Free Republic

Please send me evidence for your claim... not saying you're wrong, just would like to know why you say what you say, for my own edification

Oops, excuse my ambiguity... I meant "attack" Cruise on his decision

I'm not sure what 'specific studies' this refers to, no...

My point was that you're trying to base your argument not on evidence of the safety of sonogram machines but rather on the credibility of the "messenger". I don't have experience just as a blind man can't tell if the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean the color of the sky is disputable. "There are no substantiated side-effects documented in studies." It is pointless to debate "experience," you wouldn't take your doctor's opinion as "absolute" just as I don't take my professor's anti-Bush statements to be absolute either...

Therefore, there is no compelling reason for him NOT to do frequent ultrasounds on a developing baby, but you chose to attack him anyway...

What are you advocating? Rebuking people's freedoms until sufficient studies are conducted?

I don't have experience, how does that pertain to the safety of sonogram machines?

"Dangers of Ultrasound

There have been disputes whether ultrasound is safe. But since ultrasound is energy [sound waves], there are questions such as, "What are the energy waves doing to my tissue?" There are some reports of low birth weight babies being born to mothers who had more than the recommended ultrasound examination.

There may be side-effects of the following:

* Heat development: Local tissue absorb the ultrasound energy and increases the temperature of those tissues
* Bubble formation: Gasses, that are dissolved, come out of the solution due to local heat increases

However, there are no substantiated side-effects documented in studies."

Excellent point!

Why are people so concerned with what other people do with their time and money? These machines are safe, leave him alone

To make a correct correlation between the Christianity class and Jewish and Buddhist classes I'd have to ask - is "Christianity's Influence on American History" trying to be counted as an "American History" requirement? Are the Jewish and Buddhist courses counted as "American History" or "World History" requirements or are they categorized into "Religious studies" where other, more "proper" classes were taken to meet the history requirements?

IMHO, all 3 of these courses should not be counted or "substituted" unless a competency test is passed... if you know the basic material necessary, that's all that really matters.

Liberal chickenshit ping

81% Yes... what's milktoast?

Rice Cooker Ping

What the heck? Try laying off the crack before you post...

You use the sun as an illustration of increasing entropy. The sun's breakdown, however, is in the direction of another generation of suns. These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity. Our disagreement is a difference of perspective. A sort of chicken and the egg discussion. Where you see, if I understand you correctly, a balance I see an increase of orderliness. Stars may explode and energy dissipate but order follows these events.

It is obvious you do not understand my explanation. My explanation is backed and proven by mathematical formulas, it is not a "perspective". I cannot further a discussion on physics and chemistry with you.


You choose to start with the premise that God is irrelevent to science. My position is that God as creator and sustainer of the universe can not possibly be irrelevent.

I, along with the rest of the scientific community, chose to start with no BIASES when first performing these experiments. You start with a premise, that’s your first mistake. You believe science should conform around your beliefs, which is just as unscientific as the evolutionists that set out to further prove their pseudodogma (see earlier post). Science is about posing hypotheses and proving or disproving them through UNBIASED tests. Your dogma, ID, et al is an open-ended hypothesis, not provable by any means of tests. I’m sorry if you think your beliefs are anything but relative but you have ZERO credible evidence for them.


If you are correct the universe is a-theistic, without God. That is the essential premise of anti-ID crowd. You choose to limit God to a personal spiritual experience. I experience Him as essential to the structure of reality.

Can you at least attempt to use complete and coherent sentences?? You experience “Him” as essential to the structure of reality because you have yet to understand reality! Hell, you don’t even understand the physical laws governing disorder. Do you even know the dynamics of evolution and ID? I’m starting to doubt whether you know the arguments for ID and how all of those are countered. Thinkers were simply presented with the ID alternative explanations and showed how it was still possible for reality to exist without a specific, intelligent design involved.


The scientific method is a helpful tool for understanding the universe. 'Like you, I choose to use that tool to discern more of the nature of reality. Thus far it has led me toward a confirmation that intelligence directs the course of the universe. If it leads you in the opposite direction we can have a conversation.

Do not delude yourself into believing that your dismissive attitude toward ID will rid you of the trouble of grappling with its claims. It will not.

Your statements are not backed by the scientific method nor are they backed by a solid understanding of physical chemistry, stop kidding yourself. My dismissive attitude toward ID is justified by the fact that every argument for ID has already been countered – more than enough to justify a dismissive attitude – there are no more claims left to undo. Are you even reading/understanding our previous posts?

Although this post is somewhat narcissistic, it still gives insight to the growing popularity conservatism is receiving on campuses like ours.

Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated.

In actuality, entropy, or disorderedness, must always increase. The problem with your view is that it is limited to half of the system, earth. If the simple leads to the complex, then something else must become more random, and so it does with the highly exergonic reactions of the sun, which transmits this energy to earth. The total system includes the sun, and the total system is that of increasing disorder.

It is through this increasing disorder that one part if the system, the earth, is allowed to even express forms of increasing order - allowing "random change" in the first place. It is survival of the fittest that dictates what stays and what goes during these random "ups and downs" of orderness. This random change occurs all the time and organisms, through self-interest, have evolved extensive systems to counter entropy and continue their own organization at the expense of another. On a smaller scale, biochemically, we breakdown other molecules to ensure ours remain intact, now and in future generations.

ID is an illegitimate excuse to explain the undiscovered (which, in this case, already can be answered); your greatest folly in supporting ID is assuming the undiscovered is indeterminable and running to your "god" to fill in the blanks. Scientists don't want your religious "fillers", we'll discover it eventually if it hasn't been explained already.

Moron!

Everything is subjective. Scientific method requires the ability to replicate such experiments - you have the option to analyze the methods used and nullify the experiment by citing incidences of bias rather than foolishly presuming their existence.

But you are in the same trap :-) My issue with evolution (specifically macro-evolution) -- aside from its bed-fellows -- is that it has largely become dogma. I simply don't know the ID position well enough (yet) to have strong feelings for or against it.

Very true, I cannot assume a belief system plays a role in your system of thought, I apologize for categorizing you into that group. About challenging liberal groups - I am prone to challenge any and all groups, thoughts, and ideals (and as a result of my attempted objectivity, I agree for the most part with today's conservatives). I am honestly apathetic to who supports/opposes evolution. I only seek truth for myself - whether you counter evolution because liberals support it, or whether the liberals support it because you counter it is childish political games at the expense of higher understanding.

About evolution becoming largely dogma, I somewhat agree and disagree; many scientists accept the popular theory of evolution not because they hate religion and desire to counter it, but that evolution and the origin of life is supported by an incredible amount of experimental evidence. Scientific method will dictate to keep these conclusions and theories in check. That does not go without saying that I have read about evolutionists setting out to further prove evolution through experimentation: that is not science either, experimentation should reveal truth. However, I simply cannot recall that many examples of this, do you have many? I see a stronger total denial of evolution than I see a total acceptance of it... and I presume this to be due to religious beliefs.

I'm right with you in challenging what liberals have to say, I do it every day (I attend a University, we, the College Republicans, live for challenging these mental cases). Your comment annoyed me, it had to be addressed; and since when did I show support for evolution? (searching... searching... comment not found). I merely criticized Intelligent Design and have no problem criticizing evolution if the evidence presented itself - this is the basis of the scientific method. If you've got evidence that disproves evolution, then I'm all ears! (So is the rest of the scientific community). At least evolution can be disproved, we are all aware of that.

It is not my agenda to see to it that evolution remains, it is my agenda to point out that ID is an idiotic idea designed to preserve religion from the "evils" of rational thought and scientific findings... a justification for all that you have already invested in this "absolute". It is you, my friend, arresting critical thought for the sake of your "faith".