Genecks

Maybe I'm late on this, but I recently noticed Google let out it's project "Google Docs." I've been using GMail as a way to save my paper drafts for school. I even wrote an article on writingforums.com about using GMail to save drafts and final drafts. It seems that Google caught on to people using GMail for academic and general writing.

The importance of this is that Google Mail automatically saves text that a person types. It saves every so often. Also, the saved file is on Google's server. If your computer crashes, it doesn't matter. The file is saved on Google's servers. That's the great part about it. The only downside is if Google's servers crashed; but a person could always back up the file before he or she walks away from the computer.

However, it seems that Google did catch onto people's need for a virtual storage medium that can travel with them. Google created Google Docs specifically for this purpose. It allows a person to type of documents, check them for spelling errors, and save drafts. Yet the best part, in my opinion, is the ability to check revisions. In other words, it saves the draft about every thirty seconds, as long as a person stays consistent. You can check through the savepoints and see the revisions that have been done since then.

With microsoft word, I would have to look through various saved files. However, Google Docs makes this take easy and simple.

Another great feature is the ability to double space text. However, I believe a downside is the inability to create margins for the documents. I tried altering the HTML (you can alter the documents HTML), but the margins didn't take effect. I'm hoping I can find a way to have the Modern Language Association format.

Altogether, I'm going to be using Google Docs whenever I type up a paper. I'm sick of losing disks, having my computer crash, etc. I wouldn't rely on it too much because there might be a time when a person can't save. However, I trust writing on Google Mail or Google Docs more than writing with a word processor program.

Internet writing is the wave of the future.

Actually, we need a logo for Theology Forums. Interested?

You're going to want to be careful about that. Some people don't like icons, images, etc. that represent their religion. I remember walking into an Islamic building two weeks ago in Chicago. It seemed that they have a metal circle with only language on in it. It was like cursive writing created a maze within the circle. A circle composed of language. Sadly, I don't think I took a picture of that.

Other than that, this forums does have a nice monochromatic blue scheme. It's easy on the eyes; the blue creates a calm atmosphere; and the white stimulates alertness. Supposedly, colors have an affect on the psychology of an individual. That's what I continue, perhaps, to like this forum. It has a very nice layout; I've always liked the layout. But I'm somewhat getting bored with the colors.

I will agree, however, that people are right in saying this forum is eccentric. It allows for quick communication and interpretation.

I guess I ought to learn CSS. I don't know how popular it is on the web these days. I'm somewhat of an old-school, html javaslinger. But I'll look into the Firefox thing The Tree spoke about.

Would it be possible to create a different forum look? Perhaps something black?

However, sometimes it's necessary to introduce a totally new concept. That's why I like analogies so much: even a totally new concept can be likened to something familiar.

 

Mokele

They help for understanding complex topics, but analogies can sometimes make simple topics more complex. It can back-fire from time to time. They seem to work very well in the hard sciences, but they seem to fail when it comes to the liberal arts. I assume this is correlated to spatial reasoning within people.

- http://www.englishforums.com/

- http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm (Known as "The Forest of Rhetoric")

- Writingforums.com

Use the first website to improve grammar, spelling, and many other things.

I recommend The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language for improving your grammar. The book can be expensive, but it can later be used as an authoritive reference guide. The book has over 1500 pages. I would buy one, but I keep checking it out from the library; therefore, I don't need to buy it. If you can read through that book, understand it, and practice what it preaches, then you'll have a good grasp on grammar. (p-p-g-g-g)

Use the second website to browse through rhetorical figures and help your understanding of rhetoric.

Rhetoric is simply style. It's the way style is used on an audience to obtain a particular effect. Also, as you become more of a rhetorician, you'll understand what that "p-p-g..." stuff was about.

Use the third website to have people evaluate your usage of rhetoric and style.

I'm more of a cryptic/macabre writer:

It was a cold and bitter night. The screen in the backroom was still on the ground, and I hadn't figured out how to put it back into place. I was left with the bitter, cold winter. Yet the electric heater by my bedside gave me warmth. I lived in the basement, and I often figured I was secure. There were bugs and spiders, but there weren't ladders that could fall on me or things like that. I considered the basement to be a pretty safe place.

 

Of course, as I fell asleep that night, I kept the electric heater on. I usually keep the electric heater on at night. It keeps me warm, of course. And I remember waking up to a really warm blanket. The really warm blanket was hot, and there was a red and orange glow. My whole arm was burning up, and blood was covering the blanket. The skin was peeling off, and the room smelled like ham. "This was a dream," I thought. Of course, pain is never a dream. I had fallen out of bed, hit my head banged hard on the cement ground, and .... ... .. .

That only took me about one minute to make.

I like genetic evidence to link evolutionary claims. Otherwise, I don't care to learn certain things in paleontology. I rarely buy into the bone-comparison ideology, and I think those without genetic evidence are speculating. Although that seems fun, I don't think it would get me anywhere far. However, I do understand the importance of it.

I would say it is similar to a medical professional taking a course on ethics and religion: You don't need it, but you ought to take it; you can understand people around you and how to respond to their needs. I don't mind tracing things, but if there isn't enough evidence, then I really don't care to study the topic.

I suppose a person could respond to a finding, adjust to it, and understand it along with further evolutions of it. Perhaps it offers critical thinking in cause-effect relationships, thus allowing a person to make deductions about findings; but I don't see much beyond that. I'm guessing it offers speculation and deduction, which are hard things to come by because a person must constantly find new things in science to speculate and deduce.

Given the mounting resistance to evolution by fundamentalists and its central role in biology, there is even greater need today to make palaeontology a central plank of any proper biology education.

Are you saying people should learn palaeontology to fend off the creationists? I don't see that as justification if that's what you're saying. I don't like wasting my time when studying science. The religious zealots can believe whatever they want to believe. I'm not going to bicker with them. Plus, I always have this feeling that if they stick to their religion, they will not allow themselves to be persuaded by you: It's against their beliefs to accept certain things from science.

I just wanted to put this out there and get some responses on this 'theory'.

 

by sun, i mean exposure to the sun.

I agree. There is only a correlation.

It's not a theory, because it is a claim.

And you seem to be arguing from authority.

I thought the scholastic method died...

Testimony doesn't seem like good evidence.

I'd want to see some videos of biological interactions.

Otherwise, describing the process with chemistry, biochemistry, and physics would help.

It's a government conspiracy to tax sunlight.

Although not relevant to skin cancer, such a thing did happen in the 1980s.

I see many typographical errors. I believe the writer could have used semicolons in a more 1800's fashion, but the writer made the error of having run-on sentences. Also, there is the glitch with no period after the abbreviation for doctor. I'd say the writer needs to tune the skills really quick. Perhaps others need more lessons in English. (t-t-t-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l)

Rhetoric is fun!

Most religions simply want you to do good deeds with good actions and with good thoughts in mind. Simple as that. And don't give me that Platonic/cynic stuff that any action is a good action. I'm talking about things that help society and the well-being of a person.

Anyway, I think you need to learn that the spoken word is more painful and powerful than the unspoken word. It is ok to find your own path in life, but scrutinizing others is not ok. Of course, refuting philosophical standpoints is a different story. But nonetheless, people simply need to acknowledge the drum other people hear. When you yell at the drum, the beat gets louder.

I have a tendency to not talk about religions in a negative way. I simply talk about the philosophy, rituals, practices, etc. of religions. I don't say any of them is better, nor do I try to support one over the other.

I stopped attending church a long time ago. Well, I go when I can or feel the need. Other than that, I'm simply too busy or should be busy. And I know people would not be pleased if I brought my college book into the church to read during a sermon.

I'm think from a philosophical standpoint, people make an error when they call God omnibenevolant. So, God might send people to hell. Of course, God is infinitely complex because of mind limitations in the physical body with biological brain processing. We can't really know how God works. I've got a theory about this that I've been meaning to work out, but I'm pretty sure God doesn't want us to know God, itself. I call it "defense theory." If you knew God, and God knows everything, you'd be an omnigod. That doesn't work out so well for God.

Anyway, final word:

Keep your beliefs to yourself unless asked about them from a superior. You can discuss the beliefs of others. However, do not discriminate against another religion based on your beliefs. Instead, show educated and intelligent counterpoints that some people have to various religions without showing negativity or too much bias.

And the error point is very loaded and would help create an argumentative thesis:

I think it’s time that people start spreading the word about Biblical errors and contradictions.

I wouldn't say something like that. Contraditions in logic might be there, but errors would be up for debate. Of course, you'd have to clarify what you mean by "errors." Yet interpretation has mangled future texts. In all, I'd be careful about what I say to others. I think one of the most important things I learned this year is that language is a very powerful tool when combined with philosophy. Be careful what you say.

I agree, Glider.

I'm trying to understand what DaveC426913 is talking about. The only way I see two children coming out as twins would be if the DNA from two sperm seperated, parted away, and one strand from each went into each egg.

|| ||

|....|

...o

.|...|.

...o

I've gone through grade school, middle school, high school, and college. I've met many tutors, professors, teachers, and people through life who have taught me various things. I've also learned to teach myself through the years incase no one would be there to support me. Although I can support myself, there are things I don't understand. Things I haven't been introduced to knowing. Something that someone else would end up teaching me.

A teacher is like a librarian: The person introduces students to resources so they can learn the subject material. A teacher teaches students life-long skills, and he or she provides students with solutions to probable future scenarios. If the teacher can't teach a student something, the teacher could show the student where to find more information. That's teaching.

To tell you the truth, I'm against current teaching in institutions. I don't like the idea of having students evaluated, criticized, and a label slapped on them. The jigsaw classroom ideology left over from the 1970s probably made people think group work in classrooms was an all-around good thing. I'm sick of group work. I agree with Mokele that it holds people down. I recently dropped my English course because of that stupid B.S. I had an 88% in the English course and an 'A' in every other course.

However, the group members in my English course were screwing me over, giving me all the work; and when midterm came, they didn't even understand what an enthymeme is. It's perhaps the most important part of an English paper because it includes the thesis. Gah! Once I learned I would still be in that group, with that idiocy, I dropped it. I was not going to do another 48-hour period of typing, proofreading, and correcting mistakes for three people. I can stay up for long periods of time; I can work for weeks on four hours of sleep; but I'm not going to do their work. I will do those things for my own work. Worst yet, the professor lied to me saying individuals were graded individually. We were graded as a group. A good teacher does not create group projects. However, if the class is suppose to be built upon group work, as in a chemistry or biology lab that lasts a full college semester, then yeah: Group work is suppose to be done.

Now I'm working hardcore to bring the grades in my other classes up. Everything went down to a B grade. Don't think I'm angry about that. I'm more for the destruction of the educational system than the building of it.

However, I do support teachers giving students life-long skills so students can excel at their own rate. In other words, if students can figure out that they can go to their college library, pick up a calculus book, even though they are in high school, they learned something new that day. I didn't learn where to obtain advanced books in school while I was growing up. If I knew how to obtain resources, I'd be more intelligent than I am now. I was always buying and finding resources until I learned about interlibrary loan and other types of library systems.

I didn't have large amounts of money, but it seems other institutions offer these resources. A teacher teaches students not only theory, but how to excel in theory and find resources to go further.

So many teachers complain about the funding they get for their schools. Heh.

I believe that an intelligent persons knows all too well that money isn't everything. The teachers simply need to teach with more efficiency and accuracy. The problem isn't the money, the problem is the teachers. The teachers are lazy, they don't want to organize school activities, and they don't want to spend their money. It seems that communitarian effort does not exist to groups of teachers. No wonder American society keeps screwing each generation over.

One last thing:

avoid Spoon feeding them; that creates laziness

That depends on your definition of "spoon feeding." No offense YT, but last time I checked, you didn't go to college. I don't know what kind of personal experience you have. I know you're a smart guy and dabble in various "things." And I can assume you went through grade school and high school, so I can understand where you might be coming from. However, spoon feeding has various levels when it comes to college.

When it comes to objective things such as science, I can understand when spoon-feeding exists. Math is math: it is purely objective. English, however, is not the same. I had asked my English professor for help on an assignment while the class was around. She quickly used sophistry on me to avoid helping. She had given no example of what kind of outline she was looking for on our research papers. She simply said, "Be creative."

I took her advice on being creative. I did well on that. However, there's something that upset me. When more people asked her for help, she said, "I don't want to help you guys because that would be spoon-feeding, and I don't want you stealing my style."

AKA: She's paranoid that we'll steal her style. She could have simply said, "buy the MLA Research book and copy it's MLA layout." It would have worked because the whole format and ideology of the paper would be MLA. Of course, she never stated that throughout the whole semester. There were a lot of "fill-in-the-blanks" in that class. And I think she put way too many in the class. Fill-in-the-blanks are things the professor will never say because you're expected to journey out and find the answers on your own time. I know that's part of college education, but from where I live, our educational system sucks. People are not taught to be researchers and independent thinkers. I believe she assumed that people had the same educational background as her. However, that is not true.

A good teacher doesn't assume that everyone has the same educational background. The teacher makes up for this and tries to make sure everyone is on the same level or above the expected level. This can be done by giving quizzes and so forth in the form of essays. Afterwards, the professor can evaluate the knowledge of the students and compensate for things the majority don't know. I'm not talking about 51% or something like that. I'm talking about things that 20-40%+ of the class doesn't understand. A teacher might acknowledge that students come and go, but it is the teachers job to be an excellent and caring teacher. I don't think teachers are willing to take out the effort to care.

They'll use sophistry behind their beliefs, which typically seem like invalid arguments, because they are educated. And if you try to put words into their mouth, they'll refute your or some other junk like that. I've bickered with professors before. I've used social psychology on these people. It's unethical on my side, but I'm finding it common that professors don't care. I could say it's the inability for people to care in schools or think about consequences of actions that are creating a lot of problems.

I also remember a time I took an earlier college course. The professor expected people to have second semester English knowledge. That knowledge is not a prerequisite for the course. No where in the college catalogue was it described that people would do argumentation. A high school student could innocently walk into the class and expect five-paragraph essays, exams, and pop-quizzes. However, it wasn't like that. The high school student would be walking into the lion's den.

An argumentative paper was assigned. The professor wanted an argumentative paper. Not everyone knows how to create such a paper. Yet very few people did. That is unfair to the students. This kind of writing is taught in English 103 (second semester English) Therefore, a good teacher would not assign something like that without giving a discourse into argumentation. Or else the person would state in the schedule that argumentation is required for the course.

I've seen various professors at my college do this. I'm not very happy about it. My most recent professor did it. I was very angry that another professor did this. I have argumentation experience, so I understand how the system works. But I looked around, and I noticed other students didn't have a clue. That is unfair. I do not agree with that.

If this is some weed-out process, then it is an unethical weed-out process. Classes should have an ENG-103 class prerequisite before assigning such an assignment. I will say, however, that the last professor that requested it (my World Religion professor) did give a brief intro into the topic. I mean very brief. It takes more than one hour to understand argumentation. He gave an hour discussion.

It takes time (about a month) to learn and practice argumentation. A professor can't simply assign such a paper without students already having knowledge of argumentation theory. A good teacher doesn't assign topics that only a select few in a class can do. In these cases, professors assigned things that are not typically taught in high school.

That's unethical. People paid money to learn. They understand they are expected to work hard. But you can't expect them to learn the material of another course in an undergraduate course in one month when the assignment is due in one month. People are going to be pushed out of the system. If this is the weed-out process, that's sad. People who care about education are being pushed out because professors are assigning topics that only a select few understand. People are not able to further their education when they really care about it. I see that kind of suffering. I'm annoyed by it. These teachers are causing unnecessary or perhaps unethical sufferings to their students.

However, I could be blind. High schools might now teach argumentation, but argumentation wasn't taught to me in high school. I graduated high school in 2005. I had my first argumentative paper in 2006. I hope to graduate in 2007 from college. Something is apparently wrong in college.

A good teacher allows people to be at the same level, excel faster than others, become resourceful, and understand course material. I'm sure that if each student about the course material, then each student would make an 'A' grade. The only thing that would screw that up is the inability for the student to understand, the inability for the teacher to correctly teach, or some unknown external factor.

1. Teachers should not assign things students don't understand.

Premise: Students will not be able to learn or do well on them.

2. If teachers assign things students don't understand, these assignment should be worth a low amount of points.

Premise: Students will learn something out of it, probably fail, but still do the assignment.

Also, I don't understand why failing is a good thing. All it offers is a crash for megalomaniacs and egotistic persons, but success is needed for society because of the social constructs people have created. Science is less of an illusion, so I assume failing at science means failing to understand science. And that's not good, because science helps people understand the physical nature of the world. Science is less of an illusion than other things. Many rhetors throughout history have said that people are simply copying techniques from other people. I'm sure pragmatists would support this kind of view. What works best, works best and should be used until the better thing that works better is found. I don't see a problem with people copying methods from others. Easten civilizations called it passing down knowledge. Americans call it competition and stealing one's style.

I've been thinking of a new teaching technique. I call it the deduction technique: If you don't come to my office with certain information about what you're doing in this class, I'll automatically deduct ten points. Or else you need to fill out a survey and other forms with detailed responses.

It seems irrational, but I'm sure it would get students to admit they aren't doing so hot at certain topics. A teacher could somewhat force a student into seeking guidance by filling out forms, telling the teacher what he or she needs in terms of guidance. I'm thinking this deduction technique could work.

If you notice how teachers and parents have conferences in schools, this teacher-student conference might do some good. The student will be forced to communicate to the teachers. If the student comes, his or her grade stays the same. If not, ten points are deducted. Perhaps more points could be lost to make the student feel threatened. Of course, this goes into the realm of social psychology; but a student would visit the professor to keep the grade the same.

I don't see any evidence for the claims present by various persons. Although, I do admire the elipses presented by Bascule. Rhetors seem to understand the power of language.

I agree. It's not like Dalek is saying or if the things he or she contributes to the forum is going to help terrorists or something. I don't see the reason for having Dalek banned.

Think Buddha is your God?

Buddhists don't worship Buddha; they take inspiration from Buddha.

Praying to Angels click here

And.. I don't remember the act of praying to angels as a sin.

The common sense doctrine needs to be created in academia. Too many people are angry at this unknown, mysterious standard. People yammer about plagiarism, but can a person know anything beyond his or her own mind?

These words I type. These things I say to you. I'm sure I learned grammar from some place. Should I cite that? Should I cite where I obtained the word "grammar"? I'm still in college, and I'll be getting my associate's degree soon. However, I'd like to say that no one has ever created a freakin' standard.

Yet I've found some standards along my travel.

I call it the common sense doctrine.

The common sense doctrine is as follows:

(1.) That which is taught in class is allowed to be used as your thought.

Under these conditions:

a. you speak from experience.

ba. you do not paraphrase or quote a passage from the book.

bb. you say something in your own words when it is an idea from the book; you don't not use the same or similar words expressed in the book.

c. you are not directly quoting someone

2. That which has been taught to you in the past may be used as your thought.

under these conditions:

a. it's not a direct quote from some person in history

b. it's a historical event that can be found in many text books.

3. That which society already knows.

Under these conditions:

a. You can walk outside your door, ask a commoner a question about society, and receive an answer that others give. This is what I call the consensus sense.

b. That which is known because you are a human:

- You must eat, drink, sleep, etc.

I'm curious as to how the fathers' DNA would have divided among the eggs.

This is a hypothetical situation, but since we're making a story, I'd say I have wood, dry material, and a zippo lighter. Also, I have a pot that can hold liquids and cook a nice upside-down pineapple cake. Of course, I'd probably line the pot with aluminum foil.

I really don't know how much water is inside of blood. I could understand that the RBCs might already be depleted of water, because I'm inside of a desert. Yet I'm going to assume they aren't that drained; in other words, the animals are alive.

What percentage of water would be left over after boiling 7 cups of blood?

I was thinking about a possible scenario and a possible answer to a problem.

Yes, I know this seems quite disturbing, but I'm being serious.

Imagine that you're in the desert. You haven't been able to find water, but you've found animals around. These animals are dying, yet you could kill them for food. However, you're running low on water. A thought crosses your mind, "Could I drain the blood into a pot and boil it for the water?"

What do you think? Could such a thing be possible?

It's hardly surprizing if it's true. In the US, better test scores don't mean smarter kids, it means lower standards.

I think it means that kids are learning the system, becoming more intelligent by doing so, and making the standards raise because of their behavior. Then again, it depends on many factors. I don't think a hasty generalization will do.

Anyway, if educators have a problem with students being unlearned, maybe educators should teach the students more than work them. There are always going to be people who don't know what someone else does. Educators need to compensate for these differences. I'm glad that the educator was willing to find out the information right away. Now that information is known, the next step would be fixing the problem.

We can't rely on institutions to make sure everyone is at the same level.

Foremost, SFN is a science forum. It should be pretty clear by now that in most cases, science and religion just don't mix at all. - Dave

Science, religion, and philosophy do mix. You're claiming that they don't mix at all, thus they never mix. Yet the philosophy of mind (spirit) is of importance to neuroscience, cybernetics, and many other topics. Also, the way the universe works (the absolute, etc.) relates to physics, which often try to understand the universe in numbers (or a Pythagorean view). Although philosophers may have created views that have contributed toward science, religions have created theories, too. These theories that could contribute to science should not be thrown out all together. More than anything, philosophy covers ethics, politics, religion, and science.

Have you not heard of the philosophy of science?

What makes a theory a theory?

What makes a hypothesis a hypothesis?

Should we use euthanasia?

Should we not use euthanasia?

What do religions think about euthanasia?

Can we persuade religions to except science?

Is there something in their religion's philosophy that might allow science to be accepted in their lives?

On top of this, the debating on religious matters has started to spill over into some of the scientific areas, and this is starting to detract from the quality of posts that we have here. - Dave

I don't really see you giving any examples. I see details, but this unseen reality has me confused. I have no way of understanding the things your perceive, nor do I understand your grounds. Matter of fact, I don't believe an opinion is grounds enough to take out a forum.

Personally, I don't think that this is good in any shape or form.

Understood. Anything that takes away from the idea of science making a scientific forum is a 'bad thing.'

It was clear from talking to the mods and just skimming the threads that there's some pretty nasty debating going on there...

I don't really understand what you mean by "nasty." If you're talking about debates that simply turn into chaotic quarrels without logic, then you're talking about debates with lack of proper argumentation.

The thing that I've always liked about SFN is the community - we have a good bunch of people here, and it's been friendly and inviting to newcomers.

Good for you?

Yet it seems some of these people aren't too happy with your decision.

From my perspective, I could potentially see P&R ruining everything that we've built up, from the community to the quality of posts we have here.

Yet you've failed to give decent details and examples. Also, what's the possibility that it is helping the forum? Have you given any examples of what a 'decent' or 'not nasty' argument is? Why did you build the board in the first place? Did you have a set standard?

Now, for those of you who are regular contributors to the P&R forum, fear not! In the next few days, we should hopefully move over all of the posts and users from P&R to a new, clean forum.

This is where the problem exists. You are moving a section that is important and contributes to science to the margins of the Internet. You are trying to this a more secular board around science. Yet science did rise from philosophy. Putting something on the margins implies that it should not be seen or heard. Yet a small amount of people are stating this: Moderators and admins.

I believe the majority of persons would be willing to keep the board on. I haven't seen many comments from others. Some of the comments on the board seem to be a negative reaction to this action. Therefore, there may need to be adjustments.

Yet I believe that the P&R board should exist. It will allow people to understand philosophy and science and things that revolve around it. I suggest that it is reinstated, because it is a part of this forum that should remain active; and it is of interest to many. I propose that more moderators are created for the P&R board. A science based forum may seem like a good idea, but moving a section of importance implies that the board is to become more secular; and that is a problem.

Foremost, SFN is a science forum. It should be pretty clear by now that in most cases, science and religion just don't mix at all. - Dave

Science, religion, and philosophy do mix. You're claiming that they don't mix at all, thus they never mix. Yet the philosophy of mind (spirit) is of importance to neuroscience, cybernetics, and many other topics. Also, the way the universe works (the absolute, etc.) relates to physics, which often try to understand the universe in numbers (or a Pythagorean view). Although philosophers may have created views that have contributed toward science, religions have created theories, too. These theories that could contribute to science should not be thrown out all together. More than anything, philosophy covers ethics, politics, religion, and science.

Have you not heard of the philosophy of science?

What makes a theory a theory?

What makes a hypothesis a hypothesis?

Should we use euthanasia?

Should we not use euthanasia?

What do religions think about euthanasia?

Can we persuade religions to accept science?

Is there something in their religion's philosophy that might allow science to be accepted in their lives?

On top of this, the debating on religious matters has started to spill over into some of the scientific areas, and this is starting to detract from the quality of posts that we have here. - Dave

I don't really see you giving any examples. I see details, but this unseen reality has me confused. I have no way of understanding the things your perceive, nor do I understand your grounds. Matter of fact, I don't believe an opinion is grounds enough to take out a forum.

Personally, I don't think that this is good in any shape or form.

Understood. Anything that takes away from the idea of science making a scientific forum is a 'bad thing.'

It was clear from talking to the mods and just skimming the threads that there's some pretty nasty debating going on there...

I don't really understand what you mean by "nasty." If you're talking about debates that simply turn into chaotic quarrels without logic, then you're talking about debates with lack of proper argumentation.

The thing that I've always liked about SFN is the community - we have a good bunch of people here, and it's been friendly and inviting to newcomers.

Good for you?

Yet it seems some of these people aren't too happy with your decision.

From my perspective, I could potentially see P&R ruining everything that we've built up, from the community to the quality of posts we have here.

Yet you've failed to give decent details and examples. Also, what's the possibility that it is helping the forum? Have you given any examples of what a 'decent' or 'not nasty' argument is? Why did you build the board in the first place? Did you have a set standard?

Now, for those of you who are regular contributors to the P&R forum, fear not! In the next few days, we should hopefully move over all of the posts and users from P&R to a new, clean forum.

This is where the problem exists. You are moving a section that is important and contributes to science to the margins of the Internet. You are trying to this a more secular board around science. Yet science did rise from philosophy. Putting something on the margins implies that it should not be seen or heard. Yet a small amount of people are stating this: Moderators and admins.

I believe the majority of persons would be willing to keep the board on. I haven't seen many comments from others. Some of the comments on the board seem to be a negative reaction to this action. Therefore, there may need to be adjustments.

Yet I believe that the P&R board should exist. It will allow people to understand philosophy and science and things that revolve around it. I suggest that it is reinstated, because it is a part of this forum that should remain active; and it is of interest to many. I propose that more moderators are created for the P&R board. A science based forum may seem like a good idea, but moving a section of importance implies that the board is to become more secular; and that is a problem. We can't create a war by having science and religion as seperate things. We do need to discriminate between both, but we do need both to understand each other in the same place. We need a way for people to understand and accept each other. We can't hide things from each other, because they'll eventually cross.

I haven't been around in a while, but I'd like to know why some of the other forums were closed. I don't understand why positions and status of things on the forum have changed. Could someone give a link within certain threads that discuss the reason for certain forum boards closing?

To tell you the truth, I see the religion board as important.

However, I'd like to take a different view at it.

Lately, I've been studying religion, politics, and philosophy. Being that I'm a science major, I've learned that these three things play into how people go about science. In other words, they shape the ethics of science and what people are allowed to do.

Now, you might be able to say, "Screw religion. Throw everything in politics," and that wouldn't be such a wrong way of going about things. However, I do think that somewhat misrepresents science and religion. Certain medical science topics of becoming of concern to some persons. I believe either way you look at it, you're going to have the ethical discussions on a science forum.

What would I do?

I've been spending some time at Philosophyforums.com, so I have an idea of how religion and philosophy works.

Since religion can fall under the category of philosophy, you could create a different forum. This would create a compromise and allow religion, philosophy, and science to be discussed and related. The way people had it before was philosophy and religion: I believe those topics are simply to themselves. However, there is a way to make these more relevant to a science board.

Create a board on this: Philosophy and Science.

People could always argue about the term 'philosophy' being indefinte, but ethical, religious, etc. things could be thrown in there. You could target the philosophy of science, ethics, religion, etc.

Such a board would allow religious, philosophical, and other discussion to be entertained. However, if things go right, they would be related to science.

Or better yet... Philosophy in relation to science

I was forwarding an email to myself from one account on the Internet to the next, and I noticed the email was able to quickly foward itself.

When a person is forwarding an email, does the server upload the email to another server? In other words, does not the speed of my Internet connection matter but instead the speed of the email server's connection?

It was a conspiracy against...

This might seem like a pointless thread, but I like to seek the wise council and hope they could give some insight, input, and/or advice.

For those of you who aren't American, there is a test in America that allows people to earn college credit for passing a test. It's a nice way of flying out of courses if a person has previous experience. However, if a person screws up the first time, then he or she can only take the test again after 6 months has passed from the previous testing date.

So, if any of you are in America and think you've got some decent experience, you might be interested in taking it. (Each test costs about $60 USD. An affordable way to get college credit.) The examination contains 75 questions to be answered in 90 minutes.

But back to the topic:

I've noticed that I'm coming to my sophomore year of college, and I'm getting really sick of taking liberal arts courses. I want to take human anatomy and physiology, but I'm unable to because a chemistry prerequisite is required. I wanted to take chemistry during the summer, but my college administration changed this year. They changed the way courses work, and I was unable to take a certain math course if I were to take chemistry instead. I was pissed. I wasn't the only one pissed. Also, the admins took out the college library for a year to remodel it. It still exists, but there's no quiet place to study. *end rant*

My knowledge in chemistry is lacking and needs to be refreshed, but I learned I could take this CLEP test; and this test would serve as a prerequisite. Yet I don't know how long it's going to take for me to refresh my knowledge of chemistry. My knowledge of chemistry will be of the utmost importance in order to pass this test with a minimum score.

Therefore, I've decided to ask some the mad scientists here what they think about the topics covered in this test:

Link for more information about the Chemistry CLEP.

Structure of Matter

I'd have to say I'm lacking on the structure of matter: Geometry of molecules, ions, and coordination complexes; structural isomerism; dipole moments of molecules; relation of properties to structure.

I've never been able to understand the 3D structure of an atom. I figure it'd be necessary. It's all theoretical, of course. So, I'll keep that in mind while studying it.

However, the main reason for creating this thread comes to what you think about these topics. Would you consider many of these topics to be intermediate or beginner?

Let's say you were to start all over again to learn chemistry. How long would it take you to learn those topics? How would you go about learning them again?

I figure I'll check out a few college texts from the make-shift 40x40 foot library, study them, and do the problems in the books. If I needed any help, I'd diversify the topics on the web to different forums. It's a technique I use sparingly.

I don't know much about nuclear chemistry of physics. I suppose post-WWII ethics stopped people from teaching it in public high school. Some of my knowledge about physics and chemistry comes from engineering and electronics, so I'm not going to have a large problem with those topics. Math and balancing equations isn't going to be too difficult.

It seems, however, that there may be more to this test than meets the eye. I had communicated with the director of science at my college. He said that throughout the four years the test has been available, only four people have taken the test. Only one person has passed.

I figure that's quite a low statistics and not representative of the majority of people who have taken the test, but still interesting.

Experimental Chemistry

About the largest problem I might have would be the lab equipment. I have no idea as to what range of lab equipment the test will quiz me on. I have no idea as to how much chemistry equipment there can be. I assume there are certain amounts, and I could go around the college and create an inventory; but I don't know if knowing what the college has is enough information. I figure the test will be biased toward some type of equipment.

- What kind of equipment is typical for any beginner?

- Are there certain pieces of equipment people work up to?

Has anyone here taken this test. If you were to look at the website and pick up certain topics, which do you think would be the most difficult to do? Why would you consider them to be the most difficult?

Thank you for taking the time to read this.