Reaper

Well, I'll break this into parts. Good physical health is very strongly correlated with better psychological health. As an example, studies done with athletes (except for maybe professional superstars) or people who exercise daily are shown to have lower cases of depression and much higher self-esteem, and tend to be more successful in social, academic, and work related environments. Their immune systems are also much better too and they live longer. And of course, people who tend to be much healthier will have better chances of passing off their genes to their offspring. But this is also true with any species you look at, not just humans. As for modern medicine, well, I'm sure you agree that it has saved countless lives. For example, take vaccinations; because of them we are now immune to a wide variety of diseases that would have killed us otherwise earlier. I take it you've been reading too much Ishmael? For those of you who don't know, that book is one big strawman, and uses a whole range of other logical fallacies and misunderstandings. I don't recommend taking advice from there. Well, every species has the capability of reproducing to the point where they outstrip the available resources. It happens all the time too. For example, predator populations fall when there isn't enough prey animals around and they therefore must compete (and thus natural selection will select for those better able to get their food). The same goes with prey animals too if they end up using up everything in their ecological niche. The reason that we have a huge population is because we can better control those factors, and as we have progressed in technology and scientific knowledge, the easier it has become to maintain larger populations. Of course, population growth will always outstrip even that if it grows too large; for example, even with 1800's technology our population of 6 billion just isn't sustainable. It isn't even sustainable with today's technology and science either....yet. However, large populations do have a distinct advantage over small populations. For one, they are far less likely to go extinct, are far less vulnerable, and tend to have a much wider range of genetic diversity than smaller populations do (and therefore evolve faster and are more adaptable). Whether any of this is a good thing or a bad thing is purely arbitrary and entirely subjective.

The data comes from various places, such as ice cores, rocks, fossils, tree rings, historical records etc. Typically, there is no one place on where we get the data. Here's a list of them Well, just because there is pollen and ferns and all that other stuff in there doesn't mean that there were also glaciers at that time period. Typically what may happen is that some of the ferns, pollen, etc. either may have drifted too far up north through wind or other causes, or that they may have been all dead but not yet decomposed when it started to freeze over. Another thing to keep in mind is that glaciers usually are moving, from high altitude to low altitude (where it is much more temperate BTW) so it may have been likely that they were probably beginning to flow over that particular area. And, can you cite where you got that info?

Well, for starters, you can look at this site: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ Typically, the side that we are usually debunking normally uses logical fallacies to back themselves up, most notably ad hominems, strawman, and appeal to ignorance. Also, they typically lack scientific data and observation to back their claims up. Of course, its one thing to know what they are, and another thing to know how actually use it correctly, and as such I recommend Carl Sagan's baloney detection here: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html This link provides a guide to being able to tell sound arguments from B.S. Being a skeptic does not necessarily mean denying everything. That may be, but those fossil fuels are re-introducing carbon that has been locked up for millions of years, and because of that it is throwing off the current balance of CO2. The current biosphere today isn't necessarily well adapted to those kind of levels, and it is uncertain if human life could adapt. Also, these sort of changes usually happen over thousands of years, and over that time period life is much more able to adapt. We on the other hand are changing the climate in a matter of decades, and that is what the big worry is. Well, we aren't exactly trying to keep everything in stasis though. Current conservation efforts are aimed at maintaining biodiversity, and anthropogenic global warming is kinda making that a lot more difficult. And, healthy ecologies correlate very strongly with healthy economies and better human health. You can read more about that here: http://www.undp.org/biodiversity/biodiversitycd/bioImport.htm I agree absolutely. We are currently trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels not only because of the damage it is causing, but also because they are running out very quickly as it is not a renewable resource. But, of course, there are others who do not want us to get rid of our dependence on oil.

Not really. At nano-scale sizes it is much easier to build power systems that are both hugely efficient and can last a much longer time. It is also possible to create nanobots that can act very much like living organisms too. The gray-goo scenario comes much more from programming fears than from the actual bots themselves. Of course, this would assume that the nano-bots would actually be that intelligent, and I don't think that would be possible.

I would have to agree that this teacher did go way over the line. However, I really don't know any more details other than what was stated in the recording. Regardless, many of the statements made by the teacher was libelous, to say the least, as well as stereotyped.

Though astrology does suggest that there is fate or destiny, the idea of fate or destiny itself does not necessarily come from, or is associated with, astrology.

so, what exactly is the point of this thread? It seems to me that this guy is afraid of science, which is understandable given the gross misinterpretations and misunderstandings of it out there. And he/she may have some sort of technophobia. And, no, we haven't exactly created an artificial life form....yet. Well, no, cancers that we suffer have existed long before we actually knew what they are. Radiation also existed long before we knew about it too, and most of it came right from the sun. However, nuclear weapons or nuclear processes happen to release lots of gamma rays just simply because of the laws of physics; it does not care whether or not it is any good for us. But, thanks to science, we know how to treat them, and what causes them. As for pollution, that wasn't necessarily the result of scientific research. That came more from fossil fuel emissions and our continued use of them (despite scientific research that very clearly shows that there are much better alternatives...) I don't know for sure about that one. Carbon emissions come from a wide variety of sources, not just humans. Granted, most of them now come from humans because of fossil fuels. But, I do know for sure that without scientific investigation, we probably wouldn't have known what killed the dinosaurs, nor would we have the capability of actually being able to prevent such an event, or survive it. ==================================== Science is a method that allows us to investigate the world so that we can know more about it. Technology is the application of science for that use; how we use it falls under ethics. Science, as everyone is saying, is amoral; it cares very little on how we use it, or if we even understand it. Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been better for us to remain in ignorant bliss, where, in those times, humans had average lifespans of ~35 years, where childbirth was risky and dangerous, where there was absolutely no way for us to get medical treatment, where people used up most of their energy just to stay alive, where society believed in total and utter nonsense that allowed them to oppress the less fortunate and easily manipulate the masses (or tribe), and where just about any major catastrophic event (such as asteroid impacts or super-volcanoes or exploding suns or major climate changes) could have wiped us out forever????

Say what?! He was asking for a source, as well as a description of it. What actually ended up happening was that you were doing was cherry picking data. The data you presented does NOT support your argument. And, it takes more than one little data point to support, you need a great deal of it. More along the lines of what we provided. Oh really? According to Greenpeace, there is no record of him ever having joined or have been part of it. On the contrary, he has a Ph.D in political science and works mostly on economic theories. You can see it right here on wikipedia, for those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomborg

I guess if we do a bit of math it will help put things in perspective. For starters, the sun is about 1.99 × 10^30 kg. About 70% or so of this is hydrogen. And the sun converts about 6.224x10^11 kg into energy via nuclear fusion every second, at present anyway. Now while that may seem like a lot, the mass of the sun is several orders of magnetude larger than what is being converted. If we do some math: (.7(1.99x10^30) kg)/6.224x10^11(kg/s) = 2.23 x 10^18 seconds = 7.097 x 10^10 years Now of course, just keep in mind that this calculation assumes all of the hydrogen is used up. The sun enters a red giant phase only when there is not enough left in the core. 5 more billion years or so is not an unreasonable estimate given the rate it burns up hydrogen compared with its mass. If you want to do calculations for the core, the core is about 40% of the sun's total mass. So, that gives 1.99x10^30 * .40 = 7.96x10^29 kg. Of course, if we assume the same ratio of hydrogen to helium in the core, that figure goes down to 5.572x10^29 kg. And given the rate at which it burns up its fuel: (5.572x10^29 kg) / (6.224x10^11 kg/s) = 8.95 x 10^17 seconds = 2.83 x 10^10 years. This is, of course, assuming the present rate and that all of it gets burned up. As it gets older, it will start to burn other things than hydrogen as its supply dwindles. So in light of this, 5 billion years is not an unreasonable estimate (rather, it is quite a low estimate as we have seen here).

What I'm wondering is if the systems that were looked at actually contained planets similar to Earth, or small rocky planets and bodies that are indeed colliding? The dust could be anything by the way, for all we know it might just be asteroids and comets.

True, but we can always round numbers to the nearest 100

Alright guys, back to the subject matter at hand; lets talk about web-scrolling and why it is vertical as opposed to horizontal. I would say something but I have no idea, and I really haven't thought about it as of yet.

Not really. Most electronic appliances, when bought, does have a label that states how much power in watt-hrs it requires. Same with lightbulbs. And n any case inefficient electricity use does show up in the bills. Of course, people with lots of money aren't necessarily going to care... I'm not sure how it was taught back in your day, but I'm pretty sure that most of the schools, colleges, media, etc. are being very aggressive about this. And yet, progress in this area is still as slow as ever. If anything, I find that this makes people even more cynical and less likely to believe it.

We missed you!!!

Yeah, I found that I didn't like some of the questions either. Some of the ones on free markets or women's rights were very clearly biased too. Also, on every political test I take I find that the result usually vary. But, all results usually hover around the dead center, which I find interesting. Yes, it is very interesting. Well, it helps explain why the average American can't really differentiate between candidates:rolleyes:

Yay! Semantic word games, let me play >:D": I've not read the Quran, does that make me unqualified to criticize their claims? I've also not read a whole bunch of other books and literature known to be false or very subjective, but does that mean that I can't criticize them based on their claims? You really only have to know what the claims are in order to criticize them. I'll break this into two parts 1) There were four people that criticized the book and, whatever affiliation these guys may have is 2) irrelevant. It doesn't matter if their environmentalists, the only thing that matters is if they are correct or have a strong case (meaning that they have scientific evidence to back them up). Well, actually, the critics happen to be environmental EXPERTS in the field, and it certainly shows. I don't think drastic measures need to be taken. I'm sure that if people did simple things such as turn off their lights when not in use, or recycle, or use their cars a little less often (or started buying hybrids or other cars that use alternative fuels), predictions wouldn't quite as dire. It is the everyday habits that are killing us, not necessarily the factories or power plants that rely on fossil fuels;). If people actually knew (or cared) what was going on, we could have this problem well under control and it would be much easier and faster to switch over to the newer, more efficient and improved technologies. But, they don't. I agree.

What about "spiritual" atheists, or theists who don't necessarily believe in the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/whatever God, or Buddhists, or, well, anybody who isn't part of the religious establishment but still believes in some sort of purpose? Just because they aren't religious in the traditional sense doesn't mean that those groups are necessarily more likely to commit suicide...

Unless they put the embryo or fetus in a frozen test tube, then yes, it is killing because it is technically alive. Yeah, pretty much. It seems to me that once they remove the religious part from it, there really is no good reason to be against abortion. It's not so much the killing of the cells that concerns them, but so much that it may have had a so-called soul (well, according to the Vatican anyways)... Go figure. I love these semantic games, especially the ridiculous euphurisms . ============================= Besides, sometimes an abortion is needed. After all, pregnancies have been known to actually kill or make the would be mother terminally ill. I know that happened to my mother before my sister was born. But, thank goodness for modern medicine .

Ok, I finally managed to load up my political spectrum:

Now then, lets see where you guys REALLY stand in on the political spectrum. This is how I tested: You can take the test here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It has about the same meaning as "conservative".

Ok, I'll be serious now. How about a feature that allows the membership to suspend annoying users and trolls if enough of them report their posts in a very short amount of time? This way we can stop them before they get very far.

Really? I found Fred56 particularly amusing, especially toward the end just before he got banned. Not quite as much as ATOMIKPSYCHO, I agree with you there.

Beautiful. What are you talking about? I addressed your (erronous) claim just fine. Your the one making a strawman here. And besides, I hate politics.

LOL! If you are curious, this is what he has been saying about you: From another science forum I saw. Explicit language has been censored. Looks like you specifically really pissed him off . Luckily for us, he claims that he will never return. EDIT: never-mind. Looks like he just got killed again. To be a loser that big has to take some talent.