Phi for All

This is not a forum for preaching. I won't let believers tell us their way is right and all others wrong, and I won't let disbelievers do the same thing. There are other forums for bashing the beliefs of others. This is a science forum, so please make sure you approach the subject of religion with that in mind.

To me, this sounds more like, "When are you just going to admit that they're real so you can join the bandwagon and I can stop spending so much time convincing you?" I remain skeptical but hopeful that we are not alone in this galaxy. Open and intelligent adult discussion has been going on for quite some time. Much of that discussion has even applied the scientific method to the study, but that's where it all breaks down. When something defies direct observation and repeatable experimentation, it tends to fall into non-quantifiable categories like religion and fairy tales. Especially when alternative, more likely explanations are readily available.

First' date=' get a clean plastic one gallon milk jug and remove the lid. Pour the JWRed into the jug and take it out to your back yard. Find an open patch of dirt [i']away from any vegetation[/i]. Turn the jug upside down and let the contents soak into the bare ground. If the bare ground turns to mud and still smells of methanol, it was genuine JWRed. If it ate through the plastic jug before you could pour it on the ground, it was fake. Now go out and buy one of the single malts that Severian recommended.

You failed to include the tree in your definition of "dialogue", which you now clearly state is for two or more parties. You weren't suggesting the tree should not respond to your post? Because it looks incredibly like that, especially when I post it twice. Do you often admonish others for your failures? I think the adult thing to do here is admit you made an error and move on instead of trying to justify it. This is the best anyone can ever come up with when trying to use science to disprove anything that is not subject to the scientific method. It's always an "I'm right, your wrong" standstill. And it usually has the opposite effect from what you want. You claim to "want to erode the influence of religion on uncertain minds by exposing them to alternative views", but what ends up happening is that you pair up scientific reasoning with blind faith in literal biblical translations in those uncertain minds, lending religion a credibility it didn't have before. Creationists love to argue with scientists because they can then claim there is a controversy, and schoolchildren should be taught both sides so they can choose. Then ideas like Intelligent Design worm their way into science classes.

You'd get a 99.5 on my Creepy-Meter. What if inertia could be reversed so you had to spend energy to stay still?

It would be Excalibur vs The Purse in a cage match to remember. What if toe and fingernail clippings became the new form of currency?

I am appalled. How harmful will this be to the poor animal's psyche? I just can't think of anything more sick and twisted than naming a male dolphin "Cindy".

The Dutch would KICK ASS!!! What if no one would take offense at your next action, what would you do?

If you don't mind me responding, it is my understanding that the US Patent Office was so inundated with perpetual motion machine designs in the 1800s that a law was written giving them the right to turn down any request, without testing it, that even sounded like it would break the laws of nature. I think this is one of the reasons Newman tried to sue the USPTO.

Here is the basic concept, as he presented it to an audience on the Tonight Show (must have been 20 years ago): Newman noticed similarities in electromagnetic fields and a gyroscope's tendency to resist being pushed over. He decided to combine the two, making an electromagnetic pole spin like a gyroscope. He claims the resulting EM field is so powerful it can be used to oscillate a generator that puts back more power than is required to operate both the magnet and the gyroscope. None of his reproduced designs (despite millions of dollars being poured into them) have worked the way he claims (his first model is the only one he ever tries to demonstrate, and he won't let anyone examine it). He claims that he won't reveal his secrets until the US Patent Office gives him a utility patent (they aren't required to even look at it because it violates the laws of thermodynamics). My problem with it is this: he has taken millions of dollars from investors to reproduce his concept and has never once given demonstrable proof that he isn't feeding extra energy into his system. He has driven a car powered by his original motor around various stadia around the country but won't let anyone examine it. At this point he wouldn't need a patent to prove that he was the inventor. So why won't he release his experimental evidence, his notes and his prototype for general observation and study?

McDonald's would be serving goannaburgers. What if chocolate was the root of all evil instead of money?

From the link: Never trust a man who puts the words "immediate future" in title case. I saw him touting this machine on the Tonight Show when Johnny Carson was still hosting.

No, it would just raise more age-related questions. What if singing in the shower were suddenly made illegal?

I like how they say the stories about huge reptiles during human history may have been embellished in later years but HAD to be based in fact to begin with. Like there is no way someone could have come across fossil bones and made up stories to go with them. There's twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back.

This is NOT a dialogue, it is an open thread in a non-formal internet debate forum. You were perhaps thinking you had sent a Private Message to ecoli. I appreciate your use of the quote function to help frame where your response comes from but unless you specifically request an answer from just one person, anyone else should feel free to respond. [/MOD] My answer to the OP is that as long as you allow religion and science to explain or refute one another, you have fallen into a trap from which there is no escape. You simply can't allow one to use the other for any reason. Matters of faith rely on observational criteria that are completely anathema to science, and vice versa. Gods can't be observed and still maintain the faith of their followers. Science requires some form of observation to formulate a thesis. You discredit both science and religion when you try to mix them.

I'm not familiar with the comic or it's characters. Norman Lear's Archie Bunker character from All in the Family used to say many stupid, racist things to point out just how stupid and racist we can be.

Google "Selective Reduction Abortions". I suppose it could happen by accident as well.

There would be a city in England called Newer York. What if everyone you had ever been mean to shows up at your house tomorrow morning?

Recovering alcoholics are urged not to make any major life decisions (other than to quit dringking, of course) for at least 90 days. While the effects of alcohol are still evident your judgement is considered to be impaired. How could you trust your judgement if your brain's pleasure center was hardwired? Wouldn't your decisions be biased in favor of your next... surge? And how would your business and social relationships suffer if your reward system is self-controlled?

We'd still need to find someone worthy of the job. What if science discovers a way for the brain to rest while the body gets exercise AT THE SAME TIME!

I'm with Pangloss here. Without knowing why they issued the suspension we're just speculating. It would also help to know how this "desire" was phrased. "I'd like to sleep with her" is different from "I'd like to tie her up and **** her brains out!" If the administration had any reason to think the teacher might have been in danger then they had an obligation to take action. Let me ask you this: if a student told a teacher he/she wanted to have sex with him/her in the middle of a class, would it be cause for suspension? Since it was done in public on the web is there really any difference? brad89 said: but is this really true?

Whether or not joining our forum solely to spread an anti-Firfox agenda is inconsistent with our purpose is a question for another day. What I can determine quite clearly is that this thread need not stay open a minute longer. It is done.

Mastertech and RyanJ, some of your remarks are getting close to Flaming. You are obviously baiting each other by using phrases like "You don't get out much" and "Don't you get it?". Keep it civil, please. Stick to the facts and let's use no ad hominem logic.

Making the fuel more volatile helps for starting but once the engine is warm that mixture would likely cause vapor lock, especially in warm weather. If the fuel gets vaporized before it reaches the carb due to higher volatility you'll lose power or stall. I like doG's suggestion. Figure on using ether to prime the cold engine and make it easier on yourself by rigging a dispenser for it. Maybe a foot pump to free both hands?

Happy Festihannukwanzstmas! And a prosperous New Year to all! wear this Christmas May Santa bring you