ydoaPs

A synthetic marker matrix could no doubt be based on a culture of the recipient's cells, should this idea in any way be feasible.

That's what I'm talking about.

The immune system uses some sort of marker system(proteins for A, B, and +, for example) to determine what to attack and what belongs, right? Could we not replicate these markers and imbed them on whatever sterile plastic/metal of which an internal prosthesis is composed? In essence, I'm thinking something along this line could be used in tricking the body into recognizing the plastic appendage as its own rather than a foreign material.

Is it possible to create artificial cell markers? I was thinking that such a thing would be great for artificial hearts and the like. Iirc, recipients of artificial hearts have to take immunosuppressants. Would an artificial heart that the body thinks is its own relieve that need?

Honestly, if you think something that occurs one time in a billion isn't likely to occur at least once given a hundred trillion opportunities, it's a waste of my time to talk to you.

Based on clear moral superiority, I've found the one True religion. All others are manifestly false. "Be excellent to each other"-Bill & Ted

Not at all. Take a statistics class.

Try showing some that are beyond the imagination of the men of the period the images were made. The basic 'men of the sky' religion is a product of a known function of our neocortex. Nothing impressive has been shown in this thread.

Every few years, all the cells in your body have been changed out. Does that mean you have been replaced?

If Pons and Fleischman can do it, so can the North Koreans!

I routinely split atoms. How much more power do you need?

"Moreover, I took some measurements, and my mom barely sits halfway around the house! I'm starting to suspect you're not an entirely reliable source on these matters!" --Xkcd (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC) ^full of win

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malamanteau This is the latest talk page I've seen that seems to indicate a bias against(or even, to some extent, hatred toward) xkcd. Is this dislike warranted? In either case, that talk page is hilarious. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voynich_manuscript There's another example.

What isn't a baseless opinion on the subject? There's nothing to research, ffs.

And here I thought that was the alcoholism.

We've only been here for 6. SFN didn't exist before me.

Emphasis mine.

We've deleted it several times a week for some time now. The staff has decided to let us have fun with it this time.

Grape bubble gum

I thought ounce was volume.

If the universe was such that there was life unlike us, would they not marvel at how the universe was finely tuned for them? The universe has billions of galaxies with billions of stars in each galaxy. No matter how unlikely life is, it is likely given that many opportunities.

What happened to the goats on fire?

I think the YEC may possibly have a point for once. In non-YEC Christianity, how does 'The Fall' work? Was man just always in a sinful state of being. If so, what is the point of the genesis fable?

Here's an article I wrote for UrbanPhilosophy incorporating some of the above sleep-deprived ranting: I should let you know now that this article is going to be very informal. I'm going to go an objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument and an objection to said objection. Before my objections, I should take a moment to review the argument itself. Craig describes it as follows: It should be abundantly clear that his objection to this objection boils down to argument from ridicule. The example he cites is an example of something being made rather than created. Even if we grant him this, it really misses the point of the objection. Sure you can say that there was a cause that created the current state of affairs by manipulating pre-existing matter. If we take creating to mean making things out of pre-existing matter, then the cause could easily be reduced to some physical property of the universe. Depending on when you define the creation, the cause could be the supernova that created our star since, as Sagan says, we are all made of star stuff. But, wait, aren't we arguing for the cause of the universe itself? In fact, that's what Mr Craig is arguing for. He's arguing for things being created out of nothing. Where do we see that happening? Craig like to point to the Big Bang, but he seems to miss the fact that the Big Bang starts with a highly dense lump of matter already existing. Craig is just pushing the problem back. Kalam isn't an argument about making things from pre-existing things; Kalam is about creation ex nihilo. The point of the objection is that nothing(on the large or small scale) is created, but is rather made of things which already existed. These are two different phenomena and as such are not interchangeable. Craig's objection to this objection is advocating what Craig himself said makes theology irrelevant. Making something and creating something are vastly different ball games, and the first premise only applies to one way to 'begin to exist.' It should be manifest as to why. As far as I can tell, causality only applies to things which already exist(or whose constituents already exist as composite objects are made by shifting other objects). One group of interacting particles interacts with another causing something to happen. Sometimes these interactions combine the parent objects to make the daughter object. If something(or that from which it is composed, as all that creation of composite objects requires is re-arranging pre-existing objects) doesn't exist, how can it be acted upon? It seems that for something to be caused to exist via creation, it must already exist. How does one cause a non-existent thing to do something? If I kick a non-existent puppy, will it still feel pain? If I drop a non-existent ball, will it still bounce? For something to be acted upon, it must first exist. Only those things which begin to exist by being made require(or can even rationally have) a cause. Regardless of Mr Craig's personal incredulity and appeal to ridicule, the objection is still valid. And the ad hom really wan't necessary.