Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

[LWsciencejunkie]

Primewonk wrote:

<quoted text>
re: the Freudian slip -
So the rumors about Freud being a cross dresser are false?
God, 10 in the morning and I can tell already it's gonna be a Rum Friday.

For insomniacs, time is both relative and irrelevant. That means, among many other advantages and disadvantages, that the sun is always over the yardarm somewhere in the world and that I have done some seriously profitable after-hours trading in overseas markets. Ka-ching.

[ZekeCDN]

Cvvl wrote:

<quoted text>
If you do drop by Montreal give me a holler. There are a great many micro-brews that have resulted in me losing consciousness.

Thanks, Cvvl! I used to spend a lot of time in Montreal when I was younger (had some family there) but I don't get nearly enough excuses to go there these days.

Btw, congrats on your impending family expansion!

[LWsciencejunkie]

Primewonk wrote:

<quoted text>
OH GOD! Sleep AND microbrews! My 2 all time favorite things! Heck for the past couple years I've started brewing my own. Last batch was pretty close to an Alaskan Amber.

We made beer in one of my HS microbiology classes. We called it "Freddy Fungus". Very descriptive. We didn't get in trouble because it was not recognizable as beer.

[Real]

Tinka wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah well, he needs to release himself under someone else's watch..LOL
And here is the true ticker...like LW (fossil girl) already stated as well..
If they truly thought I was incompetent of all thought, why then, if they hold super human brain powers I guess are they talking to me...
I thought smarts stand for something??
Yes, true entertainment...I have come to the conclusion that must be the reason...but they aren't doing that well in that field either...
Oh well...

That would all be nice and dandy if it were a battle of wits, but it’s not. You just changed the subject earlier on to create an argument of pity, but as the old saying goes:“whatever helps you sleep”

Both you and over-eazy-under-pressure made the mistake of making a hasty generalization about me, a logical fallacy.

My “super human brain powers” are wasted with you… and don’t worry, this will be my final post to you. Funddies are on the call 24/7, and a “super human brain power” being is in the need. Up, up and away!

[Tinka]

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, Tinka, I have tried to read some of your posts, all I can say is you are long-winded.
Rave on.

Well, at least you tried I guess..not that it matters..
For an attention hawk I am not..
But the point I tried to make..that yes my lungs work superb....!!!!
Rave on...
so it's like an ongoing party isn't it...It seems it..

Too bad some seem to be always on the verge of an overdose...
If I try hard enough...I can see them twitch...

[Tinka]

Primewonk wrote:

<quoted text>
re: the Freudian slip -
So the rumors about Freud being a cross dresser are false?
God, 10 in the morning and I can tell already it's gonna be a Rum Friday.

With a little coke on the side???

So you're ready to rave too..hu?

[Nettiebelle]

Tinka wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, at least you tried I guess..not that it matters..
For an attention hawk I am not..
But the point I tried to make..that yes my lungs work superb....!!!!
Rave on...
so it's like an ongoing party isn't it...It seems it..
Too bad some seem to be always on the verge of an overdose...
If I try hard enough...I can see them twitch...

Buddy Holly song
guess I am 'dating' myself

[Tinka]

Real wrote:

<quoted text>
That would all be nice and dandy if it were a battle of wits, but it&#8217;s not. You just changed the subject earlier on to create an argument of pity, but as the old saying goes: &#8220;whatever helps you sleep&#8221;
Both you and over-eazy-under-pressure made the mistake of making a hasty generalization about me, a logical fallacy.
My &#8220;super human brain powers&#8221; are wasted with you&#8230; and don&#8217;t worry, this will be my final post to you. Funddies are on the call 24/7, and a &#8220;super human brain power&#8221; being is in the need. Up, up and away!

LOL...what????

[Tinka]

I shouldn't have replied but I did, so now I am going to ask what I should have already and been meaning to..
What's with your fallacy deal???

[Tinka]

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>
Buddy Holly song
guess I am 'dating' myself

Wich one is the song...Rave on or I am dating mua...
I am not really familiar with his songs by name..

Seems though he was on a different planet for his time..

[Tinka]

Well I check back later...
Seems maybe everyone is getting the sleep they are seeking..
Happy zzzzzzzz's

[Katydid]

Cvvl wrote:

<quoted text>
*applause*
One one the best posts in the thread.

Thank you, thank you very much.

*Please read the above in an Elvis-like voice whilst curling your lip for maximum effect.

:-)

[Katydid]

Primewonk wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm new here but it looks like you work in cancer/genetics. As you may have noticed, I'm in sleep research. Have you seen some of the papers linking sleep and cancer? Specifically the shift work information. The WHO is putting shift work on its list of carcinogens.

Well, melatonin has well-established anti-carcinogenic properties. Melatonin is produced at night, and regular exposure to sunlight affects the production cycle, which peaks in the middle of the night. Consequently, artificial light suppresses melatonin production. This suppression is highest for people that have to work night shift, but they have found that even a small amount of artificial light at nighttime (up reading due to insomnia for a short period of time, a night light, falling asleep with the TV on, even the light from a computer terminal or digital clock) affects melatonin production.


I am a huge fan of the infamous “Nurses’ Health Study” out of Harvard; the results of their research have had enormous impact.

This is an excellent study to follow for several reasons. One is sample size, over 121,000 nurses enrolled. Two is commitment. These nurses have been vigilant about the continuity of the study, they answer the surveys, the have their blood drawn and shipped to Harvard, etc. Three is the length of the study. It was begun in 1976, and here, 32 years later, it is going strong.

The researchers involved in the Nurses’ Health Study, followed 78,586 women for their “night shift” research. They found that nurses who worked night shifts at least three times a month for 15 years or more had a 35% greater risk of colon or rectal cancer.

The researchers have come to the conclusion that the link between exposure at night to artificial light and cancer risk through the melatonin pathway is a very plausible explanation for the increased risk.

[TheGavin]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
Re-read your own and show me how smarmy, sophomoric retorts to questioning minds contribute to a general good. Your replies are in compliance (you love that word, I'm sure) with other herd members. Most (but NOT all) the posters here form a back-slapping club .... no, wait...a religion of narrowly focused intent on keeping outside thought outside.
I have the lawn to mow before it rains and I can't rationalize my devoting 8 hours to searching back-posts and presentations to a committee of one.

While I'm sure a sense of arrogance (and or ignorance) can be gleened from a position that seemingly promotes little give......before judgment or assessment is qualified, truly, I'd think one would have to weigh that arrogance and or ignorance in the reality and merits of it's position...and how it applies in contrast.

While it wouldn't take much to figure out which side of the debate I lean towards...it would be a little disingenuous to assume myself or others (not to be rude, for seemingly speaking for others) have arrived at our/my stance based on a blind allegiance to science. Science is falible...I like that. I like that a lot. For the purpose it serves, that falibility almost ensures self correction...because all of science is open to be viewed, questioned, critiqued, and assailed. That keeps it honest. That keeps it flying as straight as it possibly can be, with the information and research it has...at that moment. That "moment" is constantly changing. I don't view that as bad...but rather, a good thing.

Evolution is not locked in. Nothing in science is locked in. Anything can be yesterdays flat earth with the next new discovery.

As of "yet" nothing has collapsed Evolution, so it is as true as it possibly can be, at this very "moment"...no more or no less than our knowledge, technology, and research permits and maintains. Nothing else, at this time, is even close to offering an alternative. Nothing as documented, tested, researched, or has produced as much positive impact by its discovery...in counter to ID.

This could be viewed as arrogant, ignorant and exclusive. These are human observations that apply emotional substance, to an otherwise inanimate item. I won't argue that, at times, an observable air of confidence, by humans hoisting it (evolution) can be seen, especially by those involved directly or within one of it's many tied in fields. A sense of accomplishment and back-patting is usually par for the course when you're on the *winning team*, of the moment...as far as I know, that's pretty much how it's always worked...within any setting. But because you can't stand how a star athelete parades pompously after making a score, doesn't negate the ability that allowed him to do so. So to is Evolution resolute in it's current position, how someone may act that is in the field, doesn't negate evolutions findings, documentation and research.

When you view the people and not the item they parade around, it's easy to wish for it's downfall (theirs, more specifically). Especially when it seems to fly in the face of things contrary of what we percieve/believe/envision/or can imagine.

The validity of anything, is ultimately in it's proof. Proof always wins out at the end of the day.

[Primewonk]

Katydid wrote:

<quoted text>
...
The researchers have come to the conclusion that the link between exposure at night to artificial light and cancer risk through the melatonin pathway is a very plausible explanation for the increased risk.

With the new research, and the WHO putting shift work on the list of known carcinogens, as you might expect this raises some interesting issues. Employers generally have a duty to protect employees or at least mitigate exposure to harmful conditions. So knowing that shift work in and of itself can increase cancer risk, what is the duty of the employer to protect the employee?

[Easter Bunny]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
C'mon.... we all know how that works, don't we? I point, you deflect. This goes on into ad nauseum. You are already in lockstep compliance with your cohorts in blind faith and fashionable statement. You are uniquely limited to your time, your era and herd mentality. You are content with your 15 minutes of fame. Relish it. I am not. Therefore, I'm not playing scientist dress-up today..... Easter Bunny!

You're the one who said I committed non-sequiturs, but you don't care to back it up. Instead, you just continue to talk about the personalities (such as you perceive them) instead of the issues. Why did you bother saying my positions are non-sequiturs if you can't back it up?

[Easter Bunny]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
Re-read your own and show me how smarmy, sophomoric retorts to questioning minds contribute to a general good. Your replies are in compliance (you love that word, I'm sure) with other herd members. Most (but NOT all) the posters here form a back-slapping club .... no, wait...a religion of narrowly focused intent on keeping outside thought outside.
I have the lawn to mow before it rains and I can't rationalize my devoting 8 hours to searching back-posts and presentations to a committee of one.

Hey, you were able to make an accusation from memory, so why not just back it up from memory?

But no. Instead, we get more of the personal attacks. I still haven't found a message from you that had much to say, but I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt (you hate that word, I'm sure) but I too have a yard to play with and cannot spend all day on this.

[Easter Bunny]

TheGavin wrote:

<quoted text>
While I'm sure a sense of arrogance (and or ignorance) can be gleened from a position that seemingly promotes little give......before judgment or assessment is qualified, truly, I'd think one would have to weigh that arrogance and or ignorance in the reality and merits of it's position...and how it applies in contrast......
The validity of anything, is ultimately in it's proof. Proof always wins out at the end of the day.

Thanks for jumping in on this. While I suspect that I tend to write in a manner that comes off as if I'm speaking from authority or great knowledge, I have yet to hear anybody come back and actually lay out how it is I'm speaking unfairly or dishonestly. I do make mistakes, but that's another thing.

So be you friend or foe, I would actually like to hear anybody's attempt to really show how it is my words are so arrogant. Any objective 3rd-party opinions are welcome.

My suspicion is that religious people are more likely to see what I say as having an arrogant tone because our whole culture is distorted by the slack we've had to cut for religious irrationality, so hearing the same confident tone they use is discomforting when it comes back the other way.

[Easter Bunny]

Cvvl wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, I know what you mean about post-partum sleep debt... this is our 2nd.
I disagree that if men carried then we'd have solved this problem. I contend that if men got pregnant, they would have invented an incubation machine long ago.

If men carried, abortion would be a sacrament.

[Easter Bunny]

Cvvl wrote:

D'oh! Meant TMI

Now you're bringing Three Mile Island into this? <g>