Cap'n Refsmmat

Okay, I've come up with a second draft. However, I'm not quite sure what sort of reorganization you'd want, so I've left the organization alone. I've reworked a few sections and reworded some things. More input? edit: newer version below

silkworm, don't worry, that's constructive criticism, which is exactly what I wanted. Thank you. I'm working on a second draft now.

I've written up a simple essay explaining the major ID arguments, and exactly why they are wrong. I'm looking for input from all of you members, as I'd like to improve it and hopefully make it a useful resource for future debates on SFN. It's attached. Fire away with criticism! (on another note, this is my first document typeset in LaTeX) edit: attachment removed, revised version available below

In fact, if you were to fire a gun in space, you would be blown backwards uncontrollably--there'd be nothing to stop you.

Not if you had WWII-level technology.

I think sunspot's point is only 10% of that is used at a time (as not all 80% needs to work at once), although this has been disproved by Snopes and others.

Indeed. And the Mark III was rather pathetic.

Indeed. And the Mark III was rather pathetic.

Dev-C++ is just an IDE for the Windows port of GCC.

The black hole? Are you suggesting that there's only one or something?

We nerds just don't attract the lovers.

I think that's actually true, according to The Fabric of the Cosmos (but only on quantum scales). Scientists are trying to find proof of extra dimensions by studying the effects of gravity over ridiculously tiny distances. I think that site is a mix of taking real concepts out of context, and completely made up crap.

Says who? Did you read my link?

There are a few left. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

The idea is that the nuke will be far enough underground that radioactive material will not escape.

...with a bit of research, I just found that McDonald's fries are fried in vegetable oil, not meat grease. So there goes that idea.

On the same level of credibility, be sure to check out the Flat Earth Society's website. But don't read the fine print. (I happen to think a lot of creationists are just as silly as flat-earth believers)

Isn't that the one that states that McDonald's fries have more meat content than the burgers (as they're fried in meat grease)?

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm The basis of your entire post is an urban legend.

This happened to be the Christmas question in The Last Word in New Scientist. A few entries: A third eye, on someone else's head: you can now ask people how you look without actually needing an opinion. A snooze button for pain. A conveniently placed reset button. Pressing it for more than a few seconds would be a "cold restart"--used if you're found haning from a chandelier or become convinced that you're Napoleon. Just a few.

Ghastly!

So now we're arguing over the rights of natural biological processes?! This is something that occurs naturally. Sure, you can argue over the rights of an artificially created thing--like filesharing--but arguing if a fetus, which never made a decision on the subject, has a right to be there, is insane. The fetus never had a chance to consider these problems. There's a difference between something that's brought there without its consent (it's arguable if a fetus even can consent) than someone that actually makes a concious decision about it. I think that on this subject, a lot of people are reacting because of the "oh my god they're killing a baby" thought instead of actually thinking it through (I'm not specifically speaking to any one of you, but that's my general impression). We need to stop and think about this. Take as an example the fact that South Dakota hasn't banned abortion--yet. They're only halfway there.

It may be related to getting stitches but I'm not sure. I know there's something painful that it can cause.

I have to wonder if anybody will write a book on what soybeans go through to become fake milk or tofu.