Phi for All

We have lots of women here, but iNow is right, many may not want to vote, even though the poll is not a public one. The ratio is weighted pretty heavily towards the guys though. She just wants to be judged on her merits, not what gender she is. Who says a person can't be a tremendous intellect *and* a swimsuit model? And before it starts, you should know that sending Sayonara3 a PM describing yourself is not going to get you anywhere. Attach a photo, at least.

HHO debunked by a ChemEng.

Unfortunately that thread suddenly became the outpouring of tons of suppressed postings, like a burst dam of religion arguments. But you've hit the nail on the head with this last sentence, Snail, you *can't* apply logic to religion, just as believers *can't* try to use the failures of science to support their conclusions. Neither will work and I'd really like a chance to see if we can have some good discussions, even arguments, without all the bickering that goes nowhere.

Manufacture and storage of the gas, if indeed HHO even exists (no peer review done to date iirc), would make it practically impossible to "save" anything, much like current biofuel work with corn. If it saved you gasoline it would cost as much or more in other energy areas.

You mean like Politics, Biomedical Ethics and General Discussion? I suppose so. We've had a lot of people that started out posting in these "Other Topics" until they felt stronger in the sciences and they are great members now. Shutting everyone out of GD until they have 50 sciencey posts may pose a problem.

People don't always respond in the negative when asked a question like this because they feel it's unhelpful. Assume the response so far from the 157 views you've gotten is, "No, I haven't bought a microscope from Amscope and I don't know how reliable they are or if it is worth buying." It doesn't hurt to keep bumping this thread so more people see it.

Actually, when we separated it from SFN, it attracted those we never really wanted to attract, namely those who *only* wanted to talk about theology, and mostly those who had very strong stances pro or con. No matter how much we stressed that we wanted to use SFN methodology at Theology Forums we lost that indefinable "SFN mental shielding" the moment we went offsite. We tried to split and it didn't work. We've tried to have it here with a "nothing's too sacred to talk about, let's remember free speech" attitude and it bogged down with circular logic and vehement ad hominems. I like learning from past mistakes and I don't quit just because I got a little dirty, but I think it's insane to keep doing things the same way hoping for different results. This time it'll be different or it won;t be at all.

I've set myself up to where I'm almost always doing exactly what I want to do. I work for a medium sized company from a remote home office, my wife works part-time and my daughter is usually in school (summer day camps currently) so I'm alone during the day. When business and house duties are in a lull, reading is my preferred pastime, whether it's a good piece of fiction, a scan of a Scientific American article or logging on to read the brilliance here on SFN. If I can find a nearby stream to sit by I can really get in tune with a good author. Next would come playing Neverwinter Nights online with a combination of old friends and new acquaintances. I'm an old pnp D&D player so the new computer game system lets me play without all the time-consuming prep work. There are so many brilliant young people with more time than I have working on the NWN servers. Finally, I love watching movies, and my wife isn't always into everything I pick out from the library (Starship Troopers comes to mind). These movies I save for late at night or when wife and daughter are off bonding. *My* remote!

The purpose of a new P&R subforum is not to attract new members interested only in those topics. We'll have a 50 post minimum before your'e even eligible to post there. Its purpose is not to expand our coverage of interests. Its purpose is not to drag out all your biblical error bits or your "proof" that the Flood actually happened. Its purpose is to provide a place for discussions many of us seem to gravitate to anyway, a place where science is not thrown out the door and it's not used to try to measure something for which it's unsuitable. Its a place where, because you happen to be an SFN member, you can discuss these subjects using the same methodology we use in the rest of the forums, with the understanding that science and religion don't cancel each other out unless they're used against one another. Seriously, if you've done a lot of research into religion and think you're going to be able to change people's mind one way or the other about it, you should go to a more formal religion site whose aim is primarily religion. The SFN P&R forum will just not be your cup of tea. Many on Staff feel that a science-only approach to SFN isn't well-balanced. We hate to see gag-orders on such major topics as Philosophy & Religion but we also know they are more sensitive than the sciencey ones because there is no supporting evidence for powers we can't measure. If you feel you could discuss the possibilities fairly and without resorting to the same old "approach the brick wall" strategies, I think we can have some lively, civil discussions. If you can't, and if a vast majority can't, then we pull the final plug on our efforts and those who never wanted it to succeed can say, "I told you so".

How do we know it's wrong? Creationism propagates the lie that evolution denies the possibility of a creator Creationism tries to refute natural scientific observation with supernatural means, confusing the observable with the unobservable Creationism asks to be taught alongside regular science courses, introducing supernatural methods into an otherwise natural process But evolution has nothing to say about a creator or creation. Creationists aren't claiming that God used evolution, they are claiming he made everything in six 24-hour days and then just made it seem like evolution was responsible. We CAN prove that the earth is not 6000 years old as some creationists claim, we CAN prove that the evolutionary process changes organisms over long periods of time. You can either use the scientific method to describe the natural universe or you can ascribe a higher, supernatural hand behind those processes, but you can't attempt to mix them so that one refutes the other.

Waiting on a response to your question or waiting on the Amscope you ordered?

It's never as capricious as that. You actually have to be pretty rude and undesirable to get that kind of attention and effort from the Staff. Most people who get banned from an accumulation of infraction points wise up after a temporary ban. Others never know when enough's enough.

And now *you're* doing it again, asking for a logical answer about something to do with the existence or non-existence of God. Faith is illogical; it's outside of science and logic. I'm not ignoring the point about the ambiguity of atheistic definitions; I'm taking them as granted and practically irreconcilable. Most atheists don't want their stance associated with a lack of belief but if you're talking about God then faith, not logic, has to come into it somewhere. It may well be the crux of the matter. The trap is that many on both sides will never give up their definitions because they have already made up their minds what they want their stance to be. Often that stance means they will suggest doubt while implying certainty. The equation is unbalanced when skepticism isn't practiced.

And we would never do something like that to such an innocent forumer who needs us kind and patient geeks to help him out with science.

I concur. While I am completely opposed to creationism as has been outlined here, I think suggesting it's a mental disorder is misleadingly vivid and without merit. Just because you were raised and educated with bad information doesn't make you cognitively infirm.

I know it matters to atheists. I know it's a distinction they want to forge in order to take their arguments away from a faith-based foundation. I can concede that it is important to them to establish there is no faith involved. But I still don't want the arguments to boil down to non-believers demanding non-existent proof from believers, and believers insisting that God is behind everything science tries to explain. That way lies madness. Clarification is always good, but I still think we need to stay away from the same old traps. IF we open a P&R section it will not be a place for those only interested in espousing religion or those only interested in trashing religion to come and post. It will be a place where established forum members can discuss these matters without using one to bash the other.

Please concern yourself with your own happiness. What you choose to call yourself is of less interest to me than how you present your arguments here on SFN. I'm sure many will object to your labels but that's what happens. People chafe under the restrictions imposed on them by other's labels. Frankly it was always the people who had firmly made up their minds one way or the other that caused the most problems with our past attempts at a Philosophy & Religion subforum. Good points were lost among the traffic jams caused by continual sniping over the same old crap; atheists demanding proof and preachers claiming God transcends physical laws. If we are to attempt it again it will be with the provisos that God is inherently undetectable and cannot be proven, and that any statements about God, ANY statements, therefore require an element of faith that science cannot measure.

I would disagree with the latter. Withholding judgment, for our purposes, makes you a skeptic, not a believer or denier. Now you're back to trying to use science to refute faith in an unobservable entity. I'm telling you, *this* is where these discussions will always bog down. God doesn't make appearances anymore since you wouldn't need faith if It did. That makes It supernatural and science just isn't interested anymore. Your skepticism, like science, has NOTHING to do with faith, but saying God exists or doesn't exist is a statement based on faith, since it's about God and we know that science can't be applied to God, ever. This, imo, is the only way we will be able to discuss religion successfully here on SFN. There may be all kinds of ways to split hairs on atheism but trust me, when any side of the issue tries to use science and religion to prove or disprove the other, the argument goes nowhere fast.

Severian is saying that theists and atheists are both making absolute statements about a power that is supernatural, therefore neither can use natural physical science to support their arguments; both must, by definition, be using faith instead. Yet atheists still ask for scientific proof and theists insist that God can transcend physical laws and neither seems likely to give up their stance. This seems to contradict itself. Why would someone who doesn't deny the possibility of God be called an atheist (no-God)? If you define atheism as a state of being without theistic beliefs, you are still saying there is no God, which forces you to either use scientific methods (a big no-no) or make a judgment based on faith, which is just as valid as a theists claims. Skeptics are not atheists because they don't discount the possibility of a God while ignoring any use of science or religion to prove or disprove one another. Literary critics can't use the same criteria they employ to measure the worth of a book to measure the gases composing a distant nebula, and it's much the same way with religion and science. When faced with a theistic question, the skeptical scientist should merely shrug and say, "Could be, but I have nothing to observe yet." Or be willing to admit that any opinion they have on the matter is purely faith-based.

Skepticism about an unobservable phenomenon, ANY unobservable phenomenon, does NOT require faith, just an open mind. That's the beauty of it. ANY firm pro or con stance regarding unobservable phenomenon requires faith. You can't ask for evidence to support something that can't be observed. That would be involving science and you just can't do that with God. The skeptic is king in science and when you leave the realm of the observable you leave the realm of science. All atheists AND theists need to stop invoking science by either asking for proof or explaining nature with supernatural means.

Science really shouldn't concern itself with any other definitions of creationism. If they involve a non-observable deity behind natural, physical processes then it's completely up to the individual to decide where faith begins and ends. It's only when religious interpretations completely ignore evidence gained using rigorous scientific method in favor of instantaneous creation that simply appears to be far older that science should be concerned. God is not denied by evolution, It is simply ignored. But intelligent design is, again, adding an unobservable element into an otherwise sound, natural and well-tested theory. It puts ID back into the realm of faith so science has nothing to say. ID further compounds the mistake by insisting it has created a controversy which must be taught alongside science in public schools. I rounded up to 5 billion as opposed to rounding down to 6000.

For our purposes here, creationism can be defined as the belief that God created all things in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago without the use of the evolutionary process. It is a dismissal of all gathered evidence on evolution in favor of instantaneous creation, even creation of the geological evidence that would seem to support an Earth age of around 5 billion years. Any other religious or spiritual aspects do not fall under the purview of science or the topic of this thread.

I don't think you are interested in discussion. Your username tells us you are interested in only one thing. You have 8 posts and 7 of them are thread starters, all defending genetically modified crops, primarily in Africa. I think you have an agenda and I think you are being paid for it. All of these things are inconsistent with our purpose. This is a scientific discussion forum, not your personal marketing platform. Please discuss.

I'm going to leave it up to Pangloss to decide if this is a political issue or not. ku, I've always found it a bit distressing that many of your threads involve some form of support for what the majority consider deviant sexual behavior such as pedophilia, rape, brutality and now bestiality. I've tried not to introduce any ad hominem arguments because you are well-spoken and somewhat considerate with your threads (although you tend to ignore clarifying questions put forth by other members). You seem to have a bit of an obsession and I wonder if you'd address that in this thread?

To include what many others believe in (have faith in) your definition of supernatural must include things which are inherently unobservable. These things don't violate the laws of nature but they remain outside of the physical, natural world and are thus supernatural. There are faiths in "higher powers" that don't *violate* anything, they're simply non-falsfiable by their very... nature..