What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I have heard that much of the early puberty can be attributed to better nutrition (or excess) that was not available in prior generations. I do not think all of it can be chalked up to that but it makes the impact of the other variables at least a bit less scary.

But I thought the evil western diet was killing everyone? ;)
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I'm not sure drowning from drinking too much water is the same as the water itself killing you like a poison.

A nitpick cause I'm bored. :)

Water intoxication, also known as water poisoning or dilutional hyponatremia, is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside safe limits by over-hydration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Seems I have to prove everything lately.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I'm not sure drowning from drinking too much water is the same as the water itself killing you like a poison.

A nitpick cause I'm bored. :)

Well drowning is one thing. Otherwise, vast consumption of water can cause electrolyte disturbances causing arrhythmias, asystole or seizure. Pretty poisonous :)
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Interesting you should mention that. After I lent Mistakes Were Made to a friend, he gave me a copy of "Thinking Fast and Slow." Haven't read it yet.

I found it quite interesting that my pace of reading mirrored the title and layout of the book. The "thinking fast" section was really accessible and went quickly; the "thinking slow" section required quite a bit of concentration and went by at a much more deliberate pace.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Now prove creationism....

Isn't that also known in some circles as the "big bang theory"? at first there was nothing, and then BOOM we had a universe?

The "big bang theory" is merely "creationism" without a "Creator", is it not?
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Isn't that also known in some circles as the "big bang theory"? at first there was nothing, and then BOOM we had a universe?

The "big bang theory" is merely "creationism" without a "Creator", is it not?
LOL, no.

Creationism infers God/Gods was involved.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

It's interesting that the concept of days existed prior to the creation of earth. Or did we just calculate the time it took god and attach our calendar system to it afterward?

Why did he need rest? Wouldn't being tired be a form of weakness? I don't want a weak god!
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I have heard that much of the early puberty can be attributed to better nutrition (or excess) that was not available in prior generations. I do not think all of it can be chalked up to that but it makes the impact of the other variables at least a bit less scary.
Agreed. See, we can agree on something.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Isn't that also known in some circles as the "big bang theory"? at first there was nothing, and then BOOM we had a universe?

The "big bang theory" is merely "creationism" without a "Creator", is it not?

So, you're William Lane Craig. It all makes sense now!

To move from the ridiculous to the sublime, I never quite wrapped my head around the Cosmological Argument's obvious flaw. If the idea is that the Universe must have God as a creator because nothing can create itself, and God has no creator, then nothing can exist since something must have created God. But we exist, therefore, obviously there is something wrong with the idea that "nothing can create itself." Either it's just wrong, or it's right and it masks another truth about existence, such as the universe has no beginning, or time is a feature of the existing universe and it's meaningless to talk about "before" time, or time wraps around upon itself, or whatever.

That's the thing about religious arguments. Insofar as they purport to be about reality, they aren't, since they are all at the end of the day just ways of rationalizing an ever-less-likely assumption of a divine being. But insofar as they deal with fundamental questions like existence, causality, time, etc, they are amazingly useful since, though themselves false, they open up interesting directions for the exploration of truth. They are like Dr. Watson in "The Hound of the Baskervilles."

"Really, Watson, you excel yourself. I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you have been so good as to give of my own small achievements you have habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light."
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

There have been recent cases of death from this in (what else?) fraternity hazing rituals. Too lazy to look up a citation.

There was also the infamously stupid "Hold Your Wee For A Wii" contest where the DJs were even warned by an RN that called into the show to tell them of the dangers. "Don't worry about that, we got waivers."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top