iNow

It doesn't matter. Leave it alone.

There are many definitions of intelligence. There are different kinds of inelligence. The IQ test has been shown not to be an accuarate measure, yet it is still frequently used. Here is a high level overview which gives you a brief tastes of the different ideas and work becoming prominent in this field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Just to be fair... the big bang is one proposed model of the beginning. The true issue is that, if this model is accurate and appropriately descriptive, spacetime began at the big bang. This means also that time itself began at the big bang. If you are consistent in your logic, this means that there is no such thing as "before" the big bang, since time itself did not yet exist until the rapid inflation began. There are some uncertainties yet to be dissected in this model, and other models may still come forth as a better description. I just wanted to put that out there for clarity. Enjoy.

Yes! I have heard about this, and read about it, too. Here ya go. Here's one study which directly supports your teacher's contention quite clearly: As per a study in the 22 June 2007 issue of the Journal Science, the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 is decreasing. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136188 Since you probably don't have a subscription to view the full text of the article, here is a link to an article presented on this issue elsewhere: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142558.htm

Oh man... And I was SO ready to say something that would ridicule you ferociously until I read that last sentence after the ellipsis. Oh well, you anticipated me. Drat... You win this round, bubbles.

You should have removed his link prior to doing so, as that would not inappropriately increase the "google strength" of that site as leaving it in has done.

But it's not just "chance." Each subsequent generation builds on the one which came previous. Also, assigning a "reason" to evolution is rather arbitrary, and satisfies human insecurity more than offering an accurate representation or description of the process. To my first point, here's a really cool lecture called "Climbing Mount Improbable." I really enjoyed it, and suggest it to anyone interested. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&q=climbing+mount+improbable&ei=VrlGSJeeDaDk4AK_voGSDA It's from the "Growing up in the Universe Lecture Series," and is one of the five. If you like it, I encourage you to view the others as well: http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

So, who's this puppet master of yours supposed to be?

Perhaps her statement of her willingness to be VP is a way to "bring the party back together," and push her supporters toward Obama. For all we know, they were empty words and she wouldn't want it. However, her suggestion of willingness shows that she's "okay" with an Obama presidency. Just a speculation on my part.

I can think of several choices that would serve the country better, as opposed to some transparent attempt to appease the emotions of those upset by the Primary outcome to increase election chances in November.

Bignose insane_alien CDarwin ParanoiA yourdadonapogos JohnB

Another story today suggesting that denial of global warming and lying was happening, and was political: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-fo9VF-W4wxLy-opPvOK9ZvCl9QD9127KVG0 I like the fact that it was NASA's own watchdog group who caught this and published the report. Full report here: http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf I would like to call everyone's attention to section IV-C (Examples of Purported Interference) from pages 26 to 32, and also section V (Allegations and Instances of Improper Denial of Media Access) immediately thereafter. From the Conclusion section toward the end of the report, the following was shared: "After carefully reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances in this matter, we conclude that officials in the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs did, in fact, manage the release of information concerning climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, and mischaracterized the scientific information within the particular media over which that office had control. Further, on at least one occasion, the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs denied media access to a NASA scientist, Dr. Hansen, due, in part, to that office’s concern that Dr. Hansen would not limit his statements to science but would, instead, entertain a policy discussion on the issue of climate change. We also conclude that inappropriate political posturing or advantage was the proximate cause in at least some of these actions. While we did not find that all Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ adjustments to climate change news releases were politically motivated, the preponderance of the evidence does, however, point to politics inextricably interwoven into the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ news dissemination process at that time. Climate change scientists and affected career Public Affairs Officers believed that, as a result of their proposed media releases being altered, delayed, or converted to other (lesser) media, their work was in fact compromised for political advantage—especially when it conflicted with the Administration’s policies or priorities."

Absolutely.

Not really, no. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

Older guys cannot urinate so well because the prostrate gland is squeezing against the urethra. I mean, seriously, what kind of perfect creator would put a sewer system smack dab in the middle of a recreation area?

Where exactly do you think he said or implied that it was?

Well said, sir.

You and doG appear to be in agreement on that point, as evidenced back in post #22 of this thread.

Yeah, but it sure is a lot easier when you're in a forum where the exact text of your response is recorded and viewable!

That kid went rather looney and the staff rightly decided to send him off. I encourage you to now return to your regularly scheduled programs.

And you're still wrong. Why are you the one calling others foolish?

I don't care what the textbook definition is of some arbitrary moniker, nor how the press applies it. Times are tough. Money is tight. It's stressful and anxiety provoking. Call it what you will, I know there are scores of people out there who are far worse off than I am, and they care more about finding a way to feed their family and maintain the roof over their heads than they do what you call the present challenges of the economy. I do, however, like your idea of categories, like a "tropical depression" economy versus a "tropical storm" economoy versus a "hurricane" economy... but, alas, that's like our color coded threat level system from the department of homeland security, and really does nothing to address the problem itself.

What does any of this have to do with Hydrino Energy? This is known as trolling.

You apparently missed my post #64.

Ah... Faith-based physics. That's always a good way to go.