dragonstar57

http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun2.htm

and helium

1.opinion: i think atheists are more likely to be teens but as i have no hard data i wont state it as a fact. 2.a. the results evolution has on society are irrelevant ]just because evolution(which does not say got is not real) has atheist believers does not mean that it is not real and athirst doesn't mean immoral. 2.b.citing Atlantis helps nothing humans are at their most advanced state that they have ever been(technologically any way) 3.*sighs in frustration* this place is for science the "god doesn't like is not evidence" 5. that is a opinion and what is "spiritual reality"? 5. even if there were no evidence for evolution you can't say this as you can't prove it wrong 7. op means "original poster" thats you. you are not a resource that i would consider credible no it imposable to support id the only thing you can do is to say that we did not see it happen and present a "straw man" 8.you can't expect us to recreate every experiment the scientific communality proves or disproves an experiment. 9.straw man, no one ever said it was and its not 10.opinion but its ironic that an creationist would use the term "fairy tale" 11.a. no its not a fact 11. b. nonsense i wouldn't usually say something so simply but... it just is.... what more is there to say? who is making money? 13.a. religion causes wars. 13.b. it explains disease it does not cause it 13.c. "sinful behavior" this is just religious nonsense 13.d. homosexuality is not caused by evolution 14.you believe because because you want to believe. fact does not have to be moral and god and id if far from fact. 15. can you cite this please? and even if its true its meaningless 17.straw man evolution simply states that ape and man have a common ape like ancestor which has some serious evidence 18.your evidence? 19.a. Darwin evolution is not accepted any more 19.b. evidence? statistic? proof of any kind? no? EPIC FAIL 19.C not relevant to the validity of your so called "argument" but your spelling is quite poor (hypocritical i know) and many "words" you use you say are not even words 20.a. it has been observed just not directly 20.b. creationism is no more scientific fact: little changes can add up to be big differences. so macro-evolution does exist

i think he is saying that genetics is not yet advanced enough to identify a "behavior gene"

perhaps disliking the taste of some chemicals reduced the odds of consuming something toxic. nor do I but other branches of science do deal with behavior. just not genetics as it applies to behavior so if you pumped a cow full of antibiotics and antifungals it would die of starvation?

i recent idea occurred to me that chocolate chip cookies are good for you the chocolate can be good for you http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7339594/ and what do you drink with cookies? what do most Americans need more of? milk! more cookies=more dairy cookies are for you!

people don't really know whats healthy they just make blanket statements and make some graphs and go on fear monger campaigns

shouldn't this thread be in religion? could someone outline all the proof so i can see it in one comment? i know many creationists who constantly complaining that "ID" should be taught in schools and would like very much to acquire some new talking points thankyou

so fat, sugar, and salt are necessary but were scarce to early humans, and they either used all the fat they ate or died before excess fat created an issue. now with no scarcity of these nutrients and less need to use energy and less chase of being eaten by a lion or dieing of a cold people are now living long enough for excess fat to become a serious problem. wouldn't these kind of shifts possibly cause the extinction of a species when it evolves to have a a particular trait and then suddenly it requires the opposite instinct to survive. ever heard of phycology or behavioral science?

what the OP seems to be saying is that if you have never seen something you can't prove it. he seems to be saying that a "creator" could have created the universe in such a way as to make it appear that the evolution has taken place and that if a rock has a certain % of an isotope relative to another it is just that this "creator" created it that way. and that changes in bacteria is just an unusual bit of information that is irrelevant. although i disagree with all outlined above i do not have a strong enough knowledge of scientific argument to refute it and i do not think that ANY amount of evidence would be enough to make the op believe evolution. in the end science will never be able to say for sure that life (or anything else for that matter) was not magic-ed up but bearing magic evolution is the best explanation made so far. in addition keep in mind that evolution is not in disagreement with ID. that does not make ID any less wrong however.

but the rainbow is there regardless of the presence of an observer

the ash and the table are different because they are actually 2 different things. the wood of the table goes through a chemical reaction and becomes a new substance with new proprieties. as for mater's existence we can no more prove that it is real any more than we can prove that we are not in a matrix like situation. but a claim like mater does not exist has no reason for being adopted

news stations just need a headline once they are proven wrong they don't correct their error

as soon as the # of chromosomes are different

I always agreed with split ticketing and just voting for the best candidate(ie. being an independent) , but now i find the idea of casting a vote that would make the president incapable of doing his job appalling.

i'm not new i'v been a member sense July how did you block pioneer's comments?

at least you don't see as many lefts think that video clips of them hunting and fishing will make them more human and therefore make them more likely to win( i have never seen this from a left) but right rally to anyone who can shoot Moose and the right are far beater at it. and like to say things like "well i don't know how it works in your world but in my world and the voters world it works like...(insert rubbish here)

the LN2 cloud would be safest

should the length of a presidency be longer?

things can be made cheaper elsewhere so they are made elsewhere so there are less jobs in the states so fewer people buy stuff companies outsource more to make up profits so more people have even less money etc

what is this rubbish? your blaming atheists for the recession? and not the fact that a religious society teaches to believe anything without evidence and that "GOD" will wave some kind of magic wand and make the fiscal criss go away?

and i was just pointing out that the party in power has all the time in the world if they're not doing their jobs!

except bush wasn't governing a nation he was on vacation and partying on boats with mission accomplished banners

free trade is damaging the u.s economy and is a failed policy. but why does no one say that?

that is the thread that inspired me to start this one and this one http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52579-the-obama-era/page__pid__570934#entry570934 I am an independent but it seems that america needs to stick with something long enough for it to work. and I think that for any plan to change anything they must have some kind of plain. not some kind of blanket statements like "small businesses are good" or "tariffs are bad" or "we need more jobs" or "no more outsourcing"