Phi for All

Nobel-track?! Holy spin, Batman! What a piercingly nebulous explanatory sound byte! How far down the line of possible science educations does this Nobel track go?

Rep+

This is why evolution gets misrepresented by those who misunderstand it.

Padren, do you mind if we sticky and close your OP for Pseudoscience & Speculation? I'd just copy it over and leave this thread here for comments. I agree with everyone, this is really funny.

This would be the best thing EVER. This site would suddenly be the focus of every scientist from JPL to CERN.

Bet you're wrong. I think it's great that your school system challenges 7-year-olds this way. Hey, for extra credit, teach your daughter this trick she can play on the teacher. Using the same cup (can't be clear glass), have your daughter place a coin under the cup on the table with her right hand. Then she tells the teacher that she can get the coin out from under the cup without touching the cup. In her left hand she will have an identical coin she's been hiding. She reaches under the table with her left hand, waves her right hand over the cup, and then brings her left hand out holding the other coin. The teacher is going to reach out and pick up the cup to prove the original coin is still there. As soon as this happens, your daughter picks up the original coin with her right hand and says, "See? I never touched the cup!"

Please explain what you're asking for in terms of the General Medicine subforum. Are you asking about prescription drugs or medical procedures that could affect your perceptions?

Trolling infraction issued.

Trolling infraction issued.

Your strawmen have become persistent, after you were verbally warned in another thread. Infraction issued.

Mistake #1: I said your arguments have been debunked, time and time again (please use the Search function to see the ground that's been covered ad infinauseum), not "You've been debunked". That would be an ad hominem argument and not very logical. Mistake #2: You think evolution says that humans are descended from modern apes or monkeys. In fact, it's well-established that modern apes share a common ancestor with modern humans. Exactly which ancestor is still to be established, something that makes science a bit more rigorous than religion on the subject. Mistake #3: Your logic has been replaced by faith in your beliefs. You argue from incredulity (the Twilight Zone comment), very shaky logic. You argue with Misleading Vividness (the alien comment), another logical fallacy. Again, this ground has been covered so many times here and I, for one, don't have the time to explain every instance of why a creationist (who won't bother to learn any decent science from an unbiased source) can't give a more plausible explanation for the biodiversity we observe on earth than evolution does. Just stop interjecting your poorly developed, illogical arguments into the mainstream, accepted science sub-fora. You have been told what the consequences are and frankly, I don't care how it offends you. You aren't important enough to me because of your intractable beliefs, and I'm probably the most tolerant Mod on the boards when it comes to the possibility of an unobservable higher power.

Facts would be a very good thing to post here. We would all be interested in seeing some facts (but please don't link us offsite to something you're promoting, that will just be deleted). How is this an example of a fact? I see the problem here. "Those that believe" are not using the scientific method to quantify their predictions about an observation. Moved to Speculations.

The bible is not a scientific reference. Please don't use it as such in the science subforums. And in this instance it's completely wrong. How would water remain liquid in space without an atmosphere to keep it from freezing? Clearly the earth was here before water accumulated on it. Knupfer, you offer no argument that hasn't been debunked thousands of times here in this forum. Everyone is tired of hearing the same junk from creationists, garbage that is distorted (like your misinterpretation of the Neanderthal DNA study), and arguments from incredulity with nothing but your religious beliefs as a foundation. There are other places for you, since you are unwilling to learn even the basics of evolution. If you continue to derail science threads with your faith-based "feelings", you will start accumulating infractions towards a banning. Go ahead and rant about persecution and censorship, as I said we've heard it all before. I don't expect you to change because what you believe is sacred to you, while science remains at least a little bit skeptical about everything.

Damn, you absolutely nailed it, ParanoiA. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Extremely well put.

We could do that. [elevator music] [/elevator music] Oh, that's not a suggestion, is it? You want to be responded to, I get it. I don't have the phenomenal cosmic powers of an admin, but I may be able to help. Either tell me what you need here in the thread, or PM me with the problem. I'll do my best.

Oh yeah, maverick. Named for a guy who refused to brand his cattle, so he could claim any cow that didn't have one was his by default. The Dems have done a pretty good job tying McCain to Bush, but why haven't they popped the maverick balloon by reminding everyone that Bush is the ultimate maverick? They seem stuck on the idea that McCain isn't a maverick because he voted along Bush lines so often. They need to start wearing these and agreeing that McCain is a maverick and Palin is a pitbull.

Hey, no fair! What was the last device? This one is obviously Sarah Palin's mock up of an ICBM launch button, the one she's been practicing with in her garage. Did you see how skinned up her knuckles were in the debate last night? :D

You're probably right, my friend, and if so, it was a classy move on Joe's part. Jumping all over it, even bringing it up tactfully, could have really blown up in his face. I guess they both showed some remarkable restraint when you think about it.

bombus, turn the fan to "low" before iNow comes home to find you on his computer. Less mess when the shit hits it.

No, that's where she started to lose it, at least with global warming, since they all oppose gay marriage (or at least redefining marriage to include same-sex couples). But from the opening when she walked out and said, "It's so good to meet you, can I call you Joe?", I was afraid she would have the audience eating out of her hand. I actually liked her at that point, and I think Sarah Palin is the least elite person I can think of to run our country, front seat or back seat.

Both did very well, and I have to say that Palin had some really shining moments, but they were all emotional, theatrical ones (which has gotten people elected, no doubt). I thought Palin had the upper hand for the first quarter of the debate but Biden dominated the other three-quarters. Palin let two major Biden salvos go unanswered and she paused during two segues to either collect her thoughts or emphasize her displeasure, but either way it came off as indecisive. She had her head down looking at her notes and looked a tad rattled (she should have shook her head, like, "I can't believe what I'm hearing!"). I wonder why Biden didn't jump on Palin's naming General McClellan (twice, so no lip-slip) as the top general in Afghanistan (I think General McClellan spoke at McCain's high school graduation, to steal a bit from Stephen Colbert). It might have made some hawks question whether she's prepared to assist (or be) the Commander-in-Chief. But then, Biden did a very good job of underscoring that McCain considers Afghanistan and Pakistan to be unimportant compared to Iraq. MUCH more interesting than the Obama / McCain debate. I hope this raises the bar for the top candidates.

Aww, I had hoped you understood that the concern was over the army being used against US citizens, not fighting *for* us on US soil. We lost a really good check with H.R. 5122. And it's possible I'm just incensed that Bush got more power, but any president using the military against our own citizens would be a tragedy.

All right, let me clear the air on at least my opinion here. Pangloss, I overreacted to your "revolution over, guys" comment because you adroitly lumped me in with bombus, tomgwyther and padren, spun the story your way and marginalized all of us (in the movie, bombus will be played by Ralph Nader, padren by Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich gets to play me). You have a tendency to group people in often disturbing ways, Panglossing over what is said in favor of this categorization. In this case, I think you saw Greenwald's name and put on your leaping shoes. I *thought* I explained my concerns without drawing any conclusions I had to leap at. I have a new client right now that requires my absence from my home office so I have a tiny window to post in most mornings. I apologize for not being here today to clarify my points and thwart any tinfoilinism, and for my overreaction to your comment. bombus, you often worry the fringe on top of the political surrey, your avatar is creepy and I would absolutely hate it if you weren't around. Like ParanoiA said, you represent an extreme and I find that extreme views help me focus my own, usually more towards the center than I normally hang. padren, you've been around here a long time and I always love your posts. I think I relate most to your POV in this matter of the 1st BCT (which did return from Iraq, just not specifically for this mission) being put in a ready state for deployment on US soil, for a mission that is the first of its kind. Honestly, I don't see the problem with wondering exactly why this is needed for the first time ever. Did I mention this has never been done before? I have a right to be concerned, and I will be trying to learn more as things unfold.

Wow, that's a really good spin. But it's not just 4700 people, it's 4700 of our most experienced and battle-ready soldiers paving the way for a permanent brigade of crack soldiers to work on US soil. And with the joint forces involved, that 4700 could be anywhere in the lower 48 within hours. I don't have to be an alarmist to dislike this new deployment of our troops, no matter how much it's spun into disaster relief and anti-terrorism. What's wrong with our National Guard for this job? Will the CIA be allowed to work on US soil next? Slippery slope it may be, but now the precedent is set and it would be that much easier to assign more troops stateside because of it, or change the writ of other government agencies. The Christmas thing was nice, though. Tbh, I never made it past Greenwald's second paragraph. After his mention of The Posse Comitatus Act, I clicked his link to the Army Times article and never looked back. Once again, I'd like to point out that when a bad thing happens, it can always be traced back to a series of misjudgments and poor choices which, individually, are not cause for alarm, but taken together will almost always lead to a high probability of disaster. This is not the first heavy-handed choice this administration has made, seemingly to protect us from all we fear. I don't have to cry "coup" to be concerned about yet another questionable change in our country's operational parameters.

Really. Then why is the Army Times reporting that 1st BCT will be an *on-call* federal response force? And after the 1st of the 3rd performs this mission for a year, the mission will be reassigned to another brigade permanently? My first thought was actually that the Pentagon was expecting some terrorism on US soil but didn't want to say that. My second thought was that the Bush administration was trying to sow the seeds of doubt about our security so McCain could play the axis of evil card. It was the non-lethal crowd control package that made me think they were expecting mass rioting by former homeowners, Diebold victims and Nader disciples. But now the AT has printed a correction of their earlier story: So while the tasers and tear gas will probably be used, the question still stands. Why are they gearing up for a regular army brigade to be stationed stateside?