Phi for All

We discovered you can't separate the origins issue from other parts of spirituality with any degree of success. We still want to offer an outlet for discussing Philosophy and Religion (with the usual argument parameters we enforce everywhere else) but it would mean a lot of restrictions on what can be discussed. No more threads on why religious beliefs are illogical. We also don't really want to compare and contrast religions (beyond where it might have impacted scientific efforts or has some other historical relevance). Nobody wants to waste any more time on creationism issues. And nobody wants to spend any more effort trying to read why one religion is best or worst for all of us. But we should be able to talk about matters that are outside of the scientific purview without resorting to fallacious logic. Unobservable doesn't mean it isn't there, it just means that scientific method can't be applied. When mixing science and religion, you can't use one to refute the other. If we do bring back P&R in some form we need to keep these things in mind.

IIRC, the Book Discussions sub-forum didn't get put on the new server (it wasn't doing well anyway). I think that's why you can't access it. And since it can't be accessed, why would blike bother to post the link? Sorry he didn't reply to you but med school students are like that, only thinking of themselves and their classes.

Good advice, but we don't need the links. The membership can read what is posted whenever it's posted and make their decisions. This will happen quite nicely without your ad hominem approach. You will not. It's counterproductive to your cause because you are breaking the rules and forcing everyone, in fairness, to give more credence to an argument that may not deserve it (people go out of their way to defend an underdog). You are making yourself look like some self-appointed militia-of-one which also undermines your cause. And lastly, warning people about Farsight in threads *before* he comments (however likely he is to post there) is defamation and again puts you in the black hat. You need to trust that the membership and Staff are smart enough to see through anyone who doesn't know what they're talking about. You need to trust that the evidence, untainted by fallacious arguments, will speak for itself.

How interested in it are you willing to be? It looks great to me but you may want to invest the money in some specific chems and equipment, rather than getting a pre-packaged set.

Clothes have always been sexy (even the working classes had party outfits) by denying total observation while hinting at what's beneath. I could argue that modern clothes can be less sexy since they often leave nothing to the imagination, the most powerful aphrodisiac.

On the Atkins diet you ignore carbs from cellulose and fiber. Stay away from sugary vegetables like carrots and complex carbs like starchy potatoes and the rest of the carbs in vegetables are OK on Atkins, iirc.

Thread closed temporarily while link is scrutinized by Staff.

Welcome to SFN. Our members join to discuss science and it's varied applications. We have a lot of problems with people joining to start threads which lead members offsite, often to non-science related marketeers and even scam sites. You've posted twice now and both threads have invited the reader to your own website so you have come under this scrutiny. I'm closing your threads until we're more sure of your intentions. Please read and feel free to post in the forum as an active member and please leave any agenda tied to your site behind until I can check things out. Sorry for the shepherd routine, you're probably no wolf but we need to know what the flock you're up to.

Calm down, there's no need to go all "title-case" on us. Let's keep things civil. Harness is a key word here. There is a lot of energy available here in our own solar system but it's not easy to control it for our use. If we could build a massive solar array in space how can we efficiently get the energy back to Earth?

I said it was *available* as a suppository; you're the one who went out and bought a case of them. Of course, you're brilliant now, but you can't even sit down to study anymore.

There is obviously some point we're missing here. A "miniature ballista without the support made in a bow style structure"... "that can actually launch arrows"? Aren't you just describing a regular bow? What is it about a ballista removed from it's supports that makes it different from a regular bow? Why is a modified ballista more desirable than a regular bow? Is it for power, portability, ease of use? What are your predictions if such a device were possible in the way you describe it?

A pox! A pox upon them! An incurable pox, something quite ghastly and hideous that will put an immediate end to the question, "Will they ever reproduce?" I think a good Boulder attorney could get the death penalty if the guy is ever caught. If not, you bring the beer and I'll bring the pick-up truck, a small mob and a rope.

Since I can't find a reason why a person's religion would make them any better or worse at programming Laplace Transforms, I'm forced to give a Prejudice warning to the OP. If you can present any reasoning behind your unusual and rather distasteful request please post it quickly, since this thread will be closed by the end of the day without it.

Or it could be that you create a huge opportunity for true murder when you allow someone to be killed because they *want* to die. You could pull off some pretty ingenious killings if you could simply *prove* someone asked you to do it. Strawman. We're not talking about abortion so bringing it up as an argument for or against euthanasia is a logical fallacy. It's also false to call all abortion murder because Roe v Wade has not been overturned in the US. I find it odd that you object to abortion on moral grounds but think it's "just plain and simple B.S" to apply the same argument to euthanasia.

Sorry, but the first thing that I thought of was seeing this ad in one of those displays above a urinal.

By that logic any woman who miscarries needs to be investigated to determine if she was negligent, and could be tried for murder just because she, for instance, went horseback riding and fell. Remember where you are. You can't make claims like that, even in GD, unless you're willing to back them up. Do you have any links or studies to support this claim?

I know what you mean. Carrying a weapon was a vivid example. If 1 in 10 people carried some kind of good luck charm we'd probably say it was normal.

About 1 in 10 people are left-handed. What is normal? If 1 in 10 people carried a concealed weapon would you say it was normal for people to carry a concealed weapon?

I wouldn't say it's a mental disorder but it could be viewed as a kind of disease I suppose. It's like a need to recognize omnipotence in a higher power that explains away what has been observed in favor of what can be accomplished with unlimited power, even if those feats defy reason. They certainly are when they are in a position to dictate what gets taught to our chilodren in public schools. A scientific theory is not like Joe Average saying, "I have this theory...." In science a theory has withstood so much examination and testing over a long period of time that it is practically fact. A good scientist always retains a fraction of a percent of skepticism because a good theory *could* be proven false by it's very definition. You can't falsify most of the creationist claims. God's will just isn't observable. Wrong. By the time something is recognized as a theory there is little further "proof" necessary. You're thinking of a hypothesis. Faith and spiritualism aside, creationism IS a bad thing. Evolution doesn't require a god but it doesn't rule one out either. It simply explains a mechanism, one that a higher power certainly could have put it place. Creationism, however, requires that science be wrong about one of the most tested and observed phenomena of all times. I'm a pretty spiritual person myself but creationism is just plain wrong for many reasons so I guess belief in it could be a mental problem. The same way laziness and lack of a desire to learn is a mental disorder.

This just became a spam solicitation. Come back when you have the funding. Thread closed.

I would sequester the group of scientists for a debriefing of indeterminate length. While they are being... questioned, I would have my spin doctors start a whisper campaign about how the government doesn't spend enough money on research into alien civilizations. Then I would call my... contact at the Carlyle Group and put together a comprehensive portfolio of contractors who specialize in alien civilization consulting. Next I would accuse France of conspiring with evil aliens. My next step would depend on whether or not the aliens were superior in technology to us. If they are then I would try to determine what they might like as a gift of goodwill (possibly France?). If they're not then I would find out what they have of value and start another whisper campaign about how we need more of whatever it is they have. Next I would start work on the Patriot Act III (making me Earth Emperor) so I could force it through Congress right after the scientists reveal their discovery. Finally, after insuring that the scientists knew how profitable my side of the academic fence is, I would let them go so they could let the people know about this amazing new discovery which will change the face of life on Earth.

Very similar to the thread on why we laugh after almost getting hit by a car. Again, I think it's partly embarrassment, and the body needs a release from the tension of asking a potentially stupid question, so we laugh to cover it up.

I think the question has just been partially answered. There will *always* be words that are provocative, even if we declassify all the present ones more will crop up and offend people just as much. And we feel more comfortable, friendlier and intelligent when we are not out to offend. It's funny then that people use foul words mostly to impress others and emphasize their "coolness". Does this mean that "cool" is the opposite of "comfortable, friendly and intelligent"?

I don't buy the part where having sex is natural for pre-pubescent kids. Girls used to marry at extremely young ages partly because they were lucky to live to reach 40. I just think anyone who is interested in involving kids in their sex life wants a malleable partner they can control and train, not not love and nurture. Establishing a nation where it's OK for pedophiles to raise kids to have sex with isn't about what's good for the kids and I think we as a society have lost touch with what is best for kids amongst the clamor about what's safe for kids. We all know sex complicates a relationship; why does a 9-year-old need the added complication that some kids twice their age find almost impossible? You'd have a better chance of establishing a nation of people who want to take drugs and be cruel to animals. You're older so you're including more attributes into your consideration of beauty. They are more attractive to you now because you didn't appreciate how a certain smile crinkles up a cute nose, or how attractive bare shoulders can be, or how an intelligent conversation makes you notice the gold flecks in green eyes. In our youth we are looking for fewer and more obvious attributes.

I had an aunt who just finished having breakfast with her husband, stood up and called out his name, then keeled over dead, probably dead before she hit the floor. She had no pulse and my uncle did what you're supposed to do, he called 911. Paramedics put her on a resuscitator and got her heart going again but when they got her to the hospital and hooked her into an EEG she had no brain activity. They kept her "alive" for two days while family said their goodbyes. The doctor called it brain-death, not the persistent vegetative state of a coma.