Phi for All

! Moderator Note There is no fraudulence or critical infraction here. Moontanman quoted a Wikipedia article on Irreducible Complexity and zorro quoted one on Michael Behe. The two give different reference numbers for the same court quote: ""We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Moontanman's article is reference #2, zorro's article is reference #54, not the #2 reference he states is fraudulent.

Gomez Addams makes vile and disgusting beer with dry ice.

It's funny that you're using this as an argument.

! Moderator Note Sorry, due to problems with new joiners linking to spam or advertising, your link has been removed. Please post an overview of your idea here so it can be discussed. Also, since it's a new idea, this thread is being moved to Speculations, to prevent any students from viewing it as accepted science. Thanks for your understanding.

This is a really, really excellent point. And with this in mind, I totally see the hypocrisy in allowing one and not the other. I think you're missing the issue here. Men are using Viagra just to have more sex, but only some are using it for medical reasons, the same as women and the pill. I'd say the two issues aren't really separate at all. Wow. THAT was unworthy. I understand about the heat of the moment, but still.... You're stacking the deck by misstating the element jeskill included. Both men and women are using these pills for their intended use, and both men and women are NOT using them for their intended use. The real problem here is that the religious right has a problem with the intended use of birth control, but they don't have a problem with men using Viagra even when they don't have any medical reason to do so. http://health.msn.co...age-the-culprit 5% of men over 40 and 15% over 70 can't possibly account for the market Viagra and its competitors have. But this article might account for the discrepancy: http://www.subboard....89323175554.asp Employers who provide health insurance are paying for men to have more sex, too. Since the central issue in these new laws is not wanting to pay for women to have more sex, why can't you see that these issues are the same? Dude, I think your responses are the ones that sound overly emotional in this thread. I suspect there is something underlying all this, since you're normally very rational. Sorry, but that's what I see.

You didn't really listen to what zapatos and Moontanman were saying. It's not about how nice you worded anything, it's that last apologetic sentence you tacked on. Coming here to rant is not "trying very hard to understand the rationale behind the Christian belief in the Bible". That's like trying to understand sports by going to a women's gardening club. We're more than happy to discuss what you already know or think you know, but this is a science site and you're going to get called on your shit here. Oh, and welcome aboard!

From iNow's Rolling Stone article: I predicted a few years back that this would happen. After reading some articles about privatizing education and corporate lobbying being so closely tied up with lawmaking, I envisioned a future where a high school graduate would be given an opportunity to go to college and have a corporation help pay his student loans if the student agrees to take a certain approved curriculum and then work for the corporation for five years once he graduated. It would all sound great, education and guaranteed employment. And then the corporation could offer a down payment on a home if the graduate would work another five years (of course, the corporation would own the housing development). The deals would just keep coming, and the employee would face some huge penalty if he tried to buy himself out of the deal (it would be fairly easy to unofficially blackball the guy from working for another corporation - "I see here you left corporation X after they put you through school and helped you buy a house - not very loyal, are you?"). Scary stuff, indentured servitude. We'll need help this time, I think. I fear it's too late to just stir up a block of voters and rally others to the cause. We need as many people as possible. Or a really charismatic, rational independent politician with no ties to corporate interests. And is bulletproof.

You don't think it might have been because the dump truck in the parking lot made a HUGE amount of noise and gave a HUGE profile in her peripheral vision? Those are pretty big HUGE clues.

Is that why all the new recruitment posters show sailors only from the waist up?

Soon we'll have employers demanding access to our Facebook accounts so they can check all our personal contacts and thoughts....

Well, that's the hypocrisy of the religious right Republican. They want smaller government that doesn't intrude in people's lives, less taxes and freedom, but only if you believe the way they do. And only when the intrusions don't involve sex. And only when the tax money benefits just them and no one else. And only when the freedom isn't free enough to be responsible for your own body.

The beer is scattered on the wind, when you blow its head off.

Next time you go to Starbucks, call the barrista a coffee jerk, they'll love it.

Watching Dr. Who, Tardis is bigger inside. Hey, it's a whoku!

I thinks it's time for ydoaPs to haiku.

Which tranny did it have (now there's a word that has completely changed its meaning...)?

I definitely know Car Hop and Soda Jerk (Sonic Drive-in Restaurants out west here still use Car Hops). I'm pretty sure a Drug Store Cowboy hangs out near the Soda Jerk. Wow, I was trying to think of some terms from the 70s to counter Moon's terms from the 50s and 60s, but you went back to the 90s. 1590s, or 1600s iirc. In the 70s we drove Goats... People used to carry a torch and drive jalopies in the 40s... The 20s had flappers...

! Moderator Note The personal attacks and sniping will stop NOW. Be civil or be gone. Do not respond to this modnote.

Are you JJ's friend, or know JJ's friend?

Aww, you know that's not what I said. Good luck to you. Make sure to stop by in the limo and flip us the bird when you strike it rich. X-ray vision, cool. I chose mind control, but it only works on me.

I didn't expect intellectual dishonesty from you, Justin. Singling out women for doctor-prescribed birth control or abortion requirements when they aren't targeting men who get doctor-prescribed penile enhancement drugs. What if it was the woman's husband or boyfriend who wanted his lady to get the abortion? This bill doesn't require HIM to watch one being done. Absolutely not. Your medical insurance is part of your compensation package, not some gallantry on the part of the employer. If your employer were trying to deny this on his own, he'd get thrown in jail. This bill is just trying to make it legal for your employer to ignore the complaints they'd be bound to get.

For starters, because they're applying it to women only. Is that the way you want your country to treat women (ask your wife if you're unclear; she's probably like you and doesn't like one-sided arguments). As swansont said, they aren't going to be asking why the man is taking Viagra, even though there's a huge amount of men who take it but don't have erectile dysfunction. Your employer is paying for their fun, as opposed to unwanted pregnancies.

You're making the mistake of assuming only one side of the equation would change. When does THAT ever work out right? And your statistics about doctors dropping Medicare patients are only from Texas (where everything is BIG, even their mistakes ). Right now, Medicaid and Medicare have suffered under so many years of budget cuts and bills passed to hobble their buying power that it's plain to anyone with eyes and ears that they're being set up to fail, a lot like our public education, to make way for more privatization. Since it would be a public fund, we should probably get our representatives to guarantee payment on a net 30 or 60 day basis, like the rest of the business world. NOW ask your doctors if they like the notion. Seriously, it gets really tiring to talk about fixing the system, only to have detractors keep comparing it to the old system in order to keep it from getting fixed. Aren't you looking at the evidence? We score lower on everything to do with healthcare except cost than 20 other countries that have a national program. Do you not trust the evidence, or do you not trust our politicians to set it up correctly? And if it's the latter, why are you trusting them with the rest of what they're doing with our money?

I wanted to make sure you were prepared for some fallout. When a member responded to your Creation Story thread, you made a personal attack, and I thought the member was being very conversational and polite. But he disagreed with some of your points, so I'm guessing he wasn't profound enough for you. I have no problem with you expressing your faith. But if you are going to reject others comments then this is no more than preaching, and that IS against our rules. I didn't mean to hijack your thread. I'm perhaps a bit sensitive when it comes to people who join this science forum strictly to post in the Religion section. It's supposed to be an add-on for our members, not the sole reason you came here.

The bill passed the House of Representatives and is being sent to the Senate. It's not a done deal yet. It's entirely possible that a bill can be pushed through Congress only to be thrown out as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Of course, this Supreme Court also voted to give corporations the rights of people a few years ago. This is so typical of US politics, bringing up all kinds of stupid, shitty initiatives when there are thousands of more important things they should be focused on. All to pretend they really care about the non-political concerns of a large block of voters. And shame on the religious right for bringing their Church into our State.