ewmon

A sperm has mitochondria but it would need some modification. I think the main point about a YY individual is the lack of an X chromosome, which does not determine gender but has other genes that are probably essential to the viability of the offspring.

I don't know if you mean that automatics can make a car go faster than manuals or whether they can shift faster, but you're right that automatics are harder to modify (if at all) for specific gear ratios. The last I knew, top fuelers might have had two ratios at most, they let the expansion of the rear wheels effectively change ratios. In any racing, one of the worse things that can happen is to lose traction (which means losing control), which can happen if an automatic transmission suddenly decides to downshift. So it's all about maintaining control, plus automatic transmissions tend to be heavier.

Christ spoke of the fulfillment of the prophecies, not the law. Christ's 11th commandment "Love others as you love yourself" negates some of the old law. Christ practiced it himself, for example, when people wanted to stone a prostitute to death (according to the old law). Christ also negated dietary laws in the Old Testament about clean and unclean foods when he said that it's not what goes into a person's mouth that makes him unholy, but it's what comes out of his mouth. I have said this before, maybe in this forum and maybe to some of the same people, but when people point at the Old Testament and say that God is evil, they are being much more anti-Semitic than they are being anti-Christian. Think of the Bible as a legal document — for Christians, the New Testament supersedes parts of the Old Testament. Jews do not accept the New Testament as holy scripture. Do I disagree with some of what's in the Old Testament? Certainly I do. I have a most particular difficulty with God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (Genesis 22). As a father myself, I have a very serious difficulty with it. Does it shake my faith to the bone? No. Does it mean I'm not a Christian? No.

Once again: I want to understand this gap that you're talking about, so please explain it a little more.

Which part?

... and, as you posted yourself, when asked which of the old commandments the man must obey, Jesus quoted a few of the Ten Commandments and he added what is commonly known as the 11th Commandment. No hole. When the Bible speaks of "fulfillment" (and similar wording), it refers to the prophecies.

Notice that the video refers only to the covenant found in the Old Testament. Christ provides the covenant found in the New Testament that supersedes the old covenant, and he not only says to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but also to love your enemies and return their evil with good. Too bad that none of that was in the video. And Christ's claim to fulfill the laws of the Old Testament refers to the Messianic prophecies about himself. Let no one delude themselves into thinking that modern life is not barbaric. No one today can honestly claim that abortion is the most "civilized" form of birth control. Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is certainly still debatable, and countries continue to seek nuclear weapons. We have blissfully and ignorantly messed up the environment big time. And future generations will look back, shake their heads, and simply wonder how we could have behaved like this. We are barbarians still, whether people want to see it or not, and we think it's okay.

I can say that I and plenty of other religious scientists can do science without having to stop "doing religion", whatever that means. I agree with most of what Moontanman just said ... "threatened by the pursuit of the understanding of reality" and "to assert the supernatural over reality", except that I would say "to assert the supernatural over science". Anyone who has studied the history of science should know not to expect that our current knowledge of reality through science to be absolutely correct. Perhaps "doing religion" means "asserting the supernatural", which Francis Collins and plenty of other religious scientists certainly do not do and do not need to do. Francis Collins mapping the human genome and I performing chemical assays do not require us to stop "doing religion". As I think I said before, there seems to be plenty of atheists who have an unrealistic understanding of religion. In my mind, this boils down to the "supernatural" versus "science". Whoever said that believers didn't want to know how the so-called "supernatural" works? Certainly, as I said before, there are believers who, even without their religion, couldn't do science. So, yeah, there are some whose eyes roll back in their sockets, their eye lids flutter, and they pronounce something to be a miracle or the supernatural ... that will never be known. They are a small number of believers, and unfortunately, they tend to be the most vocal. There are also the moon-landing-hoax people who don't want to believe in our scientific achievements — and they aren't necessarily religious. On the other end of the spectrum, I see the crop circles and the Area 51 people who automatically attribute crop circles and high-tech aircraft to a more highly-scientific race of beings. Between the two extremes are the commonsense and scientific people. It's easy to paint all believers with a broad brush, but in doing so, it conveniently oversimplifies reality.

This has been an actual conversation. If I give an example that proves you wrong, you simply can't dismiss it by calling it a "straw man". You're better than that. I've done lots of science, and I'm religious. I haven't had to "put aside" my religion or stopped "doing" my religion in order to do science. I don't know what it means to "put aside" or to stop "doing" religion. You said that someone can "do" religion or science, but they can't "do" both. For someone who is apparently not religious, please explain to me what you think "doing" religion means. In one of my previous posts, I mentioned testing a chemical sample as part of scientific work. What must a religious person stop "doing" in order to perform that chemical analysis?

I think we're okay. Sure, of course it's independent, why wouldn't it be. You gave an example of not "using" one's religion while doing science, such as praying, chanting, and dietary restrictions. These are religious activities, not religion. We also probably shouldn't be break dancing or reciting the Gettysburg Address while doing science. I knew a young female chemist who couldn't concentrate on her work if there were people nearby engaged in conversation because her mind would wander into the conversation. And all she had to do was pour the correct chemical reagents into the correct on-board reservoirs. (And, yes, she was blonde.) Her errors cost our lab thousands of dollars of spoiled reagents. Hopefully, she's outgrown her mental wanderings or she's not working in the field of chemistry!

The Sun's rays at the Earth's surface in high northern latitudes in the winter is "weaker" because it travels through more atmosphere due to its lower angle to the horizon, so it'll take more time or you'll need a larger lens to focus more rays on the object. Important! Keep in mind that you want to focus the "heat" (infrared) from the sun and not the sun "light" (visible spectrum). The diagram below shows that IR has a longer focal length than visible light. Because we can't see the heat rays, it's hard to tell if they are focused optimally on the object. All I can recommend for now is that you focus the sunlight, and then back off the lens a bit.

I'm not being any of those choices you offer. I've done chemistry and several other sciences, and I haven't had to put away my Christian faith. Wow, you people honestly believe that my faith excludes me from doing chemistry? Seriously? Then you really don't know religion. Tell me then, how one's faith will interfere with doing chemistry. Tell me how my faith interferes with me putting an aliquot of sample into a tube, placing the tube into an analyzer, activating the analyzer, verifying the results on the screen, printing out the results, having my manager approve the results, and mailing the results to the customer. Please tell me what could go wrong. You're right that Christianity does not change chemistry, and Islam does not interfere with physics, and Judaism does not modify math, etc. So you can do both together. Of course not. But maybe they are saying that you must put away your moral values when doing science. If anything, one might need moral values when doing animal research, as a local lab learned, when you mistreat the animals, you're in big trouble.

Let's use Francis Collins as an example. Are you claiming that he didn't do science in leading in the deciphering of the human genome? Are you saying that his science is no good or somehow faulty or invalid? Now, as Director of the NIH, is the science done under his leadership somehow faulty? Here's another example from Ian Mead. I actually used his UltraEdit32 software which was bought for the company by my atheist boss, and then a coworker told me about the story behind the software. Although Mead's story is a bit over-the-top for me religiously, nonetheless it shows a mixture of religion and science and that one has nothing to do with the other. I think that some atheists don't know religion or that they think of the worst-case scenario (for example, people who couldn't do science even if they weren't believers). I've known plenty of religious scientists and engineers who performed perfectly good science. They have defended this country, they have made safe and effective medicines, they have generated electric power, they have written perfectly good software, etc. I don't know how moral values prevents a person from doing science.

They should be. Come on ewmon, what is the meaning of religiosity? religiosity n. the quality of being religious, esp. of being excessively, ostentatiously, or mawkishly religious. Who said that? Or is it you who is doing the fallacy by creating a straw man? It seems you answered this question below. They sure are. And guess which one eventually wins every conflict. So, being religious, I can't do science? I can't operate equipment, mix chemicals, code programs, analyze data, write reports, etc? I just have to say this is not true. People are, as a whole, becoming more intelligent. It's called the Flynn Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect Thank you. The Flynn Effect ... I'll want to remember that. Maybe it just seems as though they're getting more stupider.

I think the biggest fallacy on this topic is that religious people are supposed to be unable to do scientific work — that religion and science are somehow mutually exclusive. I am religious and I have done a wide variety of scientific work, and my religion has had zero effect on my work, and my work has had zero effect on my religion. Why should my religion exclude me from operating equipment, mixing chemicals, coding programs, analyzing data, writing reports, etc? Why should operating equipment, mixing chemicals, coding programs, analyzing data, writing reports, etc exclude me from being religious? Why are there so many religious scientists? Because there's many religious people and many scientists, and there's bound to be some religious scientists. Think of it in terms of a Venn diagram ([sarcasm] but be careful because using Venn diagrams too much will make you lose your religion [/sarcasm]). What makes these people immune to intellectual criticism from the scientific atheist community? They aren't immune. if it's good enough for these brainiacs why are there so many anti-religious bigots in the world? Because there are many anti-religious bigots in the world. Would you ever consider changing your stance in whatever your current spiritual belief system is now? [sarcasm]Only if I use too many Venn diagrams.[/sarcasm] Do you expect religion to ever disappear from the world? No. Also, in your opinion, what is the correlation between religiosity and intelligence? I don't know; should there be a correlation? As people become more intelligent, will they only become more religious or the other way? Well, some people are getting more intelligent, while most people are becoming more stupid. Do you have an interest in religion? Yes. Why is there so many religion-related threads in SFN? I think the biggest fallacy on this topic is that religion and science are somehow/supposedly mutually exclusive.

So, when do such activities become hate crimes?

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know, because Romney flip-flops far too much, and he's got that say or do anything attitude. Not only did I vote for Obama in 2008, but I campaigned and raised money for him very early in the race. Obama also has four years of experience under his belt, whereas in Massachusetts, we were done with Romney after one term as governor. Paul Ryan seems to have the same say or do anything attitude with him popping into a soup kitchen and pretending to wash pots and pans. I very much appreciated that the kitchen's director said that Ryan and his entourage were not invited and that they did nothing. I've volunteered in plenty of soup kitchens; Ryan and his Pretenders can all go home — we don't need or want you. Romney and Ryan — two losers — it reminds me of 2008.

As for computer usage, the last I heard, Italy limits working on computers to four hours per day and requires 15 minutes break time after each hour on computers. I don't remember the reason for this (it could involve posture, eye strain, and/or radiation, etc). As for pregnant women, I've heard that sitting anywhere for extended periods (more than an hour?) is not healthy for the unborn child as it apparently can restrict blood flow.

A very novel sequence indeed. I ran through a few iterations, and upon right justifying these numbers, I noticed that apparently — the last digit is always a 1 the penultimate digit alternates between a 1 and 2 the antepenultimate digit is always a 2 the one previous to that has a repeat sequence of: 1, 2, 2, 3 the one previous to that has a repeat sequence of: 1, 1, 1, 3 (After that, it gets to be quite the eye exercise.) Beginning with 2 results in a steady state of 22. Beginning with 3, apparently results in: the last digit is always a 3 the penultimate digit is always a 1 the antepenultimate digit is always a 1 the one previous to that is always a 2 the one previous to that is always a 2 so, the numbers always end in ...22113 and, the numbers end alternately as ...123222113 and ... 213322113.

I think that she's referring to the fact that, having reached adulthood, Mormons must spend two years in the mission field, and it's mandatory like a military conscription required by many countries. She should have explained herself a little more, I think that's what she meant.

You're talking about "shooting a bullet with a bullet". For that, you need to think in terms of relative speeds and distances at the end of the warheads' flights. You'd need radar on the final stage to steer the warheads, and each warhead might require its own propulsion system. And software to make it all work together. The idea of a "footprint" might need to change to that of a "gantlet", as in "running the gantlet". One of the questions is how close the warheads need to approach the object for their blasts to affect the object. I don't know how dense the air is at 40 to 50 miles altitude. If you can't make a strong enough shock wave, you'd need to get the warhead closer, perhaps much closer.

Not exactly a "blast", but a natural nuclear fission reactor.

Ryan and his people may have also put this faith-based organization's not-for-profit status in jeopardy.

Topology??

Having grown up Roman Catholic, I never heard of any prohibition against wearing a rosary as a necklace, but it would probably be frowned upon (or it would have been when I was a kid). They are not considered sacred, although some have been "blessed". I've seen them tossed in drawers, slung over bedposts, hung from the wall, piled on a night stand, etc. Funny thing though, the word "bead" originally meant "prayer", then a "prayer bead", and finally the small, pierced item we now know as a "bead" without any religious significance whatsoever.