Phi for All

No, they're really not. Science doesn't require a creator. Religion will never get scientific credibility until those pesky gods agree to appear and be tested. Until then they are just like ghosts and Bigfoot.

Wow, we certainly read a lot into the OP that wasn't really there, didn't we? If the MacGyver family is Mythbusting opposite Joe Millionaire or Dancing with the Stars, guess which one is going to spark a latent interest in science? I say get them into the classroom and let the teachers guide their enthusiasm into more proper scientific channels.

Dude, you need to read your history. All those things, marriage included, predate the Bible by quite a bit. And the B.C/A.D. reference is simply a convention that's used because it would cost too much to replace it (much like adopting the metric system in the US). Then your argument is hypocritical, since you claimed that all versions of the Bible " have equal merit to me as long as the translation is consistent with the original text". I've shown that this isn't so with your version, yet you just blow it off and say "it never bothers me". This seems more like you're simply not questioning why the original text was omitted. Another convenient argument where you get to say one thing, have it refuted, and then claim it really doesn't matter. More circular arguments, where the only evidence to support why you believe in the Bible comes from the Bible. It seems much more likely that the early Christian leadership, including its sponsor Emperor Constantine, simply wanted a flock of unquestioning, faithful sheep who wouldn't cause trouble for the secular authorities the way all the others did. In fact, many scholars believe that Acts of the Apostles was purposely split off from the Gospel of Luke and renamed so as to send a message to Constantine that Christianity wasn't going to cause him any hassles. It's very obviously written from an apologist point of view. My point was this: Many books that had been considered for the New Testament were passed over by the Council of Nicea because they weren't considered divinely inspired, even beautiful accounts like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillip. If the books that did make it into the New Testament really were divinely inspired, what gave your translators the right to change or omit any of it? All 9000 sects claim to agree with what the Bible teaches, and that's really the point. They all interpret the Bible differently, including you, and while you think many are wrong about some things, they think you're the one who's wrong. And I think it's an incredibly specious argument from all of you to claim that your sect is the only one that knows "what the Bible teaches". Arguing and confrontation are part and parcel of any good discussion. If both parties agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. Aggression is what we're all looking to avoid, and that's easily done if we attack ideas and not the people who have them. You can't simply claim you have the answers and let it go at that. You do everyone, and mostly yourself, a great disservice when you think that way. This is the part of religion that doesn't mix well with science. Science is all about questioning and testing, not assuming and pretending to know what you don't know. A healthy understanding of God?! I thought you couldn't know the mind of God. And you haven't given me any indication in your arguments that you have a healthy understanding about science either. Personally, I think a person can have their religion and study science as well. They just have to realize that there is a clear line between the natural and the supernatural, and that blind faith is the weakest of all beliefs while it pretends to be the strongest. Hope that your beliefs are correct, take all the good that your religion teaches and practice those kindnesses every day, but be skeptical when someone tells you they know the Truth with a capital T.

I think it's already taught in public schools, and enforced every day. They just don't have a class named Morality, it's more in how the teachers conduct their classrooms and the examples they set. It's one of the things I had against the No Child Left Behind program. The emphasis was so heavily weighted on taking tests that it gave teachers little time to emphasize the moral lessons kids learn in school every day interacting with each other. That said, I do think classes in Ethics would be good at younger ages. Far too many people (in the US at least) think it's OK to turn their problems into other people's problems. I see people a couple of generations younger than I am littering, swerving across multiple lanes because they need to exit the highway NOW, letting their dogs crap on the sidewalk and leaving it, and lots of other inconsiderate actions. We expect people not to steal and kill, but I think ethical values are built on a lot of much smaller thoughtful actions.

At this point, the US needs just about anything it can get to keep kids interested in science. I'd fill my wet suit with Mentos and Coke and do my Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man impression on FOX News if I thought it would keep Intelligent Design out of my daughter's classroom.

Absolutely not. Faith wanes and waxes, so what happens when a person who's morals are based on their faith suddenly doesn't believe anymore? People can be taught morality without it being contingent on what's going to happen to them after they die. And if your religion teaches that you can sin but then be forgiven, what's stopping you from abusing that little loophole?.

I had it happen on and off all day today, a bit yesterday during the day.

Oh, there's ALWAYS a reason if you're in my dungeon.

Virtually every generation since the Bible was put together has seen themselves in these prophecies, and they were all wrong. Are you going to be part of the next generation that falls for vague, easily adapted fears and generalizations? I'm not. If Jesus pulls his supercharged cloud up to my house and starts beheading zombies with his lightning katana, I will be visibly impressed. If he still wants to redeem me, cool, but if he tells me I should have listened to a specific sect of Christian dogma over all the others, I will be happy to spend eternity wherever he unjustly decides to put me.

Often it just takes time to figure out that the way we're saying something isn't coming across the way we really mean it. You don't have to change yourself to get good reputation, sometimes you just have to realize how badly you're sounding to everyone else. It happens, and like me I'll bet you took a hard look at what you said and it made you realize mistakes in either content, tone or accuracy. It takes a mature mind to take the bad on board with the good and move on.

YouTube would be a great place to start. Lots of home experiments there, including parents and kids blowing stuff up and making things glow/freeze/melt/erupt. If you need someone on the ground in the Western US to check with middle school science teachers for likely candidates and their families, let me know and I'll call your office.

There are plenty of places that will take pre-made T-shirts and screen your design onto them, even in small quantities. If you're convinced these would be popular though, you would have a lot more profit, control and higher quality by buying a bolt of 100% cotton fabric, finding a large-format printer who can do cloth, and put out an ad for a couple of seamstresses who can do T-shirts. For the printer, make sure that they don't keep a file of your design. Get this in writing. The fabric should have consistent thicknesses in the threads, not a mix of thin and fat ones. You should be able to see very little light pass through the cloth when you hold it up to the light. You shouldn't have to go to London to find some good seamstresses. I wouldn't look for a shop at first, if you think you could find some grandmother types who would love to earn some extra money for something they probably do in their spare time for free. If they don't have a T-shirt pattern already, you should be able to pick one up fairly cheaply. It shouldn't take them more than 30-40 minutes to sew each shirt.

Do you mean because they like being good repped or because they like that they can see if someone's posts have been bad repped a lot by other members?

Just on the US East Coast, or are you looking at the whole US, maybe other countries as well?

That's the part that's beyond our software. We can't force people to post an explanation when they give any kind of rep point. We could go with a Facebook type of "Like" system, but I think that's already been sneered at by many members already. We've had this discussion many times, and it always falls into a couple of camps. One side wants a level playing field where longevity doesn't matter, the other side resents having something they've worked hard to build threatened.

! Moderator Note Let's tie this tangent back to the topic, please.

You're way beyond the capabilities of the software with that one. But I can tell you that when I run across a -1 that doesn't seem justified, I give it a +1 to void it out. In fact, I did the same thing with the last election when I heard you voted for Romney, rigney.

I still don't understand your pop bottle analogy. It sounds like you're either condemning the guys who didn't find the ring because they should have been looking for something more valuable, or you're saying that belief in God might turn out to be a diamond ring so it's foolish to waste your time looking for scientific pop bottles. I've grown cold lately on analogies, but I still describe science (to the uninterested) as a 3D jigsaw puzzle cut from the layers of an enormous onion. Each bit of information helps connect other bits on its own layer and on some further down as well, and we still have missing pieces. Religion, on the other hand, seems happy with just two pieces to their puzzle: Goddidit and Don't Ever Question That.

! Moderator Note Manfromzurich, please refrain from using the term "faggot" or "faggy" to describe homosexuals. It's considered offensive and hateful and is against the rules you agreed to when you joined. If you have a problem with this modnote, do NOT discuss it here. Either Report this post or contact another member of the Staff with your problem.

Are you seriously saying it was gods or leprechauns instead of his hard work that led him to the ring?!

I'm trying to wrap my head around what most guys would assume if a woman walked up to them at a bar and offered to buy them a drink. Some might think it's simply bold role reversal, while most others would assume it was an open invitation to have sex. And unfortunately, these days a lot of men don't think very highly of women they don't have to work very hard to get into bed with.

Discussion forums shouldn't be so black and white, devoid of emotion and opinion, even science discussion forums. We're humans with personalities, and it's only normal to let those show through. The best teachers I ever had were passionate about the subjects they were talking about, science especially. The worst teacher I ever had was Dean of the Philosophy department. The 101 course sounded very interesting but one semester of that man's monotone voice, dispassionately cranking out the nuts and bolts of Decartes, Hume, Whitehead and others convinced me philosophy was just boring, and I really feel cheated by that now. Our reputation system seems to do well at rewarding those that reward us with a bit more insight than the nuts and bolts typically give. I will say I'm not happy about some of the neg rep. Vendetta's get noticed by the staff, and we will deal with those who abuse the system. I dislike it when our maths experts get marked down by some of the members who argue that math isn't necessary in forming a good theory (these folks are typically very bad at maths, coincidentally). When I see a negative mark on a perfectly good answer, I offset it by up-voting it. I would encourage everyone to correct any injustices you see on individual posts. And let me reiterate what michel123456 said above (+1). It's against the rules to attack the person in your posts with your words, and we actively encourage members to attack the ideas instead. But we don't always feel the need to post a response to rudeness and the rep system gives us a quick way to show our displeasure with something the person has posted. And the same holds true when someone affects us positively with their post.

I notice a lot of folks are thrown by this word. If we break it down: False = Not true Falsify = Prove that something is false Falsifiable = Capable of being proven false Unfalsifiable = Incapable of being proven false Every theory in science is capable of being proven false, but all the tests keep showing that they're true. But the supernatural, things that defy observation and testing, can't be proven to be false or true, so they fail this scientific test of falsifiability.

It would really help if you could draw this electronically. You're going to lose so much detail in a transfer. HP has some software that would let you take your designs to a repro house with a large-format printer for fabric (sure, there would be overlap but imagine how cool the whole shirt would look; vague color pattern from far away, coming into glorious evolutionary detail as someone got closer to it). Plus, as your evolutionary lines improve, you could more easily move the individuals to their correct places. Most impressive, allo4. Welcome to SFN, glad to have you here.

You should look into making T-shirts, or maybe even having someone do a large-format print on a bolt of fabric so shirts could be make with the design all over. I assume from your avatar that you have a color version?