toastywombel

ZolarV, I have a plan and we can find out if the human jaw can really tear flesh. Find a rabid man. Provoke him. Have him bite you. If what you have said is correct you need not worry, he might bite you but his teeth will just fall out if you jerk your arm away. Make sure to be ready for rabies shots afterwards though . I am just joking obviously. . . But back to the point, humans can tear flesh from bone I am sure. Haven't you ever seen someone open a beer bottle with their teeth? Or eat a rare steak? My dad actually chews on cartilage. Haven't you ever broke a jaw breaker? I talked to my mother on the phone last night about this and she told me a story about when a man tried to assault her she tore a chunk of skin out of his arm. This might all be anecdotal but I think that humans can tear flesh from bone.

I think we should all be able to come to a conclusion on this by now. There are no relevant, secular reasons to oppose gay marriage.

Really? We would rip our teeth out? What scientific data do you have to prove that point. I seriously doubt that a human would rip his/her own teeth out in attempting to rip flesh off of a carcus. In-fact I would think a human could easily rip flesh of the bone of a raw carcus. Note: Human bit force is around 150 psi http://dogfacts.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/national-geographics-dr-brady-barrs-bite-pressure-tests/

So I was wondering why the image that is displayed on the right side of the post is not updated for previous posts you have made. I notice its the same for the quotes as well.

Secular- separate from religion Relevant- importance pertaining to the matter at hand, affording evidence to prove or disprove the matter at hand. As far as reasons outside of religion to oppose gay marriage there are several, I am sure. However, are they valid? Probably not. Here is are some secular reasons to oppose gay marriage that I have pulled off the top of my head and that a common person might site. "Its unnatural" "Gay couples can't reproduce" "I just don't like gays" "It opens the door for further marriage revisions such as multiple partner marriages" However, iNow did add relevant as an adjective to describe the noun "reasons" so that does make all the difference since as you can see for something to be relevant it must be proved or disproved through evidence and pertaining to the matter at hand. From the above reasons I listed the only one that could be supported by evidence is "Gay couples can't reproduce". But, even that argument could be countered with the idea that there are many children in need of adoption, resources are already strained by population, doctors can impregnate lesbians with donor sperm, Doctors can use donor sperm from a gay couple to impregnate a host. As far as gay marriage opening the door for multiple partner marriages is not secular, but it is also not necessarily relevant. There is no evidence to support that this would happen nor does it pertain to the topic immediately at hand, but it does raise an interesting point that could be discussed. The counter argument to that would be that marriage should be limited as a union between two people. Allowing multiple people to partake in marriages would also be a legal nightmare for judges and politicians, plus it would open the door for many scams and marriage schemes so it most likely would never gain broad support. In conclusion as far as finding reasons to oppose gay marriage that are non-religious, that are pertaining to the matter at hand, and can be supported by evidence, I cannot think of any. I am open to hearing other reasons but as of now I think iNow has it right. Answer: No

Hmm. . . I have been a member for a couple months now and have made a plethora of posts, but I never noticed there was an introduce yourself page. . . Well I guess better late than never. My name is James aka: toastywombel. I am 20 years old. I fancy reading, programming, computing, physics, mathematics, engineering (I still play with legos yes), and music (I play guitar, piano, and a mean triangle ). I would consider myself the underachiever that every girl wants to sleep with, minus the every girl thing and them wanting to sleep with me thing . I graduated high school with a 4.0 GPA. I work at two part-time jobs, and am currently attending college. My current major is liberal arts but that major is really just an unknown variable which I plan to replace with something a little more respectable. I am very unsure of what I want from college and life itself. This is a science forum though, not an online therapist's office so this will have to conclude this brief synopsis of my existence.

We cannot ask whether a scientific theory accurately describes our natural world, we can only ask if it works by accurately predicting results from experiments. The probabilities and mathematics behind string theory are derived from quantum theory. And as far as we know the mathematics behind quantum theory have accurately predicted the physical properties of particles every time. Thus it works.

Everything that he said, furthermore, just because you disagree with a study it is very simplistic to blame the entire science community. Its like if my light bulb burnt out, and I responded, "Stupid electricity! It never works any more, its all a bunch of nonsense!" Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I hope you also know there have been crack-pot scientists around since the birth of science. Do you not remember the labotomy or the vast implementation of electro-shock therapy? What about Joseph Mengele, Andrew Ure, or Shiro Ishii? If you think it is going down hill now you should take a look back at our history, our past is quite dark. One constant theme throughout history is that over time humanity grows stronger and more advanced. Life is better now than 50 years ago for most, and it was better 50 years ago for most than it was 50 years before that. It is really naive to make generalised statements like that.

Looks like so far the world has not been destroyed by black holes or strange matter

I would argue that talent is overrated to a certain degree, there are some people who are born with some gift, and are far more intelligent with minimal effort, than 99.99% of the population. Furthermore, one could argue that persistence is a talent. But you are right the vast majority of the time persistence is the key. One can be the smartest in the world, if he/she does not have the will to apply that intelligence it is wasted.

Yeah. . .good post and interesting experiment. But I think this might be seen as a rather dull topic. I think it is widely known that if a tree falls it makes a noise, even if there are no observers.

and rape!

Synthosis, ask me why Fox has reported so much on Acorn, but refuse to report on this. A woman named Dawn Leamon was ganged raped by several of her fellow employees while working in Iraq. She was working for KBR, a defence contractor. When she went to report incident to KBR authorities she was locked in a crate for hours before a guard finally let her out. When she contacted the justice department she found out that her fellow employees who raped her could not be held accountable because of a contract that KBR required her sign before she began working for them. To add insult to injury this was not an isolated incident many women have also reported similar abuses by fellow KBR employees, such as Jamie Jones. The contract stated that KBR employees cannot be held accountable for any sexual, physical, or any kind of abuse towards other employees while on the job. It also stated that employers are not allowed to report any abuse by fellow employees to anyone. Senator Al Franken heard about this story and proposed a Bill that would require the Defence Department to refuse business to military contractors that require their employees to sign such contracts and give the right for the victims of these crimes to sue KBR or any other contractors in which this case applied. When it came to a vote on the Senate floor 30/40 republican senators voted against it. That to me seems like a much bigger story than ACORN, and yet Fox has not mentioned it at all, as far as I know. If that is not a "lying by omission" from Fox, I do not know what is. The really sad thing is that this corporation (KBR) has been linked to many other abuses such as Human Trafficking, Murdering of Iraqi Civilians, and creating unsafe work environments for its employees. Here is the links where I got my information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_%28company%29 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/houppert http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/10/senate-passes-amendment-that-would-allow-kbr-rape-victims-the-right-to-sue.html http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

Lol well iNOW, if you make that thread I'll certainly put in my two bits haha.

You know some people are saying Fox is not a reliable news source. In my opinion Fox seems to intentionally mislead their viewers. You know, another nation that misleads their viewers is North Korea. Its also interesting to note that the North Korean Government intentionally starves their people. Hmmmmm (Starting to cry) These correlations really scare me, could it be possible that Fox has a North Korean agenda? I don't know, but what Fox is doing could possibly lead some folks to think that way. It is obvious that Fox's power is causing dramatic change in our country, but what kind of change? Is it possible we are headed to a state controlled by Fox? Where Fox determines who gets to eat? What one gets to think? WILL THEY DETERMINE WHO WILL LEAVE AND WHO WILL DIE!????? I just don't know anymore, I just don't! Keeping all that in mind, it leads to one question that we must ask ourselves. Will our country ever be the same again with a news organization with an agenda like Fox's gaining so much power and control over our media? It may be impossible to answer that question right now, but we have to ask the question non the less. I really hope we can come together, and not become blinded by all the mis-information. These are tough times and we need to trust our instincts. That was my argument against Fox using the Beckism Method.

Actually solar sails are not slow at all. But I think it would be important to have a plethora of different propulsion systems available on future space-craft because different systems are better at different times. IE) if your rockets ran out of fuel it would be nice to have a solar sail rather than not having one. As for getting girls maybe we could design a space-craft that uses a good old v8-hemi or corvette engine lol, even get a manual tranny on that. And captain your post made me laugh pretty hard haha.

What about solar sails? Of course these would only work once you exited the atmosphere but it would be a much more efficient way of space travel.

Good post, So the fluctuations in the signal don't destroy the entanglement, but we are unable to tell if the interactions between the entangled photons are caused by our observation of the photons, or if the interactions are caused by the entanglement. I think if we can find a way to differentiate the amplitude fluctuations caused by observation as opposed to the amplitude fluctuations caused by entanglement it would really revolutionize our ability to send signals across long distances. It is important to note though that amplitude losses caused by entanglement do not happen in "real-time" as some people seem to be implying. They actually are estimated to happen around 100,000 times faster than the speed of light. Some issues with this though. If we were able to communicate by using entangled photons this means we would be able to send communications back through time, which seems very strange to me and somewhat hokey, I don't know exactly why though. The problem comes down to observing the entangled pairs, even if we could communicate this way every time one would go to check the signal the data would be lost and corrupted before it could be recorded. This is a very alien topic to me, so if there is flaws in my logic I would welcome the criticism . Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't think so because the Uncertainty Principle still applies, but I am not sure, the question I guess is are the quantum states of the entangled photons similar or identical. However I just read the summary of the study again and it seems that it would violate the Uncertainty Principle in a way. Lol, I think I am going to read the whole pdf again.

I think you should read the second article

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/813/3 http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000103000011113601000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Take a look at these links, this may lead to technology that will change the world of communication as we know it. Any thoughts?

I understand you were not responding to me syntax, I still think your post was a little patronizing. And greenprogrammin I did understand your point and I enjoyed it. I think it builds well on top of my point.

I believe I have been very nice to you Dr. Syntax, but in all reality what the heck did that rant have to do with anything about the original post, it was very off topic and seemed very "preachy" to me.

Ah I see, and on top of what you said I decided to do some researching into it, I understand the definition much better now, thank you. So re-cap: Initially I stated my disappointment through some bugs. These bugs included mostly flash player issues in opera, but also problems with flash player controls as used on you tube. Through reading and some setting changes in nautilus I have fixed all these issues. Since then I have had no problems.

Wrong, if one is a creationist and believes the formation of the Universe is accurately described by the book of Genesis he/she is totally entitled to that position. As far as I know nobody from Science Forums attempts to force creationists from being creationists in anyway. It is not like we sit around posting about creationism and how to prevent people from being creationists. Nor do we go look for creationist forums and post pro-evolution threads, thus going out of our way to disprove their beliefs. On the contrary the topic of evolution vs creationism is usually brought up by a creationist going out of his/her way trying to disprove evolution. The problem is not being a creationist but rather voicing that position on the forum. It comes to the fact that creation (as described in Genesis) is not backed up by any scientific evidence. The only evidence to back it up is religious evidence (Genesis). Therefore, when one tries to promote the idea of creationism as an accurate one, they are actually promoting religion on the forum, not science. Which as you know is not allowed according to the forum rules. A personal note: If one truly has faith in the biblical account of creation and their version of God, they should not feel compelled prove their beliefs. By attempting to do this, one is admitting that they themselves do not have faith in the words of their own religious texts, instead they need more to validate their beliefs. With that said, I end on this definition: Faith- Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

I will re-state what I said earlier because it seems this thread has gone quite off-topic. Nature is often violent, humanity is a by-product of nature, therefore humanity is often violent.