LucidDreamer

If you are going to insist on using random comments from scientists, often taken out of context, as evidence then by the same rationale all of the comments or opinions of scientists about evolution would also be considered evidence. So taking all of the scientists today we find an overwhelming consensus in favor of the existence of evolution, which by using your criteria of evidence, evolution is proven. Is it your assertion that evolutionary scientists don't believe in evolution or only the smart ones don't believe in evolution? Most scientists have no interest in the historical accuracy of the bible at all. If you are going to compare two scientific models, such as evolution and creationism, then you must compare them only as scientific models and leave out the religion. No one believes that there were billions of people on the Earth until very recently, including creationists. While it is true that an Atheistic belief system requires a non-deity based origin it is also true that some theistic belief systems require the absence of evolution and the existence of a creationist's model. Although Atheism basically requires evolution, theism doesn't necessarily require one to believe in either creationism or evolution even though some religious leaders or doctrines insist otherwise. There are many people, including scientists, who both believe in evolution and a God and who are not desperate to prove anything. How would you account for their beliefs?

I was thinking I might look at the creationist web sites and email one who seems to know what he is talking about. Either that or I will just go to the forums until I find someone who makes good creationist arguments. I don't have a big academic name or anything so I couldn't get a well-known creationist to argue with, but I would like to get someone who has at least spent a little time studying it and who is capable of making it an interesting debate. Maybe I'll even get beat. I would rather take on someone a bit above my level than someone who doesn't know Cambrian from Canada.

In a month or so when I have more time I’m going to find a creationist “scholar” and have a nice long debate about creationism and evolution. I will try to get him to agree to host it on this forum. I'm tired of arguing with people who don't have a clue and I would like to find someone who really knows their stuff to debate it.

I think your misunderstanding what I meant. The point is to try a risky cancer drug on someone who is desperately ill with cancer instead of risking the life of a healthy scientist.

I think the real problem is that Americans are not relating to the Democratic party. People know what a check in the mail from the government is. That combined with a war that is not going as smoothly as possible but its been well-represented by the Republicans plus peoples memory of 9/11. Alot of people actually believe that we went to Iraq to free the Iraqi people from tyranny and spread the God-blessed version of democracy. And don't forget the big check in the mail. Plus the economy isn't doing that badly, given the circumstances. [sarcasm] So what are the democrats offering me? Stop the deficit? Does that mean that they are going to raise taxes and take away the money that Mr. Bush gave us? And what exactly is the deficit anyway? A government sponsored health program? The government only manages to fiddle away all the money I give it now. Why would this health care program be any different? What about individual rights? The only people that are loosing rights are terrorists anyway so what do I care? The war? Mr. Kerry didn't say he was going to do anything different; he only said something about doing it better. What about all this liberal save the environment, save the poor people, save the starving foreign people? I care about my family, not some starving man in Eugobligostan. Just sounds like an excuse to raise taxes anyway. Besides, Bush is a God-fearing man who talks to God everyday while Kerry is a baby-killing, gay-loving weirdo.[/sarcasm]

They are currently trying to extract DNA, but it has not been proven genetically where exactly Flores Man fits in. However, there are a number of structural differences of Flores Man that do not match any species. The most dramatic difference is the cranium size, which would only allow for a brain about 1/3 the size of our own. Brain volume (cm3) Avg body mass (kg) Brain vol / body mass (cm3/kg) Pan paniscus 343 35 9,8 Pan troglodytes 395 45 8,8 Gorilla 505 105 4,8 A. africanus 420 36 11,7 P. robustus 502 36 13,9 H. ergaster 804 58 13,9 H. erectus 950 57 16,7 H. neanderthalensis 1512 76 19.9 H. sapiens (overall) 1350 53 25,5 H. sapiens (Pygmy) 900 30 30,0 H. floresiensis 380 30 12.6 http://redrival.com/evolusi/humevol5.htm http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/homo_floresiensis

The issue here is island dwarfing, which primarily deals with large herbivorous mammals living on islands that tend to shrink in size over the generations. opps, you beat me to it.

Talk origins always has some good stuff: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ This site is very anti-Christian for some reason, but it has some good evolution articles: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/index.htm Here is another good one with lots of articles: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoContents.html http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

Who are they (kidding about Blair)? We hardly pay any attention to anything else in the world unless we see potential in interfering. We are quite fond of blowing things up too, but it gets messy to clean up so we like to play in other countries.

You Americans are a bunch of nutters. (I just want to pretend that I live in another country for awhile so don't burst my bubble)

That quiz is designed so that an unrepresentative amount of people score Libertarian.

I just can't see a hominid evolving into a less intelligent species. I think it's more likely that they evolved a more efficient, space-saving and energy-efficient brain. Homo sapiens have a great degree of redundancy in their brains and it’s likely that Homo erectus had some redundancy as well. This redundancy might be sacrificed before the intellectual capability. If there was a lack of food resources on the island then there were pressures. A hominid’s intelligence is the only thing he has going for him so I don't see him loosing his only asset. Then again perhaps they did loose intelligence. Maybe the island was a paradise that provided all of their needs except for those pesky komodo dragons that hunted them. Maybe this hominid re-gained the ability to live in trees to escape the dragons. Since a small stature is advantageous for climbing trees he shrank and because he no longer roamed around vast areas of wilderness, coming in contact with many predators, challenges, other tribes, and species of hominids, he lost certain kinds intellectual abilities in that he no longer needed in favor of energy efficiency. He probably kept the kinds that he did actually use. We won't know until we gather more data and get a little more time to think it over.

. Exactly. Once again the whole world has gone crazy. Let's put aside partisanship for a moment if that's possible. What are Osama's goals? His goals are to ignite the Muslim people to carry out a jihad and create more terrorism. You asked earlier if I (or someone who thinks as I do about this issue) believe that Bush's tactics are supporting his goals: my answer is yes. An Arab country that was once firmly under the control of a secular dictator is now in the midst of a "civil war" where terrorism and religious fanaticism reigns supreme. As long as the fanatical Muslim terrorists have the motivation to keep fighting the religious-based guerilla war will continue. Osama believes that the will of his followers to fight will outlast America's determination to stabilize Iraq and turn it into a secular democracy. He knows that as long as the infidels practice imperialism and occupy an Arab country his followers will have the will to continue to fight and his religious jihad will continue. He believes that the Muslims, who are the chosen people, have been mistreated by the western infidel world and its time for the chosen people to rise up against its oppressors. He believes that the root of power of the western world comes from Satan and therefore if his people are destined to overcome us. It's his job as a pseudo-prophet to ignite the Muslim world and wake it from its Satan-induced slumber and fight the infidels. This can only be accomplished through strife and any amount of persecution of the Muslims by the infidels only serves to promote his cause by igniting the Muslims and winning more followers. Fanatical Muslims are strengthened by strife and persecution because their religion, the way it is taught by the fanatical sects, teaches that the secular non-Muslim world is evil and wishes to destroy the holy people, but Allah loves his holy people and will strengthen them to overcome and greatly reward those who fight for him. Their world is a world of violence so violence only makes them stronger. Osama would continue his holy Jihad against the West regardless of who wins the election but an American president that practices diplomacy and tries to solve the problems with the Arab countries without the use of violence would only pacify the Muslim people and reduce the will to carry out the Jihad. He has learned that Bush's tactics involve the use of heavy force and violence, which only serves his purpose. He believes that if Bush is reelected that he will continue his heavy-handed tactics and that Bush can easily be provoked in to more violence. This continued persecution of the Muslims would only secure their will to continue the Jihad. The majority of the political commentaries have predicted that Osama's speech will swing the vote in favor of Bush. It's crazy to believe that Osama would not have been aware that his speech would have that effect. I believe there are probably other reasons for why Osama released that tape, but this post is long enough already.

Of course it is also possible to introduce a drug that will cause a beneficial effect, and theoretically there doesn't have to be disease present. This seems to be alot more difficult because of the complexity, interelatedness, and the fragile homeostasis of the body.

Does anyone else think that our whole world has gone insane?

I think that YT has proven, without a doubt, that he is a valuable contributor to this forum.

lol. Looks like someone should have spent more time on the creation of their hoax.

Yes, they have a skull with a cranium where the bones are completely fused and several teeth that are worn. I believe some of the teeth come from a skull that is fused. The fact that there is a skull with a fused cranium, worn teeth, and the remains from 7 other individuals is good evidence that these individuals are not children or freaks. Also I believe that they can estimate the age of the other bones by the wear and tear, but like you said the bones are "mushy." Also they have evidence that Flores man was on the island for hundreds of thousands of years (I believe) so its possible that we have just found a family of eight dwarfs on an island, but remember Homo sapien dwarfs don't have radically diminished cranial capacities and islands are known to “dwarf”(different kind of dwarfing) large mammals.

That comment cannot be justified. I'm assuming that he meant to say that we should have been more aware of the possibility of an attack, given certain aspects of our foreign policy.

Faster than a speedy turtle.

You have to compare the effectiveness of laetrile to the effectiveness of the other cancer drugs. If you really want to prove your point and get the word out about this you must really examine the research and write a report. That is the only way to settle this. Otherwise this is just going to be another example of quackery in the eyes of the scientific community.

Of course the other scenario is that Osama is just being a terrorist. He has already concluded that the foreign policy won't change whether Bush or Kerry is elected so he specifically chose this time during the election--not because he is trying to influence the election but because we believe that our government can protect us from harm if we just make the right decisions. He wants us to feel like we are never safe and that our decisions on how to fight terrorism won't affect our outcome and keep us from harm. He wants us to feel like the only way we can be safe is to bow down to his demands. Terrorist leaders are master brain washers so this is not a stretch. Of course for this plan to work so that we are really terrorized he must show that he actually has the power to strike at us. And he must attack the American people on their homeland--an attack on foreign land won't do it. And he must attack within a certain time period from the release of the video. He knows that he will appear impotent if an attack does not follow his threat so he must either be desperate or he must be confident that the attack will succeed.

Osama is a Bush supporter. He knows that this will swing the vote in favor of Bush. Why else would he do this now? Since Osama is more in favor of promoting terrorism and making the terrorists organizations stronger than anyone on the planet I would have to conclude that he believes that Bush will make the terrorist organizations stronger. He would know more than anyone which president will make terrorism worse and his organization stronger so I am now more certain than ever, given the present information, that Bush is more dangerous than Kerry and that Kerry will do a better job of eliminating terrorism. What do you guys think?

Ah, then as the others have pointed out N2 is rather inert. Also, animals do not produce the enzymes to use it in the capacity that oxygen is used. If we had a set of enzymes that used the gas N2 then we would see more of an effect (ignoring NO and other non N2 nitrogen-based reactions).