dichotomy

What? MDs & PhDs don't immunize one against irrational thought!

Silent running and Westworld are relatively plausible.

with every assumption, there is a risk. There needs to be a war on fear. As far as religious collectives at war with science (and opposing philosophies), I think there is quite a bit of strong evidence about. As far as scientific collectives, societies, 'stone cutters', being at war with religion and the belief in deities, I haven't seen a lot of strong evidence to point to this, only a handful of active individuals. I think there is and has always been wars by various religious groups on science, generally out of ignorance, irrational fear, and the loss of personal control and status. Of course, some science can and does displace power. I think politics spins science to help it’s various outcomes, with both positive and negative community impacts. Politicians are also unnecessarily fearful of loss of status and control when certain new technologies are pushing for public release. The home PC and internet come to mind here. I think the mass media compacts and sensationalises (and in doing so, unintentionally provides incorrect information) science to boost it’s ratings, in order to grow it’s advertising revenue. In general the commercial media has no interest in providing accurate and easy to understand science information. And on this point, I think it is absolutely vital to have a U.N. type science media distribution organisation (a hub) that makes its business to make all highly probable science findings easy to understand (from pre-school student level on), interesting, accurate and non-sensational. The great thing about science is that any political or religious (or both) group that puts a stop to scientific discovery, is also putting a stop to their own thoughts of global domination. So we see here that science will progress in even the harshest of human environments. Historically we can see this. Science will progress due to man’s ancient need for control. Religion and armies are the two obvious forms of control. Science is pretty much immune to full/permanent control by political and religious groups, because it help both to remain in control. Also, to the moderator that re-titled this poll as 'against religion'. It's more accurate titled as science against a belief in dieties, gods, mythical beings etc. Or, those who believe in gods against science. Not religion as such. I think religion doesn't necessarily need a belief in a diety, or other mythical figure. cheers.

Thanks for post #67 SPYMAN. Good stuff.

Ok, then could they be stars reforming as smaller stars, or planets forming from scratch? Are they proven to be collapsed stars? Or, is this speculation?

Q23. Could black holes in space simply be new stars forming? Is there a theory relating to this? Q24. Are black holes just mind bogglingly large, 'off the scales' space hurricanes?

An individual's perception of if there is a war, 'of sorts', occurring between science and religion: Is science at war with the belief in deities? Is religion at war with science? Is the war secret, clandestine, underground? Is there a war? Has the 'war' been on-going since alchemy was recognised? I did rushed the poll a little. Does this help? I'm just interested in peoples perceptions here. There is no right or wrong. cheers

Individual perceptions.

Okay, you get the following from your post - stop tops pots errr? is there anything else I'm missing?

I'm not sure these are actually beautiful. I'd say more spectacular, amazing, fascinating more than beautiful. IMO, beauty relates back to the desirable qualities of the opposite sex, as a rule. Maybe white, fluffy, smooth and rounded clouds are beautiful, for obvious reasons.

In light of Dawkins' recentish high profile attacks on YE OLDIE GODS. Is there a relatively current, and growing energy, within the science community to step up attacks, in order to attempt to extinguish the belief in deities once and for all?

This makes sense. And it's a solid theory IMO. Thanks.

Or, other natural events could do this for us - virii, bacteria, super volcanos, comets. Of course, we could always take over the galaxy and then destroy ourselves.

If what you are asking is, what subjective loss/gain of IQ and EQ is caused by money, in two individuals of comparable IQ and EQ. I would say objectively, none. And subjectively, the individual's own mind dictates what loss/gain is achieved.

Am I correct in saying that the smaller a life form is, the better probability it has of surviving by evolving to suit the newly emerging environments? As well as a sudden, or, rapidly changed environment? I speculate that humans and other megafauna of the present, will paint themselves into a corner, like the megafauna of the Jurassic period eventually did. This cycle will repeat itself with the physically smaller species evolving into the new megafauna of the future. I’m sure this has been speculated at some point, probably by a guy with a beard . Of course, I'm interested in what thoughts others may have.

I'll take a stab. Possibly spirulina, blue-green algae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirulina_%28dietary_supplement%29

Resulting in what? Two stars that just stop in space while everything nearby enough orbits them? Cheers.

So , 2 identical stars could orbit each other, no matter how close they where?

I supppose what I'm getting at is if there where two identically massed stars within the one binary star system, and near enough to each other , then i'd think they could not orbit around each other. They'd have to collide, bounce, explode or something else wouldn't they? My basis for this assumption is that smaller objects must orbit larger ones in a solar system. Q22. In theory, can water alone be pressurized to the point of being able to 'cut' diamond? I’d imagine in reality a harder than diamond material would be required for the nozzle of a water jet cutter. The diamond nozzles used by water jets require periodic replacement due to water wearing them out, so logically this seems possible, in theory.

sorry, I don't mean to be too jarring. But if you read what you have just written, you will see that this is fantasy land stuff. "Every single pitbull owner", this is pure theory and perfect world stuff, it would not stand up in the real world. But I do understand your point from a theoretical perspective. True, but if people can't tackle the 'little' problems, how do they deal with the large scale ones? It's like the wearing of seat belt laws that where introduced in the 70's. Many people thought it was a waste of time, a joke. But stat's show seatbelts as being quite worth while. Maybe compulsory muzzles for powerful dogs (over 12 to 15kg) might be a good compromise?

So, the core doesn't become liquid metal because the rest of the earth acts as a heat sink of sorts?

Agreed, but just not within a human populated environment. It is just not worth the risk. Is this the old 'if it (a savaging) doesn't happen to anyone I know, or myself, then it doesn't matter at all routine?

I dunno, my dad had a "well owned" boxer when I was a kid. A friend of the family (6-7 year old) accidentally stood on the boxer's foot. It reflex snapped and bit him on the cheek just under his eye, splitting the cheek open. He still has a large scar today. I would hate to think what a Pitbull could do in this situation.

I think fashion generally is more about human boredom with aesthetics, than with a cultural delusion, or daydream. People have, for quite some time, craved for fashion, design, architectural, etc, change for the sake of change. Obviously we could live quite well and without a problem if we all dressed in blue overalls, or just practically (not fancily) for an environment. Fashions are just, well, nice, but not a true necessity. I think delusion comes into it when you see someone dressed like an outlaw biker for example. The delusion is – I’m tough, nothing can beat me, I will fight to the death, I’m immortal. When of course, in reality, they are as frail as you and me. Or, an overweight middle aged woman, dressed like she is a 17 year old love goddess, in skin tight jeans and top, for example.

Yep, and there are countless stories of other dog breeds doing exactly the same thing. The main point from my perspective is that any physically powerful dog is capable of causing more damage than the smaller breeds. The pitbull, like other breeds of 'pit' dogs, is specifically bred for its physical capability to inflict the most major damage in the shortest amount of time that it can to an opponent. So really, people should choose the dog that is most appropriate to their environment. Pitbulls belong in pits, and possibly for hunting purposes as a pig dog. They are not for walking through human population centres.