Sayonara

Well, you're wrong. Admitting you don't know whether you are wrong or not suggests that arguing the point would make you a bit of a nitwit. See MrL's link. You obviously didn't understand the data that was presented, or only read the line you liked.

That's not relevant.

Something else to think about right now is that we're only discussing why certain states can execute people, not how it is right that they do.

Still not getting how taking a human life is supposed to illustrate that the loss of a human life is the most reprehensible and vile thing on this planet. I agree that it is, but I'm still not seeing how killing yet someone else makes it any clearer, or helps stop murder. I mean, the victim's family (if there are any) already know that killings are not very nice.

I'm not interested in what "bobg" says in his FAQ - trees respire as well as photosynthesising. You can't claim one affects CO2 levels and ignore the other.

"Most stupid", not "stupidest".

Or even within this system.

I disagree. I assume books on Pythagoras are correct but it doesn't mean I have any opinions about it myself.

It's not very likely. It's a bit like hoping some blueprints will change because you added extra bricks to the building.

How is the decline in forestation supposed to increase CO2? Trees are virtually carbon-neutral.

Oh yes -almost forgot. Jason Parker: This is your seventh thread now where you have posted creationist propaganda and then fled without looking back at the replies. If you are not interested in discussing these issues, we aren't interested in having you post threads here. Respond to the arguments or your account will be prevented from starting new threads.

Tetrahedrite, when you say things like "You will do very well to say that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong", you really aren't helping. Darwin didn't have a theory of evolution as we understand it. Unless you were just being tongue-in-cheek...?

Wrong thread.

You might want to think about cropping the dead space from images in future, seeing as you have a limit on what you can upload.

Nevertheless, it was not an ad hominem. If you are going to accuse people of logical fallacies it would be a good idea to know what that fallacy actually is. Which is entirely consistent with god (allegedly) constantly saying things like "don't judge people with a view to exacting vengeance on them - that's my job." If you are going to make arguments from religion, you can't have it both ways. I am of the opinion that economics should never be a factor in that decision. There is a difference between having a cost-effective justice system, and placing arbitrary monetary values on human life. Well, ignoring for the moment the false dilemma that is "incarceration or death", I disagree. Killing someone just in case they [insert random act here] is in no way comparable to any other precautionary measure, as it cannot ever be rescinded and is assuming rights that society has deemed unacceptable on a per-individual basis. If you wish to argue that people should be killed rather than jailed because it will stop them escaping, go right ahead. But be warned that (a) it is by its very nature an extremist position, and (b) it will be torn to shreds. As a starter for ten, you might want to have a think about the fact that death row exists.

I assure you one can smash bacterial cultures together. You do it every time you clap, for a start.

We hope.

I suspect you'd essentially be treating a symptom (or a pseudo-symptom, seeing as it's sort of part of the AIDS mechanism) rather than the problem itself.

Is it just me or are you getting funnier?

Not necessarily. You have missed the short-lived "pay per content" scare by about 3 years.

I wasn't simply considering the chances of a life-bearing comet connecting with earth. I was comparing the chances of a life-bearing body of extrasolar origin connecting with Earth, to the chances of a solar body hitting Earth or life simply arising here in the first place. I really don't see what is so difficult for everyone to understand with that. Regardless, you all need to consider that all three scenarios require life precursors to (a) originate somewhere, and (b) be on Earth. Therefore precursors originating on Earth is by default the most likely scenario, as one of the probability-mediated requirements is already fulfilled (i.e. getting here). The order of likelihood goes like this: - Originated here on Earth: Likely (well, probability=1 actually but we'll leave that for now), - Originated in this system: Less likely, - Originated somewhere else: Highly unlikely.

Having been burgled before, I'd be mainly inclined to teach the intruders the meaning of the word "boundaries". Hence without knowing their intentions, I vote 'extreme'.

That's not an ad hominem, even if you are excessively liberal beyond all reason with your definition of the term.

The rate at which discoveries are made using the scientific method is not related to the inherent value of that method. To some extent we are limited by our tehnology, which is sort of ironic but there you go (as in your pharmaceutics example - there are only so many useful configurations of chemicals we can actually make right now). As detection technologies and soforth improve we will discover whole new worlds of things to poke around, and whole new ways of poking them. We are, for example, on the thresholds of nanotechnology, stem cell medicine, and artificial intelligence - all of which will eventually revolutionise our civilisation.