Phi for All

I was a big fan of ancient aliens once. All of the evidence I've seen is more easily explained by terrestrial means. It's not fear of ridicule, it's simply a case of Occam's Razor. There is no need for an extra-terrestrial explanation. Believe me, if you had compelling evidence that couldn't be explained any other way, science would be extremely supportive. Think of all the research grants that would suddenly be available to scientists who might find alien technology. Fame, fortune and power are great motivators. Ask yourself why no one is seriously paying to find ancient alien technology.

What about, "Baby, your bum makes THAT look fantastic!"

Please see your doctor. No advice you get from an online forum will be meaningful without observation and diagnosis from a professional who can examine you directly.

! Moderator Note Please do NOT hijack this thread with conspiracy theories. Start your own thread if you wish to discuss these topics.

The proposition you're trying to prove, that souls exist, is explicitly implied in your definition of soul. This is the very essence of a circular argument. And your definition is flawed. How can a soul be "the substantial form of living bodies"?! Every definition of soul I can find describes a soul as insubstantial and immaterial. Where is the substance of a soul that I can observe and test?

It has nothing to do with any outside energy or life from outside the Earth. It has to do with communication (as Joatmon mentioned) and cooperation (despite what most people think, we cooperate extremely well) and the ability to travel. When we combine these three things with our natural high intelligence, opposable thumbs and tool-making ability, you can easily see how advances in one area affect all the others. The easier we can travel, the more people we can communicate and cooperate with. Our knowledge increases exponentially when we can share it with each other. If we could educate all the people of the world and then communicate with all of them, I think you'd see another spike of progress that would make the last 120 years seem like nothing.

If you think a post is attempting to hijack your thread, report it instead of commenting on it. You should probably go back and read the first few posts of the thread, though, because doG's response is very similar to posts you responded to with smileys.

What kind of documentation did they have in the 9th century that would count as evidence today? Certainly unobservable souls are a lot like God, you can't really document their existence.

But ultimately it's a circular argument. You're saying souls exist because everything living has a soul because that's the definition of soul. It's not my belief. I don't believe in "souls". But the Bible of the Abrahamic religions talks about this specifically: It doesn't mention that God breathed souls into the animals and plants. There is some mention in the Koran about Mohammmed dealing with animals as if they also had souls. I don't know if Judaism grants souls to plants and animals.

! Moderator Note Moved to Religion, since John Cuthber must be out drinking in the cold with his angel friends tonight and can't do it himself.

We're talking about two MILLION people here, njaohnt. What are the odds that none of them prayed to have their arms and legs back? What are the odds that none of them are righteous? Many of these are war heroes who fought for your freedom. Are you going to tell me that none of them are worthy in God's eyes? I can understand about God's plan and all, but do you really think that God's plan can cure cancer and diseases and all the miraculous things you claim, but the plan doesn't include anything truly miraculous like regrowing a hand? From your answers, I can tell you didn't read any of the evidence we linked to. Why are we bothering to talk if we can bring evidence you don't read and then claim it's all assumptions? Can you please point specifically to anything in the talkorigins links that you feel is an assumption and not supportive of the Big Bang Theory?

I thought the strain was why men had two hands.

I believe that the concept of consciousness is more meaningful than the concept of soul. I can hope that my consciousness may survive the death of my body, but I hear a lot of beings are after my soul. If souls can't be disproved then neither can they be proved, so it doesn't follow hence that souls reside in some higher M theory dimension. You're fixing a definition of soul that fits your beliefs. Christianity, for instance, says only humans have souls.

Seriously, you can't say things like that here. It's a lie. When you make definitive statements like this, you're showing us that you haven't read anything about Big Bang Theory. There IS evidence to support it. Please click this link right here and please, please, please read the material there. From The Amputee Coalition: http://www.amputee-c.../nllic_faq.html Almost two million people in the US alone (can you imagine how many in other countries where war is more prevalent?) and God hasn't answered any of their prayers to give them back their limbs.

Well, to sum up my position, Moore isn't being hypocritical unless it can be proved that he's abusing the corporate/political system the way the antagonists in his documentaries are. People who want to make it seem like he's waging class warfare are either supporting and/or propagating a huge strawman argument against the progressive movement and Moore in particular.

A drummer with no hands, interesting concept. No.

When I was 10, I could take my bike pretty much anywhere I wanted to within about a 1 mile radius, even alone. Three years ago, when my daughter was 10, I wouldn't dream of allowing her to go roaming the neighborhood like I did unless she was with at least three other friends, or an adult I trusted could keep an eye on them. While I might believe she could handle herself, society today would crucify me if anything happened to her under such obviously inferior and uncaring supervision. And after all the warnings and admonitions, I'd probably crucify myself first. There aren't as many parks nearby, since most folks with kids have playsets with swings and slides and rings right in their back yards. The kids rooms are built bigger to accommodate TVs and computers. There are more basements with home entertainment centers. The home has become a compound you don't have to leave to get your entertainment. Home security systems are more the norm nowadays than the rarities they were when I grew up. Fear rules our lives more these days, since we hear about every attack on 24/7 news. It's hard to tell if there are more maniacs out there threatening our families or if we're simply hearing about every single one of them now. I'm sure the reality is different in small towns where you tend to know most people, but even rural social structures have changed since I was a kid. There's more drugs, and more crime due to drugs and unemployment. I'd like to hear you make a case for why the War on Drugs has lasted so long with such backwards results, results that would have scrapped any private project that failed so badly. To me, it's a prime case of political and corporate abuse of the system. I think the only thing the War on Drugs has helped is the companies who profit from it. So yeah, I think our country's social structure has been changed already, and for the worse. Wars that help the enemy grow defeat their primary objective.

The other areas of a hospital aren't usually racing against the clock the way an ER does. If there was going to be any lapse in hygienic protocols, I would imagine it would be more likely to happen in an area that is more concerned with stabilizing the patients first. Surgery would probably be the only other area where time concerns are almost as important as in an emergency, but the hygienic protocols observed in an OR are most likely the best you'll find anywhere.

Take some video as well. I want to see the reaction when John tells his friends they're angels.

It shouldn't have to affect businesses that aren't abusing the system. As far as the country's social structure, this abuse by corporations and politicians has affected it much more than any regulations have. Fear of communism, fear of gangs, fear of terrorists and fear of losing your job have literally changed the way most people behave within their communities in the last fifty years. It's changed the way we build our homes and how we raise our children. I don't remember seeing this film. As I said, I don't automatically like everything he does. If I may butcher things with another analogy, capitalism is like a familiar game I enjoy playing. If it's played right, most people enjoy it and do well with it. When some of the players start changing the rules in their favor, we either need to stop playing or go back to the rules that made the game fair and equitable. The big corporations often have facilities in small towns. That's what makes it so devastating when they suddenly pull up stakes and move overseas for a little more profit. As for them trying to retaliate if we regulate them more, that's what the market is for. Try to start charging fees for debit card use and maybe we move our money out of your bank. But we're on the same page here, Justin. Anything that is done to correct our political system and the mega-corporations hold over it should be surgical and swift. I didn't mean everyone gets an equal part of the pie. I meant that we need better guidelines to ensure that unfair advantages aren't part of a company's freedom to grow.

! Moderator Note I'm shutting this thread down. This looks like an attempt to drive traffic to websites. That's inconsistent with our purpose here.

I agree with this. And I think corporations are a big part of the picture as well. It's just that free market capitalism (which isn't so free, I know) is unfairly affected when those corporations can skew the laws to favor themselves over other businesses. You can't tell me that the guy who wrote the above isn't bothered when he hears about things like no-bid contracts or mega-corporations that get all the benefits of doing business in the US as a US company but more than half their workers are overseas and they pay no taxes to help maintain the federal infrastructure they use to make money. The reason you're annoyed is that you obviously misunderstand the movement. It's not about changing to anything other than capitalism, it's about replacing the restrictions that the corporations have so meticulously unraveled since charters were allowed at the beginning of our country, and holding those businesses accountable for their actions. The relentless chipping away of the restrictions has resulted in most of the mess we're in right now. Socialism? Michael Moore?! Why is it socialistic to speak out against closing plants that are the lifeblood of cities and towns all over the US? It wasn't just union wages that started such a mass exodus of US companies. And you're right, rhetoric / persuasion is used by both sides. So why point fingers at one side only? When any pundit mentions the other side's rhetoric, it should be a signal to ignore him or her. I define the American Dream as hard-working people making their companies strong and taking pride in the fact that their products are sought after as the best. Those people buy products because they're paid well and everyone contributes to help the economy. Business owners really mean it when they say that their companies are all about their people, and they make sure their workers are happy and healthy. So when I see what's happening today, with all the lobbying and the pension thefts and the Enron behavior and the tax exemptions and subsidies for healthy companies and the erosion of worker benefits, while the corporations continue to encourage citizens to play their part in the economy, yes, I think the American Dream is over. If you want it back, we simply need to rein in the abuses of the system, replace the restrictions and regulations, and make those who are most capable of it pay their fair share of the taxes that keep us strong and functioning. That, and we need to bring back a healthy middle class so we can continue to buy what we make. We're still better than many of the other choices, imo, and I think that's why people immigrate here. And again, capitalism isn't the problem, it's the way some people are exploiting capitalism. Capitalism is a tool, and tools can be misused. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm against knives because I complain about that big guy who is cutting our piece of the pie thinner and thinner in order to make his piece bigger and bigger. We don't need to take his knife away, but I think we need to get one of those cutting guides that restaurants use to make sure the pieces are fair and even.

! Moderator Note This post WAS reported, and does indeed have an element of personal attack in it. Calling a person childish is quite different from calling their argument childish. Please refrain from impugning the character of a member, and focus instead on the content of their arguments (which, in this case, seem clearly to be seeking clarification). Let me add as well that the only post iNow listed as being similar to what got him suspended was the "Don't be a total ass!" comment. Had this post been reported, it would most assuredly have been dealt with as a rules violation. I apologize for missing it at the time. It should be obvious what constitutes a personal attack. Name-calling is at the top of the list. We should be better than that.

! Moderator Note As md65536 has pointed out, the thread has now become about someone who isn't here to defend herself anymore, so I'm going to close it. The topic can be raised again, without the personal references.

Clearly your friends are angels. A word of advice: start holding your drink in your left hand so it doesn't slosh when they enter your body from your right shoulder.