Think Science .

There are plenty of creationists from religious backgrounds are poping up. They are making wild guesses and claims from science research. You can say they’re making claims based on their assumptions of both religion and the random reading of papers. It’s like read religious books first then turn to journals read some good papers. And conclude that everything in science matches with religious texts. So what is the difference between scientists and creationists.

A scientist makes observations, builds theories upon them, performs experimental tests and gets to conclusions.

A creationist reads the Religious Books, reads the scientist’s papers, makes wild interpretations of both until they fit together and says “thanks God” upon success, keeping silent otherwise. For getting promotion to their wild religious pseudo science claims(oops theories) they use less qualified people to get approval of their creationism theories. You can check out one such place called Scientific exploration. (Funny looks like hangout creationist bloggers)

Site is here : http://www.scientificexploration.org/

and check out this funny caricature:

http://www.mrpessimistic.com/Images/content/EvolutionCreation.jpg

UNO assures world peace ? No, it doesn’t. If this was the case there would be no wars. There are wars — hence, it doesn’t assure it. Similarly as to how the League of Nations (predecessor of the U.N.) didn’t prevent the World War from happening. Q.E.D. And provide the opportunity to all nations to put their case and let the world decide who is right and who is wrong.” ??? Not true. Replace “the world” with “the unelected bureaucrats” — then it’s true.

The leadership of the free world is with the United States. Like it or not — that’s the reality on the planet you live on. U.N. has no practical relevance and no mandate — it never had, it never will. if a majority of the population of a given country is religious, isn’t it obvious that self-determination of this country coincides with religion determining its behavior in reality? Note, that I’m not talking about legal principles (like the separation b/w state, church, whatever — practically kind of rare anyways), but practical outcomes — if the voting population is religious, then taking away the right to live according to a given religion is equivalent to taking away the right of self-determination — isn’t it?

Quite interesting. It raises few questions in my mind. Why the used gigantic PHENIX detector to record virtually every type of particle expelled at a right angle from the collision. After analyzing their data, the team found significantly fewer particles than conventional theory predicts. What do we mean by detectors and recorders capable of recording virtually every thing that is scattered by the collision? Do these record anything if it is dark?

My this quriy is based on the recent observation of the Dark Energy occupying as high as 72% of universe. If this energy which is extremely cold happens to be a constituent of mass and is released as impact of the collision would not get detected and recorded and would account for the missing mass that is the difference in the expected and detected particles. Based on this and such many other scientific experimental results/observations and other possible interpretations I am working on a new conceptual theory for “Beginning of Universe as duality and formation of particles with mass and observed properties and characteristics” which is nearing completion. This theory is purely philosophical as I am very poor at math. There are no mathematical expressions in it.

All the media should be neutral and explaining rather than picking sides, in every situation. Bad media is biased media. Another way for a media to be bad, much like the first one, would be corrupted media. Corruption of media comes in a variety of ways. One way would be that the govt would limit and censor what makes the news. This, if done properly, cannot be detected so easily and that means the media influences the people to vote for one political party or figure rather than another.

The second way for a media to be corrupted would be that single rather influential people pay for what gets in the news and what doesn’t. This can be currently seen in Russian media, where influential people (people with lots of money) can influence the media.

A very good example of a biased, rather than corrupted media would be most of the US entertainment television at the time of the last presidential election. Clearly the media supported Obama rather than McCain. I’m not saying it was a bad choice, but rather that this is an example of classically bad media..
Although many conspiracy theorists consider the better part of US media to be totally corrupted and dependent on the govt, I don’t think it’s really that bad…
Another thing that makes bad media is the tendency to cover stories that sell, not the ones that are actually important. Sadly, this is an ongoing problem of the capitalistic society.

While the active material in CFLs is mercury which has already been shown to be the most dangerous pollutant on the globe, the active material in LEDs is arsenic.

I will grant that arsenic is much easier to contain/recycle than mercury, but LED bulbs have their own problems… Top of the list is that the energy output required to produce them actually exceeds the energy saved by using them.

The “green energy” people do have it right… We need to concentrate on cleaner, more efficient, and renewable energy sources. Even putting pollution aside, the Earth has enough oil reserves to last about another 60 years or so… and then we’re pretty much out. We have coal reserves to last about 100 years or so, but that’s got it’s own set of problems.

Of course the “conservatives” are intentionally blind as well with their focus on “nuclear” power because the uranium reserves are even more limited than oil. We have enough uranium to last about 50 years or so.

Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, and whatever new technology we come up with in the future isn’t just “nice”, it’s necessity. At least for those of you planning on being around in 60 years.