Ringer

Cyanide, glycoalkaloids, lectin, oxalic acid, mycotoxins, etc.

If only you would show these off you may find people to be more agreeable.

You seem to mistake science with technology. And that is why science is open, and results needed to be replicated and studied. The standard as in the common belief, what the consensus among the majority is. Everything explanation in science is put through the ringer of people attempting to rip the explanation apart and find evidence that contradicts the current models. I didn't mention the bible, I just said whatever god one follows the point of the religion is to follow the directions of that god. And giving control of your life to said god is just an extension of that. Pot, meet kettle. How so? And in what way does this actually address the point I was making? Yeah, there's not much choice in following nature's laws, that's the magic of objective reality. No, adding extraneous assumptions to the definition of nature is unnecessary. I didn't mention the bible, I just said whatever god one follows the point of the religion is to follow the directions of that god. And giving control of your life to said god is just an extension of that.

And Rosalind Franklin, so sad posthumous nobels are not awarded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

God, in every sense except this one it seems, is supernatural. Nature isn't supernatural by definition. If you say nature is god you are changing definitions and making an equivocation fallacy. If they have similar meanings that means they are different, meaning god isn't nature. If god is nature then science studies god, which makes the opening question pointless. But again you're equivocating, you know as well as I do that the definition of god being used isn't nature. Boss tangle needle twins bull title many two hip, sit none beach total. ^ This is equivalent of changing the definition of go to nature does to a discussion, because if you can use different definitions so can I and we won't be the least bit productive. Any argument can be made if I change the definition of any given word. Creationism is true so long as Creationism means evolution.

Doesn't it seem egotistical to assume one shouldn't be helped because they undertook activities you personally disagree with. First part in the abstract: So diet may contribute, and it both reduces and causes. It has to do with DNA stability and is a risk reward probability, not a definite. So your original statement that it is only environment and diet is not born out by the first section of the first paper you cite as evidence.

Science doesn't act like nature, it attempts to explain it. Your version is incorrect at first glance. They may, but it's not religion or faith that is doing that. Science is all about dissent against the standard (within evidence), faith is about following the standard (god of choice's word). Then you have never been around scientists talking science. As I said, the main purpose of science is to find out where it is wrong and part of that is destroying every argument that isn't correct. Most aren't correct so most are destroyed. That is why many of us trust science, it stands strong after being held in the fire. So if you saw an error in an author's conclusion of homologous recombination you could then determine another author's mistake deriving the gravitational force? They have, you seem to forget most of human history when biblical texts were thought to be truth. There isn't much reason to go back and show something is incorrect when it was shown incorrect over a hundred years ago. Then god is unnecessary because it's just nature. We have a word and definition for nature, it's nature. Adding to that is unnecessary and unhelpful. Then she's not being religious, she is using religion as a proxy to be around people. This has nothing to do with faith, religion, or science. Again, this has nothing to do with religion, science, faith, or anything we have been discussing. It is both a non-sequitor and moving the goal posts

If religions didn't attempt to act like science they wouldn't get hated on (for the most part). It would be like me walking into a sushi place and telling the chefs that they don't know what they're doing and my way is correct as I make a fish sandwich. I deserve to be hated on by those chefs. Certainly, and it's called bad science. The difference is when scientists do it they tend to get blasted by other scientists. First, you are describing a problem with education, not necessarily science. That being said, science is always wrong, but it's wrong by degrees. We are less wrong now than we were 2 years ago and we will be less wrong 2 years from now. That's the difference, science knows it's wrong and actively works to show where it is wrong. What's a non-religious god? Because it is by it's nature not part of science. If it's a natural phenomena it's not god by any definition I've ever seen used.

Probably comes from bad philosophers tend to get heard more often than good philosophers (and drugs of course). It gives the impression that philosophy is just sitting around talking about cool ideas. I will admit that I hated philosophy for that very reason, and thought it was extremely pointless. Philosophers also have a harder time with refuting quacks (if that's the right word for it) because physics uses the math>words. Philosophy, many times, is words vs words and the quacks seem to believe all words are equal. It's the same principal many Biology quacks work under.

1.) If you read past the first sentence you see validation is, by many beliefs, antithesis to what faith is. So there's that. 2.) Objective evidence being a criterion for validation makes faith, as is used, purposeless.

Just looking at the screen before playing let's me know it's a fake. A homonid skeleton that size would collapse under its own weight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law#Biomechanics

The virus can infect cells before there is a proper immune response, that's how many people get sick when stressed, tired, etc. The immune response isn't working as effectively and infection takes place before a proper immune response begins. Viruses also have a high mutation rate, so the virus you may be immune to may be vastly different than the same virus you get infected with a year later.

You can get into neuroscience grad programs with virtually any degree that has something to do with the brain. Personally I am doing a Biology/Psychology double major, but the best thing to do is contact a couple of universities and ask them what types of classes they would prefer to see you take. Other than that it's personal preference.

There is as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Hercules, Odysseus, etc. Meaning there is a book that says they existed and did incredible things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM

But pure reason wasn't a criterion for validation to begin with. Hell, actual validation goes against the point of faith as it is used in the thread. If you really want to get into how we can classify science as working better through objective validation, I'm having a conversation with other people at different times in different places through the use of science/religion (choose best answer). The topic doesn't seem to be a science vs. religion subject. Only if faith can be considered a strength or weakness in regards to religious ideals. If you had faith you could fly, then yes. If you didn't, then no.

Though you could probably rely on both faiths equally. . . But seriously, how does one not get that saying faith in a person (trust) is not the same as faith a deity. If I were to say I beat someone while playing chess would you think I got out a club and assaulted them?

The thing is, it doesn't matter what his mathematics say. Math can say anything as long as it's internally consistent. The math means nothing in science if it doesn't agree with observation. So if his mathematical model doesn't show evolution happening, it doesn't represent the real world. We have seen evolution, math disproving it is disproving an alternate dimension. Not necessarily true. That is assuming protolife was DNA based, which is pretty unlikely. Not really. There are plenty of species that can both sexually and asexually reproduce. Even bacteria can transmit DNA to each other without sexual reproduction. Not always, mutation rates vary. Some types of sequences are more prone to mutation than others.

FFS. This is the only sentence I wish I would have read in this thread. It would have let me know that the entire discussion was useless.

There are a few things that I feel bring about a large amount of the problems. One is inadequate knowledge of administrators at all levels of schooling. For example administrators will add expectations or new ways of doing things without removing older methods. My wife is a teacher and they just instituted a new method of classroom strategies, full with new lesson plans and evaluations. Yet the old method lesson plans and evaluations are still done for no known reason. This seems to compound educators problems with actually taking time to find teaching strategies that work well, and make putting in the extra work next to impossible. My wife has to make 4 different types of lessons with different methods, but she's only allowed to use the most current one. Another problem is many teachers are far from adequately prepared to really handle the subject they teach. I have met an extremely disturbing amount of science educators that scoff at evolution, use homeopathic medicine, etc. This I have no idea what the reasons could possibly be to teach a subject if you don't know or understand what the basic principles are. Then there is always the fact that there are always students who just don't care. Especially for the non-tenured, or public school, teacher this can cause unbelievable problems. If your class is doing badly your whole school loses and lay-off are sometimes mandatory. After funding is cut already, if the classes are still doing badly the funding is cut even more. Obviously it creates a self propagating machine of bad education, it causes pressure on the teachers, again a lot of this pressure is from administrators, to make sure the classes get better grades and due better on the standardized tests. Not by way of educating them to better understand, but making curves the push the lower grades much higher and focusing on how to create students who know how tests are set up. If you've ever studied for the SAT or GRE you know that those aren't so much about trying to learn a subject other than how SAT or GRE tests are set up.

The equations aren't actually physics equations, they're probability equations. P() represents the overall probability of an event with the event specified in the (). The P( | ) is a statement representing the probability within a parameter. So P(a|b) would represent the probability of a within the parameter of b. So his P(h|e) in the first equation was the overall probability, P(), of the hypothesis, h, within the parameters of the experiment, e. This is necessary because evidence will raise or lower the probability of the hypothesis. The second part is just simplifying and using it to find the probability that the findings are true by assuming the hypothesis is true. This helps solve problems of whether it is more likely the hypothesis is false or the evidence is false. Then he goes on to use the same method to find the probability that a competing hypothesis is true given the probability of a different hypothesis. Using that you can find which one is more likely, just like you can find probabilities of the evidence vs. hypothesis truth. [edit] I'm sure ydoaPs will correct any errors I made, but do keep in mind I haven't done these kinds of Stats in a while so I may have some things mixed up. I think the overall idea is correct though.[/edit]

The brown water could also be a break in the pipe. But I would think the they would have checked for that.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I was just talking about if someone wanted to be part of the discussion and couldn't. That shouldn't stop it from happening, just be a consideration.

I feel I always have a better understanding when I'm forced to work my own way through things. It's always strange how often I forget formulas in physics classes and BS my way to the correct formula. Afterwards I tend to actually know the formula I found, even if it's not the one the professor prefers to be used.

I think it would be pretty fun, though it may be problematic to get everyone to have time to be on together.