Phi for All

Science has so many branches, each with it's own pursuits. "Current science" isn't really something you can "see" in an overview. I think of science knowledge like a jigsaw puzzle with very tiny pieces, cut into the skin of a huge onion. It's puzzle all the way down, with multiple layers and interconnecting pieces. Just looking at it without really digging deep doesn't give you an adequate picture. Math is a more precise language for science. It gives us more information we can do more with. Your thoughts (words) say "a vast amount", while math says "1024". Words can be interpreted differently, but math has no such ambiguity.

I think you've made far too many assumptions. Where's the correlation between marriage rates and access to porn? Are you claiming that available imagery for masturbation puts people off marriage? Evident? I don't think so. "... decreased the value of free sex as a commodity it may have once been". I just don't think most people view masturbation the way you do. It's a type of sex, perhaps the most common, but it's not usually considered the preferred type of sex. I am assuming when you say "free sex" you mean a form of intercourse with another person. Your last sentence begs the question. You're assuming desensitization occurs when viewing sexual images. Are you sure that's the case?

Science Channel isn't being indecisive. They're being pedantic. They aren't warning that science is wrong (unless they're promoting a paranormal show), they're saying you need to find out what science has to say before taking anything for granted. They're taking an important part of the scientific method and emphasizing it to make it stand out. But they aren't really saying you need to question everything all the time. The methodology requires you to work with as few preconceptions as possible, but obviously you need to rely on some concepts as being essentially true. What Science Channel should be saying (but won't because they have to sell advertising with misleadingly vividness) is Take Nothing For Granted. Be meticulous in your methodology as you gather evidence and don't leap to conclusions. You seem to have a perception of scientists as never challenging the mainstream. It's not true. You have to remember that for every scientist who writes a paper, there are a hundred scientists reading that paper looking for ways to refute it. Nobody in science can afford to rest on their laurels. With near global transparency for most of the scientific community, very little gets past their Take-Nothing-For-Granted filters.

You have to be very careful with this. Some "authority" told you there were no intermediary steps of development in the fossil record, but there are. The "authority" you're listening to was wrong, but you didn't question them before asking us. So far, this is sounding like all the creationist arguments that have been debunked for a long time. Why do creationists ask questions, receive detailed scientific knowledge back, and then ignore the answers? I predict there will be some talk about micro and macro evolution soon.

It's not going to make much difference, imo. You've got knock sensors, and your engine is made for lower octanes. You should try both and see if there's a performance issue. I'm predicting you'll get worse mileage with the higher octane fuels.

When NASA set up a site where anyone with an internet connection could grab the simulated controls of the Rover and explore Mars, I was struck by how 20 year-old me never would have imagined it would be possible for that to happen outside a select few people. That they made it available to the masses is incredible, really. If you look at some of the attributes humans have that allow us to flourish, complex communication is one of our best, and the internet is a supercharger for really detailed information exchange. And better communication enhances some of our other attributes as well, like cooperation.

The answer is probably more political than scientific. When I graduated from school, I was promised (among other things) that by 2000 there'd be flying cars and 25 hour work weeks. The folks with the money decided 50 hours was better, and that you need lots of other stuff instead of flying cars. I don't think flying cars was ever viable. Too much chaos to control with cars in two dimensions now. Our obsession with individual vehicles instead of mass transport is partly to blame, I think. We might've been able to get the busses to fly (although I still like maglev tech), but individual flying vehicles of a quality that matches our cars would be costly indeed. Jetpacks? Another awesome-inducing technology that would fall flat on its face in wide practice. Manned urban rocketry. I think a lawyer dreamed up the idea of jetpacks, just for the litigation opportunities. Don't sell the internet short. When I was in high school, the computers were paper tape driven. Six feet of tape and thousands of dollars to run a program a $3 calculator could do faster today. Even then, we never dreamed we could one day carry around access to libraries of information wherever we go. That was for Federation personnel only. Robotics actually took a smart turn. There's no need to make them look like people, which is usually what the science fiction writers were on about. We have lots of robotics these days, they're just mostly performing tasks in the background. And you're comparing some cherry-picked science fiction with "the real world", so "less amazing" is always going to be the result.

I find this fairly dishonest, intellectually speaking. You seem to be claiming that the pioneer of this theory be held to standards and experimentation parameters that are 150 years ahead of his time. Since his time, like all mainstream theories, others have built enormously on his original work. They've done what scientists do, they've removed what was false and what's real and observable is left. I can only conclude that you have some sort of argument up your sleeve that requires Darwin to be some kind of scientific stumblebum. Good luck with that. Evolution is still an observable process with mountains of evidence to back it up.

In your frame of reference, you're the oldest you've ever been. That will never change. As iNow suggested, it's a perspective thing. You need to take a look at someone much older as a contrast to the age you are. I think your title isn't right. I could be wrong, but it's not age you're feeling, it's frustration with your education. You claim "most of the best of [your] life is spent in a classroom". When do you think it would be better to study? When you're 40? You obviously don't think studying is using the best of your life effectively. What should you be doing with the best of your life? I don't think this is a biology topic.

This sounds like the beginning of a senseless lab accident. The military will have to destroy you with tactical nukes because you're threatening the capital. It's not worth it, I've seen this a dozen times in the theater. Besides, you have to stop thinking so selfishly. We NEED you to be as tall as you are. There are enough taller people for the things we need taller people for. Think about your community, your neighbors, family, and friends. We all need people of your height. Think of the children. They need people to look up to who aren't scary tall. Biologically speaking, you're in a very unique position to influence the development and prosperity of your entire social group. Being unhappy with your height makes you slouch more. Being proud adds at least a couple centimeters.

It takes me forever to pull beeswax from their little ears, I can't imagine what you have to go through.

I think we need to stop with the Left Wing/Right Wing labeling. Same with Conservative/Liberal. Nobody is always conservative or always liberal about everything. We do ourselves a disservice throwing a blanket over our political stances. I'm not a Liberal. I can't be, not the way I feel about how my teenage daughter should dress. I'm not a Conservative. I can't be, because I think government should work for all the People, not just the People who live the way I do. That said, in my experience, there are more people calling themselves Conservatives. They don't say, "I'm pretty conservative", the way I hear people say "I'm pretty liberal". No, they say, "I'm a Conservative", like every decision has to be a conservative one. I think there are a lot of scared people out there who feel life is just moving too fast for them to keep up, and they have a dim view of all the progress happening because they just don't understand it. They label it "Liberal" so they can kick it to the gutter and denounce it as BAD. Modern political conservatism seems to be the worst to me. I know many people who are mostly conservative when it comes to fiscal policy, and liberal on social policy. They recognize that we need to keep a close eye on the purse-strings, and also recognize that programs that benefit and strengthen the society as a whole are important as well. But modern political conservatism seems aimed in the opposite direction. Squash the social programs because not everyone is worthy, and let big business suck the coffers dry with a combination of lucrative government contracts and tax evasion. Slavery sought to turn people into property, and now Corporate Personhood, a conservative agenda, is trying to turn property into people. I think real People are being tricked into thinking that being "A Conservative" means being cautious, thrifty, wise, and unwavering. This is exactly what the mega-corporations need to keep up the plunder of this country; people who don't want change, who will trust your judgement in money matters, who will ignore the bad things you do, and who can always be counted on to give up more of their freedom in order to be more patriotic.

! Moderator Note I've split off quite a few posts discussing I-try's view on energy, since it was a pet theory in a mainstream section. That discussion can continue over here.

Yours looks like a simple solution. If I wanted to go COB, I'd spend the $600 for a Scooba.

A lot of the stuff creationists say makes sense on a certain level, if you don't have the education to help you think critically. "If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" seems intuitive if you don't really understand how evolution works. Sometimes, they're just parroting what they've heard. When they're challenged, they have nothing to back up the statement, probably because you're the first person to question their mighty intellect. When you've already made up your mind about something, that's when it's easiest to fool you with shallow words. Creationists don't need much justification to believe anything that denies evolution.

If you allow for a global flood, it's still a natural event that harms, yes, but also does things normal weather can't, like removing dead growth and forming new river channels and shifting topsoil. Hail ruined the leaves on some of my trees recently, but it sure cleaned up the dead needles in my evergreens. A purge from natural sources does good along with bad. It removes the weak so the strong can prosper. Weather events like floods, hurricanes and tornadoes, or natural events like fire sort of clean the slate, as it were. Ecological destruction assumes poor planetary management, removing elements from the environment necessary for the ecosystem. Or polluting the environment and damaging its ability to sustain itself. It's a more willful type of destruction. In Jonah 4:9-11, it says, God seems to be concerned with unnecessary willful destruction of people, animals, and plants. If it dies on its own, OK, but don't willfully destroy anything you don't have to.

By all means, let's let fear of this stop us from exploring altogether. On the other hand, are they tasty? Hellooooo, lunch! Can we harvest them for the enormous energy they must have? Are they intelligent enough where we could teach them that eating humans is too pricey? Could they provide protection from radiation so we could travel with them?

If you're having energy problems with supply, perhaps you need to work more on the demand side. How much have you done to insure that your buildings are adequately sealed from the elements? Are you using energy efficient appliances and lighting where possible? Are your pharma companies using the latest in energy saving devices? It's amazing how much electricity is saved by putting controls on lights so they go off automatically when no one is around. I once read where a lot of power generation would be unnecessary if the demand were handled more responsibly. Like it would be smarter to take the money you were going to spend on a hydroelectric dam or coal plant, and buy an energy-efficient refrigerator for everyone in the country.

Someone once told me, if you don't have a car nearby, it's best to find a ditch and lie flat in it so you're the lowest point in the area. My response to him was similar to yours. If you're worried about lightning, it's most likely raining, filling up ditches with water, increasing the likelihood your sobbing will stop shockingly quickly.

I mentioned intelligence and curiosity because those attributes, coupled with our tool-making abilities, allows us to adapt to environments we'd otherwise find hostile. Certainly hunger is a stronger driver for exploration than curiosity is for most creatures. This seems like a plausible way to develop a way to survive without an atmosphere.

Totally agree. Arguing against evolution like this is straight out of the creationist's handbook. "Chapter Two: Dazzling Brilliance Failed? Try Baffling Bullshit!".

I don't think a person on the ground would have much influence on where lightning struck. The event would have to already be close enough to you for the shorter air gap between you and the ground to be attractive. Running would seem to have equal chances of moving you away and towards a lightning event. It's possible running could reduce your height by a bit, but lightning is only attracted to the tallest object if it provides an easier path. A 2 meter tall person would have to be within 2 meters of the stroke to affect it. If there was a 10 meter tall tree, but it was 15 meters away from the person, the stroke may still prefer the person. As I understand it, the lightning stroke starts high up, but the actual place struck is determined only as the stroke gets closer to the ground. The stroke isn't "targeting" anything before it's discharged.

Since they weren't highly intelligent (by human standards), I don't think they would have a high level of curiosity, either. Adaptations like that are probably short forays onto land to grab food near the water's edge. Those with a little extra muscle or tougher fins became more successful at making the grab, passing those traits along. Enough generations later, the amphibian can stay on land longer and longer. Evolution doesn't stop working if you leave a planet's environment, but I can't think of what kind of pressure would allow a non-technological movement off a species' homeworld. What's drawing them away, resources? How do they know there are resources offplanet? If a species is intelligent enough to conclude that their sun may threaten their existence eventually, it's easy to see what would drive them to leave. A parasitic species may find a host but only one that could also move offplanet. Is there a species of bird that's currently learning to fly higher and higher, needs less oxygen, and might someday develop a method of propulsion that doesn't rely on displacing air with its wings? Thinking like this makes it difficult to imagine a world where non-intelligent life might adapt to space. I know they don't have to look like ducks, but it's hard not to think that way. [/anthropomorphizing]

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please. The duplicates in other sections have been removed.

When humans realize this whole "Muck for a Buck" mentality is ruining the place we all live, the only place we know where anything lives, I don't think even the Lord could remove the proud look from my face. He's going to have to find something else to hateth.