Dr. Dalek

Which is true, after all a long time ago there was a "scientific consensus" that God created the heavan and the earth, continental drift was impossible, Dragons were a recently extinct life form, and the Fench scientific establishment once belived that it was imposible for rocks to fall from the sky. European scientists studying caves a long time ago concluded that eventualy the earth would be dry from water pentrating further underground. Things have change since then we have leaned new details that we didn't know before and it changed everything, including the doomsday scenario of water penetrating underground. I'd like to compair this to a certain modern day doomsday scenario.

I just relised that stuff on Global Warming is always in the Ecology and the Environment section; which is under the Biology section. Wouldn't it be more relavent in a section made for Atomsphereic Science, or are the two topics close enough for the difference to be neglagable.

Good point, women are a lot better looking, but keep in mind the term Mankind has its roots in an anglo-saxon term Mannez meaning human. Back then men were called were (thus were-wolf, man-wolf) and women were called wife.

I'm sorry, I was going for a firendly but competative jab not a direct insult. I've never been very good making my intentions clear. I admit it. If you like I'd like to start a thred on this subject and invite you to join in. I'm in the mood for a decent debate.

I don't think moral questions can ever be answered in a way that is true for a society, only for individuals.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! he he ho ho ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Oh wait your serious? Sorry. . . . . . .

Opps, but it still kinda is relavent after all if I exercise I commit less glutonny.

UK, Isreal? They have Nukes but like us they have no intention of using them! Iran and North Korea might just use them! The UN is hardy a legitamate anything. Moonbat.

Of course we have been (somewhat misguidedly) been useing "The Earth" as a synonim for the Biosphere. The "Rock" is the Geosphere.

Say, why does it seem that when I exorcise I also snack less? I would assume exorise would encourage me to eat more to gain energy.

The whole : Immediatly Most endangered species start recovering don't make sense. They arn't going to start multiplying the second we are gone. Oh look the last human just died, and now there are hundreds of condors that weren't here before! There is a step missing here I think. Whats your source on this?

A firend of mine used to believe that, but I didn't give the idea much credit because he said the reason he thought this was because of Operation Iraqi Liberation. I mean; that seems to be a rediculous reason to be formulating conspracy theorys.

I found her on face book, thanks guys

Is a psedoscientist someone who is too eager to believe, someone who is too eager to dismiss, or both?

Yeah but what have they done since then except threten with sanctions and resolutions that they never act on?

Latly I've been feeling a bit nostagic and have been trying to search the internet for old firends. One person I have been looking for graduated when I was a sophmore in high school and I thought went to UMaine like me. However whne I came here I did not find her, either physicaly or in the directory. I know that her family moved to North Carolina half a year after she graduated. How might I be able to find this old firend?

As far as I have been able to find it dosen't seem as if anyone ever tried scientificaly to estabish "if" there is a top to thew food chain or what it is. If we go by this definition than a food chains could be an oversimplified version of the dynamic systems in nature. Everything is eventualy eaten or decomposed. So there is no "top of the food chain" its all just a complexe self fueling system. I think the whole "humans are on top of the food chain" thing might have been something someone made-up for a childrens text book that just got out of hand.

Opps, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they kill us only that they eat us. Yes exactly I have faith that evolution will find away to kill off a large portion of our population. We cannot keep going forever. Are you guys talking about panspirmia?

Plenty of things eat humans; Mosquetos, Magots, Bacteria, Fungi, Leeches, Just because we arn't chased through the woods by large fang bearing beasts (most of the time) dosn't mean we are on top.

I have no loved ones with major genetic abnormalities, or deficencies. For the most part we are a pretty healthy bunch. A little quirky but healthy. Also I have had loved ones die during my life, and it is sad when it happens, but everything has it's time everyone dies, that shouldn't be changed, and that probably can't be changed. Look if you guys want to continue discusing this I sugest you start a new thred.

Fine, you'll have your ideal and I'll have mine, . . . . I'd rather a few people be let to die. . . . You don't have to believe that, I didn't ask you to. . . . end of discusion.

I'm not saying we should go around killing everyone who I deem unfit. Also I did not say that I would be choosing who is unift. I'm saying that maybe we would be better off if we let nature take it's course. Maybe

First of all I'd like to apologise IMM, I feel as if I've been opposing your veiw point for the sake of opposing you, something I hate to have other people do to me. Secondly I'd like to say that upon consideration even my "Evolution Based Moral Theory" sugests that animal testing, and many drugs and medical treatment ingeneral are not nesicary. After all a lot of people who medical science wants to save are people who have inherint genetic flaws whose presence will ultimatly weaken our species as a whole, aslo I know more than a few anecdotes (and perhaps later on some statistics) that show that in many cases medical treatment isn't necisary. One example would be my mother who took medical treatment for an autoimmune disorder that (according to one doctor) easily could have gotten better on its own. She ended up worse off because of some of the drugs she was taking. Also is the interesting case of my old substatute teacher, Mr. Karr, who hasn't seen a Doctor in decades and still has a fairly normal life dispite is potentialy life threatening allergies and sever asthma. There are a few things I still disagree with you on, as I have mentioned I am a hunter, but not a sport hunter, or a trophy hunter, I hunt for food, and conectivity with nature. I don't know if you stil find fault with that, but as I have said I feel that humans, dispite their higher thinking are still inherintly animal.

Protesting isn't doing something, its trying to encourage other people to do something for you, somewhat analogious of a child throwing a fit. (Not trying to sound offensive) Good for you, just don't try to force me to do that and I have no problem with you. Sounds very nice of you, but dosn't most of that money go to administrative costs? Thats good, I have no objections or cynical remarks about that. ALF? Isn't that a terrorist organization? (I'm not trying to sound accusative right now I'm actualy asking) What degrees? Are they related to biomedical reasearch? I don't think I'd mind so much if the people they forcably took organs from were already dead, with some respects paid to the families religion and the departed last wishes reguarding burial. Other wise . . . Now I must retreat to think, I was actualy surprised that I feel I must establish my opinion in my own mind befor continuing. I've always had an opinion on this, but I seem to not be able to articulate it that well. I thought I might have been coming off as a bit illogical sounding befor, but bear in mind I'm smart but I've been accused of being a bit scatter brained. I'll try to be more concise and reasonable from now on.

What I think Cyberman is getting at is that when you put logic into a context of opinions and emotions you can use it to substanciate your claim, but how logical your argument is, is redundant because other people can also apply logic in the context of their emotions and opinions which are different than yours. This seems relivant to our debate because we could easily go on forever arguming logicaly about morality, which is based on emotions and opinions wich differ from person to person.