Yes...and yes. The Mary story was story after story of faith healings and visions portrayed as if they were certainly real, with no science involved and no other explanations given. I had skipped that story because I don't care about religion, but went back just now and read most of it. Yuck.

The magazine is not the same. This months issue's articles....
1)the photo ARK
2) The crossing-is death an event or more of a progression
3)where death doesn't mean goodbye
4)urban parks, when you're there, civilization can feel very far away
5)Ghost Lands-The Out Of Eden Walk passes through nations haunted by their history: Armenia and Turkey
Page 4 is a big "Why I went looking for spiritual answers" 'article' hyping "Story of God" with Morgan Freeman, which has other full page ads in the same issue.
So every story has some religious connotation except the 'urban park' story, which may or may not, I haven't read it yet.
It does still have some good photography, but also a lot of bland and boring photography, and that ratio is moving in the wrong direction.
I think I won't be renewing. I'll get Popular Science or Scientific American again instead.

Very cool, I saw this pop up on Popular Science's Facebook page the other day: https://www.facebook.com/PopSci/posts/10152631856306411

and its probably already 15-20 yrs old.
i remember when i was in the navy in the early 80's and they had sea-wiz.
15 yrs later i see in a popular science article on the NEW and AMAZING sea-wiz.

well,was not so new and not so amazing.
broke down constantly.
they would run a test....would last like 30 seconds..and then you would hear over the 1mc "FC3 kristoferson..quarterdeck".

happened..every..single..time.

I feel like I just watched a video version of a Popular Science article.

I recall seeing the cover of a Popular Mechanics (or Popular Science) magazine from over 100 years ago and it mentioned how the best way to hold a steering wheel with with both hands at 6 o'clock with wrists facing up.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Gallowflak:
On the one hand, popularizing science is important. On the other hand, if you need pop-science to interest you in the subject, it's probably not for you.

I don't think so. It's great for anyone to have even the smallest grasp of a subject and if "pop" science will make those who aren't necessarily academic interested, then it's all good. It's impossible to be wholly interested in anything that you can't understand well, so I'm sure tons of people who don't like science would be fascinated if it were put into layman's terms


Thats totally fine for things that can be put into layman's terms but why bother when you can teach people that know absaluty nothing about science about things that will get them intrestead in science and not require analogies that are abstract to the piont that they become absurd.

for example evalutoin can be explained and understood by sum one that has no prior knowlage of science or anything you can demon-strait it tangibly , you can also demonstrate the scientific method and how its the best way to understand reality and inspire people to then get involved with aireas of science that require a deep scientific knowlage or mathematical background.

Still i think its worth having lectures on quantum phisics and exsplaning how the world works i just think its important not to make analogies that ultimately are of no real use, In this lecture the most valid and usfull thing about quantum physics cox explained was

along the lines of - " this is an equation a clever guy came up with and a good propotion of the scentific comunity belive is logicaly sound , using the equation scientists have been able to make an acuret prodiction about the universe that we have then observed in reality thus proving that the equation has utility and is not bullshit or useless"

Don't get me wrong this lecture was 100x better than the fucking bullshit documentaries with bullshit CGI and I wish this sort of lecture was weekly if not daily on the tv I mean why the fuck is that not the case ? ITS MENTAL

also I love popular science but I think the real thing of importance is installing the spirit of the scientific method in people if everyone understood what the scentific method was properly and how to evaluate information properly we would have a far better soicity and far more people acting on reality rather than being traped in some bullshit fantisy world.

>> ^Gallowflak:

On the one hand, popularizing science is important. On the other hand, if you need pop-science to interest you in the subject, it's probably not for you.


I don't think so. It's great for anyone to have even the smallest grasp of a subject and if "pop" science will make those who aren't necessarily academic interested, then it's all good. It's impossible to be wholly interested in anything that you can't understand well, so I'm sure tons of people who don't like science would be fascinated if it were put into layman's terms

On the one hand, popularizing science is important. On the other hand, if you need pop-science to interest you in the subject, it's probably not for you.

But personally I believe the universe was created, science 'theory' is big bang, there are other science theories that disprove the big bang when you get into string theory and such.


I thought at least you might be just echoing some pop-science "big bang doesn't work with string theory" idea - but after some Googling, I can't find anyone non-crazy to source this pretty big claim to. Disregarding that, to the extent that string theory ideas would go against the general "big bang" idea (which they do not, and - again - I can't even find someone suggesting they do), it would call into question that specific string theory's ideas (and there is lots of variation among different string theory families - it isn't well established doctrine or something), not the other way around.

If I have a new theory of planet composition that "disproves" plate tectonics, that's a problem for my new theory, not for plate tectonics - at least not unless I have very significant evidence.

Suggesting that vague "other science theories" disprove the big bang gives me very good reason to believe you haven't made any effort to understand any of the science here, not even at a "pop science" type level. To the extent that these beliefs about the nature of the universe are important to you, and to the extent that you want to know truth, I suggest doing some basic reading (even if it's just in, literally, "Popular Science").

And even if science had a much more incomplete or contradictory theory for the early moments of universal expansion, that wouldn't mean creationism is right. There's very little chance science (or religion!) will ever answer questions like "why is there something instead of nothing?", but that doesn't mean you should jump for whichever guy can answer "something" with the most confidence. I think it's better to just let some things be "We don't know yet."

@TheGenk @Skeeve @Boise_Lib @gwiz665 @packo @IronDwarf @MaxWilder @westy @BicycleRepairMan @shuac @KnivesOut

Evolution is pseudo-science. It exists in the realm of imagination, and cannot be scientifically verified. At best, evolution science is forensic science, and what has been found not only does not support it, but entirely rules it out. I don't think any of you realize how weak the case for evolution really is. None of them quotes, as far as I know, are from creation scientists btw

No true transitional forms in the fossil record:

Darwins theory proposed that slow change over a great deal of time could evolve one kind of thing into another. Such as reptiles to birds. The theory proposed that we should see in the fossil records billions of these transitional forms, yet we have found none. When the theory was first proposed, darwinists pleaded poverty in the fossil record, claiming the missing links were yet to be found. It was then claimed that the links were missing because conditions conspired against fossilizing them, or that they had been eroded or destroyed in subsequent fossilization.

120 years have gone by since then. We have uncovered an extremely rich fossil record with billions of fossils, a record which has completely failed to produce the expected transitions. It has become obvious that there was no process that could have miraculously destroyed the transitionals yet left the terminal forms intact.

The next theory proposed was "hopeful monster" theory, which states that evolution occurs in large leaps instead of small ones. Some even suggested that a bird could have hatched from a reptile egg. This is against all genetic evidence, and has never been observed.

The complete lack of transitional forms is not even the worst problem for evolution, considering the big gaps between the higher categories, and the systemic absence of transitional forms between families classes orders and phyla.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979 admitting no transitional forms exist.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Fossil record disputes evolutionary theory:

According to evolutionary theory we should see an evolutionary tree of organisms starting from the least complex to the most complex. Instead, what we do see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed and fully-functional complex life.

If you examine the fossil record, you see all kinds of complex life suddenly jumping into existence during a period that evolutionists refer to as the "Cambrian explosion".

None of the fossilized life forms found in the "Cambrian period" have any predecessors prior to that time. In essence, the "Cambrian period" represents a "sudden explosion of life" in geological terms.

Evolutionists try to disprove this by stretching it over a period of 50 million years, but they have no transitional fossils to prove that theory before or during.

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

What disturbs evolutionists greatly is that complex life just appears in the fossil record out of nowhere, fully functional and formed.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

-Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki (an evolutionist)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."

-Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230

Evolution can't explain the addition of information that turns one kind into another kind

There is no example recorded of functional information being added to any creature, ever.

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

Species just don't change. Kind only produces kind:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University

Not enough bones:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

Try to debunk this if you can
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=tYLHxcqJmoM&feature=PlayList&p=C805D4953D9DEC66&index=0&playnext=1

More fun facts:

There are no records of any human civilization past 4000 BC

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."—*Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered, by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case."—P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries, in Babylonia, about Genesis (1949 ), p. 28.

Oldest people/language recorded in c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.

The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.

Moonwalk disproves age of moon:

The moon is constantly being bombarded by cosmic dust particles. Scientists were able to measure the rate at which these particles would accumulate. Using their estimates according to their understanding that the age of the Earth was billions of years, their most conservative estimate predicted a dust layer 54 feet deep. This is why the lander had those huge balloon tires, to be prepared to land on a sea of dust. Neil Armstrong, after saying those famous words, uttered two more which disproved the age of the moon entirely "its solid!". Far from being 54 feet, they found the dust was 3/4 of an inch.

Evolution is a fairy tale that modern civilization has bought, hook line and sinker. Humorously, atheists accuse creationists of beiieving in myths without any evidence..when they place their entire faith in an unproven theory even evolutionists know is fatally flawed and invalid. Evolution is a meta physical belief that requires faith. Period.

Evolution is false, science affirms a divine Creator
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Tracts/big_daddy.htm

Though most of this is undisputable, I'm just getting started..

There is nothing in these articles about men acting logical and going into problem-solving mode, rather that they have a more activated fight or flight response and women a more empathetic response. Read the article and you will see that you are going way too far in your conclusions (http://www.cfn.upenn.edu/perfusion/stress.pdf).

A quote from the article:
"Similarly, the present finding of greater prefrontal and limbic activation in males and females respectively should not be implicated with the sex stereotype in lay culture for the “emotional women” and “rational men”. As suggested by several studies, the gender difference in emotionality per se may be an ill-posed question (Barrett et al., 1998; Fischer, 1993)." (p. 18, Wang, et al, unknown year).

The stress test was also counting backwards from 1600 by subtracting 13. Not very similar to sitting in a car when a tornado comes. As a bonus there were no differences in performance between women and men, meaning men did not perform better! Don't quote popular science bro. Go straight to the source

That said there are obvious differences in our brains, but we do not know enough yet to claim what you do. >> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^LarsaruS:
My really long post...

Women of the sift. Does this offend you more or less than Westy's comment. Vote now, cos I think it might be close.

I was not out to put down females and if my comment came across like that then I was not clear enough, my bad.
I was simply talking about the biological differences in how males and females think, see links (first 3 things I found but there is a lot of research on this subject being done), due to being different, biologically, and having evolved with different pressures acting on us. It is not strange that we think differently and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Why do males go into "problem solving mode" and not "feeling mode" IMO? For example when a sabre toothed tiger pounces you you have to act rationally and solve the problem, if you cower in fear you get eaten. Evolution favoured the clearheaded, fast thinking and problem solving minds of the male hunters over the ones who were slower on the uptake or felt first and acted second.
Different roles (think hunter/gatherer times) --> Different brains --> Different thought patterns.
Otherwise every single person in the world would think exactly the same way.
http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_male_female.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051201165615.htm (2005)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0403-men_are_from_mars.htm (2008)
(even has a video but I can't seem to embed stuff, oh well)

Actually I don't, but scientists still think it is. I think everything has to be granular to be logically consistent. I think it is interesting that the realm of the small is starting to show this as true. The state changes of atoms resemble this granular nature, like when light changes phases, it does it in desecrate steps. And the "noise" these very sensitive probes are getting can be leveled at space actually being discrete instead of infinitely reducible. My epistemology concerning science and math holds them in very high re-guard. But what they don't get us is "Truth" or certainty. Science deals with how humans understand the universe, I usually like to deal with how the universe must actually be; a subtle but completely different paradigm than most people concern themselves with.

I remember this popular science article where they had mathematicians asking philosophers about the implications of a formula he derived. The mathematician had time to the 4th power and didn't really understand what that would even mean in the real world. It was a funny read but adds to the notion that math is a beautiful castle, but in some ways it is a castle in the sky that lays un-anchored to reality. And that isn't to smack talk it, I use math and science rigorously. However, when talking of epistemology it is important to know the limits of a line of questioning.

But now I am babbling on.

visionep:
Zzzz...
He might as well be telling a bible story since there is no mention of the experiments



I think you might be confusing popular science with academia. This is a nice little refresher and a different perspective on what you get in physics courses. Footnotes are usually in books. You know? Reading. The non-comic book kind.

[...]the temperature was 10 to the 32nd degrees (C, F, Kelvin?).



At that temperature level, does it really matter if it's degC, degF or K?


(Edited to fix quoting markup)

You know what buddy? FUCK YOU! I'm tired of you fucking pricks launching personal insult attacks on me because I don't blindly believe everything I'm told. I could give a fuckin' rats ass what NIST and all the other "experts" say. There are just as many experts that say the contrary so again, FUCK YOU!

In reply to this comment by StukaFox:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^IronDwarf:
Perfect video to show morons who think any of the WTC buildings were demolished by explosive charges. Even from a noisy helicopter you could hear the ridiculously loud explosives being set off in sequence before the building collapses. Where is that sound in any of the hundreds of collapsing WTC videos?

Morons? Why are we morons? Because we don't believe everything we are told?


No, you're a moron because you've been shown time and time and time and time and time again how the WTC collapsed -- everyone from NIST to Popular Science -- and despite all these reports, you and the rest of the dipshits in the Mystery Machine think you're going to pull the mask off Bin Laden and find Old Man Bush.

THAT'S what makes you a moron.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^IronDwarf:
Perfect video to show morons who think any of the WTC buildings were demolished by explosive charges. Even from a noisy helicopter you could hear the ridiculously loud explosives being set off in sequence before the building collapses. Where is that sound in any of the hundreds of collapsing WTC videos?

Morons? Why are we morons? Because we don't believe everything we are told?


No, you're a moron because you've been shown time and time and time and time and time again how the WTC collapsed -- everyone from NIST to Popular Science -- and despite all these reports, you and the rest of the dipshits in the Mystery Machine think you're going to pull the mask off Bin Laden and find Old Man Bush.

THAT'S what makes you a moron.