john5746

Did you mention that 25% of black voters in North Carolina admitted that race was an issue?

Give me a break. The "bitter" comment, which is a big reason why those "racist" blue collar whites are not voting for him. Not throwing Wright under the bus until he personally attacked Obama. Hillary beat Obama in most if not all the one-on-one debates. Ask him about reducing the capital gains tax and I bet he still cannot field it properly - will say "but its not fair" You would be adding this to Hillary's delusion if she had said it. But Obama says it and then there is a thread about distractions.

Possible evidence that rats at least are aware of what they don't know, which some humans still struggle with: http://www.newsweek.com/id/35401/page/1 I am constantly amazed at the abilities of animals. I think the main separation is the complexity of our language. Maybe the crow only thinks in pictures, but something is going on in that little head.

And you don't think Obama or McCain will do the same? Yeah right.

hmmm... I don't know let's see. Maybe she wants to shoot Obama. Or Maybe she was reminding people that the democratic race was still in contention when Robert Kennedy was assasinated in June. You can decide.

We had to deal with the Russians, they were as strong as we were. Similar to trading with China but not Cuba. There is more fear of extreme Islam, because it suggests the leaders(or some terrorist band) may be willing to do something irrational, but Iran wasn't as careless as Saddam and seems to be more caring about their populace than the rodent in N. Korea.

This new Microsoft search deal is more marketing than anything else. It is geared to commerce, where the majority of revenues are generated. It should make some impact and Google will probably come up with a similar scheme eventually, which should lower the costs of doing business. I think it is a good thing, but I will stick with Google as well.

Your welcome, no problem. I haven't looked into it much, but I am skeptical. If we took an IQ test from say 1950, I doubt that the results would be skewed that much better than those from the 50's. Something like that should be done instead of assuming that the cummalative differences between each normalization period can be applied.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/QBrain.htm Thought this was interesting and maybe applicable. Some wiggle room for QM in the brain, but primarily not a QM machine. I feel.....uncertain about all this.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn_pr.html This article discusses the "Flynn effect". IQ tests are normalized something like once a decade, so he used that data to find that students were performing better on IQ tests. The explanation proposed in this article is that as society changed from Farming->Industrial->Technical so did the leisure time and the activities during that leisure time.

Too much media with apparently nothing better to do.

Yep, I think many atheists are confused about this as well. They have maybe secular beliefs about humanity and morals and assume it is part of atheism and expect other atheists to agree. Of course, the person who made this creed said that it was only his creed and that he happens to be an atheist.

Well, is it a 100-yard dash or a marathon? Turtle or rabbit? We are discussing a specific technology, not all technology. I think technology, especially medicine has helped increase genetic diversity, just by keeping the "weak" alive to procreate. While individuals themselves may be weaker, I think from a species standpoint, we would be more able to overcome unforseen events from a genetic standpoint anyway. I guess the argument would be that making more people super intelligent would increase technology, which can hlep us adapt faster. But wouldn't this expose us to some environmental change such as a virus that could wipe out everyone, if are genes are less diverse? I am for genetic manipulation, but just feel it isn't the obvious answer to the survival of the species. Maybe improved lives while we are here.

Yes, I think Dennis never really says he thinks there is God behind the process, just that it is a philisophical question, not a scientific question. But, if you claim god is behind a science process, you either are saying nothing or you need to claim how he is doing it. In the how might be what we would consider magic. Maybe Richard is including other religions in his answer as you seem to want. He mentions Zeus in other parts of the religion and in this clip he is saying he regulates Yaweh equal to all the other specific gods of mythology and other religions - not real. That's like saying he spends all his time speaking to english speaking people! That's the religion he was raised in and decided was false. From that, he realizes they are all untrue - no need to study all of them and decide. Thanks for showing us how to give an unbiased and respectful review that you always ask from others.

I think that may be the big danger of genetic engineering - losing genetic diversity. Of course, natural selection can do the same thing, but all the variables of nature are taken into account, not just a few by man. In short, it would be hard to make a man that is more fit for nature than natural selection - do we know all the variables? I think promoting genetic diversity is the way to go. Try to fight certain diseases, etc. But even a disease like sickle cell has advantages in certain environments, so it is hard to predict all the ramifications. Be humble and tread softly.

LOL, yes ugly people are not fun to watch. Thanks, for the answer. That has been my experience with women - they prefer watching women as well. bah, it's a forum. Actually, where I lived most of my life, it might have been more brave to say I was ok with gays and was an atheist. Yep, but I still think a child should have two parents if possible. more than that is confusing. Call me old fashioned.

I doubt it. The placebo effect seems to be effective on most people, but that doesn't give any evidence for the actual effectiveness of the stuff used, just the power of illusion.

I agree, it is an unhelpful emotional response and one that like my sexual orientation, I don't remember choosing. It is something I must be aware of and use my intellect to overcome, because it is not logical at all. Part of it may be that when I am watching a sexual act, I am placing myself in that situation. So that I am thinking, I don't want to do that. Not I don't want them to do that. Regardless, when I see a gay couple on the street, I don't feel anything about it. They are like any other couple to me.

Well, I would like to think my thoughts were more in line with my experiences as a single guy and all the single guys I knew - not very nurturing. Dads are nurturing, but I think women do better. However, I do find male-male sex to be disgusting, no doubt. I don't want anything going in my rear, maybe its a dominance issue. So, this may play a part in my opinion as well, but I try to remain open minded, not let it intefere with my relations to gay men. If you don't mind the question, as a bisexual woman, do you find certain couplings more interesting to watch, or the thought of them more interesting? Good job as usual, we agree in spirit - you are just more liberal and brave than I.

In general, I would be more comfortable with my child being taken care of by two women than two men. But, my knowledge of the specific people would override that. I agree, this is the most important point. Equality AFTER you come to the conclusion of no harm as above. That is why I would not allow a brother and sister marriage or a 5 person marriage. The former has potential genetic problems(and weaken families, imo) and the latter just leads to confusion and too many lawyers, imo. I do think that the gay community wants marriage for more than legal rights. They would like more acceptance from society and see it as a step in that direction. That is what scares the opposition the most - the appearance of accepting it on a moral basis.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2588,Richard-Dawkins-Interview-on-TVOntario,Your-Agenda Since this thread is about Dawkins, I thought he did a nice job on this topic.

I imported my wife from Brazil via a bridal visa. I agreed to take on all her expenses, etc and marry her. I think that is similar to sponsoring an immigrant. Many married people get hit with the marriage penalty, because it is becoming more common for women to make as much as men. I think a society of the people for the people should have an interest in its most precious resource - future generations. A two person family, with a mother and father seems to work well - better than a single mother, so that should be reinforced - preferably with a carrot, not a stick. Gay couples? Well, I must admit that my bias towards men as caregivers makes me a little wary of two men as parents, but it is probably better than one person on average and much better than an orphanage.

Yeah, but then they populated a blue planet in a simple solar system with a small star and lost their technology.

OK, let's just say the guy believes there are Romans in some far away galaxy, because his grandfather believed it. No evidence, just a feeling. That is BS and not worth a millisecond of thought. I have no proof it doesn't exist, but I have proof that this guy has no evidence. Lot's of evidence that would render it improbable as well. It is a specific claim that warrents knowledge, not some wild guess. So, we can never be sure of anything might work on a forum, but I don't really operate that way.

I'm trying to find the missing link between a baby and an old man. You know, an old body with a baby head. Otherwise, my theory that we are replaced every so often with a slightly older body still holds true.