Phi for All

Creationists we can handle. When someone claims the sky is green, you show them 10 different ways that it's blue and they still claim it's green without anything more than their own incredulity to back them up, it's a whole different trollgame.

"Proven" Adam and Eve?! What is THAT supposed to mean? You think posting an artist's rendition is proof that the actual people they represent existed?

Culvert is another word they use for the wide, open-topped concrete drainage channels in Los Angeles (although most people in LA just call it the River). Most culverts are closed at the top and aren't very long.

You're Begging the Question here. You're calling racism based on your own assumption. Fallacious, circular reasoning and WRONG. You need more than hand-waving to qualify as a good argument.

My bad. I should have said "used" instead of "coined". Good catch, +1.

! Moderator Note sevenseas, you already have a thread discussing this here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61462-star-of-bethlehem-really-pointed-from-babylon-to-jerusalem/page__p__638970__fromsearch__1#entry638970 Please don't start multiple threads on the same subject. This thread is closed.

Just another way that corporate interests can make you afraid of losing your job so you'll cower meekly and do as you're told. And conservative politicians get more religious votes. And insurance companies get to deny more coverage, knowing contraceptives will still be used but they won't have to pay for them. And pharmaceutical companies get more money faster than insurance companies pay out. And probably above all, the politicians get to make everyone spin their wheels questioning such a stupid idea to take the spotlight off the really important issues like the economy, unemployment, horrible representation, corruption, Wall Street manipulations, whatever Neil Bush is currently up to....

There is no evidence that some kind of divider is necessary between what you call micro and macro in terms of evolution. Those terms have been coined by people who were trying to come to grips with the visible, tangible evidence of evolution that can't be denied.

But you didn't. You just denied the real evidence that was shown to you. That's a very bad habit. Sticking your fingers in your ears helps no one. What you need to do is refute, not just deny. To refute evidence, you need to show how it is wrong, not just say it's wrong. To refute a theory, you need to provide more evidence against it than is used to support it. You've heard the term, "preponderance of evidence", yes? It's a concept that is key to whether an hypothesis becomes a theory. I'm going to give you this link to the Scientific Method. I don't expect that you'll read it, since it's pretty obvious you haven't read any of the links that have been provided, but it's important for future readers to see that everything in our power was done to help you understand what evolution really is, and how prominently it figures in modern biology.

! Moderator Note pengkuan, please stick to one speculative idea at a time. Especially don't bring in one unsupported idea to support another unsupported idea.

Science doesn't attempt to "prove" things. It tests ideas and gathers evidence that either refutes or supports them, using a methodology that questions everything at every step. Whenever conclusions are drawn, they're used to make predictions and then those predictions are tested in the same manner. Evolution has so much evidence to support it, and none that refutes it, that it has become known as a scientific theory, the most trusted designation science uses. Evolution can be seen to work, and brings together an enormous amount of understanding and knowledge. So, I think you have to learn more about how science works before you criticize its methods.

I'm old enough to remember when health insurance was based on actuarial tables that charged premiums based on your age when you signed up with a company. The more loyal you were, the less you paid every month for the rest of your life. Rather than increasing those premiums to meet rising costs, Nixon helped those insurers enact the HMO programs that have practically crippled middle income families. All because "choice" was so important. Now nobody is loyal to anybody. Medical insurance is completely conflicted with normal business practices. You need your money to be there for you but there's this damn company in the way telling you your coverage is denied because they need the profit. Medical insurance is the perfect thing for a taxpayer risk pool. Maybe someday we'll get politicians who will change the system and then actually fund it so it works.

Not at all. I don't have time to be embarrassed when I'm so frigging pissed off!

I loved ALL of Burke's shows, but my favorite was The Day he Universe Changed. This was where he would take a major concept in science and trace it all the way back to the small discoveries that started it. Brilliant.

Your response to Justin's post seems disconnected. And are you saying that this fictitious world government decided that we are allowed to eat neither meat nor vegetables of any description? Are they limiting the world to fruit and grain only? I don't understand why you make this argument. What's the difference between fruits, grains and vegetables in the context of this thread?

The paying less part is documented and, I think, understood by most Americans. The better service part has been systematically denied by the spin-sters controlling our advertising. I think the spin goes something like, "We Americans don't mind paying more for the best doctors in the world!" Convincing Americans that national healthcare elsewhere gives better service is the uphill battle. We're always told we're the best at everything. There are some of us who can be proud of our country and still require reality in large, healthy doses.

I don't watch much commercial TV either (Castle and The Big Bang Theory, and I mute the commercials), but I think we're in the minority. Most people (again, NOT the members here) must watch them since so much effort and money is spent on TV advertising. It sounds like the UK has the lowest amount of commercials so far. Is all your TV run by the state like the BBC? Do you think this is a better way to handle your media? I love the BBC for world news, and I get a perspective that seems less biased. Well, that's the whole point. Much of what they do is aimed at your subconscious. You aren't pretty unless you're wearing X, people find you repulsive if you don't smell like Y, women would like you better if you drove a Z, that's what they imply without saying it outright. You may not pay attention but the commercials are using sound too, and unless you mute the commercials and look away, you're still affected somewhat.

I find it hard to believe that your colleagues at the conference didn't ask the same questions our experts here have asked, the questions you have failed to answer. Were any of these peer reviews published?

Shiny! Fragile, hmmm. Somehow it doesn't fit VERA. How about "cooperative"?

Oh VERA! That is AWESOME Inigo! Did you name her after Jayne's assault rifle from Firefly or did the acronym just fall that way? And what is the flash at 2:27 just as the sabot leaves the barrel? It's not there in the earlier shot.

Can I take the survey in late December?

I was noticing that the TV series Farscape (which I believe is Australian) runs about 50 minutes per episode, which would seem to leave 10 minutes of the hour for commercials. In the US, most of our hour slot shows run about 42 minutes, leaving 18 minutes for commercials. It got me to thinking that perhaps the US consumes more than other countries because we're exposed to so much more advertising. To possibly connect this exposure to the psychology of commercial pressure to consume, I'd like to hear from other countries and find out what the ratio of show to commercials is. Remember, since you're here at SFN, you're not the average couch potato who is most heavily influenced by these commercials. But the majority of your country probably IS watching and letting the advertising affect their purchases. Also, I'd quite like to know what you think about the quality of your commercials (US, feel free to chime in here). Are they overly pushy? Do they make ridiculous claims? Do you feel they are overly manipulative? Do you watch them or tune them out? Is there any psychological tactic they use that you feel shouldn't be allowed?

I see what you're saying, Trip, but that wasn't what Mafio said either. If I understand you, you're saying we'd need to stop planting the kinds of corn that cattle eat and use the land for sweet (human feeding) corn. Mafio's posts quite clearly state that people are starving because we give their food to animals. That's not the way you stated it either. Is this just for the type of cows that produce "corn-fed beef"? Because I've also read where most cattle are given the parts of crops that humans find indigestible. You know, now I'm having a moral dilemma of my own. Are we supposed to stop planting the kinds of vegetables our livestock eat so we can have more human food, letting all the livestock die out so we don't have to kill them anymore? That actually seems kind of monstrous. What will we say to the animal rights activists who want to save those species from extinction?

It's almost guaranteed that if your friend drinks excessively enough that he has problems with his internal organs, he will have had hundreds of other problems first. If he lives that long. Many excessive drinkers end up making lethal decisions, causing their own death or the death of others. Is it OK with you, JJ, if I change the title of this thread to Potbelly / Excessive Drinking?

Here are two Wikipedia articles about excessive alcohol intake, one for short-term effects and one for long-term effects. Both will give you an overview depending on the perspective you wish to take. Just click the underlined links. Personally, I think the worst effect of excessive alcohol is the mental impairment. If you're drinking too much, your brain isn't capable of as much rational thought, and your judgement about whether you're drinking too much is impaired. It's a vicious circle that's hard to free yourself from.