Phi for All

Touch screen takes my hands away from the keyboard/mouse arrangement, slowing me down. Marks up the screen with fingerprints, too.

 

It might be OK with web browsing or areas where you don't need to type much. But ramp up my monitor size, give me a voice interface and integrate all the software so I can drag in programs as I need them and I'm sold. Maybe a cyberglove to keep my screen clean, too.

Aga's are a type (brand?) of range/stove/hob. I believe traditionally coal powered (our one was), but I've seen an oil-fired one (my grandparents).

Apparently made from cast iron. Looks very interesting.

http://www.aga-rayburn.co.uk/Aga.htm

No. I remember reading here at SFN that you never want to mix bleach and ammonia since it creates chloramine which is highly toxic.

 

You could try bleach but dilute it first, maybe a tablespoon or two per pint of warm water. Keep increasing the bleach concentration if that doesn't work. You just don't want to overdo the bleach right away. Definitely a multi-stage process to get it looking right.

Try a wire brush and either alcohol or straight methyl ethyl ketone or benzene. Don't use any ammonia-based cleaners, they don't like each other.

 

You may remove the purple but still have a stain left. I don't know anything about acid stained concrete but these folks were at an architect's convention I attended. Pretty cool looking stuff. Coverup may be your only hope.

Thread closed pending further investigation.

There was also reference to Nutella - what the heck is that?

Nutella is a highly addictive, psychoactive substance from Europe used by many for a false feeling of euphoria.

 

http://www.nutellausa.com/start.htm

But if even in retropect analysis you search and find something that might push you over the sane line? Is there a grey area and have you discovered your gray area and your limits sane wise or do you immediatly seek professional help? pljames

The first step to correcting a problem is ackowledging that it exists. If you are questioning your sanity it is time to bring in an objective POV. Speak to a trained counselor for that. Personal problems are one thing, but nobody is capable of rational self-exploration into their own sanity.

 

Nobody here knows you well enough to do more than speculate. Speak to a trained counselor.

Let's all remember that this thread is in Evolution, an established scientific branch. Let's also remember that ad hominem is also a logical fallacy; no more name calling, please.

 

Evolution is not interested in spiritual beliefs, neither supporting them nor denying them. Please keep this thread on track, since, if it begins to dip towards spirituality or spontaneous creation without factual evidence to back it up, it will be moved to Religion or Pseudoscience respectively.

To save me reading all of this... material, will someone please tell me what any of this has to do with the topic before I go ahead and slap the whole thread down.

The original topic was fairly easily answered and the OP didn't bother to stick around. The rest of the thread has "evolved" into a typical evo vs creo obfuscafest.

They are not. Neutrons have no electrical charge.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Whilst growing up we referred to them as 'bus stop blaggers[/i']' as strangely enough they hung around bus stops being generally abusive to passers by.

"Blaggers" sounds like it stems from the British term "blackguard" (pronounced blag-ard), a name given to the lower menials of a nobleman's court and came to mean someone who was morally reprehensible.

National identity could be construed as the stories a nation and it's citizens are brought up on. If this is the case, television has changed our national identities quite a bit. People still read stories to their children, but where 50 years ago the stories were about mostly historical or literary figures and events, at present pop culture has superceded them.

 

I dislike that sitcoms have become our national "stories". Like Pangloss, I appreciate that people like Miyazaki and Rowling are helping to change that. As much as I liked the TV series Friends, I was angry with the episode where two of the characters bought identical apothecary tables from Pottery Barn and had to hide this fact from another character. The catalog got several plugs, the merchandise was shown over and over and Pottery Barn was held up as an icon of popular good taste. It may have been an American story and full of cultural flavor but I also heard Pottery Barn sold a LOT of apothecary tables that week.

I do not know who named Pluto. Neither do I know why the name Pluto was chosen.

It was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930. I'm not sure if he was given the right to name it or if Pluto had been pre-chosen as the name of the next planet found in our solar system.

Had I read the 2nd line of the link I just posted, I had read that Pluto is named after this god.

His Greek equivalent was Hades, god of the underworld.

No, the reason your version of evolution isn't compatible with Christians is because The Bible says that God created man from dust. It says he created animals and all other wildlife separatly.

The Bible has many simplistic, non-scientific explanations for things. I've always taken it to mean that the shephards and nomads of biblical times would have shook their heads wonderingly if the Bible said "And the Lord God formed man of amino acids and other chemicals using metabolic homeostasis."

 

You know that taking a literal interpretation of the Bible has caused more division than anything else in the Christian faith. The animals may have been created on a different day than Man (the exact day being different between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), but they were supposedly also created form the ground. Is ground different than dust? Is dust better than ground? Are ribs better than dust?

Glider, is there any cumulative damaging effects to this practice, other than increasing the likliehood of fainting?

 

Also, beware taking showers that hot if you've had any alcohol. This puts additional pressure on the cardiovascular system.

I know experts don't recommend staying in hot tubs or hot springs very long. A local hot springs I know has a pool that is 106 degrees and your not allowed to stay in that more than 5 minutes (after you've been acclimated by soaking in progressively warmer pools before you hit the 106). The hot water causes your cardiovascular system to go into overdrive, your blood vessels dilate, your blood pressure drops, heart rate increases to keep up with the pressure loss, your blood pumps faster, etc.

 

You are also bypassing the normal cooling process of sweating and blood is being pumped to the skin to release heat that can't radiate out because your in hot water. I don't know what damage this can cause but it could be similar to heatstroke. Over the long run, doing this twice a day can't be a safe practice.

OK, my friend, now let's you and me stop right here and get one thing straight. Did you, or did you not post in message 86 of this thread the following statement?

You're right, I did not go back far enough in rereading. I apologize. I started the misunderstanding.

 

Let's end the misunderstanding here. Jesus and his followers created Christianity. What has come to be the Catholic Church was the first officially recognized and canonized form of Christianity. It's followers outnumber (however slightly) all other Christian denominations. It was incorrect of hermes3 to claim that what Catholics believe is not what most Christians believe.

 

Can we go on from here?

Hi Phi. Ok, I'll drop the word "officially."

You're dropping the wrong word! I never said anything about who CREATED Christianity, which is what you're arguing. I said what is now the Catholic Church was the first officially recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity. I'll say it again, I'm not talking about the creation of Christianity. This must be a misunderstanding on your part.

In all due respect for your authority here, I do think you need to deal with your own dogged buligerency in this matter. Are you trying to create your own personal bully pulpit[/i'] here or something?

I think I make it very clear when I'm posting as a Moderator and when I'm posting as a member. My "authority here" has not been needed.

 

If I seem belligerent (although, as a Taurus, I prefer your bull-igerent )it's because of two points:

1. You seem determined to misread what I write, even though it's very plain. You target arguments I have not made. In fact, most of the discussions we have had in this and other threads have all been because I tried to clarify or object to a specific point you made. You then proceed to argue all around the point rather than admit you might have exaggerated or misspoke.

2. When I responded to herme3's statement about what the Catholic Church had done and how it didn't reflect what most Christians believed, it was to correct his use of the majority and also because it frustrates me no end to hear one group of Christians talk about how another group of Christians have it all wrong. This is a problem with religions in general, but I find it specifically bothersome among people who believe in the words of Jesus. It is appalling to me the amount of misery and strife that has arisen from discrepancies about what it means to "believeth in Him".

I brought it up because these, including myself are not included in the tally of Protestant Christians, whereas all persons who were ever baptized in the RCC are indeed officially counted in the tally, unless they are officially excommunicated, and that is rare, indeed.

The population statistics aren't necessarily gathered from the Churches themselves, which would obviously be tainted. More often it's from census information where people are asked personally which religion they belong to.

As I understand rm and ns, it is strictly a random and natural process, without the intervention of id/intelligent design. Please apprise me if mistaken here.

Arguably, randomness and nature could be God working in mysterious ways, no? I was pointing out that evolution isn't concerned with what is behind the changes in allele frequencies over time, only that they are observable and verifiable.

Fyi, I am not a yec, and I don't subscribe to the 24 hour day until day 5, since there's no Biblical indication that sun, moon and stars determined the length of the first four days, including the day the sun, moon and stars were created, stars here, likely those closest to earth and maybe the Milky Way galexy. The specifics on all this are not given in the scriptures, nor need they be, since it's info we really don't need to know.

That is an interesting belief system, and I mean that sincerely. It was never my intention to argue what your faith was about, only that you not ascribe to evolution things it has nothing to do with.

Big things are called female for some reason such as ships. But little things male; poor little guy etc, when treading on an insect of either sex.

Ladybugs. Queen bees. Black widow spiders. And butterlies all seem to have a generally feminine aspect.

 

I agree that, with the planets, their aspect is based on which gods they represented. I'm only familiar with the Greek and Roman appellations. Did other mythologies identify their gods with the planets?

 

 

 

 

 

(Moved from Theoretical Physics to Astronomy. If the focus continues being simply gender it will move to GD.)

Its hard to explain the beginnigs of the universe through evolution, at least with biological evolution.

It's not just hard, it's completely impossible, because evolution doesn't attempt to explain the beginnings of the universe. Nothing in the theory suggests how life started, only how it changes from generation to generation.

What I don't understand is why an evolutionist even considers a god? For what? And wouldn't any god need to evolve[/i'] to exist for the evo?? How does that work??

More meaningless handwaving, trying to force evolution to be at complete odds with creationism. Do you really not understand that evolution is all about passing genes along to the next generation? Do you subscribe to some apochryphal belief that God, through the Holy Spirit, passed His genes along to Jesus and that Jesus had children and passed his genes along to further generations? I've never heard this from a creationist before.

Why is it poor argument[/i'], given that uni = one?

Becuase "uni-verse" is only a name given to what was, at the time, considered to be the one, all encompassing realm of existense. If that is possibly wrong, do we deny the possibility by hanging on tenaciously to the meaning behind it's original name?

The Christian religion was, in fact officially created by Jesus the christ of Christianity and his apostles, was it not? We read in the NT that as many as were saved, were added (to the church) and we also read in the NT that [i']they were first called Christians at Antiock[/i]

I said nothing about who "officially created" Christianity. Both you and herme3 are changing the target of the argument which is a strawman tactic. Please stop it. I asked

Are you denying that what is now the Catholic Church was the first recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity? (emphasis added)

You are able to read the NT because it was first put together with the OT as the Christian Bible at the Council of Laodicea by what is now called the Catholic Church. I'm sorry this seems to be such an ugly, deplorable truth for you "true" Christians, but it is historical fact. Deal with it.

1. Many protestant churches purge those from their rolls who become inactive and many baptized adherants such as myself are not even members of specific churches.

So what does this mean? Are they no longer Protestants? Do you bring this up because you are claiming there are many secret Protestants who are no longer recognized by their church but should be counted as Christians for the purpose of making herme3's statement about "most Christians" valid?

2. No, US Christians aren't the only ones who count, but I was making this observation since this is our nation, a significant one. I'm aware that in some nations the majority is Catholic.

The significance of the US as a nation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the argument, which is quite simply about herme3 making this generalized, ill-conceived comment:

A lot of this was invented by the Catholic Church, and has nothing to do with The Bible and what most Christians[/b'] believe.(emphasis added)

All I have done is point out the fallacy of his statement, since Catholics ARE "most Christians". If you can't admit that this is a mistake, then you are showing everyone here you are only interested in arguing, not in an intellectually honest debate.

Ok, so you're right by a tiny majority. It looks like a more accurate assessment would be that roughly half are RC.

Alas, in two sentences my "tiny majority" slips to "roughly half". How convenient for you.

Can you name one thing that evolutionists credit Jehovah god of the Bible with having anything to do with designing or creating?

I don't like doing this because it seems like yelling but I'm going to put the bold on for this next sentence. Evolution doesn't need a divine hand behind it, but it also doesn't deny one.

My understanding is that the evolutionist adheres strictly to random mutation (rm) and natural selection (ns). Right? What role does this leave Jehovah god of the Biblical record with in creation?

What seems random and natural can be divinely guided, can't it? The evolutionist doesn't have to believe in any deity, but it's not ruled out. That is the difference you fail to grasp. The only thing that evolution really states is impossible from a creationist view is that the earth was created in 6 literal, 24-hour days. It seemed obvious to me that since God didn't create the sun and moon until the fourth "day", how could we take "day" to mean a literal 24 hour cycle? Light separated the darkness on the first "day" but had no moon or stars to distinguish the cycle.

 

I'm not interested in debating the literalness of the Genesis story here since it involves matters of belief. I merely point out the only real obstacle in the Evo/Creo argument.

Why don't you talk to someone else, more of your liking and leave Biblicalists alone if we irritate you to this degree?

Probably because you're in Mokele's house now, brother. Did you forget this was Evolution / Morphology / Exobiology and not Philosophy / Religion?

1. The Roman Catholic sector of Christianity didn't officially begin until about 300 AD.

363 A.D. at the Council of Laodicea to be exact, where the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized. What does this have to do with what most Christians believe? Are you denying that what is now the Catholic Church was the first recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity?

2. I believe in the US only about 23 percent of the US population was Roman Catholic as of 1998, and that includes all who were baptized Catholic, many of who are not active in the religion.

Are the US Christians the only ones who count? And must you be active in your religion to be counted? How active?

 

2.1 billion Christians in the world, 1.1 billion are Catholics. MOST Christians are Catholics. Do you deny the math?

Evolution pretty much denies the Biblical creator god, Jehovah as per the Biblical record, the existing one who, according to that record was suppose to have created and designed that which exists. I don't see how you can get around that.

Evolution denies nothing with regards to any god. What is denied by evolution is a 6-day world creation. MOST Christians have no problem admitting that when Genesis says "day", it could refer to vast periods of time before the world as we know it was formed. Evolution does not, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, deny them this. Jehovah can still be the creator, and evolutionists may simply assume He's more patient than you give Him credit for.