Death_By_Pod

However the outcomes are still the same, it's an abortion. A person's body killing a foetus is no different from a person killing a foetus, you still have a dead foetus. Lifestyle choice such as obesity, caffeine, alcohol, physical harm, aspirin, ibuprofen etc. can all elevate miscarriage. You do have some control over the circumstances; negligence of the mother does result in 'accidental abortion' which can be as planned as a regular abortion.

Which is just another name for spontaneous abortion.

True love doesn't exist; the love that people describe as only coming from a long lasting relationship also doesn't exist (people change/fall in and out of love all the time). The only kind of love is that of the present. Love, like all other feelings/thoughts come and go; when you profess your love to someone it is a reaction to the feeling of love which came to your mind. Lust may or may not be love, depending on the type of feeling that comes to your mind (generally the difference between lust and love is how well/long you've known someone/something). Love doesn't even have to be induced by another person since it is based on feeling and thoughts rather then any single type of event or interaction. No thats love. You love what you know about her, which is the exact same reason why engaged couples love each other.

That mass doesn't come from nothing, when you accelerate something close to the speed of light, some energy is converted to mass according to the formula you gave. The total mass-energy of the system is conserved. The mass isn't coming from nothing, it is coming from the energy of the system; you're converting from energy into mass (which isn't necessarily the physical mass of the object, otherwise a contradiction between two different frames will occur). The rest of what you wrote doesn't make any sense. Light and energy can't appear from nothing. It can appear but due to conservation laws, it cant be permanent; unlike what you imply. There is no solid theory (if one were to exist) of 10^500 universes with mass and energy leaking between them; it would be impossible to prove. Gravitational singularities are a mathematical concept which usually means that the model is wrong. Since we can never observe a singularity it would be a matter of philosophy to argue whether a gravitational singularity exists. Since black holes themselves don't have infinite gravity or mass it wouldn't make sense for it to have a singularity. Furthermore singularities can only exist if you assume that space is continuous (which isn't true in some theories).

We can never physically know. The physics of the universe are so different and involved such huge energies I doubt you would be able to replicate or come up with a definite answer. As to where the matter came from, does it really matter? So long as we can accurately model what happened, the actual thing behind the phenomena is irrelevant.

A first for the off topic forums?

The younger you learn to socially interact with the opposite sex and not make a deal out of it, the better. I don't quite understand the mentality that some parents have over protecting their children. Children are going to grow up and have to interact with the opposite gender, delaying that time would only reinforce the idea that such interaction is abnormal and increase anxiety for when interactions occur. I personally find it to be a wonderful thing to get out with all your friends regardless of gender; there is nothing as good as a sleep over to help grow some strong bonds between your friends. Nothing quite like getting drunk, pranking each other and having a fun evening (culturally acceptable where I live, practically a right of passage), I miss those days of being young and carefree.

It doesn't change the fact that anti-abortion bills violate the 14th amendment nor does it change the fact that women get raped and as a result of the rape, could possibly become pregnant. Even if the decision is overturned (all challenges so far have failed) there is legislation put into place in some states which protect abortion, so overturning woe vs wade will not help anti-abortionist activists. Whereas on the other hand the Dakota report makes a claim to authority, which it clearly does not have (lacking in medical doctors, bioethicists and psychologists on the board). According to where you draw the line, all the cells in your body are a new beings. Every time the body copies it's own DNA (which is does constantly), it makes re-encoding errors leading to the DNA not being a 100% copy of the original. So how different should DNA be to be considered a new being?

What's the difference between having no nervous system, and a developing nervous system which is not in use? You could use the logic to argue against abortion. You shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t abort the foetus because a child starts to develop.

The results of their 72 page report concluded two things: 1. Abortion terminates the life of a separate, distinct, living human being which can now be proven scientifically with DNA evidence and research in the field of molecular biology. 2. Abortion hurts women , causing major physical, mental, emotional and spiritual consequences that can be devastating to their lives. The 72 page report: Source The chairwoman of a state task force that studied abortion said Tuesday she is disappointed with the panel's final report and the process used to write it because the document is not balanced and fails to address some issues. "The final report was authored by a few people on the task force, and it is less than completely objective and factual. It is biased and opinionated," said Dr. Marty Allison of Pierre. Allison said she agrees with the report's call for a ban on abortion, with further restrictions on abortion in South Dakota until a ban can be accomplished. But the report does not reflect all the information that the task force gathered from experts and the public on both sides of the issue, and it does not deal with preventing unintended pregnancies and other important issues, she said. "Even though I'm pro-life and it's a pro-life report, I couldn't support the entire document because of those reasons," Allison told The Associated Press. "The process through which we came to the final report, through our meetings we had, I was disappointed with that. It's not reflective of all the information we spent so much time gathering," the physician said. http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/article ... 18961b.txt Of the 17 members that served on that board only 4 were medical doctors and only one is a gynaecologist. Two of the doctors are staunch pro life supporters which shouldn't even be on the board (testimony from people who supported a pro choice stance were not used due to admitted bias).

Vietnam War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory A lot of study has been put into this question, it is at least somewhat plausible.

Not really, but I wasn't the one who posted that the majority of scientists were religious and that it is evidence that we can't live in a world without a strong belief in religion. A scientist's opinion is just as relevant as anyone elseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s opinion on anything. However it might be useful to find out why there are some populations of people who believe in something much less or much more then average. In doing so you might gain some insight, which might have otherwise never been found. Maybe it will spark new way of thinking about religion and its value to society.

Got a source for this? Actually it's the other way around, about 60% or so (depending on the survey) of scientists don't believe in a God and about 90% of "greater scientists" (scientists in biology, physics etc. who are members of the National Academy of Sciences). In fact it seems that as you gain a deeper understanding of the universe you are less likely to believe in a God, which comes as no surprise really. Here is an article which sums up a bunch of surveys which all seem to point to the same conclusion: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

So you think psychologists, psychiatrists and counsellors don't help us internally? What's next your going to say that you worded it wrong again and that science doesn't deal with things 'deeper' then your mind. Anything that exists is natural and thus able to be dealt with scientifically. The things that you claim can only religion can help you with could be something that psychologists can study and include in their set of treatments. The words written in the bible are no different to the words written in a psychologistÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s text book. What can be comprehended by a religious devotee can also be comprehended by a scientist.

The only exo-planets we can see are large Jupiter like planets close to the sun. Our equipment is too weak to find any Earth like planets, so from the 200 planets we found none of them would be suitable for life (since Jupiter like planets are made up of gas and not rock).

this line is wrong: xln(cos(x))-(inetragl of){-xln(cos(x)} it should be: -xln(cos(x))-(integral of){-ln(cos(x))} and as you don't know the integral of -ln(cos(x)) you can't continue. The integral of x*tan(x) doesn't have a real solution thats why I posted it in this topic. It's impossible to do with the normal methods of integration you are taught.

Integrate: x*tan(x)dx :lol:

Yeah I should have pointed it out; this is where the analogy between particles moving up hills and actual quantum mechanic fails. In practice it doesn't actually borrow energy; it's just how the mathematics works out. If you remember in maths about sine and cosine waves you know that they are periodic (they follow the same pattern) and they don't have any ends, the wave repeats the same pattern forever. Quantum mechanics uses similar waves to describe where a particle is located, so the best thing you can do is decrease the height of the wave by placing a hill in front of the wave but you can't stop the wave from existing on the otherside of the hill.

Yeah, it is based on HeisenbergÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s uncertainty principle. I tried keeping it simple but I'll try again, keeping to examples that you can easily visualise. To roll a ball up and over a hill you need to give it enough energy to get over otherwise it will not make it to the top of the hill and just roll back down. Now instead of rolling a ball up a hill you are rolling electrons up a hill, much like a ball if you give it enough energy it will go over the hill. If an electron is near the top of a hill, but doesn't enough energy to go over the hill there is a probability that it will borrow energy to go over the hill; the further away from the top of the hill the less probable it will borrow energy. As an example radioactivity (atoms which are unstable and break into two piece) follows this process. The parts that make up an atom are never still, they always have a random motion (thermal motions). If these random motions, move in such a way that the atom is 'near the top of the hill' then there is a chance the atom will decay and break into two pieces. Since the motions that cause radioactive decay are random we don't know when an atom will decay. This real life example clearly shows why cause and effect can't completely describe nature. All material things are made up from atoms (and atoms are made up of smaller things like protons and electrons) and as a result have this unpredictability about them. Although the individual changes that occur due an atomÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s unpredictability are small, they all add up. Unless you want me to go into any more detail, I will just state that the randomness in nature indirectly allows free thought and uniqueness in how each person thinks. Like electrons borrowing energy to roll over a hill, the universe might also be borrowing energy to roll over a hill (the hill being the big bang); IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying this is how the big bang started but only a reasonable explanation to how the big bang can come from ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃânothingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. I hope this clears it up a little, any further questions?

No offence but have you even read my post that you replied to or do you just skim it? The problem with the cosmological argument is that has invalid premises. Not all material things follow cause --> effect. All sub-atomic particles are clearly affected by quantum mechanics. (Actually everything is affected by quantum mechanics, however due to our size (compared to atoms) we do not see these effects during everyday living.) One rule they follow is that they are not cause --> effect; they are probabilities of being at a point in space or with a certain momentum. Sub-atomic particles violate classical mechanics of cause --> effect. By using abductive reasoning, it would fit our current theories that the universe is able to ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâappear out of nothing as long as it pays back what it took within a sufficient amount of timeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ (to put it very simply). When the universe needs to ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâpay backÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ would have to depend on cosmological constants. If the world was only cause and effect then free will wouldn't exist, however as shown above, such premise is false. Speculation: We know that the universe is unstable, maybe this is related to the above idea in some way; one method of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâpaying backÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ might be the universeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s endless expansion (instability). As t increases, its volume also increases, and therefore the average energy of the universe approaches 0. Thus paying back the energy it borrowed in appearing out of nothing.

If you haven't made an assertion, then your position is the lack of an assertion. If you don't assert your belief in a god then your position is not asserting your belief in a god (I.E. you don't know enough to make an assertion). You don't need to look for proof; agnosticism is the state of not having enough proof to make an assertion. I would consider myself agnostic, not because I say there is no proof either way, rather that I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have enough proof to tell you what way I believe in.

You do know that there are phenomena that we can observe in our universe right now that do not have a cause. Uncertainty in time multiplied by the uncertainty in energy has to be greater then a constant; this means that things with non-zero energyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s can exist for non-zero time; one of the many phenomena that require this relationship are quantum fluctuations which donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a cause, another quantum tunnelling also doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a cause only a probability of being on one side of a potential barrier. These phenomena arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t cause --> effect, they are probabilistic in when they occur; why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the universe itself be probabilistic? So you think cognitive neuroscience is bunk and that all the studies performed in that field have nothing to do with the matter that they are studying? Thought is nothing but signals in the nervous system (and the brain by association), we can measure reactions in the brain to responses and feeling that people have. The cause --> effect chains that you talk about do exist, but since our brains are wired differently (depending on our interactions with the environment); this implies that any certain causes in some brains would have different effects in others.

This part of the argument is not sound. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re using a belief in a natural phenomena and a natural method of scientific reasoning and assuming the same can be said for the supernatural world. There is (reasonably) direct access to the natural world, with that access we are able to determine wether something has a true or untrue premise; with the supernatural world such access doesn't exist. Without a valid form of inference there is no way to tell if something should exist or shouldn't exist. If inference (good access) were possible then it wouldn't be a supernatural phenomenon, rather one which is natural and verifiable. To put it simply, the scientific method (whatever that may be) does not deal with the supernatural and you can't use it as benchmark for explaining the existence of a supernatural entity. If it were as easy as you are suggesting (and I wish it were), why would religion and other superstitions still be relevant to people; people still believe in gods, ghosts, astrology and homeopathy. What classes these phenomena as being non-scientific and something like psychology or string theory as science? In the case of psychology, it has subjective elements and ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâsoftÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ research methods (quizzes, surveys) and in the case of string theory it makes predictions that are currently (and possibly) permanently unverifiable, yet has a very strong basis in mathematics (which does not necessarily imply a strong basis in physics). What is the difference between knowing god, knowing that your patient is depressed and knowing that super string theory explains our current physics and more? Premise 9 is sketchy, there is no agreed definition of truth; there is a whole branch of philosophy discussing what truth is. For instance how do we know if a theory is true if we can't 100% accurately measure and isolate phenomena from the environment and aberrations in measuring equipment. There would be no truth in a measurement if uncertainties in said measurements exist. In physics experimental results are only good if they tell you what uncertainties exist in the results. Premise 11 assumes that you can apply supernatural phenomena to the same logic as natural phenomena. However why would you assume such a thing is possible when you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even access the supernatural world or apply naturalistic methodologies to supernatural theories. The scientific method and associated logic would say that if every possibility is as likely, then no possibility is more true then the other; however the scientific method and logic only deal with natural phenomena and donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t apply to the supernatural. I'm glad to clarify anything with you.

The $7.5 billion is for more then just physically building 8 spaceships, have you ever heard of the term "spin off technologies?" NASA's goal might be going to the moon, however in doing so they develop technologies which can be used in other areas. The most common example is Teflon; it was used as a coating for the space shuttle, but as you know we use them to coat other things (such as frying pans). http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html has a short list of examples. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/ is the official site, where you can find more examples. To say that we are spending the money on spaceships alone is sheer ignorance. A lot of our technology was created for purposes other then what we used them for. For example computers were created to break codes and calculate missile trajectories and the internet was invented to network radar sites together. The Department of defence alone got $440 Billion dollars, making NASA's budget tiny in comparison or how about the department of homeland security getting $43 billion. Sure the Department of Defence provides research grants as well, however they are less effective at producing spin off technologies compared to NASA. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re crying about $13 billion dollars when a large chunk of the budget is used for military spending, what usefulness do we get from waving big guns, expensive ships and planes around?

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q ... on+magnets 307,000 results... yeah not typical. Remember these are people who believe in perpetual motion.