Haber had to invent the process because there were not enough natural sources to supply the demand for nitrogen compounds for fertilizers. Nitrogen makes up a significant portion of organic molecules necessary for life (and the products of agriculture (food)). It's been estimated that if Haber...
I have a blog. It was hijacked by spammers and shut down, but I've regained control.
"[URL
Defending Science, Scientists and NonScientists[/URL]
I also have a blog that's of a more general, but generally science focused, nature.
http://glorifiedape.wordpress.com"
Ha. I wish this could mean I could focus on real science, but I have to bury this movement before it starts to smell and we find ourselves in this situation again.
The anti-science school board took some pretty nasty hits from last night's primaries. Pro-science incumbent Janet Waugh kept her seat, while Connie Morris and Iris Van Meter's replacement (son-in-law Brad Patzer) were both eliminated. 2 anti-science board members did make it to the November...
If I had no vision I would cease to have any memory whatsoever and a very decreased level of ability to learn and be productive. I'd much rather be confined to a wheelchair or a bubble than to be blind, I just don't think I'd adjust well. I'm very dependent on my vision.
You've been itching to use the word 'protozoan' for awhile, haven't you?
What's your justification for it no longer being General Discussion? If some forum policy was violated, I apologize.
PIT2,
You did not prove your point, only pushed very weak equivocation and poor semantics.
I can only ask you to reread my earlier posts and TO STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.
I do understand what you were trying to say, but you failed to support it. Furthermore, your points are...
The limits of science are what is testable. All that is testable is in our universe. Hello?
No, it certainly doesn't. We're both in nature, as is water. You can get poetic and say that both are 'designed' by physical laws, which dictates all matter.
That's sort of true. If God can be...
Well, he's not a bacteria is he? I suppose I should have put methane and the sun as well, in case he had chloroplasts. I assumed he's a motile, multicellular organism, which only leads me to think he's a animal. Is that a poor assumption?
You can, but they're not a food source. If you don't believe me, go on an all rock diet and see how long you live. The point is the reason why a rock is not a food source is because it is not an organism (plant or animal).
I think the thing about the eggs still being produced throughout the life of a female mammal is relatively new. The oldest source I found on it was from 2004 and it occurred in mice. I know that this is also supported by human females, but I can't find a source on it.
That's a good question...
No, the quote isn't interesting. It's weak.
We can only eat other organisms for food. What is a rock? A rock is a naturally occurring mineral. Can we eat it? No, it is not an organism. Why? Because it is not alive.
Nature is the natural universe. The supernatural exists outside of nature and cannot be controlled by natural means. It also can not be tested. For example, Santa Claus can not be tested. Unicorn evolution will not be present in the fossil record. We can't study the devil to see how he can take...
You're going to have to qualify these statements if you want me to respond. As of right now, there's nothing to say. This whole conversation seems to have degraded into, "I know you are, but what am I?"
There's no circular reasoning involved. Science is limited to the natural universe. I'm...