zapatos

Then by your definition, wouldn't necrophilia be considered a sexual orientation? Certainly the form of the body to a necrophiliac is critically important. And I would think that the form of the dead body is at least as different from a live adult as a child's body is from a live adult.

Citations please.

But you said... If everyone in the world has one of the four sexual orientations you mention, then that would mean no one is asexual. And also: "Though people may use other labels or none at all, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality (asexuality is increasingly recognized as a fourth)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation Once again, you said: If they only had one of these four sexual orientations, then that would mean no one is bisexual.

I thought you left. You said this place was a joke and that we were buffoons, nit wits, and hopeless fools. So then why are you here? You obviously have some agenda other than discussing science. Why don't you just get on with it and tell us what that agenda is? Is it that you think it is fun disrupting other people's discussions? Do you enjoy insulting people anonymously? Are you trying to increase the revenue at Thunderbolts? What? Just freakin tell us already and quit playing with yourself. You're embarrassing yourself and it's uncomfortable having to witness it.

What about asexuality? Or bisexuality? Edit: Belonephilia - sexual obsession with sharp objects Gerontophilia - sexual attraction towards the elderly Scopophilia - sexual pleasure from seeing things

Of course you have. You've pointed the finger at the mods. Just because you do it collectively instead of individually doesn't mean you didn't do it. And you do it again in this post by saying they are petty, they over manage, and get a feeling of power over others regardless of their opinions. At least be honest about what you are doing.

It's quite simple to prosper here. Follow the rules. If you don't like the rules here, find a place that has rules you do like. And you are sending mixed messges when you say 'Nothing personal is meant by these remarks', followed by:

Weight training helps in losing weight. In addition to burning calories during the workout it helps increase your metabolism. This is due to the fact that the extra muscle you build requires the burning of additional calories during rest. While any type of exercise helps you lose weight, it is arguably more important to consume fewer calories. You can wipe out the caloric loss benefit of running three miles per day with minimal snacking. And remember that all calories count. You can gain weight by eating too many fruits and vegetables.

For someone who doesn't believe in God you sound a lot like a bible thumping preacher.

Why not? Can't I be a theist and believe that God created the universe and the laws of physics and allowed them to run their course?

I took the following hit: "Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!" I was surprised I took a hit. I was thinking that I could not justify basing my beliefs with no regard to external evidence, but I don't have a problem with others doing it. I mean, if Peter Sutcliffe really thinks God is telling him to do something, then he is going to feel justified doing it. If you believe in God, I would think you believe He trumps all external evidence. Nice exercise!

"This illustration shows the visible Milky Way galaxy surrounded by a “squashed beachball”-shaped dark matter halo." Source: UCLA http://www.universetoday.com/49619/milky-way-has-a-squashed-beachball-shaped-dark-matter-halo/

I don't see him using an argument at all. He is just coming to a conclusion without building the foundation. It seems to me that unless we have common ground we cannot debate. If an atheist can use the bible (or whatever theistic material there is) along with science to argue why the theist's view of God is incorrect, then we are ok. And if the theist can use science along with the bible to point out how the atheist's view of the world is incorrect, we are also ok. But atheists cannot (for example) throw out theistic arguments just because they cannot be proven, and theists cannot (for example) throw out scientific arguments just because 'God could be playing a practical joke on us and that might just be an illusion'. If we don't agree to common ground on which to debate then we are just wasting our time. And I think where needsimprovement made his mistake was when he invoked the 'practical joke' strategy. At that point there is no more common ground.

At one time I believed that God probably existed, and right now I believe He probably doesn't. But I wouldn't be too surprised one way or the other. My personal view of God has never had any more detail than that. I was raised Catholic but don't ever remember feeling confident that what I was told about God was true. And when I learned to think critically I was never able to feel confident about any aspect of God, even His existence. When somone feels they know anything about Him at all it makes me wonder what clicks in their minds that never does in mine.

Thanks to everyone for your contributions!

To me this is the most unfair debate tactic I've run into when debating with theists. The ace in the hole. "Nothing is impossible for God, in fact, it is easy for him." And when this card is played the debate is over. Where can I possibly go from here? We can't talk about evidence. We can't talk about the bible. We can't talk about philosophy. Because any point I make can be countered with "But God could easily be showing/hiding [fill in the blank] from you to lead you to this erroneous conclusion of yours." Makes me wonder why we are talking in the first place. I don't know why God would to do this to me. I don't know why he would make it a point of hiding evidence of his existence by doing things like making a 15,000 year old earth appear to be 4.5 billion years old. But it feels like he is jerking me around. Or that the person debating like this is.

Is He trying to jerk us around???

So we theorize that the energy is expanding space and not pushing/pulling objects because otherwise it is a major problem for relativity. Does the theory of expansion allow us to predict how expansion happens? Does it give us some ideas on what to test for to see if it is true? In other words, getting back to my original question, does the expansion somehow modify the properties of space in some predicted way? I wasn't trying to suggest that the Theory of Relativity be tossed out, although maybe that is what I was saying without realizing it. I was more wondering if maybe it could be fine tuned for special situations, such as "how massive objects behave at very great distances in the presence of dark energy". I know that it would be easier to find another reason for the recession of galaxies we see, but I'm wondering if we did? Is the idea of expansion testable? Can we look at a portion of space over time and determine if it has been experiencing expansion? Is space going through some predictable and ultimately testable change?

So why is it thought that dark energy expands space, as opposed to dark energy pushing or pulling objects through space? Is there evidence that this is the case, or is it just that without expansion of space, other theories would have problems? For example, it is determined that galaxy clusters move away from each other at FTL speeds. This means (I guess) that space must be expanding, or that we are wrong about c being the universal speed limit. How do we know expansion is correct and not that we have a problem with c being the speed limit?

So is the expectation that over time, as space expands, there will be less dark energy per cubic volume of space?

If I was an outside observer and noticed that two galaxies were farther apart from each other today than they were yesterday, is there some way to determine if they are farther apart due to expansion, motion through space, or some combination of the two? Is it possible to measure the decrease in density of space between galaxies separating due to expansion?

"In people with diabetes, sugar (glucose) accumulates in the blood to very high levels. The excess glucose can attach to proteins in the blood vessels and alter their normal structure and function. One effect of this is that the vessels become thicker and less elastic, making it hard for blood to squeeze through." "High blood sugar damages blood vessels and can lead to blockage. In the heart, this blockage can cause heart attacks." http://www.genetichealth.com/dbts_consequences_of_diabetes.shtml

Tell you what. You make a first pass at it. Take some stool sample measurements over a week or so to get an average. It might be best to include some of your friends and relatives in the test to make sure you get a good sample. Next, keep it in your home for a month or so laid out to dry so that you can determine if loss of moisture changes the average size. And just to ensure that there is no change when it actually covers the ground, I suggest you spread it around outside your home to verify that it covers the amount of surface area that you anticipated. Since you already know the land area of all the continents, you will then have all the information you need to calculate it yourself! I am anxious to hear back from you with the results of your test.

This topic was a waste the first time it was posted.

I don't take drugs because my company has a policy against them because they are illegal. My company does not test if I had a beer over the weekend because beer is legal, but they do test to see if I've taken cocaine over the weekend because it is not legal. I know this cites an old study, but: "Drug testing, legally required for many public employers, has become widespread in the private sector over the past two decades. A 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 84 percent of employers required new hires to pass drug screenings, and 39 percent randomly tested employees after they were hired. In addition, 73 percent tested workers when drug use was suspected and 58 percent required testing after accidents on the job." http://www.theledger.com/article/20070206/NEWS/702060387 Taking the test is a requirement of employment so not taking it effectively means I would have to quit my job. And severely limit the number of places I can work. I wouldn't characterize it as my company assisting the state in upholding the law. If I test positive for illegal drugs they do not inform the state. They simply fire me. In my case I work for a consulting agency where I am hired out to other companies. Their justification for drug testing is for my company to be able to assure potential clients that they have a better product (me) and to reduce liability. If I really screw up at work (at the client site) and it turns out I've been doing illegal drugs, my company is at higher risk of a lawsuit.