A brain-dead person isn't coming back - the brain they need to function is gone. Now their soul might still be present, but their mind is gone. A fetus will become a baby. They are not a warm corpse, i.e. a body with no chance of being considered a human being ever again. Again, time displacement is applicable. This person's status has to be considered in total. We make these quantitative judgments all the time - like you said, when a person is asleep we still see them as a human even though all sentient behavior has ceased. Yes, there are small odds of miscarriage etc, and the person in a coma could die of some natural cause as well - but still irrelevant because your action makes any future impossible. Yes, the person I just bludgeoned to death might have been hit by a car in five minutes and died then. Still doesn't mean I didn't commit murder.

Your reply is a demonstration of the ignorance I was referring to. Of course, ignorance is often confused with stupidity. I haven't accused anyone of being stupid. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. I am personally ignorant on many topics. Most people are. And of course the use of ignorant is actually a sliding scale but the word use generally carries an emotional weight associated with the far end of the spectrum.

.

It's not too convoluted. Would movement in six dimensions be convoluted to a creature that has senses and can move in six directions? No more complicated than walking is for you. But your walking in three dimensions would baffle a "flatlander". It's mostly about perspective. Since we don't have the same perspective as God, its perhaps overly presumptuous to try and make claims about just what God has and hasn't done. He does indicate that it will make sense in Heaven when we know in full, versus the knowing only in part that we do now.

I've disproved to myself every claim I'm encountered of the Bible supposedly contradicting itself. I would agree that it is possible to misuse the Bible through a number of different techniques to justify many things that it in actuality does not. The Bible's claim is that it's primary author is God, who created the universe. If true, one might see it as having a lot of relevance to science and many other human pursuits beyond reading for pleasure.

I suggest it is ignorant to label Christianity by their ignorance. Label it for what it says. The man in question is more than a Christian. If someone grew up in Germany and was ignorant, would you state that Germans are ignorant?

No, it would be more relevant, especially as for clues. You are correct in that its not a science primer nor was it intended to be such. But it is speaking about the universe and its nature indirectly at the very least, which would make it a rich source of clues. If someone who grew up in Germany wrote an auto-biography, you would reasonably suspect that one would learn a great deal about Germany indirectly.

You misunderstand. It is the same answer, both are seeking the law, the rule, the science that governs the physical universe. The Christian sees that rule as created by God (how God did it), the non-Christian thinks whatever he thinks is the cause (random chance, Buddha, Allah, take your pick). But they seek the same answer, and that answer holds usable value because they employ the scientific methodology in determining their guess at the answer.

It also totally ignores the Biblical mandate that we are to be good stewards of the earth. But of course, the man speaking is clearly ignorant and some of the people automatically jumping on the anti-Christian bandwagon as a result of his comments are also ignorant. Nothing precludes a person of strong Christian faith from being a scientist. A non-christian scientist asks "how does it work?" - a christian scientist asks "how did God make it work?" They are both seeking the same answer.

That is a poor argument. You are merely trying to "hide" what you are doing by time-displacement. This clump of cells "right now" is not a person. Therefore it is okay to kill it. Unfortunately, if you did not kill it now it would become a person, so you have effectively killed that person. I make use of "kill" in the sense of causing someone to cease to exist as a functional human being. I would equate it with turning off the life-support machinery of a person in a coma. Conceptually similar to arguments involving time machines - if I go back and interrupt your parents the particular night you are being conceived, I can cause you to cease to exist without having killed anyone, right? They might still get pregnant, but statistically you are unlikely to occur. So effectively I have killed you - you no longer exist.

I'm not sure why this story wasn't tagged as troll, it seems to merit it. As the RTFAers have noted, it misstates the actual results. I presume this "exaggeration" is to spark a bunch of posts by others for whatever jollies the author gets from such, which seems trollish to me. Sadly, one of the few thoughtful posts gets smacked by "you're stupid" replies, even though it comes for a person with a pro-evolution belief (person wondering about a good source of facts to support teaching her daughter the theory). She has a good point, one I've often had as well, that just because a bunch of people believe something to be true doesn't make it so, no matter how well educated or respected they may be. So better to demonstrate the facts and then explain why the theory is the best explanation. If you have the facts as a basis and are teaching students how to think for themselves, then by all means go ahead and also teach every theory or major notion in current circulation - critical thinking is what you want to stimulate, not turning out regurgitating puppets. Those here touting the line that we need to educate students so they know evolution is the truth - really? That's how you want to phrase it? Evolutionary Religion 101 perhaps? We'll teach you what is the "truth" as we see it and make sure you get educated so well no one can tell you otherwise. Now who have I heard accusing who of doing just that on a related subject?

In which case everyone will move their business to Verizon etc who do not require this on their android phones. AT&T opened the bottle with the iPhone, for which I thank them, but now they will reap the resulting storm - there is no locking it down, eventually it will be wide open as competition drives the market to new features and lower costs. My hope is that T Mobile and Sprint can compete and thrive so the market doesn't end up being a Verizon/AT&T monopoly that realizes it can take us back to the bad old days if they work together...

.

Droid X on Verizon, and I have a beta copy of Firefox installed. Buggy and not my main browser, but it only took 2 extra steps that weren't too hard to figure out (enabling apps not from market in settings and using a file browser to find the downloaded file and click to execute it and install the program).

This may have already been noted before but I couldn't find it - Verizon users that may have wanted an iPhone may already have an Android phone, so it will be some time before they have the option to switch to an iPhone. I would be surprised if there were 13 million Verizon subscribers eager to have a smart phone who have waited several years without getting an Android phone instead.

Your comment, while thoughtful, is illustrative of the jump in rational. "Science builds our understanding of the universe..." is only partially true - science cannot address the non-physical universe. Logic can try and help us address this part of the universe, but the scientific method is generally restricted to the physical universe where experimentation can be done and observed through the five senses. "Science" is also not a time machine - it can make educated guesses based on present data about what may have occurred in the past. I agree with reasonable confidence, but sometimes I wonder how much reasonable confidence is more Inspector Lestrade than Sherlock Holmes.

You think the tools safe guard the process, when the very nature of humanity argues the opposite, that man will find ways to bend everything to his own purposes. Perhaps better to say that eventually the process, if not thoroughly fettered, will find out, presuming someone is interested and looks and has a venue to be heard with the results. Just as the religious institutions tried to stop the teaching of evolutionary thought, so too now we have raised up an educational and societal institution to teach "evolution" as "science". "Science" is full of institutions that are self-serving and centered around money as strongly as anything else, i.e. funding, tenure, publication. Pure science may be a noble goal, but you also want to be loved, respected, be able to eat and clothe yourself and pursue what is fun and enjoyable.

I think we would both agree that kids need to be taught how to use logic, how to apply the scientific method and process, and how to in general use their brain. But unfortunately part of learning is forming an understanding of the nature of the universe, life, etc - and education tries to do that as well (as do parents, friends, society and the individual themselves). But science cannot tell you what is right and wrong, what is good and bad. It doesn't explain bullies, puppy love or grief (it can describe chemical processes that happen related to those events, but it cannot explain the experience of living those events - there is a vast difference between having read about being a parent and actually being a parent - there is little difference between the particles that make up the Mona Lisa and my son's most recent crayon drawing, but clearly there is a world of value attached and experience that has nothing to do with the materials used).

And again, to give thought, the theories produced are very specific, and we intermingle pure speculation with hypothesis and theory and data on a regular basis. So when an evolutionist tells me, we are the result of random processes acting over vast ages with no "god" present and science proves this, you may perhaps forgive and understand better my vast skepticism. "Science" shows us an organized universe, that order is necessary for life, that life is dependent on a large number of variables being very specific values. We declare chaos unpredictable and then generate it with seven lines of code. We declare or not, but live by if not stated, values and precepts we struggle to reconcile with that viewpoint. In fact we bend all to show that they are merely products of an evolutionary process. Which again, is tantamount to saying "science describes the universe".

But I see you grasp that with the clear understanding that science is a tool we use to our benefit in engineering and science, but that it does not generate absolute truth. Science cannot tell you why you are here, or what your purpose is. It can tell you the biological and chemical processes that happen during the formation and operation of your physical shell, but it is mute when asked if we have a soul or what happens to "me" after my physical shell stops operating. It cannot tell us reality, but it can help us manipulate reality.

Yes and no on your thoughts on scientists. To get tenure, you need to be published. To be published you must do research, and it must be peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. To do research you must get funding. To get funding you need an education, related experience, access and a suitable idea. To get an education you get into a college and make good grades. To get a master you have to get accepted, get good grades, and produce an acceptable master's project/paper/what-have-you to your school. Now how many of those are dependent on "pure science"? How many are dependent on how people view the universe, who has money, what agendas are, and so forth? If you can figure out and track it down, there was an anthropological study done of the high energy physics establishment that is very enlightening (I really wish I could remember it as it makes so many good points for this sort of discussion).

IMHO, rational people are not necessarily better people, and being rational will not lead to a better civilization. This is a philosophical statement. Science speculates the methodology that produces specific measurable physical characteristics of the universe and then attempts to find experimentally if that method is flawed, then re-iterate. This can lead to better ball bearings, but it does not necessarily lead to better human beings. If we mean logical by rational, and logic is a most excellent tool we should all value and use, then what of emotions? What is their value, how do we deal with them? Are they merely chemical reactions to be manipulated to our advantage, repressed when otherwise? Are we to aspire to be Vulcans, or is there some greater worth in our humanity? You seek a passion for science, do you see the inherent disjunction? Science can tell you what happens chemically in your brain, but the value placed upon passion describes an experience and state we have no scientific way of measuring. Is my happiness greater or lesser than yours?

So this is our challenge - separate the truth and scientific method from the "theories" and "world views" and what not. Use it for what it is, not for what it is not. Be rational enough to realize what part of "science" is philosophy, and what part of your world view is philosophy and not science. The truth is that "science" is bent to use as justification for any number of things, and I'm sure anyone here can think of examples. Think of what has been done in the name of rationalism. Roll the snow ball down hill to see where it goes.

"...a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces. Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were broken in pieces without distinction and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors that the wind carries away. Not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a large mountain that filled the entire earth."

If one studies the nature of human beings and their societies, much becomes clear. The scientific process is only a tool, a good one for attempting to understand the observable physical universe. But it is no better or worse than any other tool, and only how it is used, by who, to what ends and what is created carries actual value. Theories are hypothesis that have undergone extensive attempts to disprove without success through the scientific process, but they are not absolute because our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. Every posit thus comes with an extensive and often partially or mostly unstated list of assumptions and presumptions and conditionals and limitations. Understanding all this allows one great latitude in just how applicable "science" is in determining truth. That is, take it with a large grain of salt. It may be far better to realize how much we rely on others as "experts", how driven they are by other forces, how colored our beliefs and perceptions become and leech over into our perception of truth, etc.

An assumption has been that radioactive rates of decay are constant, or constant over the observable universe, and have been constant over the extant life of the observable universe. That a purely random process of radioactive decay have very constant average rates over long periods of time. I'm curious if this is the very first time someone has observed that radioactive rates of decay are modified by other forces present in the universe. If it is, and this is substantiated, and not disproved by additional application of the scientific process, then an assumption has been proven invalid. An assumption resting at the core of the "how old is the universe" and so forth. But this should come as no surprise, though I'm sure it will. But when we teach "science" as "truth", we must anticipate the day when a rock smashes our statue to bits and our world crumbles around us. I find it interesting how cautious scientists are, so I would hazard the majority of them are fully aware of the nature of the platform upon which they stand. But it is not the scientists here, is it? Who is it here, speaking in derision, speaking to counter? Are we being addressed by geologists, evolutionary biologists, micro-biologists, physicists, logicians, etc?

"Science" does not deal with the non-physical non-observable universe. It can not tell us anything outside of that very limited realm. I have spent forty-plus years observing human beings and their societies as a layman, and what I have observed leads me to be very cautious of just how much "truth" can be derived from our popular "science". How much establishments and agendas can influence what is researched, what is believed and thus not challenged, and so forth. I have observed magic and illusion, and know the human brain can be easily tricked, and the extended lesson is that just because what we can observe appears to derive from one effect, does not preclude the strong possibility that our lack of information has led us to misunderstand the reality. So the possibility that an unobserved force has operated upon the extent physical universe and that the effects of such being done can be misinterpreted as what we observe coupled with the human desire to feel good about oneself and to rationalize our behavior as "good" and the nature of scientific funding, publishing, tenure, etc - well, it is not so hard to believe and think beyond the flock, eh? The careful thinker must ponder that an inverse is possible - how and why can very intelligent, reasoned and observable of having "good" character human beings reach a differing conclusion? Is it actual data? Look carefully to the passion and dogma and knee-jerk reactionarionism that is observable - this should be another careful point to ponder. The name calling, the deriding, and so forth - what social effect is this? Who does this and why?

Sigh... Forgot to log in for this as well... Not rare here, but very expensive to put into orbit. If that asteroid also has anything that could be used as a propellant then we put a bunch of small ships with huge motors that can use that propellant and have them land and coordinate their efforts to slowly alter its course to put it into a nearer earth orbit. Doesn't have to be fast, if we do this with several hundred near earth orbit objects we could over several decades move a lot of potential building material to where we could use it.

Whoops, forgot to log in... Above a certain side it really doesn't matter where it hits, if it throws enough stuff back up into the atmosphere you get the nuclear winter effect and most of humanity dies of starvation. Not sure who much difference it hitting an ocean makes as that would probably put a ton of water vapor up there, but I suspect water might do the opposite, i.e. create a hothouse effect which would be bad in a different way (greatly elevated temperatures = drought and plants dying because to hot / wrong temperate zone => starvation also?). Others have it right, now that we have a way to see them early we need to tag and track and start dumping some healthy spending into the research and development to get some long-slow-propulsion systems that would allow us to give problem bodies the little push now that would have decades to alter their trajectory at of the danger zone. After all, any of the scenarios on the matter indicate we have no current capacity to drop enough energy on an extinction size body in order to alter its course sufficiently if it's only a couple of days away.

I see this on newegg.com (only place I shop that has this) with the noscript block in firefox, they redirect you to the visa site which then sends you right back to the newegg site and your transaction goes through. So the technology is so broken it works when it doesn't work at all.

A 20/20 episode (one of those John Stossel bits) earlier this year noted that the average income for teachers is roughly $61,000. That's pretty decent pay for only having to work roughly 9-10 months out of the year.

That's cow poo to say that cutting the cost of government wouldn't be enough, that's the excuse used every time they need an excuse to not cut gov't spending while increasing taxes to compensate for reduced tax income. You said it, the gov't keeps on building a bigger and bigger debt, so why exactly should we give them more money to spend? Have you seen a tax increase that went to pay down debt? I never have, usually the tax increase is to keep from cutting gov't programs, and the tax increase doesn't go away when times get better, but gov't spending goes up as the tax income increases.

The only gov't entity I know of that is even semi-responsive to voters being unhappy about high taxes is my local township, where getting re-elected can hing around keeping taxes flat (as much as possible, the state gov't in NJ enables school districts to keep on spending whatever they want without voter approval - local voters said no to a local school budget and the state stepped in and forced through the spending increase). So the mayor makes a big deal about keeping his part of the property tax flat and sends out a flyer every year to break it down so people can see the increase is not due to him. We get emails all the time about various measures he's taking to make less dollars do more work. They actually laid off a bunch of city employees two years ago.

You'll never see that at the state level. Those politicians need every special interest group they can get on their side, and that takes spending money and lots of it on this and that and the other thing. It only gets worse at the national level were senators need an average of $9 million to get re-elected - do you think they can raise that based on donations from individuals?

What you take away you can not use. This fails the basic "bad people" problem, that is, how will you stop bad people from abusing the system? At the end of the day it is force. Sending someone to jail is a physical threat (isolation/restraint/etc). Enforcement always ends or promises to end at permanently removing your ability to infringe. Perhaps then to say that force may not be a right but a need. If someone infringes your rights and needs, then force must be a possibility on your list. The US citizens would do well to remember that, that tyranny must be opposed, by force if necessary. If we are not willing to take up arms, then we cede our liberty and freedoms to those that are.