Brainteaserfan

Are you suppose to do your paper on more than one energy source then?

So does wind make you feel cooler because it removes the heat that your body has just expelled?

What does that have to do with anything? I don't understand why my pic (of chess pieces) isn't displaying with my posts (or doesn't on my computer).

I would suggest that you just google nuclear energy process, nuclear power, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, etc, read the first several links and google anything you don't understand. There are several topics here on nuclear power, just search for nuclear. I would include the ratio of power produced to the number of recorded deaths for the top several producers of electricity. (there are links in topics here if you have trouble). Here's a start: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students.html

I think what scares people is that once in a rare while, there are nuclear disasters that may kill people in the vicinity and injure more. In coal, it may be less healthy for those around, but as far as I can recall, most coal accidents are in mining. The miners sort of signed up for what they knew was dangerous; those around a nuke plant didn't.

I think that I am equally distracted with music, the radio, a podcast, or talking on the phone.

umm.... Men throw away people too. Ever hear of abortion? The other part seems that it could be paraphrased, "why would a loving God punish people". You've said this numerous times already in many different posts. We concluded that we had different definitions of the word punish. I'll include the definition from merriam webster. 1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation 2 a : to deal with roughly or harshly b : to inflict injury on : hurt intransitive verb : to inflict punishment

Maybe search the weather, and seismic activity for the day. That's what I was thinking. However, I didn't see anything unusual in the quick check that I did of those.

I think that it is sad that they have gone this far. Naturally, boys and girls want to play with different toys, different books, different games etc. Why would they try to force this on these little children? Yes, I obviously agree with giving both genders an equal opportunity in education, jobs, and the like, but too often, I see various historically male dominated professions like engineering, actually giving away scholarships and the like based on race and gender. That's just reverse discrimination and needs to stop. An African-American scholarship fund should not be allowed to exist IMO. People may say, "gays are born that way", but even if they are, don't they think that most are born properly?! They shouldn't force that on us. Let these little children decide for themselves in ~12 years.

No, they don't amount to the same thing. Karma: 1. (in Hinduism and Buddhism) The sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences. 2. Destiny or fate, following as effect from cause. Soul: 1. The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. (source: googled define "karma" and define "soul") IMO, the soul is the part of you that is not physical. Edit: Well said Marat (in 1st paragraph of the next post).

Rarely do experiments/tests/proofs get reported that go along with already existing theories. Sadly, the small percentage that don't, even if false, are usually turned into headlines. To me, that is not good for science. It makes it look unreliable.

I am by no means an expert in this area, but doesn't Ceravision make plasma lights too? http://www.ceravisio...ge/alvara-range http://en.wikipedia....lasma_.28HEP.29

Not according to the Christian God. The only way, according to the Bible, to God and heaven, is through Jesus Christ, because otherwise, our record would add up to an overall "negative".

The scientific method definition is: A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. I suppose that you could put your humans eating food example a little into that, but I seriously doubt that they would have gone through and thought that out. However, the definition of science is: 1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Given that, you would use the results of the scientific method to explain the "physical and natural world" for something to be called science. So, IMO, IF, early humans did this (although I believe that God created A and E knowing what to eat), then they did use the scientific method, but they didn't do science. Moontanman, right now I don't have time to discuss this with you; but I'll be back later (and maybe in a different thread).

Yes, I'm game. I don't know how much time I'll have to discuss it though. I mean a nation based on conservative Christian Principles, that promotes Christianity, but that elects leaders and does not force people to be Christian. The way that I use the quote function is that I reply to someone, and then push add post, and then reply to the next person and push add reply. Then the system automatically combines your post as long as nobody else has posted.

IMO, it is a bad law. Here's why. When I see people drive, I see that some do fine while talking, and others don't. My dad can NOT be on the phone, or engage in a deep discussion, while he is driving or there are approx 3 wrong turns for every right 1! If some people then are distracted, then the law should also not allow hands-free devices. Secondly, I think that 95% of laws are useless because nobody can possibly learn all of our laws. Maybe some common sense should be used in our court cases. IMO, this falls into the 95%, partly because I have never seen it enforced, although I see many cars on the road who have drivers holding cellphones - even policecars! (was too slow pulling out the cam though.)

This is what is IMO, a very well done economic video. These actors have done several videos. What do you all think of it?

I think that the f. father's separated church and state was because they were trying to form a democracy that would mold to the beliefs of the majority. As for scripture being taken out of context, well, since the first one I saw was 1 Sam 15:23, I'll use that. On the free thought site it uses part of this verse, quoting, "for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft". Now maybe that was what God really meant, but I have far more often heard it meaning rebellion against the Lord, because Samuel was talking to Saul, who had sinned. Here is some context. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. 24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. As for religious nations failing to promote free belief, has there ever been a Christian democracy? I am very happy with my country, and I understand why many want the separation. I would only want no separation in a country where we all had similar, Christian, beliefs. IMO, we are going in circles now around the main issue and can't seem to agree on the main point, so I am done in this topic. Also, moontanman, although this may have become a little heated, I want to tell you that I'd very much agree with almost every post I've seen you make on this forum, this topic included, ......if I didn't have such strong feelings about Christianity.

You can have a religious government that doesn't force people to worship a certain way. Why would a non-Christian site trumpet the fact that most of those mentioned claimed to be Christian? In the sites you posted, they took scripture out of context, and I didn't see any showing percentage polls or anything. In one, it shows the Tripoli document. Certainly, that is some good evidence. However, IMO, the US was simply lying in order to gain the Muslim's favor. When that treaty was later renewed, that article was dropped. ..... Ok now I've done a bit of research. The % of Christian founding fathers is closer to 90%. The Tripoli treaty was signed under Johm Adams, who said that Hell didn't exist, and that a perfect world would have no religion. This link is, (at not to obviously), not biased. http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm

No, I am not saying that a religious government is good (although I believe it is). I am saying however that it is legal according to the US founding documents. Which part of the following leads you to believe that some were not theists? ...there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following: - signed the Declaration of Independence - signed the Articles of Confederation - attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 - signed the Constitution of the United States of America - served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791) - served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more. Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers -- # of Founding Fathers -- % of Founding Fathers Episcopalian/Anglican -- 88 -- 54.7% Presbyterian-- 30-- 18.6% Congregationalist-- 27-- 16.8% Quaker-- 7 --4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed-- 6 --3.7% Lutheran-- 5-- 3.1% Catholic-- 3-- 1.9% Huguenot --3 --1.9% Unitarian-- 3 --1.9% Methodist-- 2 --1.2% Calvinist-- 1 --0.6% TOTAL-- 204

Where I live, it is illegal to talk on the cellphone while driving if you are not using a hands-free device. Is this a good law? Curious to see what you think.

If 100% of those who wrote the founding documents claimed to be Christian, then don't you think that they might just be referring to the Christian God?

Something like this was in the US news recently. Remember the Quran burning pastor? Whether it was right or not doesn't matter, but the American media made it out like he was costing American soldiers' lives in afghanistan. By your (correct) logic, it was the people who killed the soliders fault that they died, not the pastor's fault!

Actually, the US is not prohibited by law from promoting a religion. The founding documents guarantee freedom of religion, which is completely different from not lawfully promoting Christianity. In recent revisions of the pledge of allegiance, God is mentioned "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." and in founding documents http://blog.mlive.com/citpat_opinion/2007/11/founding_documents_do_mention.html?mobRedir=false

Actually, I think that the biggest problems are those when the language has changed over the years and there is no record of the original meaning.