Xittenn

Some sites add a history to posts like stackoverflow, but these sites tend to incorporate the concept of post edits and use them to improve the overall quality of threads. These sites are also more geared to final answers so this is very in contrast to SFN. I just thought I would through that out there though. What had you posted Jo???

The real question here is, is the biological dark matter described simply non-coding DNA or is it something else? I'm pulling up articles that call non-coding DNA biological dark matter, but what is described in the links above seems to be very different from this. As far as I understand non-coding DNA is in every cell of a human body, but this particular biological dark matter seems to exist external to the body, which by definition includes the stomach or the alimentary canal. This point is made particularly clear in that the biological dark matter discussed is only found in small quantity in blood samples, suggested to be ~1%, due to blood sterility.

Honestly, I saw juanrga, I came in to read his post, the post reflects the reality of the situation but doesn't offer any elaboration, I looked down and saw his signature, and acted accordingly. Fell free to +1 his rep to counteract my hasty decision!

See the surprised look on my face?

Here's one suggestion with respect to God's view of consummation. I'm not saying that Christians can't express themselves in new ways, I'm saying until they have ratified their position it has little meaning to me as an external observer! I understand the logic involved, but understand me, a flock that wonders back and forth is a flock that back and forth--as in, sure if y'all say so. @mississippichem . . . lawl

The bold is a typo right? I'm not sure how your personal preference is relevant? Is this a statement about transgendered persons? You will marry a man but not stick it in his vagina? You sir have some unusual perspectives on matters! --I'm just saying I didn't fully understand your statements, could you please clarify them?-- Sex is a part of marriage, I'm not sure where the few of you who have brought this up were taking this. So get married, but no sex? I'm pretty sure consummation of marriage is dealt with somewhere in the bible. I take the bible as a whole, not in pieces . . . . and it is clear on its position, people can twist it up into any old shaped pretzel they feel like, my opinion does not change, people who follow the Christian religion are following a religion that does not have a place for LGBT. This is really fine by me because I am not a religious type. It's funny how superstition of a thousand years ago was superstition of fifty years ago but somehow the fifty years ago gets dropped. If there lacked debate on this issue, then I wouldn't even be in this thread. If the socio-political system could ratify their statements so that this was clearly the fact, then I would feel much better about the matter. I'm sure this will be the case eventually, if it is not now, and LGBT people will be afforded their rights. It would be nice to know as well that individuals within politics were unable to influence their politics with their religious beliefs. Although, as Swansont has pointed out, this shouldn't be the case, is it in fact the case? I'm sure the answer is hardly, and this is probably another reason that this thread exists.

My statement was more of an allusion to the anti LGBT statements that the bible does in fact make--as in they are not pro, because they are anti. I don't know what version everyone else is reading but a man lying with a man is a sin in the bible. I'm sure if two men marry they are going to have some special naked time! That's some new testament shit right there! LGBT not being allowed to go to heaven isn't anti LGBT? According to the bible willfully acting in sin is not excusable, or in my words if you deliberately do something that is sinful and think that you are free to do so because you have asked for forgiveness, then you are sadly mistaken because God isn't stupid and he does have this whole wrathful side and all. Being Christian isn't a free pass to sin. All candidates could very well not be Christian, in fact some might say that our society as a whole has arrived--today--at an apex in where we are deeply rooted in sin. Should a Christian be president? In my opinion probably not, and for these very reasons--unless of course the American public wants to live under Christian rule, and this is a plausibility. Saying or doing something not Christian doesn't make you less Christian, deliberately living in sin does. *** weird broken post problem . . . removed quote tags Romans 8:35 - 39 "35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”[j] 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[k] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." All of Romans describes this very topic. Jesus died so that we are not judged by the laws of Abraham, but it is very delicate in making it clear that if God does not live within us we are bound to our sins of the flesh. It details a way of living such that if a person knows what is God's laws, or what God says to be sinful, in accepting Christ our souls will seek his ways and only then is God truly our lord. I don't think as an LGBT person we think that we have committed sin, but God clearly speaks through many of the prophets of the bible and says that in fact we are committing an act against God. Knowing what is sinful and choosing to ignore it is essentially an act which places you outside of God and makes you not Christian. My perspective on this might not be well liked, but I have been privy to a lifetime of this debate and as far as ministers are concerned this is a very real issue with the congregation. Have Christians moved forward on this? Absolutely! Is it right according to their religion? Probably not! Will Christians maintain their position and not renounce the president? Probably yes! Does this secure the position for generations to come? Not necessarily, no! It might very well result in a mass upheaval of the religious system, a lot of repentance, and a resulting reversion and stricter adhesion to earlier rule. That's people for you!

I think the Christian religion was pretty well laid out and accepted for much longer than this notion of picking and choosing concepts within it. The bible is very clearly not pro LGBT in any shape or form. If Christians wish to adopt these new positions, and by this I mean picking and choosing concepts from the teachings that they appreciate and understand while discarding others, I will be the last person to stop them. But, if this is in fact the case, then I feel that to appropriate these positions properly either amendments need to be made across the board, or amendments need to be made by the respective denominations such that their position lacks uncertainty. Until it is clear what the position is then I am forced to take all information at face value. As it stands Obama's position is a modified form of Christianity that has no literary representation, and because I can't specify his position I would say that he is not Christian, and yes essentially none of you are as well. I do appreciate everyone's position and I know for fact there are great number of you who practice accordingly. But here is the problem, it is good and fine to not hate on LGBT persons because God says to love all and let him do the judging, but maintaining a text that mars these persons intentionally, and mixed with a harboring of these thoughts that clearly position LGBT individuals as outside of God's plan is very hurtful to these individuals. Now I know that these 'Jeffersonian Christian' types do not feel like this, that they are not disrespectful in any way, and that many are open and caring to people such as the LGBT community that were misrepresented in the bible. But, the maintaining of these passages as the word of God is ensuring a continued persecution of LGBT people--however subtle ewmon would like to make that--for many generations to come. If the bible was written with passages interspersed with reflections on the history and what not, this might be different, but it's not, and there are still many who take the word at face value. Granted according to God we are all sinners and so even an LGBT person who asks for forgiveness . . . . wait no he also says those who continue to defy his laws intentionally are not really asking for his forgiveness so we can't swing that way either. . . . I thank the air that I breath and the rocks that have formed beneath me that I am Canadian. As it stands I will be able to marry who I want, should I ever find someone whom I love and wish to cherish, and who feels the same about me. Unlike the bible the laws of Canada are formed by people and were created with good intentions, but are also scrutinized and revised as necessary. We don't have to like all the laws of Canada to be Canadian, I don't believe the bible holds the same position. Christianity in common practice is much more about making a loving community than it is about the proper means to save your mortal soul, and from my perspective I see a lot of followers of God who like to have a name for themselves, and they adopt the title Christian. The Christian religion however has proven itself to be a dangerous and hurtful tool that uplifts a very specific embodiment of what it means to be a human and I will personally not let people who continue to uphold it's truths to let this fact go. Either the religion is modified, or the religion maintains its position, there really isn't a middle ground on this one. Please forward this to the Vatican! BekaD: Pincess of Qi <3 According to the bible the opposite is true, being a Christian means upholding Christian values above all else, especially with respect to all facets of your life. Obviously there are those who are weak, as they are sheep, and some do not meet this expectation.

Just to directly answer the question, I don't believe that Obama can be pro LG marriage and still be 'Christian.' It's like the people who call themselves Christian but choose to ignore many sections of their religious text. Can Obama believe in God and still be pro LG marriage? Absolutely! I wish someone would replace the old text with something a little less absurd in its formulation, that more closely reflects what a greater majority believes--some might say that more closely represents what God is speaking into their hearts. I am pretty sure that Christians will refrain from denouncing Obama as Christian as most have the same revised book in their heads, and most choose to acknowledge its existence, and choose to not worry about the fact that it hasn't been written out in plain English at this present moment. side note appeal to Christians . . .. please fix your religion, failure to do so will probably result in either war or a replacement thereof . . . IMO!

Because we are observing these things happening now. Use of antibiotics has seen an increase in pathogen resistance, landfill space is always an issue, and what we can put into our landfills is constantly revised. The great lakes are increasingly more and more polluted by our use of the resource, as well as run off from farm land and other. What we see as good practice today may not be good practice tomorrow, hence they are not law. A thousand years ago having many children was a good thing, today it may be considered more appropriate to refrain from having children unless you are very dedicated to being a parent. You are focusing too closely on how things were and applying them as a set standard when in reality there are very few things that can be taken for granted as a standard and even less with regards to ethics. If the world runs out of essentials it will no longer be appropriate to fight for the rights of the many, survival will be dependent on being a strong individual. We may not like the point of view, it doesn't make it any less necessary. And where you equate 'God' and 'The Law' is really a mystery, I have no idea what you define as either and how they are relevant. You might argue that we are arguing the same thing, as you have alluded to twice now, but you argue it one way and then argue it the other in your next sentence. You can't say that The Law is to evolve or change, and then say that we need to maintain our practices the way they were because they are also The Law. Things can't change and be the same within a shared time frame. The best solutions to problems change, you can't accept that when it is convenient, and refute it when it no longer serves your purpose. This said we are not arguing the same thing.

I like the name but at the same time it is inciting youtube viewers to some odd speculations with respect to mythical creatures such as midi-chlorians. As much as I want to be a Jedi I don't believe that by increasing my biological dark matter count that I will suddenly be able to pick up airplanes with my mind, or affect the colour of a plasma/laser saber. They leave much to the imagination with these information pieces. Genetic assemblies are nothing new and I'm sure there is plenty of research into passive processes whereby genetic material self assembles due to predisposition. CharonY has mentioned a few things about early forms of genetic matter that are similar in concept to what I just described, in however limited detail. The fact that they may have found something structured that is not anything that we commonly observe today, that they may have overlooked is exciting. Calling it a new domain is hardly exciting because they keep changing the taxonomic descriptions of life every few years. But again, not cell life, not virus, it is something interesting if in fact it is organized life. Especially if it is concluded to be a form of life, as mentioned it would not be cellular and this is quite in contrast to present theory which places the cell as the smallest unit of life. The presumed benefits of this investigation seem to be the discovery of organisms that might be involved in manipulating both cellular organisms and viral matter such that we see rise to various illness'. Obviously if we can find and control the activities of anything that makes us sick, we are better for it, and this is a major plus to this investigation.

A lot of people don't want to see LGT marriages, few people want to send women to Iraq. The consequence of this is we hear comments that could affect Obama's position and not Bush's. Do people really care about Obama's religious disposition? Probably not as much as they care about ensuring that LGT persons live out their lives feeling like outcasts to society . . . . shame . . . I just have to randomly post this in the in the most as relevant as possible place: I'm sure everyone has seen this before, but I had only just recently!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9aNxs66i_c

And will eventually kill many more. Antibiotics will eventually be overruled by unruly microbes. Landfills will eventually overfill and their concentrations of toxic matter will pollute all those areas we fought so hard to protect. Water from cleaning will eventually become saturated to the point of expense in filtration that is beyond our means. Sanitation is good, it is hardly God, or The Law, and neither is tunnel vision.

You very well could be saying that a proper moral understanding is founded on the laws of nature, but your inclusions of words such as 'God' can lend to some confusion when there are many ideas of what that might mean and where most of us tend to think on the most readily used definitions thereof. The term God also implies conscious and which also implies a judgment on moral actions, I don't believe natural law consciously judges our natural actions, it is very much a passive process from where I'm sitting. The morals you have chosen to include in your OP is suggestive of a certain point of view, one in where nature has a moral good. There is nothing morally good about nature, nature is and it does not discriminate based upon the morals of individuals. Ethics are a best fit case, and if entities within the universe choose to actively maintain a set of desired morals, that is a choice they make and one that will present consequences as will any other moral choice. I do appreciate the morals that we maintain I simply feel that some are taking them out of the context of reality, mostly because they are ignorant to how their actions are most likely going to affect their more immediate persons.

By Arclength Approximation Riemann Form [math] f(x) = \sqrt { 1 - x^2 }\, ; \; f'(x) = - \frac{x}{\sqrt{1-x^2}}\, ; \; f''(x) = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1-x^2)^3}}\, ; \; f'''(x) = - \frac{3x}{\sqrt{(1-x^2)^5}}[/math] [math] S = \frac {\pi}{2} = \int_{0}^{1} \sqrt { 1 + [f'(x)]^2 } \, dx = \int_{0}^{1} \sqrt { 1 + [- \frac{x}{\sqrt{1-x^2}}]^2 } \, dx = \int_{0}^{1} \sqrt { 1 + \frac{x^2}{1-x^2} } \, dx [/math] [math] \Delta x = \frac{b - a}{n} = \frac{1}{n} [/math] [math] x_i^* = a + i \cdot \Delta x = \frac{i}{n} [/math] [math] x_{i-1}^* = a + (i - 1) \cdot \Delta x = \frac{i - 1}{n} [/math] [math] \bar{x} = \frac{x_i^* + x_{i-1}^*}{2} = \frac{(\frac{i}{n}) + (\frac{i - 1}{n})}{2} = \frac{2i - 1}{2n} [/math] [math] M_n \approx \sum_{i=1}^n f( \bar{x} ) \cdot \Delta x = \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt { 1 + \frac{(\bar{x})^2}{1-(\bar{x})^2} } \cdot \frac{1}{n} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt { 1 + \frac{(\frac{2i - 1}{2n})^2}{1-(\frac{2i - 1}{2n})^2} } = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt{\frac{4n^2}{4n^2 - 4i^2 + 4i - 1 }}[/math] [math] error = |S - M_n| \, ; \; K_2 = max | f''(x) | \, ; \; 0 \leq n = \sqrt{\frac{K_2(b - a)^3}{24(|S - M_n|)}} [/math]

8 ohms is a nominal impedance @1khz. If you drive it down to 100hz your impedance will drop to 0.8 ohms impedance. Most portable listening devices output somewhere between 1 and 2 volts and are designed to drive loads around 16 - 32 ohms nominal impedance @1khz. Assuming that your portable listening device is capable of a clean .05 watts @ 1 volt you get ~.05 amps @ 16 ohms nominal impedance. Your 8 ohm speaker will probably have a much more linear range than headphones and you will be driving your device well outside of specification if you open it up completely. It's not that it won't drive it, it's just that you will shorten the life of your listening device!

I cry in public every now and again . . . . :`o

I'm in an ethics class and I'm having a bit of a hard time with these sorts of questions, they aren't ideas that I process well, much like religion. Amazingly enough you just compiled both of them into one thread. Not only do I not believe in God, but I also do not accept that which others have created to be 'our' morals. I do feel that 'our' morals have done us great service until now, but ultimately our having dismissed certain aspects of animal nature is going to see our end--regardless of what you want or what you feel. I am a more firm believer in a child's view of natural law, the law of the jungle. From an ethicist's point of view I've been told that the construct that I am alluding to is a moral egoist, as a moral nihilist wouldn't care much how things affect themselves as well as how their actions affect others. I firmly believe that all animals are born to feed, and this can include feeding on other animals. When the cycle is broken we move out of natural law and become unsustainable. In terms of people I don't mean that people should eat people, but this concept that all are constrained to the majority and born to serve the greater body is to me very wrong. Morals tell us that this point of view is unacceptable, but my gut tells me that breaking the natural cycle will only see a collapse of a system that is ultimately impossible to maintain. From my perspective God will not save me. If I wish to live beyond the life that nature has given me I will have to do what I can to make that a reality. If I stand by idly or pursue this notion of a greater good I believe in the end the result will be a failure of a system that is impossible to maintain. If I want my life to be the best it can be I will have to take resources from everyone else. Granted I may find it useful to make friends along the way, but to have no enemies is unreasonable. To rely on a deity who does not interfere to my benefit is illogical. Power is not evil it is realistic, maintaining your power is something I recommend to anyone to do. This can include maintaining your moral position, but the end result may not be what you expect as far as I am concerned. Moralists and religious types put an awful lot of faith in what they believe to be true. Humorously enough, I am one of the most defenseless creatures on the planet.

It's less of a profession and more of a specialization within the broader profession of Geoscientist.