Helix

I believe in miracles because it's arrogant for us, as a species, to assume we are the highest beings and even though we can barely comprehend the universe we make accusations that we are the masters of it. (not directed at you ecoli)

I'm all for this, as a science forum we should have a large section devoted to science/policy news.

Piracy has become a big problem recently, in other places besides Somalia too. It sounds like a good idea to send in Marines, but there are a few problems.

For one, we can't just go into another country and begin kicking A and taking names, that road has led the current Admin. into trouble. The government would have to ask the U.S. or the U.N. for aid, and judging by the condition of the Somalian government now, that isn't going to happen.

And then there's the problem, and this I truly agree with, that we are entering into yet another conflict. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Somalia? The American people, on the whole, are getting fed up with Bush and his gallant conquest of the known world; this might tip the boat a little too much for the lead Texan and get him in serious trouble. With all the conflict, politically, surrounding Iraq, Bush should be advised to not enter another battle; he has a habit of losing.

The pirates are a threat, but the U.S. is neither capable or cautioned to take on the challenge, no matter how small it is. The government should take care of the current problems it's facing, then move on.

The people who proposed ID were creationist and the same creationist institutes support ID. But you can be creationist without being ID, I 'pose. And also, they both aren't based on the scientific method, just tenuous logic.

I'm surprised this wasn't ended sooner, he was pretty clearly just here to piss people off.

The OP. I agree with you, I just gave my answer more roundaboutly.

I see what you mean...sort of.

But I still disagree.

To say that the universe is made up primarily of enegry isn't exactly true but in any case, it doesn't matter. Enegry doesn't "exist" in the terms of distance; I don't walk 5,000 J to school every morning. To say that gravity isn't a weak force because we aren't measuring it correctly is a nice idea, but doesn't exactly stand to reason. Gravity is "weak" because how it interacts with atoms, something that really doesn'y have to do with the difference between matter/enegry/dark enegry. It's "weak" because it governs beta decay and neutrino interactions with nuclei while "strong" forces of nuclear enegry control the binding of quarks to create baryons and the like. The nuclear force is stronger than the weak, so it is named as such. So, your idea is creative, but isn't exactly asking/answering the right thing when it comes to weak vs. strong forces.

I really am happy we ("we" being those who like the scientific method and think that the truth is totally neeto) won. If the ID proponents and the creationists, same people really, were to win it would be a major blow to evolution. To have a favorable court precedent going for them, the IDers would be much more aggressive and would push for even more violation of the Establishment Clause.

Absolutely not. SFN is a web-based science information forum, and as such has neither the right nor the capability of invading a sovereign nation. We find it difficult to collaborate on musicals and novels, much less a military offensive of this nature.

That's possibly the funniest thing I've heard all day.

To answer the poll, Iran is a threat, but we won't invade them. Bush is under intense fire from the Democrats and Republicans alike for his pretenses for the war in Iraq and the way he handled the post-9/11 landscape. Maybe he thought he could rally the nation behind him, and for a while he could. But after Abu Ghraib and over 2,000 casualties people are losing faith. It would be extremely unwise, and he knows it, to invade yet another country. And also, Congress has to approve a war and by the way they have been acting towards the Patriot Act and the war on/in Iraq, I cannot see that approval happening.

Also, why would we want to further the opinion, in the minds of many (read: all) Arabs that we are complete a**holes? We already have serious problems in Iraq by our "Speak Loudly and Carry a Rifle" policy, invading another soverign nation would further that hatred. So, no, we will not invade Iran. Canada, possibly, but Iran, no.

Wow, that is amazing. But I thought there were biological limits on producing hybrids? As in no Butterwhale or Moncow. How do they get the genomes to integrate? And do they really expect their creations to live....if so can they vote?

The thing is' date=' just because we can't answer it with science now doesn't me we won't be able to in the future. According to the definition of miricle, it can't have a scientific explaination now or ever.

 

It's my personal beleif that this is not the case.[/quote']

 

 

Yeah, that's a good point. Maybe we will know someday how things like that happen. But we know a good deal about cancer now, and nothing hints at it disappearing spontaneously.

 

And to clarify, what do you mean by "It's my personal beleif that this is not the case"?

If one bought a small kitten, and observed it, even though there was not sufficient time for it to be taught by its mother, it will still behave like a cat; not just any cat but a domesticated cat. It will also run around the house chasing imaginary prey practicing its hunting skills. On can probably assume that this brain software was induced by genetics.

I agree that cats, and all animals, show species-specific behavior at an infantile age. And I would even agree that it is due to evolution. But that doesn't give proof to your "evolution in overdrive" hypothesis.

I have a niece' date=' who instinctively knew how to read. At 4 she could read at a high school level. Humans, in general, didn't learn to read until the printing press about 500-600 years ago. Already her genetic based brain software has evolved to where reading is as natural to her as walking.

[/quote']

 

Your neice sure does sound gifted, but I don't think it's due to her DNA mutating at a breakneck pace, allowing her to read at an early age. In fact, I really don't even see the correlation. Your neice is smart and therefore can process and learn the task of reading far better than her peers. This is because of some random mutation and/or a good pedigree. It isn't, however, because evolution is going faster so as time goes on people will be smarter, earlier.

I've heard of things that really can't be answered by science, terminal cancer disappearing and the like.

The catholic church, for example, checks each miracle claim with a panel of scientists, lawyers and other experts to validate the claims. It isn't, as some might think, a common thing for the Church to say a miracle has happened.

I'm getting sick and tired of this bash the creationist bs... you know' date=' many of us are quite rational and civil people. I'll think you find that many creationist are as against ID in the science classroom as any evolutionist. I feel that creationism is one answer to how the world was created, albeit a non-scientific one, but an answer nevertheless.

 

Granted, I know that the ID proponents don't think like I do, but that doesn't mean that SFNers have to use terms like 'IDiots' or other such language. You think that you're making fun of creationists, but you're actually making yourselves look bad, at least from my prospective.[/quote']

 

 

I agree with ecoli too. Even though I am pro-evolution, it isn't worthwhile to harshly denounce the creationists for their views. After all, they believe they are telling the truth, just as the evolutionists do. Our enegry should be focused on anaylzing their theory and see if if holds water, which in my view it doesn't, but they are still entitled to believe in it.

 

And I'm not saying you're doing all of this Silkworm, your thread wasn't that harsh. I'm speaking generally; that SFN doesn't need to claim "Death to Creationism" to be scientific.

Not sure the names of those involved, those Chinese scientists working on creating chimeras, and who sucessfully fused human cells with a rabbit embryo. That's pretty awesome.

Wait, what? I didn't hear about this. What exactly did they do, it sounds pretty amazing.

Not that I mind or object to your post' date=' Helix, so don't take this the wrong way, but let me address the (unasked) question of whether those would actually constitute grounds for impeachment.

 

1. Too many loopholes. Combatants not wearing uniforms, etc.

2. No evidence that violations took place under orders.

3. This one could get interesting. I think we should discuss in a separate thread. It's a very large and complex subject. I just was too busy today to start a thread on it, alas. I do have some input on the subject if someone wants to start one up, though, and I'll jump in on it tomorrow.

4. No evidence (even less than we had with Clinton, since the Bush handlers learned from Clinton's mistakes vis-a-vis the Hay Adams Hotel video).

5. No evidence.

6. Need more info.[/quote']

 

 

I respect your general point on all this, for example #1 does have too many loopholes. But still, torture of enemies is torture and should not be tolerated. There are laws about prisoners and POWs. They may not be wearing uniforms (some of them were actually, the members of the Guard), but they are still Prisoners of War.

 

But still he can be linked to the other charges. The NSA thing he actually admitted to and it is a crime to spy domestically so that's a solid charge. But the CIA (Plame) thing; he's the president and is responsable for what goes on in his administration. First, I believe he knew. But even if he didn't, he still hindered the investigation and didn't immediately acquiesce to the investagators.

 

Seperation of Church and State was him, but it was also a bunch of other people. So even though he is guilty, he couldn't be impeached for it.

 

Warprofiteering can definitely be proved, and I don't ben with Michael Moore style pseudo-logic. if you trace the people you will find it leads from CEO's and Exec's right to the reconstruction; as in the companies are benefiting from the war and most likely pushed for it. While I'm no conspiricy theorist, I believe it isn't insane to think those companies, also his financers for the campaigne, would urge him to enter the conflict.

 

I'll admit, though, that what I just said and said before are also my beliefs and therefore might not be true. Maybe he can't be linked to most of those charges (except for the NSA, there was an Exec. Order allowing illegal practices), but still I believe he is guilty, even if it can't be proven.

 

For the ones he can't be pinned to, it doesn't mean there wasn't a crime. It means he can't directly be charged. Rove is, by leaps and bounds, the guilty party in "Plamegate", and the generals obviously knew about Gitmo and Abu Ghriab.

 

Looking at all of this, I can't help comment how ineffective the GOP has been. They have made a mockery of the U.S. and drove the surplus of a couple trillion into a debt that's actually embarassing. Can't say the Democrats would be much better, right now the American Party has the choice between Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum and that's not a choice, that's a threat.

Ahh awesome, thanks

You think we run the risk of being as bad as terrorists because Bushed didn't reveal the NSA program? Wowzers.

 

Were FDR and Patton were as bad as Hitler for being deceptive in leading us to war and in misleading the public and enemy regarding Patton's fictional command?

Uhh Jim' date=' Patton wasn't general of the [i']Nazis[/i] so it doesn't matter if he lied to them. Bush lied to us, the American people. He's our president, sadly, and therefore he has a duty to be honest.

Your comparison is illogical; the analogy of Patton --> Nazis and Bush --> Americans doesn't work. That's sort of strawmanning the situation.

Bottom line is Pres. Bush has lied, to his people and the world, many times in his term(s). The NSA debacle is the latest in the Three Stooges do Washington. If Clinton was impeached for sexual favors, then Bush should, legally, be impeached and convicted for all the lying and abusing he has donw while in power. He's disgraced America and turned patriotism into a guise for his right-wing war machine.

Those aren't quotes, they're jokes. Or am I blind?

I don't think it's happening as a wide-sweeping change, but rather I agree it's a growing trend.

But it is still "good" for individual members of the species, because being less intelligent tends to lead to having more children.

I disagree with this, how is there a correlation between intelligence and the urge to produce children? If anything, smarter individuals will realize that having children is vital and will do so.

Tsunami isn't a buzzword...it's just a regular word.

And added to that list of buzzwords should be:

11) buzzword

Well, we may very well go extinct very soon. Or maybe non-genetic intelligence, in the form of AI or something, will save us. Or maybe future generations will embrace eugenics, or artificial genetic modification. But for the time being, if genetically dumber people are having more kids, then yes, we are evolving to be less intelligent.

But evolving to become less intelligent, which I agree is happening, is not good for us as a species. Intelligence is our only advantage over other animals and our environment. Take away are minds and were up the primordial creek without a paddle.

Yes, we may be too smart for our own good but that's better than the alternative. That alternative being us as smart as dolphins, leaving us vulnerable to predators that will expand their territory due to our decline. The animals kingdom as a whole will expand and try to usurp us as "dominent" if we become less intelligent and therefore less expansive (as in no more globalization) and without our ol' noggins we're not going to fare so well.

Congratulations, that sounds great.

About your house, just tell your landlord you know all about his little secret and that he shouldn't sell unless he wants it public....everyone has something dark they're hiding, and I'm sure he is no exception.

I voted for one at a time reading large sections. But that's only true when I get into the book, mostly I read a few pages and get bored. So there's a constant battle trying to find a book that will hold my attention for longer than "It was a dark and stormy....this book sucks."

And I don't like regular TV, but I do like the science channel and the Discovery Times channel. Those types aren't bad, they're pretty good.

But I wouldn't ever watch something like....the O.C. or Survivor. Those shows should be tried for crimes against humanity

Actually I think (though perhaps other mods/admins may disagree) that nominations need to have a serious basis. For example' date=' you could validly nominate George Bush on the basis of his impact on funding for embryonic stem cell research, and fueling the debate for increased morality in scientific research. Whether you agree with him or not on the issue is irrelevent for our purposes here. (And in fact any debate on the subject in THIS thread will be unceremoniously squashed by yours truly.)

 

I believe that subject was part of Time's basis for making him Man of the Year in 2004.[/quote']

 

 

Oh, I know Pangloss; that was a joke nomination. My real one is for Barry Marshall.