Reaper

I recommend The Demonhaunted World, and Cosmos. Pale Blue Dot is good, but quite outdated.

I'm going to purchase a new laptop over the summer, and I've been contemplating my options. I would like to get a regular PC, but I would have to upgrade it to XP since it is generally agreed that Vista's not that great. Also, I would still have to put in the proper antivirus and other security software on it to ensure that it will last a long time. On the other hand, I've been thinking about getting a Mac, since they have better security, better operating system, and so on. But, the problem with a Mac is that you really can't install a great deal of things on it because of the operating system, especially PC games. However, what would you suggest? I'm trying to find a good PC or Mac that is under $1200. What exactly is the best thing to get with that kind of price?

I have all GTA games to date. I just got Sins of a Solar Empire though. Really neat game too, and real intense at times.

Halogirl, Next time use quote tags, so that you can avoid confusion among other members. I know you were responding to CarolAlynn (which means that other members should back off...) iNow, there is no math in ID, but I'm sure you know this already. Unless CarolAlynn would like to show us otherwise (unlikely though ) ...

You should be careful with that statement actually. Venus had a rather different geological history then Earth did; for example, it is likely that liquid water oceans never even materialized on Venus...

It is possible, but the age of the universe puts a limit on how many times this could have possibly happened; eventually, you run into the same exact problem we have right now, only you have pushed it out elsewhere.

I can see how or why they would do that, but it doesn't make it right. This is pretty much the same slippery slope fallacy that you see in all creationist and ID "theories" (they are not theories actually, but I'm not the one who names the ideas...) Well, that's the thing. There is no controversy at all, among scientists and among educated people. The only "controversy" there is, is between people who are unwilling to accept the fact that ID and creationism is not science and the fact that they want to stuff religion down our throats. It isn't scientific movement at all, despite their claims; it is in reality a religiously motivated political movement. That's why they sell their ideas to the general public, rather than peer-reviewed scientific literature and journals. Hoping that some out there, especially the politicians, will be gullible enough to buy into it. It's fine if they want deny reality to hold on to their faith, but then that's religion, not science.

It would seem that most of the errors are in reality really trivial ones, since they are on mostly things that don't have much of an effect on the overall picture (that AGW is real, and that the temperature changes mostly match the observed values).

I haven't found any references to 12 billion years by Mark Twain.

Alright then, here is material on how things like the Flagellum motor have evolved, for starters : How so? They address the point quite nicely. And we addressed every single one of your points. You just chose not to believe them. We can only show you the material and debate the points, not make you believe them. Regardless, this is a science forum, and as such all ideas must be scientifically valid. If you can't stand the heat, then don't start a debate. This is a put up or shut up basis. And I will have to ask you to be patient the next time, I have other threads that are worth my attention too you know. Anyways, here are some more videos regarding evolution, and how they explain biodiversity (while debunking ID at the same time and clearing up misconceptions): Yes, Mr.Sandman, this is off topic. This is about the validity of ID, not about how matter came into existence.

We are mean attacking the idea. The main strength of scientific peer-review is to pick theories apart and poke holes in them. If it can stand on it's own merits, then it becomes a plausible conjecture. Ideas only become theories when there is physical evidence to support it. It is not a conspiracy against you, but thanks for the rigor you used to come up with that conclusion, and for not bothering to actually read the links provided. If you understand this, then what is the problem? Just concede the whole debate then.

Well, now you are shifting goalposts, because that's not what you claimed earlier. This is what you initially claimed: and and Troll alert.

I have Contact, Pale Blue Dot, Demonhaunted World, and Cosmos (the book. The show is good too though).

I don't believe that humanity is destined to destroy themselves, though we are it for quite a bumpy ride if we want to cope and solve all of our problems...

LawLord Most of us do understand what peak oil is and what it's potential consequences are. Most of the discussion takes place in either the environmental forums or in general discussion. Such as this one over here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29456

Again, please read the links, the first link in particular. It's about the fact that ID isn't science. Don't respond until you have read and understood the info given. We are not playing "burn the heretic" here, despite your accusations. We are trying to get you to understand that ID isn't science, and that all of it's premises are mostly flawed. At the very best, it is wild speculation, but that's as much credit as I can give it.

Claim 1 is wrong. I would appreciate if you found a reputable source for claim 2. Claim 3 has already been debunked in a previous thread Claim 4 is the only correct one, but that was based on an older model (which have improved since then). So, I'll give you that much. Claim 5 needs a source as well.

I should also add that there has never been any peer-reviewed papers on ID. In fact, nobody who supports it has even suggested a way for it to be falsified; they are basically selling it to the general public hoping that anyone will be gullible enough to buy into it. With the way our mass media does things, it gets a bit tricky for the general public to sort out the crap. In short, ID is not science. Not now, not ever. If you want a quick debunking of ID, you should check out Simanek's pages here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm and read talk origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html Read this part more carefully: I suggest you read the links before you respond again. =========================================== It really isn't about "open mindedness"; that's just an irrelevant appeal on your part. It's really about whether or not it has/can pass rigorous peer-review. And, it isn't about abiogenesis; that's outside the scope of evolution (although, we do have a pretty good idea now about how life could have arisen, WITHOUT the need for a supernatural explanation, or otherwise...)

This would be linear growth, if I'm checking your history correctly, not exponential growth. If it was exponential, then you would have to make 800,000 more posts over the next 3 years (meaning your post count would have to be 1,200,000 in 2011, not 600,000).

Well, the high gas prices are at least beginning to cause most Americans to start conserving their resources and actually start chucking away those gas guzzlers: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/09/news/economy/poll/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories Not sure how long this will last though...

The problem is that ID is not science. It makes no testable predictions and can be construed so that it can't be falsified. I suggest you read this thread over here, which addresses the topic: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28993 Otherwise, can you show us any this so-called "mathematics" that you claim to be part of ID?

BINGO!!!!!! I forgot the url to my bingo card. Oh well.

Yeah, sure, whatever.

dude, just let it go.

This just came in guys, Hillary finally admits defeat and endorses Obama to help unify the party. Read all about it right here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/07/clinton.unity/index.html?eref=rss_topstories So, what are your reactions to this? You think the Democratic Party will finally start coming back together in time?