Brainteaserfan

Sure they do. I meant someone should run against Obama on the Democrat side. The way his numbers are, the only thing the Dem's can hope for is to have a strong Independant candidate that splits the conservative vote. That would be the only way I could see him winning another election.

?? Are you saying that Obama has lower poll numbers than the Reps? As bad as Obama is, I have this feeling we're in for 4 more years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

http://www.rogermwilcox.com/darksuck.txt

https://www.msu.edu/user/dynicrai/physics/dark.htm

Oh, really?

Haha John, that's funny!

I never introduced myself either. I am a home schooled high schooler who likes science, music, math, and writing. Oh, and politics and religion. I don't really like sports other than golf, and I enjoy the occasional chess game. One random area in which I have particularly strong beliefs is nuclear energy -- I think the world should use a whole lot more of it, and can't understand those who are against it.

-print $$

-borrow $$

-use reserve $$

or, what I would like -- it could just SHRINK!!!

The room with hungry lions because if they haven't eaten for 3 years then they would eat each other.

I was thinking they'd be dead, whether they ate each other or not.

I can certainly see why this forum has so few people interested in it...

Hmm, why are you here?

Stricter punishments result from a harsher view of human rights (cannot speak out against govt, no right to education, no intellectual property rights {patents etc}, no protection for the weak {children, elderly etc}, and so on), which prevents a nation from developing.

That seems like a big leap to me.

Could one not say that stricter views come from a government that WANTS to protect the people's rights (right to not be harmed by crime)?

Edit/PS: Yes, I agree that the OP may have started with a rather faulty premise.

I'm getting tired of these people who post a brain teaser and then never come back to check if someone got it right. It's a form of terrorism, really, and should be reported to their ISP and Homeland Security.

Maybe because Sciduck was right he doesn't come back?

WHAT? WOMEN ARE SUPPOSED TO WORSHIP MEN! WHY DIDN'T I GET THIS MEMO!?

Anyone find a verse?

Do you live in America? Becuase in the UK she is the exact age for school, she is actually slightly older than usual. She is in the second year of high school, you go into high school age 11/12.

She mainly wants biology and english, but she'd like other subjects. And she'd really need homework, she is a nerdy child, loves her homework!!!

I keep forgetting other countries are represented here. Sorry.

Psst: I like my hw too.

Reading Genesis, the garden of Eden doesn't seem like a very nice place to me.

Never changing, no challenges, nothing new or stimulating, not allowed to question anything or try anything, never dying. What use is free will if you can't exercise it? Does anyone really think living like that would be pleasant or have any meaning?

This seems worse than the descriptions of hell I've seen.

Discuss.

Who knows whether people wanted to learn then?

Anyway, God was there, and since he has infinite knowledge, one could learn from him forever.

why would someone believing in an afterlife desire children and go through all the hassle to raise them rather than just drowning them in a lake directly after birth?

Not endorsing the OP, but you want to spread the gospel to unbelievers, and bringing up children can help further that goal.

But the mouse coming from a haystack is the idea itself, and it's not good or bad, its just wrong. The idea of creationism at least in the way its currently interpreted has been proven to not be right in some cases, and in other cases it just can't be determinate if it's right or wrong.

 

Not only that, but I don't know who is "Ottomh" guy is, and changing the way you look at things and accepting new ideas that explain things better than old ideas is part of science anyway.

Ottomh=off the top of my head.

Aristotle.

I'll put together a real reply when I get a chance.

Well, evolution is pretty sound, I'm pretty sure I even saw it in my backyard, so how about that what God said wasn't properly interpreted? I mean it was also interpreted from creationism that mice were born from or created out of hay stacks, and boy was that wrong.

Ottomh, the same guy who came up with spontaneous generation donated many highly valued ideas to science.

Besides, that's the fallacy of saying that because something bad came from an idea, the idea is bad.

Nothing? Coenocytic Hyphae are identified by their lack of a cell wall and become multinucleate upon division?

So you are saying that there aren't individual cells? Hmm, might have to edit my biology book's definition for hypha--a filament of fungal cells.

Well, she does go to high school, but she wants to do extra lessons if you know what I mean. So she doesn't want any like certificates or diplomas or anything, just a little something outside of school, with homework to do for it.

She's 13 and in high school? I hope her age doesn't disadvantage her too much by the time she gets to college. Or is she almost 14??

Anyway, so she mainly wants a biology and English supplement? What is she doing now in school for biology? Check out the write-at-home site.

I realized I should have clarified why I randomly mentioned the extra curricular stuff. If she has extra time, she might want to make sure she has a few extra-curricular things that she is good at.

I think the question is more - at which point of gestation do we consider that a fetus is a baby/person.

True, that is practically the same thing though, but I see how mine was slightly charged.

 

babies might be productive as a longterm investment - but as babies they are pretty much a drain on sleep, free time, and normal life (although there are benefits)

Right, although maybe you should define "normal life." Since when was having children abnormal?

using phrases like "killing the baby" you are making it quite clear that your arguments are rooted in a much more emotional and ethical place than economics - so why not make the emotional and ethical argument. the economic argument fails in my opinion because I do not believe it to be correct that we should force women to carry children to full term for the good of the state

I used some language that in retrospect probably should have been edited.

Why do you want me to make "the emotional and ethical argument"? By using language like that, you are also making it very clear that you would not be influenced in the slightest, and would probably post a reply which I would not want to read.

It doesn't "fail," it is still a valid argument, but I see what you are saying. It certainly still stands for treating STD's though, and why the two are different.

it can kill the woman.

Quite rarely.

Brainteaser - i went to a school with over a thousand people (as will many of the forum members) , from 8am till 5pm I was out of my parents sphere of control, the rules of behaviour and social mores changed, and the world was a very very different place.

(italics added) I don't understand how. Maybe I would need to go to a public school to find out. I mostly just get my stuff done and report to my parents what I have done, and as long as I am getting A's in my classes, they don't really "control."

it is this change that is crucial; from a small family sized grouping within which everybody is known (and trusted) through multiple connexions and there is little social cultural challenge; to a more heterogeneous and anonymous mixing pot where you will be forced into relations with those you have no prior knowledge of, nor connexion with, nor shared experience/culture. I cannot help but think that exposing children to the differences that even a small community has within it is vitally important; and to withhold this from a child might lead to an overly sheltered upbringing that does not fully engage with the rich array of people and persons within society. home-schooling removes much of the danger, the hazard, and the risk from the school years and it is quite understandable why parents would want to do this; but unless you can control and quarantine the risks and dangers of the world for the rest of your life then you do need to start to come to terms with the slightly inhospitable nature of the world.

 

 

I do not know all of the people at most of the activities, or if I do, it has only been since the start of the year. Church and band are the two exceptions.

Some may be "overly sheltered," but I don't believe most are. I suppose I can't very easily say anything if I am still in an "overly sheltered" state however.

you write and argue very well for a 14/15 yo and it is clear you are not missing out there - but I think there is so much more to the "school experience" than academic education

Thanks! I guess it doesn't count as a way to find out what I am missing to sometimes play in (and help) various local high school bands, but from the little time there, I am quite glad I don't go to public school! You can't get much done in their short band sessions, there is only a brief time to warm up, so frustrating to me, and I am confident that more gets done in 120 min a week of my band then the 225 min a week (I think I calculated that right, maybe only 200...) of most public schooled bands. Not having been to the other classes I don't know, but if other classes are like that, I can see why friends have said that it is a waste of their time.

You mean she wants to homeschool but use online classes? Here are some I use and recommend:

http://www.aphomeschoolers.com/

http://writeathome.com/ -- pretty easy, only really a supplement, but still good.

I've always done math at home, Chalkdust is good for prealgebra-geometry. (I limit to pre.-geometry because I haven't done past that yet) There is a video for each lesson, and an online help component. Math-U-See IMO is wonderful for the lower grades.

Or maybe you were just looking for supplements? Online (and physical) community college classes are worth checking out.

Tell her you really want to make sure she has an extracurricular or two that she is in the top 1% in that category (music, martial arts...). Colleges like that.

Howl, you look to be a teenager, and I give you kudos for spending some time on a site called Science Forums, and engaging yourself in ethical discussions. So don't take any kind of offense when I argue with you, because I think we all have a special responsibility to, well, challenge the youth. Because it's good for you, and if your teachers are anything like mine were, they're so happy you think about anything at all that they don't go the extra mile in really challenging you and forcing you to defend what you've put forward. With that in mind, I'm going to challenge you on your comments with a couple of questions:

 

1) The way you've framed it, abortion is wrong primarily because it allows individuals to somehow "get away with" the natural consequences of an action the freely participated in. (The free participation part seems to be the crucial bit for you, because it looks like you regard rape as a special case.) If that's true, since you mention STDs, why should we treat STDs? Doesn't it follow from your argument that we should withhold medical treatment from someone who has contracted an STD from unprotected sex? After all, they played with fire; they're going to get burned. Where are the limits of this rule? I choose to drive, for instance, which is a risk. If I crash my car, should people come help me? After all, if I didn't want to "get burned," I could always take the bus.

 

2) The second part of your argument seems to be an argument derived from the effects of legal abortion, posed hypothetically. But, we don't need to be hypothetical, because we already have legal abortion (although access to it has been increasingly restricted in many places.) Do you have evidence that we have created a "problem for ourselves" since Roe v. Wade? How do you think you could prove or demonstrate something like that?

The major question, rather obviously, is whether the baby is a person. However, I'll see if I can stick with the Roe v Wade case guidelines

We would agree that 95% of babies are productive, and overall a net plus for the economy? If so, then with killing the baby, you are hurting the economy. Similarly, if you have an STD, and were not treated, you would likely not come to your full potential as a human, potentially wasting some of the resources invested in your schooling and care when you were younger. So, from an economic position, you would not want to allow abortions (unless mentally retarded; I don't see a good secular argument for that), and you would want to treat STD's. JMTC.

I don't think it's a good idea to pair abortion with population control. Next thing you know some government will make it mandatory.

This thread did bring a couple of questions to mind on the subject. Why is it that people say "women's right to chose"? I understand that it's a womans body that takes the punishment in childbirth but as they say, "it takes two to tango". Is it ethically right to exclude a possible father from the scenario. And further, would abortion be ethically right since the father is excluded from the decision making?

 

I belive women are educated on birth control. Having daughters I feel maybe a little too soon. But I also believe that it is a parents job to teach these things and instill the morality they want their children to base their decisions on. I don't agree with some but am still a believer.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this either. Looking at abortion as a treatment against pregnancy (something wrong), may be a bad analogy.

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand.

This is the one that really makes me sad. It's creationist 101, and it's been handed down since the Scope's trial. It really shows that the speaker has no interest in understanding how evolution works, and is content to repeat the ignorant catch phrases of others. No offense meant to you personally, Brainteaserfan. This is a strawman argument I've heard my whole life, it's inaccurate, it's dishonest and it pains me to see it still is used on the youth in this country.

Phi, I do have a huge interest in learning about evolution, and learning about the evidence for it. How does the statement reflect no interest? I believe (for now) there is more evidence for a God and creationism.

I agree with you and religious beliefs are brainwashed into children's evolving belief system very early in life and that is why it is so hard to convince them of reality.

I am NOT brainwashed. My parents wouldn't require me to learn about evolution from secular books if they were trying to brainwash me.

http://scioly.org/wiki/Helicopters

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDkQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuDhcxS_OTv8&ei=nx-yTpr0NYfy0gH_z42hAQ&usg=AFQjCNHlAmwiO1F7lo8E70X3QIxSbVKvPA

Use a commecially available blade, 'cause you aren't in the competition. Lots of info can be found online as to how to design.

Or something a little easier:

If stars are living organisms, what are the "cells"?

 

 

Where is the genetic material determining how these cells act?

Wanna go get a piece of sun to examine under a microscope so we can see the cells?

I want to clarify that this isn't a problem I have to do

What divides a non-septate fungus into cells?

Brainteaserfan suggested (whether intentionally or unintentionally - just to be certain there's no implications) that evolutionary theory had humans evolving from chimps, which is does not.

 

We actually have physical evidence of several common ancestors of extant hominids.

http://www.talkorigi...ms/species.html

http://www.science20...uman_says_study

 

Evolution is a continuum. Expecting a magic discovery of a specific, pinpointed "common ancestor" is to completely misinterpret evolutionary theory regarding speciation - it's a piece of supposed "evidence" that is not expected under theoretically supported prediction.

See coalescent theory, species trees and divergent selection.

http://en.wikipedia....alescent_theory

http://www.ploscompb...al.pcbi.1000501

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution

Arete, I just wanted to let you know that I did find your post fascinating on the other page (hence the +1). I didn't think I had enough to say (that was well backed up) to warrant responding, that's all.

So what if that's not what your bible meant? What does the science of evolution have to do with that?

And you still don't get it, because we didn't come from a far different species, we only came from a slightly different species, who then came from a species slightly different to it, and that species came from a species slightly different to that, and etc.

But we would still end up a totally different species, and I believe that God had some level of adaption "built in."

In fact, there's already ways in which different parts of the human race has evolved even within 6,000 years. Have you ever heard of the Black Plague? Well only the Europeans who happened to have mutations containing strong immune systems survived it, and they passed that on.

Yes, but again, I believe that resistance already existed. In the same way, bacteria don't really evolve resistance to antibiotics, I believe that they gain it from other members of the same species. Or maybe I have a really scientifically screwed up view?