Death_By_Pod

It doesn't really matter what you think the differences are. A blastocyst is taken before implantation in the uterus lining, the womanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s body at this stage doesn't even know it's pregnant. When the blastocyst is implanted the chemical hCG is released (in turn keeps Progesterone levels high) allowing the body to maintain a healthy, suitable environment for the foetus to develop (actually pregnancy tests test for the presence of hCG). Before implantation, the body would continue its regular menstruation cycle regardless that a blastocyst exists or not. The presence of a blastocyst does not guarantee pregnancy as blastocysts are prone to not implanting into the uterus lining, so would it be ethical to fish out blastocysts of failed implantations? Come off it, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ridiculous to call a blastocyst life before it even reaches the point to start forming into a foetus.

No it doesn't. He gets some water, plays music, thinks about the water or shows pictures to it and then freezes the water in a freezer (the thoughts don't freeze the water). He then collects the ice crystals from the freezer and photographs them. The only thing that changes the water's state is the freezer (turning it from liquid to solid). The reasons why his theories are bunk are due to the way ice crystals are formed. There are many, many crystals formed in a single sample of water and as the saying goes no two snow flakes are the same, well the same thing can be said about ice crystals. Depending on the impurities in the water, how the water is frozen and how long itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s been sitting out of the freezer, many different patterns can be formed in the same sample of water. The experiments are not performed as double blind (the people who analyse the crystals, know what messages have been added to the water) so a selection bias exists. Dr. Masaru Emoto is a doctor of alternative medicine from the Open International University for Alternative Medicine based in India (basically he isn't a real doctor, as his degree would be unrecognised by most institutions). He also participates in a well know snake oil scam, he sells "healing water." If his findings were true, how come it isn't recognised by mainstream science or by the mainstream media?

That movie was horrible (and explains why your post is so similar to the movies aim); it was made to promote the agenda of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. RSE consists of someone who claims to channel the spirit of a 35000 year old warrior who enlightened his tribe with his knowledge and is now claiming to be able to channel the same knowledge to us. The movie claims that when quantum mechanics was introduced it destroyed determinism; therefore there is some sort of spiritual connection in the universe. Their experts are not active in the scientific community (except one who is a philosopher of physics who denounces the film in its final form) and all have some sort link to a new age foundation. What you did type was just a bunch of garbage coming from someone who is majoring in physics. I'm not sure if purecheese is a physics major but I know I'm not the only one around on these forums; they can also confirm that what you wrote made no sense.

Embryonic stem cells are generally taken from a Blastocyst not foetuses. Basically it is a collection of 50-150 odd cells that are yet to be implanted into the lining of the uterus; before implantation you can't even test for pregnancy. If you want to simplify it, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just a fertilised ovum. When life begins, when it depends on who wants to know and what criteria they use to consider life. I would say about the 3rd trimester since thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s when a foetus becomes self-aware, before which they are oblivious to their own existence; for other people that might be different, however thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s my take on it.

People who take abstinence pledges treat them as a legally binding contract; otherwise there is no point in taking them unless they give you some motivation in fulfilling the pledge. In having sex you fail to fulfil the contract (a breach of contract), so unless you voided the contract previous to sex you are failing to correctly abide to your pledge. Of course abstinence is a state (either you are or your not) however people take it one step further and take oaths, verbal contracts or written pledges to help swear off sex. It is these sort things that you are not correctly following, not the state of abstinence itself. You might consider abstinence as solely a state of being but many other people consider it to be a contractual obligation. Condoms are to contraception as pledges are to abstinence, when we talk about contraception we talk about the methods involved not what contraception does; likewise when we talk about abstinence we talk about ways to help abstain rather then the overarching concept of it.

And of everyone that commits to abstinence, how many go through with it? What happens if you have a girlfriend you really like and want to be with and she brings it up? It's kind of like being straight edge, you don't want to do drugs because you haven't had a good enough opportunity to do so (its illegal under 21 and you can't visit any nice bars), however when your given a good opportunity many recant on the spot. Why arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t they psychologically ready? At 16 teens start to accept many adult responsibilities such as driving (becoming more independent and responsible for other peoples safety) and taking a bigger role in maintaining the house (cleaning, cooking, paying bills at the post office etc.), why shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t we include sex? It's pretty clear at this point of time teens start to understand what it means to be responsible. Just because you know a few kids who have a total lack of self-control doesn't mean its the same for everyone else. So going back on your abstinence pledge isn't incorrect use? Wouldn't your inability to use a condom (or other forms of contraception) correctly go back on the pledge you made to your partner that you are going to have safe sex? Surely that shouldn't count either because you made the effort to try, the result shouldn't matter. Load of bull, my mother gave me a packet of condoms when I was 14/15 and the situation was nothing like you described. Handing out condoms is a good idea since younger people tend to be more embarrassed in the situation of buying condoms, regardless they are ready or not. I had a similar talk to you, "If you are ready and have sex make sure you use protection; here are some condoms to keep spare so that you will always be prepared for when you want to have sex." How they hell is that any more of an endorsement of sex then your parents method? Guess what I have yet to impregnate anyone either, it must have been effective!

Before you 'measure' something, it is the superposition of all possible properties. For example if someone asks you to check if the pie in oven is cooked, you don't know if it is uncooked, cooked or burnt. Before you check the pie it could be in any cooked state. Physics shares the same basis with Mathematics, so physics can be proved through the use of mathematics. Things like Chemistry, Biology and Geology are derived from physics, hence they can also be proved through mathematics (as they share the same basis with physics; which is shared with mathematics). If by theories, you mean guesses; then yeahÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a single piece of mathematics in his work, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅNew AgeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Yeah that might be true but promoting as a viable form of 'contraception' is silly. It's pretty clear from this thread and general statistics that it doesn't work in practice, so why should it be even discussed as if it does work? Exactly, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why the age is 16 not 11; it takes into consideration mental development. Social and Financial burdens shouldn't really factor into the equation if you are properly educated on how to prevent pregnancy. If someone really wants a baby they are going to have one regardless of their financial position. Sorry if it seems that I might be aggressive in my posts, I just tend to write a lot.

But it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t... in reality youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re very, very unlikely to have a serious relationship without sex. A relationship without sex is like visiting a circus (first thing that came to mind, donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t kill me) for the rides, games and novelty toys. You can do those activities at other events; youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re missing out on the thing that makes a circus unique (itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s show). How am I stating a belief? The decision of when to have sex is up to the person as long as their body can physically and mentally handle it. The only imposing part is the age restriction which can be totally justified (body hasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t developed sexual organs, young people are susceptible to being taken advantage off). The lack of a belief isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a belief. Christians are getting pegged because they are the most vocal and relevant voice on the issue. I can say the similar things for any other perspective (ones that wish to restrict natural behaviour) however the most predominate and relevant perspective on this forum is Christian. There is no point talking about what Raelians (http://www.rael.org) think, when very few people are Raelians and I doubt any visit these forums.

Yep and not eating food is a good method for not getting fat. They are both 100% flawless ways to prevent you from getting pregnant and fat, however they don't work in the real world. In the real world you need to eat to survive and be intimate in a serious relationship. To many Christians a serious relationship begins at marriage, therefore sex is discouraged before that point. However as you know not everyone shares this belief, some people consider being in a serious relationship much earlier or later. It is not up to you to decide when a person should or shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t practice intimacy; medical consensus states that at around 16 it is safe and healthy for a person to partake in sex. At this point the person should be free to choose wether or not to practice sex (since it does not contribute negatively to physical and mental development), depending on their own moral judgement on the issue. You might feel one way about the issue but there are many others that feel another. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re welcome to practice what you believe in but youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re not welcome to impose that belief on others. At some point in time you will want to participate in sexual intercourse and being ignorant about how to prevent pregnancy isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to help stop pregnancy. Like someone said earlier being educated on preventing pregnancy (contraception, understanding female menstrual cycles etc.) does not do anything to support it. PeopleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s moral opinions on the matter are not going to change with education. If people feel that sex should be left till marriage they will keep feeling that way even if they are taught contraception methods. Having a weak sexual education program isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to help decrease teen pregnancy because teens will just go living on not understanding how important contraception is. Having no control is a code word for not believing in my moral opinion? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s perfectly healthy to have as much sex as you want in your teens (itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not healthy to have thoughts about harming others), caring for an unwanted baby is not healthy. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not a matter of self-control but being ignorant about being able to prevent any bad consequences from occurring. Contraception is perfectly acceptable at preventing pregnancy (youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re always going to get ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åmiracle babiesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Your post isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t much better. There are many aspects to international relations and politics; you could be asking who has more political sway, which country hampers international peace, which country sticks to the rules better, etc. They all have to do with being an international menace; however I would assign different answers to each aspect. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re not being very specific; also your assumptions are grossly simplified. What are we talking about when you mean menace? Each country is equally menacing on the international stage, after all if you were the leader of a country you would want to be the one to ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâgainÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ the most out of anything (it could be anything from perceived power to profiteering off others). The way which a country does this may differ, however everyone wants the same outcome; being #1. Every country has done there fair share at pushing their agenda, this just sounds like vilifying the countries who are pushing their agenda the loudest. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t say that other pushy superpowers (Like Britain, France, Germany, China, AustraliaÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ) and small troublesome nations (African nations warring, Coups in Pacific nationsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ), donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t contribute much to the health of international politics. To state that one group of people are more of a menace then others, is just an invitation for more problems. You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t solve problems by pointing fingers, because everyone will point to someone else.

I was placed near Mandela; ideally I would be closer to Hussein or Mugabe (in some senses). The test doesn't put forward very good propositions and the lack of a neutral option creates even more ambiguity. I've done political quizzes with a lot better results than this, I'll see if I can dig them up. After looking at a few more quizzes, I see that questions put forth in many quizzes are unable to quantise my political opinions.

Advice on relationships, politics, religion, what mp3 player to buy etc... are subjective topics and have no definite answer; evolution is objective and does have a definite answer. I see no reason why I need to restate the facts, when another website can do a far better job at it then anyone else here. What do you want me to do, copy and paste it here? I never said we shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t discuss the topic, I even asked for questions in the post ("if you have any further questions you can post them here if you like"). I was directing people to talk-origins so I wouldn't have to type up the same thing over and over and for people to be able to contact people who know a lot about evolution.

I don't understand how these debates even continue when resources like http://www.talkorigins.org exist. Every question you have can be answered with full references; if anything is missing you could probably email them your concerns. Have a good read of that site (start at the FAQ page, it provides to answers of common questions), if you have any further questions you can post them here if you like. I'm don't study biology (I study Physics, Mathematics and History and Philosophy of Science), but my scientific background allows me to understand principles of evolution at a reasonable level.

The biggest thing holding back metric adoption in the United States is the enormous cost of signage and re-education. Imagine having to go across America and replace every single sign in Imperial with one in Metric/Imperial, from road signs to super market labels. Not only that but you also have to educate the masses, so thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s advertising, pamphlets, day courses and so on. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not about practicality, but about cost and convenience; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a shame that a country like America is doomed to their moon language measurements; it causes so many unnecessary problems in International collaboration (such as the failure of a $125 million Mars Orbiter due to a failure to convert between systems).

It hasn't been proven because itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a bunch of pseudoscientific rambling. Physics isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t like what you read in a science fiction book, you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t just dream up ideas and expect them to work in real life. Physics is a very rigid set of mathematics; in order for your ideas to work they need to be solvable by a given set of equations. In essence your ideas need to fit current observation and equations. If someone hasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t come up with a similar idea to your space compression theory, it is because it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t work. There are over 62 million man hours put into the field of physics per year in America alone, if space compression was a feasible idea there will be people working on it.

Opening borders to immigration and trade is the direct opposite of communism. Globalisation is a very capitalistic idea; having a global identity goes directly against one of the core tenants of communism (having a strong national pride). Stupid generalisations which don't address the point of the post FTW** **FTL :roll: (it doesn't help your case to talk like a [developmentally delayed] person)

To even acknowledge a difference between black and white people is racist. The longer we talk about people being white or black, the longer we perpetuate a racist idea. There is no genetic difference between a black or white person. Black and white people belong to the same race, the human race and deserve to be treated equally. No one has a greater right to live a reasonable life then anyone else; there is no reason why ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâwhiteÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ people deserve to live in England over immigrants.

Matter moved away from each other much faster then light, not time. There are more then 7 states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phases_of_matter gives a list; even ice has about 14 or so states. The state of matter near the beginning of the universe would be similar to a black hole. We can use heavy objects like planets, stars and black holes to sling shot around and get faster, however not on a scale that you describe. That sounds like an Alcubierre drive, an object that compresses space in front of it and expands space behind it. Basically the spaceship sits inside of this bubble and the space will move but the space ship will stand still. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s kind of like surfing on a wave; however this idea has been around for a decade or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

You are completely wrong. If you add up the mass of everything before the reaction and after the reaction you end up missing/gaining around 0.005u (depends on the reaction), When you convert that missing/extra matter to its energy equivalent you find that it equals the amount of energy given off/absorbed by the reaction (A few MeV). Matter does get created and destroyed, it is not conserved; energy however must be conserved, maybe youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re getting matter mixed up with energy. What are you talking about, Wikipedia is in metric. Are you complaining about a lack of imperial measurements, because if you are you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t consider a science degree (all equations use metric, basically everyone apart from the US uses metric). Neutrinos are detectable, there are many experiments out there that record neutrino events; There has been enough data which shows that the sun is the source of most neutrinos. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s actually surprisingly easy to detect neutrinos; all you need is huge dark tank, padded with photosensitive cells; then fill it up with water. Most neutrino's will pass through the tank but occasionally one will slam into an electron; the excited electron will release light and will get picked up by the photocells (which can also be used to determine which direction the neutrino came from). The more water we have, the more electrons and more collisions as a result.

The concept of time is man-made however time is based on a real, observable phenomenon. Time is the flow of information (which is basically anything, for example the flow of photons into your eyes, or the vibration of atoms in your body) and can be quantised in terms of Planck time (the time it takes a photon to move the shortest distance possible). According to this definition it would be theoretically possible to stop and reverse time. You only need to stop the transfer of all information or to reverse it but due to the laws of thermodynamics such actions are impossible, hence the reason time seems to always move forwards. Nothing, you still aged 1 hour; however according to the definition of time zones youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve moved back one hour. It still doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t change the fact that all the atoms in your body have been vibrating about for an hour.

That quartic is never going to give you accurate data unless Jagex uses a quartic to determine XP/level. Its not going to be useful around the ends of the data (especially predicting levels >99). A better approximation would be a Lagrange Polynomial but you would probably need to use Matlab or some other mathematical program to solve it. But this is all silly when we know the exact formula.

ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s some horrible maths and ignores many fundamental properties of complex numbers.

0.999... = 1 Its one of those things that goes against the intuition of a lot of people but if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve done basic high school maths then you should know about limits and know that things can limit to whole numbers. I just see 0.999.. as a geometric series and the limit of that series is 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1 Has a bunch of proofs. For the unbelievers, tough :boohoo: Edit: and how did I know this was going to be a 0.999...=1 topic from the title.

Is there any evidence that China burns books because it goes against their religious belief (more likely due to political repression)? China maintains a "freedom of religion" viewpoint and has been doing so for decades, they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have an official religion. There are no statistics for the number of atheists in China so they are lumped in the non-religious category. Having 60% non religious and 30% traditional practices shows in my mind that religion is a social practice rather then a universal truth. People continue to practice traditional beliefs because they are passed down from generation to generation, when someone finds it to be a little too quaint for their liking they become non-religious. You sure do tell some giant whoppers :^o