iNow

John, I just want to point out that you didn't address the question which you quoted at the beginning of your response.

Sh3rlock, You should spend some time and watch this video:

I have watched Meet the Press every Sunday for a few years now, and Tim Russert was an amazing man who quickly earned my respect. He will be missed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/ http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i47acW1Zt9ukocOXy9JlL412h3SAD919FQV81

Only if id has anything meaningful to bring to the scientific table. AFAIK, it doesn't provide any scientific use, ergo discarding it doesn't bring any loss.

Did you check out the link CDarwin shared above? I think that pretty much cuts their argument off at the ankles.

You can't. It's a hard programmed feature of the site itself, nothing specific to your account. What I usually do is go back and edit in a few spaces or a break of some sort (like a line of ~~~~~~~~~~~~) after the posts get merged.

Agreed with Cap'n. Even in the medical field, a patient with a fast heart rate is described as being "tachycardic." I presume that patients with slow heart rate are called "bradycardic" since "tardycardic" sounds rather funny.

Yes. Similiar experimentation would be considered inhumane and unethical. Unless they could prove that the potential benefits of conducting the research FAR outweighed the costs (like curing every form of cancer and ending world hunger, or something), and those benefits were likely (not just pie in the sky... much more than a small chance), then it would be comletely illegal and unacceptable. Bear in mind, though... Laws are region specific. I'm sure there are a lot of areas on the planet where this could happen and there would be no issue with the authorities.

Just a reminder, Mike... You forgot the rather important "x10" in your equation.

I'm going to use resources that say it better than I could. If my responses aren't good enough, hopefully another member will respond. Be well. http://everything2.com/e2node/Why%2520faster%2520than%2520light%2520implies%2520back%2520in%2520time

I personally agree with the idea that Obama would be a more unifying figure for our globe than any other candidate right now. I cannot say for certain that this has anything to do with just his name or race, but I'm somewhat idealistic. I think it has to do with the fact that he's a leader, and a good one, with a vision. Also, if you want to compare something, look at what's going on in Zimbabwe. We've got it pretty good.

Where does it say that they all "orbit on the same plane?" I read "near."

My thinking hat is telling me that you have no concept of how solar cells are already manufactured. Does my hat need detergent? Either way, it has sorted you into Griffenhouse... Erm... I mean, check this out and refocus your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell

What would be the benefit of using a liquid? Why not just thin film deposition or even crystalline silicone? The basic issue is that you need a method to transfer the movement of the electrons along a gate or a "wire" as it were. Liquid would be neat, but wouldn't seem a likely candidate to transfer the energy to a "collection" point and transfer elsewhere.

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

Your starting premise is false. While to you they may "seem" to be in the same orbital plane, they are not. http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/2-whats-orbital-plane.html

Out of curiostiy, if we had a medication put out into the pharmaceutical market by one of the big pharma companies, and 70% of the people who took that medication died, and all died of the same type of heart failure, should we also wait until we know for certain that they all didn't die from eating spinach, or from having too much sex, or from wearing purple shirts before we remove that medication from the market? Come on. Why are we supposed to accept such a double standard when it comes to human impact on Earth's climate? This is completely assinine. Should we be cautious and intelligent in our reaction? Of course, but how the hell are you defining caution if you're advocating the status quo (which interestingly seems predominated by ignorance and logical fallacy)?

Was it cocaine?

Look up "Mike C" It's the more recent version of his username, to which he requests admins change it from (as it shows here) "new science" after membership grows tired of the consistent falsehoods, lack of response to criticism and questoins, and also complete lack of citation.

Sweet find, mate. I haven't been to talkorigins in months and forgot to even check there. That link really puts this whole "it's been proven mathematically" assertion into it's proper context.

Oh no, you didn't join this forum too! Beware unsubstantiated assertions and false premises... Also, an inability to properly express scientific notation.

nstansbury, He's been suspended from the site for a few days. You'll probably need to wait for a response from another member. Good luck.

They probably talk about probability. They probably misframe the context of the calculations. They probably show the "impossiblity" and how this couldn't ever happen by "chance alone." I'd like to see the numbers so I can decide for myself. In the meantime, it's worth pointing out that evolution is NOT a random process, since each generation builds on the success of the generation which came before it. There's a really good special which describes this at a level that practically everyone can grasp. It's called "Climbing Mount Improbable" and is well worth the watch. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&q=climbing+mount+improbable&ei=VrlGSJeeDaDk4AK_voGSDA Enjoy.

To be clear... No. I am not. I am simply asking that challenges to the data be specific. It shouldn't be that hard. That's what science is all about. I can appreciate your desire for rock solid evidence, but if you think what we have already is not rock solid, then I'm concerned nothing will ever be good enough for you. It's okay to make the end zone hard to reach, but you can't make it impossible to reach. I say again. The politics and the reaction have nothing to do with the science. If you challenge the science, then be specific and address the questions I posed above.