like that has never truly happened on a grand scale ever. These sharp divides between beliefs and faiths have existed since the beginning of mankind, but SFN is going to help that?

I am just going to note that this is the reason why a religious forum should not be included as a part of SFN, just my personal opinion. The debate seems to go no where. There is nothing scientific about arguing for or against the existence of Gods. It seems this just turns into a battle of semantics and philosophical reasoning. And while that is all great and nice, there is no evidence, no journals, no data, no experiments that can prove the point either way. Furthermore, it is not like anyone is going to change anyone else's mind on such topics. These arguments have been covered over and over again throughout the history of mankind, this just seems to be going no where, it offers no benefit to the reader either. Imagine a new reader coming onto the site, seeing the front page and looking at the topics and they include "Why Atheism?", I mean such a topic is not scientific at all. Science is secular, it is just that simple and I think this should be a Science Forum. People think rationally in everyday life, studying causes, effects on nearly every topic, except politics and religion. It already seems hard enough moderating politics (which at least can be debated with facts and data). Now we bring religion into it? A realm in which facts and data have no say, the final word is faith.

Not a bad idea, maybe like a ionizer or something that is in front of the inflowing air vent that could be removed and cleaned. That actually is a very novel idea. I know that my old tower use to get loads of dust in it all the time, I would have to vacuum it out quite frequently to keep it clean. I could imagine that the same thing happens to many laptops.

Well if there is a alien civilization as advanced as I think the OP is suggesting, they might not use lenses made out of glass and plastic as we do. So a perfect lens millions of kilometers across for such a galactic civilization might not seem unreasonable. Maybe if one were to harness the power of a supernova or several stars and create a magnetic field that serves as the lens as opposed to glass. You never know.

yes, it is a good attribute to describe the difference between a single celled organism vs a small grain of dirt.

This is what wikipedia says about live, in biological terms "Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a 'characteristic' of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[16][17][18] Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms."

Okay so I tried to get the font right, and to prevent conspiracy theorists from thinking we are some Jewish army, I added a lens flair effect to distract from the somewhat noticable star of david. I also noticed that in black, the blue appeared to be a little purple, I attempted to cool down the color tones, so it matches better with the blue that is on the site. If you plan to keep that, If prefer a blue background as opposed to black, just give me feedback. With Lens Flair Without Lens Flair Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh, and I just see what you are talking about the font, I thought you meant one to match the website font, but now I see what you mean. I'll try to add that in sometime. Although I do like the above font.

I somewhat agree, it is only going to be civil as long as there are not any 'actual' believers. I must admit I don't have much faith or see much use for a Religion Forum on SFN, but that just my opinion.

"Tiny clusters of aluminum atoms may be able to quickly extract pure hydrogen from water, a new simulation suggests. The results offer an incredibly detailed view of how the molecules react and may help scientists develop new ways to produce pure hydrogen-based fuels, researchers report in an upcoming Physical Review Letters." http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56911/title/Aluminum_superatoms_may_split_water

I think for simplicity we can count certain things as 'Living'. Just because atoms are dead, it does not mean they cannot come together to make something that is alive.

I think the 'aliens' might look at us as somewhat intelligible, but it might be in the same way we see ants as somewhat intelligible.

Here is something quick, so you can somewhat visualize what the atom would look like without the center, this is not final, I would want the center a little darker, but just to get an idea. I will try to tinker with the fonts and such after work tonight.

Well, you could do black, I'll try to offer a black schemed alternative while still trying to stick with the 335e8e color Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOkay, I touched up on the edges around the logo, so it flows better. As for a black theme, like Genecks was wondering, I just did some white enhancement, this is what I got. Here is the black with the text. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust a final note, I seem to prefer the last image the most.

Okay when we talk about large, are we talking size, or mass? Also, deep sea animals are not quite large comparative to the many other animal on the planet. Unless you could point out a large animal that lives in the Hadalpelagic Zone.

Furthermore, to say that gravitational force at the planets surface would be the primary impediment to size is not true. You could have a really low mass planet that has very little natural resources to support life. Even though the gravity would be weak at the surface, It wouldn't make sense for large lifeforms to form because there is would not enough resources for such a lifeform to survive.

I just do not understand your logic here? The idea that there are smaller animals at the bottom of the ocean (because of greater pressure) would imply that the greater the pressure, the harder it is for large lifeforms to form.

I would take the marijuana and the gun. I would return the briefcase full of money to the police station. Then I would sell the gun. Finally I would wrap the marijuana in a paper and light the marijuana on fire to insure no one got a hold of any illegal drugs.

Well, if a planet is bigger, it does not exactly mean it has a greater gravitational pull, nor does the planets density. Gravity is really determined by the planets mass (amount of matter) and your distance from the planet. The greater the mass, the greater the gravitational pull, the closer you are to the surface, the greater the gravitational pull While gravitational pull would have an effect on the size of the animals on the planet (greater the pull, the smaller the animals). It would not be a set rule. Say if Venus for example was an inhabitable planet, it has a weaker gravitational pull than earth, and therefore, according to what you said lifeforms on Venus would be larger. However, the atmospheric pressure on Venus is much greater than the atmospheric pressure on Earth. So even though the gravitational pull is weak, the pressure is very strong, thus making it hard for large lifeforms to form. The point is, there are many variables that would would determine the size of lifeforms on a given planet and gravity is just one of them. Hope this helps.

Well, the statement, "all galaxies are moving apart" is somewhat misleading. By galaxies, I think that Mr. Hitchens might be referring to galaxies/ galactic clusters/ and or local groups. It is also good to keep in mind the galaxies are not moving apart as much as the space between them is increasing. When we look at the night sky, the majority of distant galaxies/galactic clusters/local groups are red-shifted. Galactic clusters are galaxies that are gravitationally bound to each other. Andromeda is part of our local galactic cluster. This is from wikipedia, "There is, as yet, no way to know whether the possible collision is definitely going to happen or not. The radial velocity of the Andromeda galaxy with respect to the Milky Way can be measured by examining the Doppler shift of spectral lines from stars in the galaxy, but the transverse velocity cannot be directly measured. Thus, while it is known that the Andromeda galaxy is getting closer to the Milky Way by about 120 km/s, there is no way to tell whether it is going to collide or miss. The best indirect estimates of the transverse velocity indicate that it is less than 100 km/s.[4] This suggests that the dark matter halos, although possibly not the actual disks, of the galaxies will collide. A future European Space Agency spacecraft, the Gaia mission, expected to launch in the Spring of 2012, is intended to measure the positions of stars in the Andromeda galaxy with sufficient precision to pin down the transverse velocity.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision