Phi for All

I'm not answering for Iggy, but any theory is conceptually impossible to prove true, if only because we can never stop devising tests for it (it's a technicality, and an extremely important one). And classical mechanics fails in its explanations at the quantum level, and so has been falsified.

It's tragic that "life-begins-at-conception" arguments even take place at this level of government. It's a ridiculous stance that cannot be upheld, cannot be policed and puts the government so intimately involved in people's daily lives that I can't believe any self-respecting Republican would stand for it. First George Bush grows the biggest government in history, then he shifts strategy to arrange for the US military to be the world's police, then he signs off on no-bid government contracts to strangle free market dealings and now this. What has happened to the Republican platform?

Sorry, but this reminds me of the story where the guy goes to a tailor but can't afford a custom suit, so the tailor has him try on a suit rejected by another customer. The lapel is crooked, the sleeves are different lengths and the trousers are baggy. "If you tuck the lapel under your chin like this," says the tailor, "and hold your arms out crooked like this, and grab the front of the trousers here while walking with your legs stiff, no one will notice the suit doesn't fit." The guy buys the suit and wears it out of the shop. Two other guys see him across the street. One guys says, "Look at that poor man, he must be crippled to have to walk that way." The other guys says, "Yeah, but that sure is a nice suit he has on!" Aren't you basically saying that, if you overlook all its flaws, and ignore what accepted science has to say, your model makes perfect sense?

Looks like a coatimundi.

I'll try one more time. Iron-clad proof, the kind you're asking for, tends to make people stop looking for other answers. Science thinks that's bad. If a thousand hikers try to find a trail through the mountains and can't, and the locals take that as iron-clad proof there is no way to get through, hikers might stop trying to explore for one. Instead, science would say that every experiment supports the conclusion that there is no trail through the mountains. Science would say that the road around the mountains is the best available answer for those looking to get to the other side. Saying it this way, there are still hikers who keep trying to find a better trail. The Road Around the Mountains Theory is supported, it's the best answer so far, but it's not proof. Does that make sense?

Today, they would probably see you training your dog 10 years ago, before the elephant stepped on him. 10 years from now, if their technology had advanced to the point where they could read lips, they would see you today saying, "Bad elephant!"

The entire universe was extremely hot, dense and tiny. Expansion occurred and became everything we can now observe, including time. The further back we go with the evidence we can observe, the less clear exactly what happened is. At t=10−37 seconds, the expansion grew exponentially. From what I've read, before that, the temperature and pressures were too great to be sure what was going on. The Miller-Urey experiment was able to produce some amino acids from inorganic carbon by replicating conditions after Earth's formation. If they could do that in a lab in a relatively short amount of time, it seems probable that abiogenesis could do a lot more with billions of years. Who would you buy diamonds from? The guy who has really spectacular, unbelievable looking diamonds but won't let you examine them, has unverifiable stories about where they came from and has no certificates of authenticity, or the guy who has normal everyday diamonds he invites you to look at through a loupe, points out all the inclusions, weights and clarities, and has all the papers showing where they were mined and who they were purchased from? When you're explaining "things" that can't be 100% determined, the explanation with the most evidence to support it should hold more weight with you. Since no scientific theory is 100% determined, "things" means every... single... thing. I think many religions are smart enough to realize that they can trust a scientific explanation for the way things are. They can easily say their god intended it that way. And you're right, evolution as a mechanism doesn't explain how that mechanism came to be. You can feel free to have your supernatural god be responsible for it.

It's clear that the reason "the arguments are repeated and have been repeated and will be repeated until the earth ends" is because, no offense intended, you have closed your mind off, to the point where you think yours is the only open mind and everyone else's is closed. You stated that Big Bang cannot be proven, it was explained that scientific theories are only supported or falsified, not proven, and yet you still think you're being harshly treated and villified. Forgive the analogy, but it's a bit like you've been pulled over by a cop, and you're arguing about 1) your right to drive on this public road, 2) at the stated speed limit, 3) in an adequately functioning vehicle, but what he's trying to tell you is that it's illegal to drive on the left side in this country. And no matter how he phrases it, you're still pissed off about dogmatic police oppression.

You're a professional senior scientist with a PhD in some flavor of chemistry or biology and you stopped off on your way to the doctor to ask on an online forum whether Yersinia Pseudotuberculosis could be fatal if swallowed?! You're either yanking our chain or your company has horrible protocols on infection. You should already know that your chances are better if you can be treated as early as possible. [/stern chastisement] I sincerely hope you can be successfully treated. After you're in the clear, we will want to know how this accidental swallowing happened, and what steps you are taking to make sure it doesn't happen again.

False dilemma. The Big Bang theory explains how the universe began its present state. Abiogenesis is a scientific explanation of how life started on Earth. Evolution explains how that life eventually produced humans. "God created us" is only an explanation if you don't mind an unverifiable source. If this is the case, I have some diamonds I'd like you to buy.

John Cuthber is right, though. We call it supernatural because it's not observable in the scientific sense. If it exists at all, it will at some point be observable, testable and therefore predictable, which means it's natural. The supernatural are all things that defy observation. Ghosts, gods, telekinesis, these things fail in every experiment ever devised. They don't want to manifest themselves in a predictable manner. Until they change that, science has to simply shrug. Saying something doesn't exist is not saying it's impossible. If someone suddenly stepped forward and was able to prove they could move objects with their minds, and passed every test people put them to, when every other possibility was ruled out science would have to conclude that telekinesis is a natural phenomenon.

Any excuse to wear the leather.

This is EXACTLY what I mean by saying people expect a Mod to be unfairly heavy-handed and power-hungry. The above certainly does NOT warrant an immediate ban. Two, maybe three weeks suspension, tops. If you say you're sorry and buy me something nice. You decide how sorry you are (you should at least be iPad sorry; if you're iPad2 64gig 3G Wi-Fi sorry, I can trim this down to a 3 day suspension with no adjustment to your warning status. Act now, supplies are limited!).

Done.

Many newcomers expect Moderators to be heavy-handed, power-hungry egotists who judge based on what they like or dislike. We've worked pretty hard to keep that out of our staff ranks. I think it's best we stay out of this kind of competition. If I won, I would be impossible to live with. Look what I've already done, paying Klaynos to say nice things about me! And I drew a mustache on mooeypoo's profile picture. Despicable! One of the criteria for Staff positions that was set up by blike in the beginning was that no one who asked for Mod status would be given that status, to avoid having people who crave it. Indeed, the Admins had to beg swansont for years to be a Mod (I, being such a great person, didn't force the Admins to sink that low; I said yes the minute blike asked me). Resident Experts are chosen the same way, on merit alone, after consensus vote by Mods and Admins. I don't know how Admins are chosen; you'd have to ask blike. He's currently sailing to Bermuda on the yacht Cap'n Refsmmat bought for him. Why don't we compromise? You can vote for a member in any category and also put a Staff member (in parentheses) for that same category if you feel they deserve it. We'll tally them separately. Seriously, we don't want Staff winning this recognition. That much prestige would blind our objectivity.

Reading doesn't have to be an alternative to cartoons. People can do both. Can you explain first what you mean by your title question, perhaps with some examples and reasoning before listing alternative behavior? Tom Hanks is great. I learned how to spell better from watching him in Toy Story.

From this reply, I can't decide whether you don't belong here or whether you need this forum more than anything. Because they will be on different battlefields, facing in different directions, armed with weapons that are useless on each other.

The Light Barrier has been banned at his own request.

Remember that you're not asking for the odds of a completely random occurrence. Your daughter was already reading 101 Dalmations, so the odds of that are 1:1. You were in public, making the odds of seeing a dog higher. There might have been a Dachshund in the car behind you and a Labrador doing a head bob in the car in front, but you selected the Dalmatian because it confirmed information you already had. The odds of the Lab being in front of you when your daughter is reading that book are actually the same as the Dalmatian, but the Dalmatian had preselected relevance.

WTF FTW! One of their earliest protests, right after Obama took office in January 2009, was regarding an 18% tax NY state wanted to impose on non-diet soft drinks. They were all about unfair taxation to begin with. And they didn't like Bush's TARP or Obama's stimulus bill, but shortly after protesting both of those, they got an influx of money, advisers and media coverage thanks to Fox. From then on in everything was Obama's fault and they even criticized income tax in April 2009, even though for most of them Obama had lowered taxes on income. Later they moved to attack Obama's health plan and they've been focused on that and privatizing Medicare ever since.

Science and religion are tools, used for different purposes. One attempts to explain the natural world, the other the supernatural.

Here's a study on highly active anti-retroviral therapy.

What I question is if an 11-year-old child is capable of consent to a potentially dangerous treatment. The law already says he's incapable of consent to have sex, so why is this any less of a consent issue? This is offset by the evidence of what happens during puberty to a transgender child. It's already an emotional roller-coaster going through it with the body changes your gender is supposed to have, and there are significant dangers in going through it with the wrong ones. Here's a good discussion piece from the AMA on Suppression of Puberty in Transgender Children. The problem is not the parents, imo. It's not Fox News. It's not even what topless dancers teach their kids (unfounded speculation or not). It's the intervention in an important natural life stage. But the potentially disastrous effects of allowing the natural stage to develop in transgender children seems to warrant some kind of special attention. Postponing surgery until the child is considered more capable of consent seems reasonable in this light.

! Moderator Note The off-topic posts regarding information in names have been split off to here. The idea of replacing transportation infrastructure seems unrealistic. Sure, there may need to be changes, but full replacement? I don't see us getting rid of personal transport anytime soon, even though there are several very efficient maglev systems available. Certainly we'll have to make do with less. I think we have been extremely wasteful because there was no need to achieve maximum efficiency with plentiful fossil fuels. But I think what many people are overlooking is that now we are designing these new, better energy sources (not alternatives, let's stop using that term) with efficiency as a key factor. Vehicle manufacturers can worry less about comfort and safety and focus on battery efficiency and ways to recharge on the go (if cars get any more comfortable we'll fall asleep at the wheel, and without flammable gas and engine fumes, safety is already improved).

Sorry, it's against the rules to just give you those answers. j/k, good luck! I VOTED!!!