Interesting Stuff Thread

Turtwig

How much scientific evidence supports omega 3 claims?

Not a whole lot.

Dades

Nice one. I bought a jar of them once, but stopped taking them after a couple of days because they were the size of small suitcases and gave me fish burps.

I figured fish burps were too high a price to pay for eternal life.

(Secretly I was hoping I'd grow gills like Kevin Costner in Waterworld.)

sponsoredwalk

Malty_T wrote: »

How much scientific evidence supports omega 3 claims?

Not a whole lot.

From the article;

Joseph Hibbeln, a psychiatrist from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has found a correlation between the amount of fish a country eats and the rate of depression there.

I think this result alone shows the reliability of nitpicking such multivariate factors.

We do know that vegans like me are the most depressed sector of the population after all :rolleyes:

Germans, he found, eat less than 10 kilograms of fish per person per year, and 5 per cent are depressed. By contrast, the Japanese eat around 65 kilograms, and less than 1 per cent of them are depressed. This has led some researchers to suggest that omega-3 supplements could be used to cure depression.

While I don't disagree with a correlation between depression & lack of healthy food I think nitpicking fish as a miracle cure really takes the bait.

What I love is that in this article it's psychiatrists who have been overhyping this correlation, not an unusual thing for psychiatrists/psychologists to do

"These claims take the results much further than the science actually warrants,"

:pac:

Should pregnant women therefore take supplements? Women are better than men at converting ALA to DHA and the fetus is also capable of higher rates of conversion than adults are. Sanders says this means DHA supplements aren't necessary as long as the expectant mother is eating a balanced diet that includes some omega-3 from fish or vegetarian sources.

I think this is important, before the last 100 years people had very little access to junk food compared to modern times & would
generally eat a more balanced diet, (assuming they could afford it).

robindch

Dades wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100601-sinkhole-in-guatemala-2010-world-science/

More on this gigahole here:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/dont-call-the-guatemala-sinkhole-a-sinkhole.html

Apparently half the city is built on light pumice.

Ickle Magoo

"Piping feature" just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

How much scientific evidence supports omega 3 claims?

Not a whole lot.

Have a read of "Bad Science," in the unlikely event you haven't already.

MrP

Wacker

Hi folks,

Check this out.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-laryng_tech#from=embed

I can't embed it as it's not a youtube clip.

Funglegunk

Wacker wrote: »

Hi folks,

Check this out.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-laryng_tech#from=embed

I can't embed it as it's not a youtube clip.

Great video. Didn't I see that presenter working on a car last week...?

The Mad Hatter

Wacker wrote: »

Hi folks,

Check this out.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-laryng_tech#from=embed

I can't embed it as it's not a youtube clip.

He went through this in The Greatest Show on Earth too, and I think he explained it a bit better there.

I also didn't like the way the commentator seemed to be suggesting that no-one's ever figured out the explanation before, until Richard Dawkins came along and looked inside this giraffe.

"It's one of the great evolutionary enigmas that Richard Dawkins is keen to resolve in the flesh."

token56

Study Confirms E. Coli Evolution Via Natural Selection

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Confirms+E+Coli+Evolution+Via+Natural+Selection/article18761.htm

Charlie3dan

Didn't think this warranted it's own thread but I found this a very enjoyable article entitled "Talking to God".

I won't post the whole thing because it's quite large but here's a quote and a link to the full article which I literally stumbled upon:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/6J5uCu/www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php%253Fid%253Dtal

‘and, for now, how should we mere mortals regard you then?’

‘like an older brother or sister. Of course I know more than you do. Of course I’m more powerful than you. I’ve been alive longer. But I’m not "better" than you. Just more developed. Just what you might become’

‘so we’re not obliged to "please" you or follow your alleged guidelines or anything like that?’

‘absolutely not. Never issued a single guideline in the lifetime of this Universe. Have to find your own way out of the maze. And one early improvement is to stop expecting me - or anyone else - to come and help you out.'

'I suppose that is a guideline of sorts, so there goes the habit of a lifetime! '

'Seriously though, species who hold on to religion past its sell-by date tend to be most likely to self destruct. They spend so much energy arguing about my true nature, and invest so much emotion in their wildly erroneous imagery that they end up killing each other over differences in definitions of something they clearly haven’t got a clue about. Ludicrous behaviour, but it does weed out the weaklings.’

There's no mention of the afterlife but the author touches on that at the end of the page.

Enjoy!

Teferi

I think that would definitely warrant its own thread. Hugely interesting read

liamw

Another great talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html

sponsoredwalk

It wont let me embed, but this is really interesting.

From the description:

A cargo cult is a type of religious practice that may appear in traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced, non-native cultures. The cults are focused on obtaining the material wealth of the advanced culture through magical thinking, religious rituals and practices, believing that the wealth was intended for them by their deities and ancestors.

Following contact with people from more technically advanced societies through exploration, colonization, missionary efforts, and international warfare, cargo cults were initially documented in New Guinea and other Micronesian and Melanesian countries in the southwest Pacific Ocean.

If this interests you, google John Frum afterwards.

strobe

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It wont let me embed, but this is really interesting.

It's because you clicked on it in a related video and that is reflected in the link address. You need to copy the title of the video then paste it into the search box and it will be the top video when you search for it. Then you just click it there and embed as you normally would. :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWjGwBpLZdY

Edit: With this one and the Joe Coleman thread that's two threads on this forum I'm after unintentionally making the 666th post on.......

<<

>>

:eek:

sponsoredwalk

strobe wrote: »

It's because you clicked on it in a related video and that is reflected in the link address. You need to copy the title of the video then paste it into the search box and it will be the top video when you search for it. Then you just click it there and embed as you normally would. :cool:

Cheers

I was on the bus earlier thinking about our old conversation, (the big libertarian one that was stopped today before any definitive answers were given ) but you're personal message flashed into my head, (the Us and Them one) and I thought about a youtube video I seen when I was finding out who Robert Trivers was and the video is very much in line with what you're personal message says. Here it is, I think it's really interesting and will not only show some of the argumentative technique's we witnessed but will force you to think about your own style and whether you're deceiving yourself (not you personally lol but it's interesting and needs to be seen and what I've said should be understood when this is seen )

The we/they situation he is talking about is what I'm referring to.

(goes back to being hammered drunk)

MrPudding

Dammit! Missed the 666th reply.

MrP

Pygmalion

Not specifically an A&A type thing, but I think you might find this interesting.

magicbastarder

probably already posted - found this elsewhere on boards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

sonicthebadger*

Pygmalion wrote: »

Not specifically an A&A type thing, but I think you might find this interesting.

Should probably be in Hazards, powerful ending to that.

robindch

Via /. and from the recent "Gathering 4 Gardner" in honor of the late Martin Gardner:

Gary Foshee wrote:

I have two children, one of whom is a son born on a Tuesday.

What is the probability that I have two boys?

Weirdly, the "Tuesday" bit matters

The full solution is here.

sonicthebadger*

robindch wrote: »

Via /. and from the recent "Gathering 4 Gardner" in honor of the late Martin Gardner:

Weirdly, the "Tuesday" bit matters

The full solution is here.

You made my brain hurt. Fun!

robindch

Interesting article here on immunization strategies as applied to belief systems:

Maarten Boudry and Johan Braeckman wrote:

An immunizing strategy is an argument brought forward in support of a belief system, though independent from that belief system, which makes it more or less invulnerable to rational argumentation and/or empirical evidence. By contrast, an epistemic defense mechanism is defined as a structural feature of a belief system which has the same effect of deflecting arguments and evidence. We discuss the remarkable recurrence of certain patterns of immunizing strategies and defense mechanisms in pseudoscience and other belief systems. Five different types will be distinguished and analyzed, with examples drawn from widely different domains. The difference between immunizing strategies and defense mechanisms is analyzed, and their epistemological status is discussed. Our classification sheds new light on the various ways in which belief systems may achieve invulnerability against empirical evidence and rational criticism, and we propose our analysis as part of an explanation of these belief systems’ enduring appeal and tenacity.

Does anybody have access to the full version?

marco_polo

[Blatent Palaeontology Forum Plug]
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055956416

Discovery of 2.1 billion year old multicellular life forms.
[/Blatent Palaeontology Forum Plug]

Galvasean

marco_polo wrote: »

[Blatent Palaeontology Forum Plug]
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055956416

Discovery of 2.1 billion year old multicellular life forms.
[/Blatent Palaeontology Forum Plug]

Why it is important to A&A: It means the creationists can't cite the 'Cambrian explosion' as proof of a creator.

sponsoredwalk

Galvasean wrote: »

Why it is important to A&A: It means the creationists can't cite the 'Cambrian explosion' as proof of a creator.

In all fairness, that's not the only reason you should post those kinds of interesting stories here

It's not our* fault biology has become so intertwined with religion

*hates to use
that word,
but still!

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

Why it is important to A&A: It means the creationists can't cite the 'Cambrian explosion' as proof of a creator.

Correction: this is one more reason to add to the current pile of reasons that creationists can't cite the Cambrian explosion as proof of a creator. I only wish that would stop them

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I only wish that would stop them

Yeah, who am I kidding? They will continue to cite it regardless.
What's one extra bit of evidence against them?

liamw

Galvasean wrote: »

Yeah, who am I kidding? They will continue to cite it regardless.
What's one extra bit of evidence against them?

What are you talking about? J.C. always constructively breaks down counter arguments through logic and reason

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

In all fairness, that's not the only reason you should post those kinds of interesting stories here

It's not our* fault biology has become so intertwined with religion

*hates to use
that word,
but still!

Biology and religion are intertwined ever since life was created and Adam was a young man.

Ickle Magoo

What's with all the bible thumping on every other thread these days? Hardly interesting stuff, imaginative perhaps but not really interesting.

J C

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What's with all the bible thumping on every other thread these days? Hardly interesting stuff, imaginative perhaps but not really interesting.

Just like beauty, 'interesting stuff' is in the eye of the beholder.

Ickle Magoo

J C wrote: »

Just like beauty, 'interesting stuff' is in the eye of the beholder.

In the eye of the relevant forum, really...

J C

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In the eye of the relevant forum, really...

... perhaps ... but I understand that your charter doesn't rule out the discussion of faith matters and a 'scan' of postings across you forum confirms that nearly every postiong has a religious dimension to it.

Ickle Magoo

Discussions on faith/lack of matters and posting religious utterances that have no relevance at all to the thread in question are not quite the same thing...

Anyway, back to interesting stuff; what's with the multi-thread spamming, nearly every thread in the top half of the A&A forum page has a post by you - just back from a ban or something? :P

The Mad Hatter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Discussions on faith/lack of matters and posting religious utterances that have no relevance at all to the thread in question are not quite the same thing...

Anyway, back to interesting stuff; what's with the multi-thread spamming, nearly every thread in the top half of the A&A forum page has a post by you - just back from a ban or something? :P

No, the BCP megathread was finally locked.

J C

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Discussions on faith/lack of matters and posting religious utterances that have no relevance at all to the thread in question are not quite the same thing...

Anyway, back to interesting stuff; what's with the multi-thread spamming, nearly every thread in the top half of the A&A forum page has a post by you -:P

I have taken a new-found interest in all of the the A & A Threads and I will definitely stay on topic on each of them while giving a Christian perspective on your discussions.

In this regard, I have often found Atheists to be very deep thinkers and some of my most interesting conversations (from my perspective ... and in some cases, also from their perspective) has been with Atheists and Agnostics.

I assume that you don't have any problem with having a Christian posting on your forum.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

I assume that you don't have any problem with having a Christian posting on your forum.

Nope, we don't. We pride our selves on the liberty of allowing others to express their views and criticisms on various topics. However, we expect those criticism to be made in the apt location. This is the thread about interesting material that any person might find interesting. It's not really a thread for a discussion, it's more a thread for resources and edutainment.


Apologies to Lord Dades and Master Robin if this seems like back seat modding.

Ickle Magoo

J C wrote: »

I have taken a new-found interest in all of the the A & A Threads and I will definitely stay on topic on each of them while giving a Christian perspective on your discussions.

In this regard, I have often found Atheists to be very deep thinkers and some of my most interesting conversations (from my perspective ... and in some cases, also from their perspective) has been with Atheists and Agnostics.

I assume that you don't have any problem with having a Christian posting on your forum.

Oh mr wolfy, I recognise that woolly coat... :pac:

I don't have any problem with christians posting wherever they like, of course not. The only time I get a bit irritated is when the posting is random & irrelevant, designed just to subtly flame that in reverse everyone knows they would object so much to in their own forum... :cool:

robindch

J C wrote: »

I assume that you don't have any problem with having a Christian posting on your forum.

You -- though not Professor Plumb -- are allowed to post here in A+A on any relevant topic and your views will not be censored, once you stick to the forum charter which requires you, in broad terms, to (a) refrain from insulting other posters and (b) to engage in honest dialectic debate.

J C

robindch wrote: »

You -- though not Professor Plumb -- are allowed to post here in A+A on any relevant topic and your views will not be censored, once you stick to the forum charter which requires you, in broad terms, to (a) refrain from insulting other posters and (b) to engage in honest dialectic debate.

Thank you Robin ... I wouldn't dream of insulting other posters ... and I hope that they will return the favour.

Byron85

J C wrote: »

A Threads and I will definitely stay on topic on each of them while giving a Christian perspective on your discussions.

I find that irrelevant and somewhat arrogant. Most of us would have been raised in a Christian setting so we know very well what it's like to look at things from a Christian perspective. You on the other hand have no experience of looking at things from an Atheistic point of view yet you still think that you are the one who needs to give their perspective to rest of us.

It's the equivalent of an Irish person who is fluent in German deciding to visit some German people in order to tell them about their own culture and language. It's arrogance at it's very best.

robindch

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't dream of insulting other posters ... and I hope that they will return the favour.

I'm sure nobody will, but please note the second part of what I said, about engaging in dialectic debate.

Soapboxes and smilies don't cut it on this side of the fence.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure nobody will, but please note the second part of what I said, about engaging in dialectic debate.

Soapboxes and smilies don't cut it on this side of the fence.

I can asssure you the debate will be precise and fortright and I accept your assurance, as moderator, that you will not allow personal insults to be directed at me and the debate will therefore concentrate on the issues and not the person (as per the Charter).

J C

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

I find that irrelevant and somewhat arrogant. Most of us would have been raised in a Christian setting so we know very well what it's like to look at things from a Christian perspective. You on the other hand have no experience of looking at things from an Atheistic point of view yet you still think that you are the one who needs to give their perspective to rest of us.

I'm here to learn about Atheism ... but obviously as a Christian, any comments I make will be from a Christian perspective.
Why do you think that it is arrogant for me to express my Christian beliefs on your forum?

Dades

It appears JC / Professor Plumb are no more.

Back to the Interesting Stuff then...

(:);):p:rolleyes::P:pac:)

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

It appears JC / Professor Plumb are no more.

Back to the Interesting Stuff then...

(:);):p:rolleyes::P:pac:)

Wait, were they the same person?

token56

I'm not on boards for one weekend and the BCP thread is locked and J C comes over to the "dark" side for a chat, now that is interesting stuff.

Dades

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Wait, were they the same person?

Indeed. A sort of holy Trinity, if you will, only with two.

Galvasean

I was wondering. J C's demeanour seemed a lot different since they killed his lovechild.