Phi for All

He seems sincere now.

Your rep is only visible from your frame of reference. It's like inertial reputation.

Pretty soon you'll start spreading links back here to garner credibility you don't deserve. You're not even good enough for our Pseudoscience forum. davidmabusa, the web is tired of you. Go away.

My prediction is that you will prove yourself to be inconsistent with our purpose. I base this on your horrible behavior elsewhere. I shall count the seconds until you are gone from our boards. I further predict conspiracies shall be your petard. Hoist away.

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? Falsifiability refers to whether or not a theory possesses the attributes of a theory. Gravity is a falsifiable theory because there is a possibility of disproving it if it doesn't behave the way it should. Your ludicrous child abuse strawman is not even a theory, but if it were, *not* finding evidence of abuse makes the theory falsifiable. How can you ever prove that God might not exist if we can't observe Him in the first place? This sounds like a desperate non sequitor. You expand nothing. You are jumping to another question to avoid answering something tougher. And it "raises" the question, not "begs" it. Begging the question is a circular argument that is considered bad logic. I have no idea where you pulled this context from, but it stinks. "Creativity", "creating" and "Creator" have as little to do with Creationism as Creationism has to do with religion. "Raising" the question. More strawmen. What does this have to do with your misunderstanding of Creationism? Absolutely wrong. Creation and Creationism are two different things. Completely. Misleading Vividness, Strawman, Appeal to Emotion. Wow, no offense but you're a preacher with very little understanding of rational discussion. If you stay here long enough and don't let your ego get in the way of learning, your obvious intelligence will help you better prepare your arguments. Right now you're all over the board. Again, no offense intended. Some of our best members started out the same (including moi). A story about creating code words and a story about creating a national registry of sex offenders are not stories of Creationism. Hand-waving, more strawmen and now it seems like you're arguing a completely different topic. Is this the right thread for you? Please tell me how you directly observe God using the scientific method. Not the works you credit Him for and not the writings of churchmen. Empirical observation of God, please. I do have a suggestion. Stay on topic and if there is something you disagree with you should point it out and discuss why you disagree with it instead of being oblique and bringing up lots of unrelated points. People often hide ignorance here by chiding people to lighten up or "don't be offended by the truth". It's a crutch and you don't need it. If you have intelligible ideas they will stand up without crutches.

I can see how my statement was too broad. The historical impact of religion on science is easy to chart. I was referring mainly to how religious ideologies are based on faith in the unobservable, something science really can't even measure. In that way religion is mostly ignored by the scientist who is waiting for evidence to back up religious claims. Without proof there is little to impact science.

Asking to be rewarded defeats the system. People should be moved to give you rep points, by good questions and good answers.

Most religions impact science very little. Gods remains unobservable so science really can't apply a process for experimentation. Little of what religion claims is of interest to science because it's not predictable, testable and repeatable. Science is content to shrug and wait skeptically for evidence. But Creationism attempts to refute what science knows with certainty approaching fact, like the age of the earth and how creatures evolve over long periods of time. Creationists claim that science is wrong because God can make things seem older than they really are. They claim that the earth was created in six 24-hour day cycles despite the fact that Hebrew uses other interpretations for their word for day. They claim the earth is much younger than science predicts. And the only proof they ever offer is a book written centuries ago by men. Creationism is not a religion. It is an attempt to repudiate science and create a false controversy with the goal of bringing Christian teachings into the public schools. It's latest disguise, Intelligent Design, has been thoroughly debunked and ruled as improper in some states. I fail to see where "that goes for atheist and theist alike in that we are all creationists" is a valid statement. I have no idea where it came from and can think of no context where it might make the slightest sense.

Thanks for the reminder. I've been lax about focusing on good posts; it's always easier to give the bad ones more of your time, unfortunately. I will endeavor to reward more often. Good post, grats on the 100 posts, have some rep, ChemSiddiqui.

Well, imo this thread went nowhere, and didn't even come close to being interesting psychologically. Lots of fingers-in-the-ears la-la-la-ing, defensive posturing and hand-waving. This happens a lot when someone has an idea they think is awe-inspiring and then presents it as a fait accompli. There is almost no room to discuss anything and with no real merits or evidence the OP is left to deride detractors and try to win any argument in order to pretend they won *this* one. Remember that scientific speculation requires good ammunition *and* an open mind. Thread closed.

As the ship of Creationism founders upon the rocks of rational thought, the desperate crew looks for any line to cling to that will justify getting on board in the first place.

Are burdens from the grave the responsibility of the living? Even if the reality is that the research was wrong. It's not a speculation if you make a statement. This is a discussion forum and it makes it difficult when a proclamation or statement is posed for discussion. Speculation, supposition, hypothesis, these are what drives discussion. What you are trying to do is more like a teacher informing students what they must learn. Please phrase your suppositions so we can discuss your thesis rather than have you tell us why we must believe.

We have only the word of the OP that the test has already been taken. And even if he has already taken it, publishing answers could help someone else to cheat. This is Homework Help; sorry, we can't give answers here, just help.

We have only the word of the OP that the test has already been taken. And even if he has already taken it, publishing answers could help someone else to cheat. This is Homework Help; sorry, we can't give answers here, just help.

Oh it is, as you can well imagine. The Autobahn is set up so they can divert traffic around virtually any spot that needs repair. But that's no different than it is here. I guess the big difference to me is whether you'd prefer to be diverted for three weeks every other year with our current system, or 3 months every ten years with the German system. It seems to me that the current system keeps you diverted more often, AND you don't get nice roads for very long. So are more shorter diversions more often better than fewer longer diversions less often? I don't think it's a humanity issue; there are plenty of places where the consumer pays exorbitant prices due to either supply / demand pressures, inflated perceived value, lack of market knowledge (as in the case of how roads are built) and the biggest culprit, convenience. We don't think about why we're paying $50 for a computer game that costs $7 to make; we think about all the hundreds of hours of enjoyment we'll get for our $50. That's an inflated perceived value; you'd never let an auto dealer get away with a 700% markup, even though you'll spend hundreds of hours driving the car (you'll experience the sharp markup when you go to buy parts, though). And when you combine lack of knowledge with the lure of convenience it's fairly easy to make the majority of people feel good about your high-priced product or service. I wouldn't blame humanity quite yet. The folks who are spinning our information before they give it to us are very good at what they do. They are protecting a very large market, even though that market is hideously wasteful and expensive. Every business will try to post the best profits they are allowed to make. It's up to the consumer to get educated, get motivated and call out for some change.

This is usually the reaction from lazy, poorly educated Americans (no, not specifically you, seven8s). "It can't be done!" they rail. "You'll never figure out how to solve all the problems your idea would cause, so it's better to do nothing!" *sigh* Fortunately, I don't have to figure out how to accomplish fully cured asphalt roads. A group of people called the Germans do a very good job and they proudly display their achievements in a little invention called the Autobahn. Smooth as silk and ecstasy to drive on. The Germans figured out that curing the asphalt minimizes the impact of erosion by chems and weather. It's stronger if it's allowed to set up before you start mashing it down. What's so hard to understand about that? Jobs? It's not like the work will be gone tomorrow. There would be a transitional period. And there would be all those billions of extra dollars waiting for new industries and new markets. Maybe, just maybe, some of that money could go towards school and re-training for folks who used to pour asphalt. It may still be my tax money paying for this, but people would be getting better education and we all get to ride on great roads, don't forget that. You'll probably want to pull out that tired old, "Just because it worked once doesn't mean it will work again" argument. Unfortunately, science tells us to repeat successes whenever possible. It usually leads to something wonderful. I said, "as a rock", scarecrow. Not "is a rock". Would it frighten you if the hat was German? Maybe. But the flagman wouldn't show up as much if the roads last longer. I'll trade three months of detours for each road that gets fixed and I'll happily wave to the flag man every morning if eventually I get less construction and repaving slowdowns, less fresh asphalt on my car, less road taxes, more driving enjoyment and more peace of mind that a stupid, hideously wasteful process has been cleaned up leaving us ready for progress. I'm not trying to kid you. My pet peeve is that we continue to let this problem happen out of convenience. As the OP suggests, we're afraid of upsetting the parts we like by fixing what we don't like. I think we let our fear of what might happen make us forget that progress needs momentum and usually gives us plenty of time for corrections.

Time to drag my favorite peeve out. Roads. The majority of the road-construction industry in the US is kept alive on planned obsolescence. Asphalt is put down and we're allowed to drive on it the same day. This insures that potholes will form, usually within the first year. When asphalt is cured for 90 days without the pounding of traffic on it, it sets up solid as a rock and probably wouldn't need repair for the next ten years. Can you imagine the money we would save by being patient and letting a little inconvenience take place? Oh, by the way, you also get to drive on glass-smooth roads all the time too, with less slow-down due to construction and repairs. We'd rather pay higher taxes to pay workers we usually see leaning on shovels than have to take a detour for three months. It does seem like that much stupidity had to have been enhanced somehow. I've often speculated that some smart people might not want to have too many other smart people around; the uneducated ones are a bit easier to hoodwink. "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool." -Wizard's First Rule

Exactly, and we should stop calling our voting process a "race". Americans love sports and like to back the winner. Voting should not be about choosing the winner. It should be about electing the person who will represent you best.

First time poster joins to remind us that we shouldn't discuss whether magnets affect our well-being, we should just accept it.

I heard once that chicken farmers use low levels of cyanide in their chicken feed to increase the number of white eggs as opposed to brown ones. Is this just a myth or does anyone know it to be true?

I met a farmer once who raised three-legged chickens. You could see them speeding around the yard like roadrunners; they were so *fast*. The farmer figured he'd get more money for them because of the extra drumstick. Unfortunately, he could never catch one to see how it tasted.

1st Person: "Please stop yelling."2nd Person: "I'M NOT YELLING! THIS, THIS IS YELLING!!!" I say we pick 4-8 people, divide them into two teams and do a formal debate on the question, "Should SFN have a sub-forum that allows religious discussion?" If it's determined that we should, we should have another debate on the question, "How can we keep a new Religion sub-forum from being like the old ones?" It can't hurt. Unless there's going to be another Inquisition. That didn't work out too well for estrogenders. They burned too well.

I want my present back. And do some pushups!

Now your changing the goalposts, widening them to include "malicious intent". You claimed there was no difference between the early Christian church "borrowing" an earlier symbol and the Darwin fish folks "borrowing" the same symbol. I pointed out that I know of no evidence that the early Christians "borrowed" the symbol in order to twit the former users. In fact, the evidence shows they were trying to establish themselves by using symbols already in use. How is your position honest and mine not? As I said, intent seems to be the key here.

That's not the point at all, unless you could show that the Christians who borrowed the symbol did it to play off the former users of the symbol, to set themselves up as an alternative in a semi-mocking way. Intent is the key to my objection of the Darwin fish. I think the intent of people who espouse evolutionary theory should be to enlighten others when asked and positively affect the general knowledge of evolution. They shouldn't attempt to mock religion to support evolution when history shows this to be a poor tactic. Religion can retreat behind omnipotent shields when attacked and whatever logic you might have been able to effect is lost behind ideological barriers. When I sell something, I don't do it by trashing the competition. That makes people get automatically defensive (we root for the oppressed underdog a LOT). I just point out why what I'm selling is better. Isn't there a way to praise the wonders of evolution without shoving a hand in the face of people who really haven't studied it? I swear, half the people I've met who denounce evolution are just lazy; it's easier to listen to their clergymen than to go back to school and study biology.