Moontanman

Obviously the "stone" has two parents or at least a reshuffling of genes, Most trees can make roots from branches, I've even seen pine trees do it over time. On the other hand plants can be cultured from cells quite easily compared to animals. Orchids are often cultured like that...

Opinions of two scientists does not make something true, care to name them?

Insults do not further this discussion, i am being as honest as i can with you, your questions are too imprecise to make sense of them...

Sounds like he is nuts to me...

Your message sounds like nothing but word play, in fact you suggest this... Nothing is ever comprehended completely, no one can know everything about anything and everything we do know is subject to some degree of error... Then you say this... How do you equate TOE with life? It has to do with cosmology not biochemistry... Then you say this... The methodology of science allows us to do that... I am not so sure we do not understand the whole of life, your assertions are suggestive but convey little real meaning with out defined parameters...

Nonsensical word salad... You haven't even explained what you mean by "complexity of life" define that and we can talk...

People are against the ACA? Which people, how many, can you give us some figures? Don't label me with a political party, I am not supporting a side here...

Then your post make no sense in it's current form...

No by my logic science is the tool we use to understand life and the complexity of life. I'm not sure we are communicating well on this, are you talking about the chemistry of life or something else? If it is something else please explain...

There is no evidence of consciousness existing out side a physical entity... There is no empirical evidence of a "soul"... You first have to provide evidence there is a soul to transfer... Consciousness is a manifestation of a brain, nothing mystical about it.. While you are welcome to your suspicions there is no reason to think we exist after we die... The burden of proof is on "Dr. Stevenson" to show a soul exists none have been given... No it is about evidence or lack there of.. If you reincarnated then there was a guy who had your soul who is now dead..

How would cloning be any different than cuttings? A cutting is genetically identical to the parent, roots and all....

We understand "the complexity of life" through scientific investigation...

Why do I get the feeling we are not communicating? Accusations of being nuclear apologists is not constructive. How, other than being concentrated in one spot is the radiation from this accident any different than the radiation released by IVY Mike? Ivy Mike released something like an order of magnitude more radiation than Chernobyl, no one died as a direct result but it is obvious that such above ground tests did indeed contribute to the over mortality of humans on this planet...

What species is bigfoot? I understand what you mean, but those were species we knew existed at one time, well in actual fact the coelacanth doesn't count because it is not the same species found in fossils but in fact is just a member of the family of lobe finned fishes. But I understand the principle of what you are saying, we knew ivory billed woodpeckers existed, what is bigfoot exactly?

Good point, mine is natural...

Pears is of course correct, while I would question a scientist who held to fundamentalism, there are scientists who are indeed bible thumpers, in fact as i have pointed out previously Robert Bakker has two doctorates, one from Yale and one from Harvard and is arguably the most famous paleontologist on the planet and is also a bible believing Pentecostal Preacher... He says taking the bible as literal truth degrades it's eternal meaning... Moontanman, on 07 Sept 2013 - 6:00 PM, said: Now, we know there are theistic scientists, so are we talking about how to justify belief in god or are we still debating the existence of theistic scientists?

This is demonstrably not true, in fact burning coal concentrates and releases uranium and thorium, both very long lived not to mention chemically poisonous... Your other points flow from this and are in fact bogus because this is not true... http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/coalandcoalash.html

I thought this was relevant...

I feel the same way about UFOs...

West Virginia is hardly the same environment as the High Rockies. As far as i know bigfoot isn't found in WV, I grew up there, in the sticks, I know of no one who is knowledgeable and experienced in hunting who claimed it so. I once asked my grandfather about bigfoot, he laughed, he had spent most of his life hunting to eat not for sport, he said he had never seen anything in the wild that would suggest such a thing. The ledgend of bigfoot is where bigfoot comes from, not reality... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot When ever you try to track down the origin of bigfoot claims they lead to admitted hoaxes.

It's been quite a while since I've seen a thread with as much inflammatory emotional nonsense as this one. I know the fear of radioactivity is both emotional and real but why is it more real when radiation comes from a nuclear plant than when it comes from a coal powered plant? Can anyone justify that? So far no one has. It all boils down to risk mitigation, yes i know a bit about this, used to be a big part of my job with DuPont. Coal fired power plants or burning coal in any context releases various radioactive isotopes directly to the environment not to mention some pretty nasty chemicals. I remember growing up in the mountains of WV, sitting in front of a warm and welcoming coal fire place listening to the TV and all the fear mongering about nuclear power, bombs, and everything associated with that risk, I remember being terrified of radiation, horror movies about radiation gave me nightmares, I obsessed about radiation constantly and having no idea how how dangerous it was sitting in front of that fire place both chemically and radioactively as well. My main problem with nuclear power is the risk mitigation, building a nuclear power plant in a location that is likely to under go a natural disaster is not an intelligent move but ignoring the very real dangers of burning coal is not intelligent either. Both sources of power can be made safer with risk mitigation but fly ash from coal is radioactive waste, it is often stored in places where it continues to interact with the environment, radioactive waste from nuclear plants is not just dumped on the ground, the risk is mitigated by various means. Are they perfect? of course not but you do have to take into account the real dangers of both and at this time, as shown by numerous links in this thread, coal releases many times as much radioactive material into the environment as nuclear, this can not be ignored, in fact the radiation from coal fired plants is simply released into the air, or used to be, not as much now but the risk is still not as well mitigated as the risk from nuclear plants is mitigated. Step back and take a close look at the emotions nuclear brings out, where do these emotions originate? Popular culture or real scientific studies, this is the real question I see in this thread...

Phil Spector stole my hair...

What exactly does that site have to do with your assertions?

Thank you... I think...