zapatos

rigney - In post #32 A Tripolation used the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638 When you replied to him in post #33 you started typing right next to the link like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638:I do not see how anyone would be capable of letting the murderers in this case live. Which means the link that used to be http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638 and worked fine, Now looks like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638:I and does not work because of the "I" at the end of the line. That's all.

I don't know. Could be. I remember segregation and I'm not too old to go to school. No, and for some reason I think you know I didn't mean that. I think if they want to generate a discussion about affirmative action they should discuss it in whole, and not cherry pick only those pieces that are easy to ridicule when taken out of context.

I was making reference to past discrimination when I suggested that blacks do the baking but not get paid. The history of affirmative action includes discussions of making reparations for past racial discrimination and to address continuing problems. That portion of affirmative action was left out of the bake sale analogy.

I think it is ok. The only change I would suggest is to first make the blacks do all the baking but not pay them. Seems to me that would make this event a more robust analogy to preferential treatment.

Let's see. Herp said "I believe that humans have no right to kill other humans, even if they're evil serial killers or whatever". There was no equivocation in her statement. I neither misrepresented her position nor attacked it. I asked a question to help clarify it. You'll have to explain why that is a straw man. Obviously. There are some times when people have the right to kill others. You seem to think you have the right under certain circumstances. I think I have the right under certain circumstances. We just disagree when it comes to what the circumstances are.

Hmm. So in the example of the doctor whose wife and daughters were sexually assaulted and murdered, do you feel that if that was your family, that you would not have the right to kill the attackers to stop the assault? And in the case of war, if your country was invaded, do you not feel you have a right to kill the invaders to stop them?

Is it known where dark matter resides? For example, does it seem to be concentrated in the center of galaxies, or is it perhaps evenly distributed?

I turn on a fan close to my bed, switched to high. Worked wonders for me.

Depends upon how you define "the quality of one's life". I'm pretty sure the quality of my life would decrease if I followed this plan. The quality of my health may go up, but again, maybe not if I'm depressed because I can't eat home grown tomatos with salt on them anymore.

I did a quick read of some of your posts and am just looking for an overview of your position on evolutionary theory. Is it your postion that evoltionary theory is correct in some ways but insufficient to explain some things such as the amount of diversity we now see? If so, where would you guess the explanation lies? For example, is evolutionary theory simply not understood well enough yet, or is it something else? I apologize if I did not interpret your posts well. It seems obvious you have issues with evolutionary theory but I am not sure if you are suggesting alternatives or if you are simply pointing out weaknesses.

There is also the "Naked Mirror" diet. You can eat whatever you want, but you have to do it while standing naked in front of a mirror. Very effective for weight loss! (And I do notice how it is hard to make a small pot of soup! Happens to me everytime I make chicken vegetable.) I also think a healthy diet varies depending upon the physical condition of the person on the diet.

I apologize that my attempt to engage you on this topic was so inferior. I won't bother you again.

All I wanted was for you to supply some sources to back up the assertions you made. I find that you are very good at that when you are on the science forums. Over here you seem to accept a much lower standard. And laughing at me ( ) and implying that I'm a dumbass ( ) isn't really adding much to the conversation.

That's because someone who posts an opinion that matches mine must clearly be of superior intelligence and deserving of positive rep!

This says that conjugal infidelity is easier, not that it is an encouragement. I'm not sure that is the same thing. When Eisenhower put in the interstate highway system was he making it easy for me to get to California, or was he encouraging me to go? This says the church is accused of telling people condoms do not protect against HIV. Once again, I'm not sure that is the same as condoms "increasing the risk of disease". I didn't see the pope mentioned at all. In the previous post you didn't say a family would have less money while raising the children, you said the population would be poorer. Presumably people grow up and go to work and then there is more income. If everyone gets a job when they grow up, then having more children has no impact on the wealth of the population. And thanks for pointing out that 1/3 is larger than 1/5, but what I asked for was a study pointing out that larger family sizes causes poorer populations. So your proof of argument is that it is obvious to you. Good job! And I don't know what this proves except that it is not obvious to me, but: Birth rate in Niger: 51.6 births/1000 population Birth rate in Spain: 9.72 births/1000 population http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sp&v=25 % Catholic in Niger: 0.1% % Catholic in Spain: 94% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country

Yes, but I find many inaccurate statements by atheists that put theism in a bad light, when coming up with an accurate statement is 20 seconds away on Google. It seems as if the rigor is not as important when criticizing religion as it is when supporting science. It certainly does. So do you think it was the atheist's fault? Did the theist ignore reasonable arguments? Was he right or wrong? (my bold) Exactly my point. It seems like it takes a lot more evidence to convince a theist of something if a theory contradicts their worldview, than if it doesn't. Shouldn't the same standard hold for all science?

I wouldn't be at all surprised. But let's take evolution as an example. There was a lively thread going tonight where a theist (he didn't bring up his belief in God until he symbolically gave us the finger while signing off for the night) appeared to ignore or make fun of what I felt were reasonable arguments for evolution. It appeared to me that he was doing this because it was at odds with the bible. I don't see that kind of behavior for topics like plate tectonics or medicine. That type of behavior is why it appears to me that theists feel under attack by science.

I guess to a theist it seems as if science has been after them for centuries. Earth is no longer the center of the universe. Earth is no longer 6000 years old. Evolution. Big Bang. etc. etc.

I was watching a thread in the Religion forum which touched on this and thought I'd start a new thread on the topic. Do theists and atheists fight fair with each other? (I use the terms theist and atheist loosely.) When I first started visiting the Science forums it seemed as if the theists often played loose with the scientific facts when it came to religion. I attributed this to the fact that it's hard to find a lot of science backing God, the bible, etc. And the atheists would be very precise and supply volumes of empirical evidence supporting their positions. Then I started to notice that in the Religion forum, it seemed as if some of the atheists who were so particular about their facts in the Science forums, didn't find the need to be so precise in the Religion forum. So do atheists and theists fight fair with each other? Does it just seem as if they don't because people are simply more comfortable arguing from their own area of expertise? Is there a natural animosity between the two that makes it hard to understand the other's point of view? Is it just not possible to find common ground? What do you think?

Are you having fun with this? Did you make a bet about how many times you can get someone to take the bait?

Have you ever observed the passage of millions of years? I'll give you £20 for a photo or video footage.

I've always thought of humans as just another animal, albeit the one with the most advanced brain and living in a way completely alien to other species on earth. But using your scenario there are other animals that have the most advanced (whatever) and are living in a way completely alien to other species on earth. So it seems they too could be considered "more than just animals". I just don't see being at the top of a particular food/ability/complexity chain as giving some sort of exalted status.

So it's possible to interpret someone's dream and have a pretty good idea of the types of things (not specifics I assume) that are going on in their life at that time?

From your link: "At this point in the discussion, Stuart Kauffman shared a poignant story that supports much of what Schlitz is trying to demonstrate in her research. Kauffman related that several years ago while living in Philadelphia, he had a striking image of his own daughter walking down the middle of a road and being struck by a car that crushed her. It was a stunning image that stopped him in his tracks and made him very concerned for his daughter. About a month later around the time of Halloween, his daughter died in a way that was strikingly similar to the image that he had seen. To this day, Kauffman is not sure how to explain this shocking experience. Was it clairvoyant or telepathic? He is not sure. But what Kauffman did offer is that time might have some kind of structure that we have not even begun to understand. Kauffman’s story seemed to open up the floor to some wilder explorations. Jenny Wade speculated openly and intuitively that if the quantum realm reveals non-local phenomenon, then perhaps our brains are capable of being quantum processors. We are capable of picking up a small piece of quantum information and then turning that into an image, just as Kauffman had seen the image of his daughter even though it had not happened yet." Sounds like time travel.

It still doesn't sound to me like sugar is unhealthy. I know sugar can result in unhealthy spikes in diabetics, but I'd say it is being diabetic that is the problem, not the sugar. (Similar to exercise being unhealthy is some with heart disease.) I can also feel sick if I eat plums too quickly. From what I can find online I'd say the jury is out when it comes to increased blood sugar levels increasing the odds of getting diabetes. And I'd say not brushing your teeth is the unhealthy practice, not the eating of sugar, although I'm not sure about this one. Couldn't most things be considered potentially unhealthy? Sounds like we should all be dead by now. And look how bad exercise is... CHICAGO, IL – Scientists at Loyola University have proved what many of us have suspected all along – exercise is bad for your health. Dr. Harold Crampe of Loyola University and his colleagues spent six months studying the effects of exercise, comparing a group of men aged 20 to 50 who walked or ran at least 3 times a week with a control group of men in the same age range who spent the same time on the couch, watching TV. Dr. Crampe says they were surprised by their findings. "You have a 4000% higher risk of being hit by a car or other motor vehicle, if you're out running," he says, "and some of the other risks are even higher." Runners and walkers were nearly 3 times more likely to be attacked by dogs, 5 times more likely to sprain or break a limb, and nearly 50 times more likely to be struck by lightning. "You're even 12 times as likely to be mugged," says Dr. Crampe. http://buffetoblog.wordpress.com/2006/03/30/exercise-is-bad-for-you-new-study-shows/ Examining 2,000 runners after completion of the Los Angeles marathon demonstrated that immune systems may be suppressed enough to significantly increase our chances of contracting infections and developing illnesses. The study found that 13% of the runners who participated in the marathon developed an illness in the following week. The combination of increased volume and intensity of the exercise left an significant impact on the participants and as a result, many of them contracted infections as a consequence of impaired immune function. http://www.science20.com/erin039s_spin/too_much_exercise_bad_you Other studies have shown an increased risk of arthritis in middle-aged female ex-athletes, and another reported that long-term weight-bearing sports activities like jogging, squash, hockey, badminton and aerobics are linked to arthritis. Two other Swedish studies have shown that high participation in all kinds of sports increases the risk of arthritis of the hip in both sexes. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/could-exercise-be-bad-for-you-634211.html Despite its benefits, exercise can produce harmful free radicals and a new study is set to find out just how bad it is for you and what can be done to minimise the damage. http://machineslikeus.com/news/exercise-may-be-bad-you Ok