Sayonara

I'm not sure that someone who wants an abortion is going to think alcohol is a bad thing, so I really don't see where the inconsistency lies. People acknowledge that alcohol during pregnancy is bad because it cripples the chances of a healthy baby at birth, not because they belong to a club that opposes all arguments against abortion. Just because we don't throw the vote at foetuses doesn't mean we all want to pickle them. Different situations call for different measures (and/or reasoning, as applicable to the circumstances). It's that simple. The premise of this thread seems fallacious, but I can't put my finger on exactly where. I suspect it's "red herringing" itself.

I doubt many Iranian teenagers have the means to emigrate, regardless of their orientation.

Or, even better, read the books, which deal with this specific problem (among others) in depth.

The end of Enterprise is NOT a bad thing. Star Trek will be back. It's too much of a cash cow to be allowed to die peacefully.

Harmful intentions do not necessarily arise from emotive decisions (even in humans), so I disagree. Even self-preservation is not an emotive drive. I don't see the question of intelligence alone being enough for AI as being relevant, since I'm not making that argument - I said that AI doesn't need "feelings" (which is in quotes because that's how you introduced it) in order to be dangerous, not that it won't have them.

Any recommendations?

I'd suggest looking at the data available on the zillions of underwater nuclear tests that have been carried out, seeing as they are the thing you're curious about.

Isn't history supposed to use even more references than science does?

I feel it reinvents the wheel somewhat.

How impolite.

Put "conservation" in the search for field, and my name in the username field. I think that should turn up fewer than 20 threads, which narrows it down a lot. I did start looking for it myself but after 5 pages or so of pseudoscientific waffle from every man and his dog wanting to point out the problem of causality "paradoxes" (lol) my eyes started to cross. Well, that's certainly nice and warm and fuzzy but it doesn't change the fact that statements can be refuted (nor does it change the fact that my "destruction" of the prior argument is just as open to being refuted by a more logically consistent argument).

Before anyone starts whining about warning points, know that everyone who continued to argue an off-topic point after Dave's request has received a warning for being off-topic. Please refer to the o/p if you forgot what this thread is about.

No it doesn't.

Can you tell me what the point of athletic competition is then?

I don't see why it needs "feelings" to be dangerous.

... There is one? <!-- RSS news feed, added by Sayo 2004-10-21 --> <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Science Forums RSS 1.0 Feed" href="http://scienceforums.net/forums/external.php?type=RSS" /> Or do you mean an inward feed from somewhere else?

"Censor the internet" lol

Maybe photoarticles would be good. "Beginners chromatography", "advanced glassware" and such.

I see. Hmmm. Perhaps you are doing it all backwards. The mass will determine the gravitational stresses on the superstructure, so you're probably going to want it to be within a very specific mass range. Which will determine the thickness of the sections.

That response is patently absurd. You are talking to people with brains the size of planets. And "poof" went any shred of credibility you might have retained after your hilarious 9-point proof of god. Since you claim to understand "it", you must then also be claiming to have "unlimited powers", which clearly at this point you should define. That's not actually a fallacy, it's run-of-the-mill nonsense. Luckily Yourdad made no such claim, and never would. Perhaps you should spend more time reading the objections and less time fretting about how people don't instantly adopt your own beliefs for no good reason. Appeal to popularity. Nobody gives a shit who you say you are. You will convince us with ideas that work, not by talking tripe.

Then you must be delighted that there is far more than enough data to show evolution occurring on every scale.

I suppose that also depends what it's made from, and how sections are connected.

Most of us have spent years in the education system, and we know perfectly well that you will not be tested on anything that you have not been (a) taught or (b) expected to self-study, so we're not terribly sympathetic.

To save me reading all of this... material, will someone please tell me what any of this has to do with the topic before I go ahead and slap the whole thread down.