Reaper

Don't try to cop out. If that was not what you meant, then you should have been much more clear and/or more concise with your choice of words, because I took it to mean something else. There is a vast difference between the statements "Emotion has NOTHING to do with science", and "In such-and-such case/situation, emotion doesn't apply" or some other equivalent statement. The former is an over generalization (especially since you placed special emphasis on the word "nothing"), while the latter specifies when the statement applies or holds. I was not trying to give JohnB a way out, and don't you accuse me of not paying attention because anybody here can plainly see that I am. Being corrected is not an insult, and my response was never intended as such.

I'm not changing the subject, I was just pointing out a situation in which your statement was false.

Interesting. We may yet be able to actually describe what happens before the big bang. So, from my understanding of the article, does this model here suggest that the universe is constantly expanding and contracting in (virtually)never ending cycles? And if so, would it even be possible to determine the properties of the "previous" universe? It seems to me that this theory is suggesting that at the so-called singularity, all information about the state of the universe before and after the big bang either pinches off or is suppressed somehow, in which case we are still back at the question "What did happen at or before the Big Bang?"

I'm glad Glider wasn't my psychologist. That depends on how it is used and in what context you are using it in. In psychology, emotion has everything to do with science.

Quoted for truth. What makes it even more irritating is the fact that the evidence is right in their face, and yet they pretend that it doesn't exist.

I was beginning to wonder why everyone around me was so boring .

I didn't know you were diabetic. But then there are lots of things I don't know about you anyway . Physicists rule!

There are, but it depends on the sample. The main problems with intelligence tests is that: 1) Cultural based. 2) Its easy to design a test that favors a particular group. 3) The older a person is, the less valid the tests are. 4) Different environments affect the test outcome. As for genetics, its not clear which genes are responsible, but there are indications that a large number of genes and a significant percentage (some estimates are as high as 40%) of the human genome is a determining factor for intelligence. DNA differences between both sexes and races are, if I remember correctly, less than 1%. The difference between the male and female is the y-chromosome. They differ by about 200 grams. Even though the male brain is larger, the female brain has more densely packed neurons. The actual difference between the two in terms of intelligence, or even types for that matter, is mostly insignificant. What is significant however is that there are many more males that score in both the extreme highs and the extreme lows then females.

I like Kim Peek, he's not a scientist though. Scientists: Penrose Einstein Feynman Tesla

It's one thing to not know anything, but stupidity really isn't based on how much one knows. The person who admits he/she doesn't know anything is much smarter than the person who thinks he/she does. By that logic, it is someone's fault that they are stupid (even if they don't know it or won't admit that they are indeed stupid), and therefore they deserve no sympathy. So yeah, I'm that kind of person. I laugh at everyone who has a Darwin award, I get a kick out of watching people getting into trouble because of their own stupid actions, I sneer at people who behave rather unintelligently, I love to watch and laugh at people on youtube getting owned all the time, etc. I, for one, fully support Blike. It is a very good and very funny thread.

It's just sticks and stones.... besides I have no sympathy for airheads.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427730/?GT1=10357 According to this article, a pilot and a few crew members were fired for carrying nukes in their B-52 bomber over several states. They were supposed to remove the bombs before hand, but they did not and they flew off. As it turns out, nobody knew why they were mounted in the first place, especially since

How is anybody this stupid?

The American dumbass never ceases to amaze me (I mean the general public, not the kids). I wonder how they were able to get away with this...

Are you sure about that? Last I checked it was in the trillions. The inflated gas prices are due to the war. I don't know about the details of TennCare, but my feeling is that the Federal government isn't going to do it adequately, since it's on such a huge scale. As for taxes, the money has to come from somewhere, but as you noted people just aren't willing to pay for it. Currently, we get so much taken out from the federal taxes and it still isn't enough to pay for what we already have (Roads, schools, etc).

It's about time!

I know she's not that bright but, I really have to ask.....who cares? The Youtube video makes for a good laugh. But now that the national media is jumping all over this and spending a bunch of time and resources on it (something that is rather insignificant by the way), it kinda makes you wonder to what extent that it is her fault that she is like that, and to what extent is influenced by our anti-intellectual culture.

Yes, panspermia is specific to life, not water. It is the hypothesis that life came to this planet via space; more specifically that the materials for life are moving around, or formed, in space and crash into planets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia This gives rise to the possibility that life could have started at several planets at once, or that life could have begun else where in the solar system and crash landed here. ------------------------------------------------------------ I do find the discovery by Spitzer quite interesting. As the article noted, it gives clues to how water settles throughout the solar system and impact how the planets would have evolved.

And it would take a stupendous amount of energy to achieve every single time. We already have a way to turn lead into gold via nuclear power. But as we all know it is not economically feasible. ----------------------------------------------------- Cold fusion right now is in the fringes and is comparable to snake oil.

I took the time to read further into the book, and I like how detailed he is in describing past theories and the mathematics behind them. So far, it seems like a textbook. He dedicates the first few hundred pages to mathematics, and even gives exercises. Before I read this book, I used to think I was well informed or had a decent knowledge of physics and science in general. You get that illusion when you are surrounded by people who don't know much about it to begin with, especially my age group (teens).

I never actually read this book, but I saw quite a few favorable reviews for it on Amazon so I'll get it as soon as I gain a few more dollars in my wallet. I would have to agree though that people are so focused into strings that they forget that there are other avenues that can, and should, be pursued.

I'm all for it, but I'm thinking that with our national debt on the rise it might not work as well as we like. IMO, it would be much better if it was on the state level, rather then the national level. Don't forget that your state also has responsibilities too, rather than depending so much on the federal government (which is getting increasingly corrupt).

It's not really attributed to any one person, but it was a topic that was literally fiercely debated among priests, scholars, and other intellectuals of the Catholic Church during the middle ages. St. Thomas Aquinas was one of them. It was more of a question about the nature of spirituality, as far as I understand it. Regardless, it was pretty irrational and not really reasonable. The subject was eventually dropped simply because there was no way they could apply reason or logic to the argument. Basically, there was no way to prove anything and it was based on individual opinion. Unicorn dust? This I gotta see.

Well, some places are certainly "humane", if such a thing is possible. But there have been reports of animal abuse in slaughterhouses, especially revolving around conditions in which they kept. Not all factories keep them in ideal conditions, it costs a lot of money to do so. So we import and outsource a lot of our ingredients and food where regulations are either lax or virtually non-existent. Also, what you see on TV is most likely what they want you to see. Otherwise, you can only make the conditions so good; the animals are raised with the intention of getting slaughtered, whether they are grown in a factory or a ranch. Most people get a little squeamish around that fact.

Sorry, should have been more clear. I meant an era/place in time in human history.