starbug1

not to be bombing on your love life, but this statement here: "and she whispers in my ear and tells me that she is numb towards people and thats why she has no feelings for hardly anyone...." is probably the result of her 'accident' though it sounds she is using it as an excuse. That's how I read into it; she says that so she doesn't have to deal with people she doesn't like...not saying she doesn't like you...

Didn't you ever watch the X-files?

In one case there was supposed footage that 'proved' bigfoot and the guy came out. Him and his friends screwing around in a gorilla suit and a video camera. This account, however, does not disprove all the other sightings around the world. ...theres hope yet!

Bigfoot, Lochness, all other myths are suggestive superstitions. People see what they want to see, that is why whole legends are based off of a single oversized footprint, or a reflection in the water. Take Ireland for instance with the legend of the Giant's Causeway. While legends and storytelling have spawned from the 'unexplainable' formations the rocks are in, the scientific explanation is that it was a volcano. The stories still persevere despite scientific explanation. Such goes for Bigfoot. Still, where would we be without such great hoaxes?

Could be. It would baffle even the best paleontologists.

I would really hate to see what they'd do if an entire comic book was published! What do you think? a small war, the Muslims and the Danes? Military drafting and allied forces. Bomb shelter construction for the civilians...and all for a freakin cartoon. WTF is right. I'd say this is an excellent example of how mass suggestion can start a destructive domino effect in the form of fiery chaos. Ahh, the pleasures of religious fervor...

Ah. But wait. We never hear about crocodiles amassing for a deforestation worker slaughter. It's too bad though, that this doesn't happen. They would probably replace them all with new children anyway, so shoot. I think we should have learned our lesson after FernGully. And dammit! Japan should paid more attention to the Raccoon War.

I think we should just nuke the rainforests to eliminate it as a topic for discussion -- Seinfeld I'm not trying to be defeatist, but is there anything we can do? Rainforests cannot be regrown fast enough (or to original fecundity) at the current rate of so-many-acres per day, and we'll, at best, see the complete and total wipe-out of rainforests within our lifetime.

While looking for this experiement, I found this... All I can say...Wow I couldn't find a link for Gary Flanagan.

Isn't it said that music is a universal language? no, wait, that was math. It must just be the language that ties the world together. Don't know if that's right. Anyway, communication--if you mean the combined functions of speech and music--has an undeniable affect on both our concepts and emotions. Music and suggestion have effect, to good or bad, on our emotions, and it's been proven through mass-hypnosis and post-hynoptic suggestions that language alters our perceptions and concepts. See: Indian rope trick for a perfect example So far our knowledge of the brain has shown us that ambiguous functions (such as emotion and some psychological problems) are never dispersed equaly or laterally. There is a left and right hemisphere, but even so many functions such as speech, computation, and creativity utilize areas on both sides of the brain. Also, functions tend to jump between the two hemispheres. While communication and 'auditory processing' is a left-hemisphere function, musical ability is usually found to be a right-hemisphere function. I'm just not sure whether the auditory cortex on the left side or the 'creative centers' on the right side process emotion; I'm guessing its a little of both. Because music is in the right hemisphere, it is not subject to the effects of aphasia, the inability to recognize spoken words. This is the cause for some autisitic savants, those who have virtually no vocabulary but can excel and even become virtuosos in music or artistic creativity. This fact also leads us to believe that, because music recognition isn't faltered through aphasia, emotion thereof is unaffected. I agree with you, though I may not have confirmed it completely.

duly noted! I'm having a lot of fun with this.

here, check out these threads if you haven't already; they discuss eugenics and genetics in some detail and may give you some feedback to your question that has already been briefed upon: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16702&highlight=eugenics http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17220&highlight=eugenics

You have to remember that the guy who wrote this probably doesn't believe in the modern classification of animals. When he sees a cladogram or the taxonomic hierarchy or any species name, he goes "ptttt, that's just science mumbo-jumbo." Strong beliefs are rooted not in reality, but in personal--in this case, religious--perception. This is also true for any other branch of creationism. For Deity's sake, there are still people who believe that the earth is flat!

Tough break man. Did you argue any of your points? I would have done until he/she raised it to at least an A-. How would your teacher know this? There was obviously more than one valid source. Your grading was more objective than your writing. Could it have been more leaning toward the grammatical errors?

No. However, because of global warming, this is seen in quite a few places, at the same time while other places are experiencing relative low temeratures. Where I live in Iowa, we too are having a mild January. There's been days nice enough for a picnic! Well, almost. And coupled with the warm temperature is a noticable precipitation drop, we're behind almost 10 inches. There's two more months, so I don't think it will hold out.

So it was an elusive example, I apologize. My post was meant to bring attention to the disparity between smoking and evolution. It was a play on words; whereas a conclusion may eventually come as the end with the differing views on cigarette smoking, never will one be reached when it comes to religion (at least not in our lifetime.)

In theory, no matter how the tobacco is cured, they are still dangerously toxic. Indeed, the actual process of curing, no matter the method, generating the same chemical reactions, thus producing the same finished product full of the same toxins and carcinogens, if only to the smallest variations in potency. In theory, today the organic cigarette is just as much a hoax as the "filter" one. When they said filter's and light cigarette's made it less harmful. It did something, but to overall health it did squat. Tobacco's genetic makeup and chemical composition have to be changed completely for it to be rid of toxins. And in doing so, the tobacco is no longer tobacco. And no matter how synthetic, how "artificially flavoured" it becomes, it will never be the original.

Example?

Is this why the creation/evolution debates are never resolved?

I second that.

if you are talking to me, and I think you are, this is not an option. I see no reason for you to say that.

wow. What a great laugh. Really. What can I say, I'd panic too.

Because of the social phenomenon smoking is, (much like drinking), and the personal right, can there ever be a time when smoking will be nonexistant? A good question on a future (probable?) milieu. My answer: I don't think so.

I think yer a little mixed up. I'm not advocating 'infinitely incalculable amounts of action' date='" nor have I ever wanted to. I was furthering my explanation on how to [i']disprove[/i] and to show how preposterous the bufferfly effect is. Hence the general sarcasm and highly exaggerated story-line. God no

Are there any cases of this?