Your Most Controversial Opinions!

Is studying the chemistry of life, a fake science?
Is studying the physics of the chemistry of life a fake science?A lot of things in biology are studied that have not been seen - there are plenty of theoretical models. All three subjects also study macro or 'real world' objects too. For example, the physicists that work at Nasa for space exploration are 'real world' physicists. Chemists that work in oil refining are 'real world' chemists.

That's just a restatement of what was just said. In what sense does biology study the real world and not theoretical models above physics and chemistry? (I'll leave maths out)It's chemistry in particular I don't understand. Surely it models the real world in the same sense as biology. Chemistry, physics and biology are all carried out in a different manner to one another and this leads to these kind of inter-subject criticisms. Physicists often say that Biology and Chemistry are just stamp collecting and Chemists often say Biology and Physics are both too acedemic and "Hey, let's test this idea"-based. Biologists often say crashfrog's comment above.However I've obviously managed to get an explanation out of Physicists for their comment and I've had enough contact with Chemists to get them to explain their view. Unfortunatly I don't get to talk to biologists much, so I'd like to hear more about this, if you don't mind.

I don't see it as religion. Even in mathematics, there's a rigor that leads to faulty models or hypotheses being rejected. But nothing is ever rejected in religion. Well, I didn't mean we should forget about the Holocaust - just, there's no need to have any more "Holocaust awareness" events or whatever. (They were pretty big on stuff like that when I went to college. Maybe it's just me?) Everybody's heard of the Holocaust by now. ...no wonder that movie totally blew. Like, what I can't figure out is - when Hollywood wants to make a space marine movie, why do they look to anybody but James Cameron and Bill Paxton? Space marine movies without Bill Paxton suck. Incontrovertable fact.

one need only to listen to thier rendition of "lemon song" to know that they kicked ass.Achilles last stand blows away any BS I know. Hell, Down by the Seaside does that.to tudwell:
stairway is a great song, but not their best. they literally have something for everyone with their music. (except for rap. they never did any of that)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Fair enough. He could, but its extremely unlikely for the simple fact that O.J.'s blood type is the rarest in the world. Only 0.5% of the human population have the same type. What are the odds that a person with that low of a percentage was even in the same city as Simpson, let alone, shed their blood on his residence on the same day that the murder transpired? Those odds are condemning. I can't remember what type he is, but its very rare. Why not think he was guilty if he wasn't guilty? Why take police on a slow speed chase for miles and miles if only to protect a son that was never even remotely considered a suspect? If he acted guilty, common sense would prevail... He is guilty. And its a damn shame that the police botched it so badly. Not liking someone is not enough to convict someone of murder. O.J. didn't like Nicole either, but that, alone, is not enough to bring someone to trial. The gloves shrunk. You can look at and tell that much. Now, the "gloves" are just circumstantial evidence. Its not like that, of all things, was their smoking gun. But we could turn the argument around on itself and say that any intelligent killer will intentionally plant gloves that don't fit their hand to spread disinformation. Hmmmmm. Not a half-bad idea. I think I might do that.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Both, depending on the circumstances. I say that it should be circumstantial because rehabilitating people means that you are training their behavior for reintroducing them into society. If you are in jail for life because you have been convicted of triple-homicide, there is no reason to rehabilitate.Besides, the punishment should always fit the crime. Prison isn't a free room and board so inmates can watch cable tv at the expense of tax payers. It should be a housing to humanely keep dangerous people away from the general public, where they are punished for their behavior.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

[someone left themselves logged in at my house again]Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

edit: that's very strange, somehow, it pulled brenna's login information cookie instead of mine. i know i've posted more recently on this computer than she has. not totally true. lots of stuff is rejected in religion. look at, say, the inquisition. i'm not sure that's perfectly accurate, but generally true. ironically, most people aren't totally aware of the holocaust wrt to anyone other than the jews. 5-6 million people in other groups died too. and much fewer people have heard of stalin's holocaust, or mao's... really, we should learn from our history, and it's a mistake to focus on one tiny portion of it, and then not learn from it. it seems that the lesson most people take is "killing jews is bad" instead of what the warning signs and dangerous ideology are. to jean-pierre jeunet's credit, he was responsible for city of lost children. but it's hard to stand up to people like ridley scott and james cameron and david fincher, and really, it's just not the right style for the franchise. but yes, i blame most of it on whedon. it's just a really, really bad script.speaking of which, he's writing a script for wonder woman right now. and let me tell you how excited i am about that! it promises to be better than that fantastic four movie!

quote:

---

Was asked to revise the script for X-Men (2000), and reportedly decided the whole script needed to be totally rewritten, when he handed the studio this draft, they apparently threw it out, they only really wanted him to add a couple jokes here and there.

​

Joss Whedon - Biography - IMDb

---

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

I don`t think that even mathematicians themselves see what they do as studying the natural world. Chemistry might be seen as a branch of physics. That leaves us with physics. Why is it again that you say it`s a "fake" science?

I believe that the best solution to ilegal emigration is to make it legal, period

That's not true. Religion rejects anything that might even begin to appear to conflict with its followers' misunderstanding of their beliefs. Even (or especially) if it happens to be true.Case in point: After viewing Da Vinci Code, I posed the question to my cabin-mate (who enjoyed the film) whether such a truth should be revealed and what effect it would have (I'm very pro-Truth, BTW). He was raised Seventh-Day Adventist. The conversation moved around to translations of the Bible (I pointed out the multiplicity of manuscripts that offer several variants of New Testament verses) and he expressed his absolute opposition to people "changing" the King James Bible, even though I kept pointing out that they didn't change the KJV, but rather were offering a modern English translation of the original Greek. His position was that the KJV took precedence over all other versions, including what the original Greek actually says.

You don't yet understand what I'm saying. Right. One specific religion might reject one or another position.But the adherents of that position don't usually abandon their position; they split off and start their own religion.Nothing is ever abandoned in religion. Even that which appears to be abandoned is usually picked up again, in a "revival" movement. In science, adherents of wrong positions either die or are convinced of their error. In religion they spawn their own split-off religions. Why wouldn't they? From what basis can one religion tell another their beliefs are wrong?

The hallmark of dogma and posturing in religion (specifically Christianity) is the belief in exclusivity as pertaining to absolute truth(s).My controversial opinion is that some day people will realize that there actually is a spiritual dynamic and that there is a superior (supreme) being in control of all things.I believe that it will take the realization by humanity of the utter futility of our ability to solve the problems that vex us.If there is any good news in my fundamentalist views, it is that Jesus won't be sending people to Hell. People will end up there only by rejecting Him...which only a fool would do. Atheists quite rightly reject a fallible religion attempting to legislate morality. Its an entirely different matter to reject God Himself, however.Of course, to be fair, maybe I will get sent to Hell for rejecting atheism!

Phat, shame on you, an admin, for yet again calling Atheists fools! Some of the smartest in the world are Atheists and it is a fact that Atheists on average have achieved higher levels of learning then theists.

I didnt think I referred to anyone as a fool! Learning is an important thing, and theists in general lag behind precisely because they are afraid to suspend certain beliefs and worldview paradigms. I was merely voicing my opinion that there will some day be a day of reckoning in regards to God.How He and the Atheists get along is personal between them. AbE: I said that IF God existed, only a fool would reject Him at the point of realization. I was referring to a future meeting.Edited by Phat, : add