Comment Re:we the people? (Score -1) 475
They have, but they also raise the petition limit from 25K to 100K
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7#thank-you=p
Comment Re:Day-age creationism (Score -1) 1226
Which is confounded by the fact the Sun was created until the fourth "day"...Genesis 1:14
Journal Journal: My Journal 1
I've been on
Comment Re:What plant design? (Score 0) 622
Technically they are not talking about building a nuclear power PLANT. They are talking about building 2 nuclear power UNITS
Comment Re:That's good (Score 0) 622
It's called Yucca Mountain and that idea dates back to 1957!!!
Comment Re:some facts about nuclear energy. (Score -1) 622
It was actually the incident at Three Mile Island that began the movement against nuclear energy in the US.
Comment Re:So... paper mills (Score 0) 227
Like death threats, paper cuts, eye-gouging paper air-planes. Why doesn't the paper industry take these things seriously!!!
Comment Re:High-fat, but no carbs (Score 0) 379
I don't think it's quite that simple for everyone. I've been through periods of eating really badly (high fat takeaway for lunch every day for weeks on end) and then really healthy, with identical exercise level (~none), and my weight never moved outside the 69-71kg range that i seem to have been stuck at for the last 5-10 years. I've added up the calories I intake vs the exercise I do (next to none) and by all calculations I should be a balloon. 69-71kg would be about right for my height if there was a bit more muscle on me.
If I don't eat very regularly (eg breakfast at 8am, i'll need something fairly substantial by 10am) I get the shakes and start feeling really really spaced out and crave sugar. If I continue to not eat it kind of settles down and I start feeling a bit normal again but a few hours later i'll get a horrible headache that won't go away for days even with painkillers (although something with a lot of caffeine helps at bit if it goes that far). I've been tested for diabetes and hypoglycemia several times over the years and nothing has showed anything out of the ordinary... i assume i'm just a bit more sensitive to small drops in blood sugar levels than most people.
I know when I'm on a low carb diet, I go through this same process. I've learned that your body naturally processes carbs first (carbs are the only thing saliva starts breaking down carbs as soon as you start chewing). It's easy for the human body to use carbs since they are already close to being glucose.
On a higher carb diet, your body is use to processing carbs, so when you stop eating them every 3-4 hours, it starts to crave them because it needs the energy. On the other hand, when on a low carb diet your body is working to breakdown fat, so the cravings for carbs diminish.
As far as the headaches go, almost everything your body is use to having put it, when removed, will cause a headache. Your body is a giant chemical reaction burning oxygen. Everything you put into it fuels that reaction. Have you ever noticed how the flame of a fire looks different depending on the material burning? That's your body, change what's burning, you get a different reaction...
Comment Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score 0, Flamebait) 1164
Thank you for your response.
Sign, before you assume I'm making a fool of myself, be sure you understand my point of view. Attempting to discredit someone by using a red herring fallacy, is easily caught by someone with even moderate intelligence.
True that scientist are dogmatic, as are creationists, intelligent design proponent, but the statement that science in of its is devoid of any dogma is still incorrect. Maybe in an IDEAL fashion science is devoid of fallacy, dogma, and is correct 100% of the time. By realistically, science is still governed by scientists, and therefore subject to fallacy, and dogma.
Before you infer stupidity, you should make sure it exists.
Sign, before you assume I'm making a fool of myself, be sure you understand my point of view. Attempting to discredit someone by using a red herring fallacy, is easily caught by someone with even moderate intelligence.
True that scientist are dogmatic, as are creationists, intelligent design proponent, but the statement that science in of its is devoid of any dogma is still incorrect. Maybe in an IDEAL fashion science is devoid of fallacy, dogma, and is correct 100% of the time. By realistically, science is still governed by scientists, and therefore subject to fallacy, and dogma.
Before you infer stupidity, you should make sure it exists.
Comment Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score 0, Flamebait) 1164
My point, obviously lost, is that science can be equally dogmatic as religion. In fact, show me any organization and I pretty sure I could reasonable show how they are dogmatic. To specifically say science is 100% free of dogma is ignorant.
Show me someone who loves Pepsi, Linux, Papa Johns Pizza, Alabama Football, etc. and I'll give you an organization is believes they are authoritative and not to be disputed.
Show me someone who loves Pepsi, Linux, Papa Johns Pizza, Alabama Football, etc. and I'll give you an organization is believes they are authoritative and not to be disputed.
Comment Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score 0, Troll) 1164
First, thank you for an intelligent response. I haven't seen any responses that are not emotionally charged either way. It's good to see someone can have a conversation about the issue without ending up calling each other Nazis.
I do like your point, it's challenging and interesting. The only issue I see is that a lot of science is still in a theory state, (which young earth theories, intelligent design, and creationist theories are also). Science does not promote something to a law until we know without a shadow of a doubt that it is true.
This is why darwinism/evolution has remained (and probably always will until a time machine is built), a theory.
It is dogmatic of the scientific community to categoricatlly reject anything else. At least let's view intelligent design (or what ever we call it) objectively and find some tests that we can run.
I do like your point, it's challenging and interesting. The only issue I see is that a lot of science is still in a theory state, (which young earth theories, intelligent design, and creationist theories are also). Science does not promote something to a law until we know without a shadow of a doubt that it is true.
This is why darwinism/evolution has remained (and probably always will until a time machine is built), a theory.
It is dogmatic of the scientific community to categoricatlly reject anything else. At least let's view intelligent design (or what ever we call it) objectively and find some tests that we can run.
Comment Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score 0, Flamebait) 1164
So there isn't any shred of evidence for a universe that was created by an intelligent being? None?
A bit dogmatic don't you think?
A bit dogmatic don't you think?
Comment 3 More (Score 1) 1164
3 More posts and I should get an 'A'
Comment Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score 0, Flamebait) 1164
You're statement on dogma is ridiculous, (from wikipedia: "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from")
Your state that science is never dogmatic; superlative usage most of the time indicates logical fallacy...because almost nothing is THAT concrete. Your statement that science is NEVER dogmatic would have to take into consideration the 1000s of years science has been practiced, and I'm reasonably sure I could find at least one example when a scientific organization taught something authoritative and that it wasn't to be disputed only to discovery the earth was round.
Your state that science is never dogmatic; superlative usage most of the time indicates logical fallacy...because almost nothing is THAT concrete. Your statement that science is NEVER dogmatic would have to take into consideration the 1000s of years science has been practiced, and I'm reasonably sure I could find at least one example when a scientific organization taught something authoritative and that it wasn't to be disputed only to discovery the earth was round.
Comment Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score -1, Flamebait) 1164
Is there any difference between the blind dogmatic stupidity of ID, and the blind dogmatic intelligence of darwinism?
Slashdot Top Deals
Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders. -- Gauss
