"Humans who are born with extra or missing genes almost always have serious physiological problems..."
And when they don't have problems? What then? Or what about when those problems become adaptive for the (presumably modified) environment? Are Down's Syndrome victims mutually sterile? If not, aren't they a (basis for a ) different species?
I can't answer your fruit flies argument because 1) I know nothing about fruit flies and 2) I can't remember the species I mentioned two posts ago (that you conventiently deleted) that already exhibited the behavior you find so convincing.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
The FSF (Free Software Foundation) is the arbiter of what is and isn't called "Free Software". If Apple wanted to be named a "Microsoft Solutions Provider" would you whine about how "Apple produces great machines, why do those Microsoft bigots have to be so stingy with the name"? If Apple doesn't want to change the APSL any further, that's entirely up to them. Just don't call it "Free Software". --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
You say you are a Xian. You say that the reason you are a creationist is that you are a Xian. It's not clear what "this" refers to in "This, however, is a personal belief and cannot be scientifically proven or disproven...", but it sounds like it refers to creationism, at least indirectly, so you admit that creationism is non-scientific.
Then you say that you are willing to be persuaded that evolution is true if it can be demonstrated, presumably displacing your creationst beliefs at the same time. But since you say your current beliefs can't be disproven, just what kind of proof would be sufficient?
And back to my original question: What "supporting evidence" persuaded you that creationism was true? Except for the first few verses of the Bible Xianity is mute on the topic. Are you saying you are a biblical literalist? If so, how were you able to break away on the Big Bang topic? --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
"There's no way that gradual renormalizing or what-have-you of this signal will ever produce a signal strength of 131072--it's simply not possible within the CD's range of expression."
But the "range of expression" within a species is variable (across generations). That is, while a CD's integer size is fixed, a human being could be born with extra genes that encode a new feature. In fact, there already ARE human beings with extra (or missing) genes--I don't remember the names of the conditions, I learned this in HS biology.
"...as far as all human knowledge can say, the fertile offspring of an animal of a specific species will always be of the same species."
The term "species" isn't really all that hard-edged. Again, I don't remember the specific animal, but there ARE animals that live over a large area where the eastern end and center can breed and the center and western end and center can breed, but the eastern and western are mutually infertile. More generally, I would expect every generation to be able to interbreed with the parent generation--but that alone doesn't guarantee that every generation can breed with ALL previous generations.
To take a slight absurd example: I would expect that taking the sperm of a St Bernard and fertilizing the egg of a chihuahua would produce a fertile (if unattractive) dog. But a St Bernard probably can't physically mate with a chihuahua, because of the size factor. So let's kill of all other breeds of dog and see what happens. The St Bernards never breed with the chihuahuas and, over the course of X years, each group builds up "microevolutionary changes". At the end of the experiment, do you think mixing the sperm and egg together will STILL produce a fertile dog? What about for X times 10 years? Times 100? Times 1 million?
Keep in mind that the micro-changes are for more things than leg length, fur color, tendency towards rescuing skiers, etc. It's also for things like gestation length, biochemistry, number of genes, etc. Some of these factors are vital to producing a viable offspring and if they don't match up, you get nothing out. Viola, a new species. --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
(you are one of three people responding nearly identically to my post, I'll just rebut once)
"Occam never "demands" anything. It might suggest, but it's never a definitive proof of any falsehood, no matter how complicated and superfluous it appears. Sometimes things really are just gratuitously complex."
Occam's Razor isn't about truth vs falsehood and my post didn't say anything about it either. Occam is about minimal explanations. If theory A and B both cover all the facts, Occam demands (yes, demands) the simpler (say A) should be used.
But note that both A and B cover all the same facts--so by definition both A and B are true, at least where the overlap. Occam makes no distinction between true and false, just simple and complex. A theory that is otherwise identical to the current evolutionary model but also adds God may easily be true. But unless it explains something addtional it shouldn't be used.
No scientific theory is "gratuitously complex." They are no more complex than the facts warrant.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
I read the book flap at the library and it sounded great. I brought it home to read and gave up after 100-200 pages. The science side of the story had taken maybe two steps, the "modern angst" side had filled up the rest. Maybe it would make a good short story.... --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
I haven't read Darwin directly, but I have read neo-darwinists like Dawkins. This is not at all how it's explained, even in the "What Darwin Said versus What We Think Now" sections. Please provide some quotes (with page numbers) supporting your view. If you cannot, I will have to ask Rob to donate your ill-gotten karma points to charity. --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
"Macroevolution, on the other hand, has not been persuasively presented to me, so I'm withholding judgment on the physical origin of life until someone from either camp can make a reasonable argument."
You are withholding judgement by being a creationist? Or are you saying you are a creationist but you are withholding judgement on the details? If the latter, can you please lay out the "supporting evidence" that persuaded you to become a creationist? --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
So let's say we have two theories. One is some form of Darwinism, the other is identical but ALSO says "God started the process", "wound the clock", "put in the magic soul bits" or whatever. Unless the second theory is explaining some observation that the first isn't explaining, Occam's Razor demands we take the first theory as true. Otherwise, God is just cluttering up a perfectly workable theory. --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
"Darwinian evolution is analog, genetics is digital. The two aren't compatible."
And this is exactly why everyone is either white OR black with no in-between shades. Same for hair color, height, intelligence, etc. None of these things fall into gaussian curves, no, uh-huh.
Use your brain for a minute. --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
And GOD said to Man, oooh, you are so grounded, let not thy foot leave the LAND for unto many years. For I, the LORD thy GOD hath spoken, and ye shall not make another trip unto the MOON, even unto the second and third generation. And Man looked, and saw that indeed, no TRIPS were taken. --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
I might also add, to be fair, that this doesn't prove evolution "indisputably" either. For one thing, nothing can be proved "indisputably". For another, evolution is a theory about history--using facts about the present alone isn't necessarily conclusive.
All that said, I fully support evolution (and, more specifically, natural selection)--but I also doubt any True Disbelievers will be swayed by this evidence. --
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/1 346238&mode=thread
"The SCOTUS injected themselves into the process, not because of any legal argument, but because they wanted to make sure their candidate won the election."
Ummm...how exactly did they "inject themselves" into it? The SC can only act on questions that people ask, it can't go out and find things to judge. And the question(s) asked of the SC were the same ones asked in Florida--questions, as I've pointed out, that REQUIRE a federal-level court to decide them.
I didn't like their decision much either, but that doesn't mean I think they are corrupt. --
"I'm just saying the hubris comes from believing in the 10 angstrom slice that was left behind after occums razor cut through the evidence and said, 'geez guys, why would you seriously consider a lonely universe theory in the almost complete absence of any evidence to support it'."
The actual parsing of this sentence is beyond me, but I think I get the gist. Let me explain where I'm coming from here:
It used to be that people thought the sun revolved around the Earth. This was hubristic but not just because they thought they were in the middle. It was hubristic because it elevated the status of Earth despite the fact that it made the theory more complicated (by requiring retro-grade motion for planets, etc).
Now, one could make the argument that a universe with only one life-bearing planet requires more explanation than a universe with multiple such planets, in which case I agree that saying Earth is alone without providing that special explanation is probably hubristic. However given how little we know about general biological (not to mention geological, climatological, etc) principles--we only really have one example--then such special explanations can easily abound.
--
"I've always though it interesting that so much of life on Earth has developed so similar. Take the Mammals group for instance. Mammals tend to have 4 legs (sometimes used as arms), similar diets, similar mating techniques, etc."
I sincerely hope you are some kind of 5 year-old typing prodigy, because the thought of an adult (or even a high-schooler) not understanding why the above is true is truly frightening. --
Me: "Citing "hubris" as a reason to believe in life on other planets is pretty lame. Would it be hubristic to believe there was no life in the rest of the Solar System?"
You: "Yes. That was my position. It would be hubristic to believe that we are alone."
Let me get this straight. If I said to you "I think that Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the Solar System" you would call me hubristic? What if we visited all the (solar) planets and found no life? What if I said "I think Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the Earth-Moon system"? Is it hubristic to think that humans are the only intelligent being on Earth?
"My theory is obvious and the fact that people don't see that is because of their hubris. As you say, the fact should be proven and I agree 100% on that. Somehow that thought in my head was lost in the translation to paper."
Something was lost here, too. If your theory is obvious, why do you think it needs to be proven? Or do you mean "it's obvious but possibly false" (kind of like Aristotle's theories of motion)--in which case, why is hubris the only answer for non-adherents to your cause? Couldn't it be that we see through the "obviousness" to the truth?
--
Let me start by saying that I believe in life (although maybe not intelligent life) exists on other planets. BUT
Citing "hubris" as a reason to believe in life on other planets is pretty lame. Would it be hubristic to believe there was no life in the rest of the Solar System? If not, why not--it the same as your argument about the universe. How about if I believed ours was the only planet that had produced "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor"? After all with all the "billions and billions" and stars out there with their "obvious" life, surely some other intelligent entity has generated these same tones. To believe otherwise would be hubristic.
Concerns about hubris are really just the inductive principle: things around here are probably average. But note the "probably". Induction is a good way to come up with a new hypothesis, but calling the output "obvious" is a fallacy. Why don't we just go see? At the very least it can show us WHICH planets the life is living on before we go haring off in all directions.
As for intelligent life: intelligence isn't some kind of "ulimate endpoint" of evolution--evolution has no goals. Our ancestors happened to have had selection pressures that resulted in descendents that are intelligent. Elephants happened to have had pressures that result in trunks. Would it be hubristic to think that elephant trunks are unique in the universe? Who knows what conditions will obtain at another location. I sure hope there's intelligent life out there, but I don't think it's "obvious".
--
It could make all the difference. Ideally, they are about 3 billion years distant. That way, if we start NOW in our light-speed ships, it'll give time for these "complex carbon chains" to evolve into dinosaurs and then be killed off by an asteroid. When we arrive, ta-da! strategic oil reserves!
Hey, it's more intelligent than what we're doing NOW.... --
"Sorry, the mechanism for deciding disputes was in place... The Republicans just didn't like the decision that was made."
You are right, they didn't. And that's why they made a big stink. But that alone doesn't invalidate their claim OR my point. The case was kicked up the the US Supreme Court on the grounds that the state court made a ruling that conflicted with the Constitution (voter discrimination based on county of residence). You may not agree that this condition held, but regardless it's not a matter the state court can decide. Since the conflict was at a higher level, the higher level court had to be invoked.
But all these details are beside the point. The point the OP was making was that non-criminal matters are being decided by judges. My response is: who else? The decisions have to be made by SOMEBODY.
--
"In a true libertarian government, the judicial system would only have the ability to sentance people accused of crimes, and yet now in this socialist system it's gotten so powerful that they're selecting our president for us."
Leaving aside why you think arguments about a "true libertarian government" apply to the US, let me ask this question: Who do would you rather have selected the president? It simply isn't (and especially, wasn't in this case) possible to be exactly accurate and fair when you are talking about millions and millions of people. When disputes arise (and disputes ALWAYS arise), somebody has to be the final arbiter. In this country, that's the Supreme Court.
Would you rather have left it to the Florida legislature? Or ANY elected official, in or out of Florida? Or perhaps we should have "let the people decide"--of course, we did that once; it was called "election night" and it didn't work the first time around. Maybe we should have broken out the guns and nooses (neece?)? I don't necessarily think the Supreme Court was right, but I DO think it was reasonable.
Any system of government that doesn't provide for the resolution of disputes won't last very long. And some of those disputes will be self-referential, but there's literally no mathematical way around that.
--
You are underestimating your conformity. Do you drive on the right side of the road? Why? Do you spit in people's faces? Why not? Do you wear clothes at work? At home? In the pool? Do you watch any television? If so, do you laugh at any of the same things as the laugh track? Do you speak English? When a friend experiences pain (death in the family, loss of job, etc) do you comfort him or her? When your child hangs out with kids who smoke and then decides to smoke when you tell him not to, is he thinking for himself--or conforming to a different "authority figure"?
Some of these things are innate to being human. Some are socially acquired. In any case they do not necessarily equate to "thinking for yourself". What the previous poster was saying was that, in order to function in a group, you have to be using the same protocol as the rest of the group. But as you hint (although not clearly) conformity and free-thinking are actually perpendicular. Person A may conform because that's the way they were raised. Person B may conform because they've analyzed the protocol and are just emulating it "on the outside". Real people are a combination of both.
Feel free to spout on about how non-conformist and free-thinking you are. The very fact that you want to communicate with us (and are succeeding) points out that you are less different than you think.
--
...because you aren't thinking very logically. Let's say, for the sake of argument that you are right, schools intend to produce children meeting those characteristics. Let's further assume that they succeed. How does that rule out children thinking for themselves?
For instance, I consistently show up on time and am relatively organized. I have no discipline problems in my recent history (legal, work, etc). My wife doubly so. Yet both of us routinely hold opinions differing from that of the majority. Neither of us is a factory worker.
Good discipline and free thought are not opposites. Nominal "free-thinking radicals" can be just as conformist, within their subgroup, as a military academy.
PS: Note what I did NOT say: "Good discipline causes free thought." --
Where's the line between fish and fowl? (penguins)
Where's the line between hacker and cracker?
Where's the line between mother and non-? (host/surrogate/adopted mother)
You are confusing at least three different concepts. The first is "these two categories are so conceptually close that drawing a line between them is difficult" (hacker vs cracker). The second concept is "ill-defined categories" (fish, mother). The third "very different categories that contain many of the same members"--which concept applies to programmers and artists, I would argue.
Art is about conveying beauty and/or a message to an audience (sometimes just the artist himself).
Programming (and other mathematical/engineering disciplines) is about building useful structures. The humans doing the building may be partially guided by artistic concerns, but that doesn't make the output "art". The primary purpose is "does it work" not "is it nice to look at" or even "is it elegant."
Just because the categories of "artist" and "programmers" contain many of the same members, doesn't automatically make the output of the Programmer class art any more than it makes the output of the Artist class software. --
Slashdot Mirror
"Humans who are born with extra or missing genes almost always have serious physiological problems..."
1 346238&mode=thread
And when they don't have problems? What then? Or what about when those problems become adaptive for the (presumably modified) environment? Are Down's Syndrome victims mutually sterile? If not, aren't they a (basis for a ) different species?
I can't answer your fruit flies argument because 1) I know nothing about fruit flies and 2) I can't remember the species I mentioned two posts ago (that you conventiently deleted) that already exhibited the behavior you find so convincing.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
The FSF (Free Software Foundation) is the arbiter of what is and isn't called "Free Software". If Apple wanted to be named a "Microsoft Solutions Provider" would you whine about how "Apple produces great machines, why do those Microsoft bigots have to be so stingy with the name"? If Apple doesn't want to change the APSL any further, that's entirely up to them. Just don't call it "Free Software".1 346238&mode=thread
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
....I can't help myself.
1 346238&mode=thread
You say you are a Xian. You say that the reason you are a creationist is that you are a Xian. It's not clear what "this" refers to in "This, however, is a personal belief and cannot be scientifically proven or disproven...", but it sounds like it refers to creationism, at least indirectly, so you admit that creationism is non-scientific.
Then you say that you are willing to be persuaded that evolution is true if it can be demonstrated, presumably displacing your creationst beliefs at the same time. But since you say your current beliefs can't be disproven, just what kind of proof would be sufficient?
And back to my original question: What "supporting evidence" persuaded you that creationism was true? Except for the first few verses of the Bible Xianity is mute on the topic. Are you saying you are a biblical literalist? If so, how were you able to break away on the Big Bang topic?
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
"There's no way that gradual renormalizing or what-have-you of this signal will ever produce a signal strength of 131072--it's simply not possible within the CD's range of expression."
1 346238&mode=thread
But the "range of expression" within a species is variable (across generations). That is, while a CD's integer size is fixed, a human being could be born with extra genes that encode a new feature. In fact, there already ARE human beings with extra (or missing) genes--I don't remember the names of the conditions, I learned this in HS biology.
"...as far as all human knowledge can say, the fertile offspring of an animal of a specific species will always be of the same species."
The term "species" isn't really all that hard-edged. Again, I don't remember the specific animal, but there ARE animals that live over a large area where the eastern end and center can breed and the center and western end and center can breed, but the eastern and western are mutually infertile. More generally, I would expect every generation to be able to interbreed with the parent generation--but that alone doesn't guarantee that every generation can breed with ALL previous generations.
To take a slight absurd example: I would expect that taking the sperm of a St Bernard and fertilizing the egg of a chihuahua would produce a fertile (if unattractive) dog. But a St Bernard probably can't physically mate with a chihuahua, because of the size factor. So let's kill of all other breeds of dog and see what happens. The St Bernards never breed with the chihuahuas and, over the course of X years, each group builds up "microevolutionary changes". At the end of the experiment, do you think mixing the sperm and egg together will STILL produce a fertile dog? What about for X times 10 years? Times 100? Times 1 million?
Keep in mind that the micro-changes are for more things than leg length, fur color, tendency towards rescuing skiers, etc. It's also for things like gestation length, biochemistry, number of genes, etc. Some of these factors are vital to producing a viable offspring and if they don't match up, you get nothing out. Viola, a new species.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
(you are one of three people responding nearly identically to my post, I'll just rebut once)
1 346238&mode=thread
"Occam never "demands" anything. It might suggest, but it's never a definitive proof of any falsehood, no matter how complicated and superfluous it appears. Sometimes things really are just gratuitously complex."
Occam's Razor isn't about truth vs falsehood and my post didn't say anything about it either. Occam is about minimal explanations. If theory A and B both cover all the facts, Occam demands (yes, demands) the simpler (say A) should be used.
But note that both A and B cover all the same facts--so by definition both A and B are true, at least where the overlap. Occam makes no distinction between true and false, just simple and complex. A theory that is otherwise identical to the current evolutionary model but also adds God may easily be true. But unless it explains something addtional it shouldn't be used.
No scientific theory is "gratuitously complex." They are no more complex than the facts warrant.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
I read the book flap at the library and it sounded great. I brought it home to read and gave up after 100-200 pages. The science side of the story had taken maybe two steps, the "modern angst" side had filled up the rest. Maybe it would make a good short story....1 346238&mode=thread
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
I haven't read Darwin directly, but I have read neo-darwinists like Dawkins. This is not at all how it's explained, even in the "What Darwin Said versus What We Think Now" sections. Please provide some quotes (with page numbers) supporting your view. If you cannot, I will have to ask Rob to donate your ill-gotten karma points to charity.1 346238&mode=thread
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
"I am a creationist myself..."
1 346238&mode=thread
"Macroevolution, on the other hand, has not been persuasively presented to me, so I'm withholding judgment on the physical origin of life until someone from either camp can make a reasonable argument."
You are withholding judgement by being a creationist? Or are you saying you are a creationist but you are withholding judgement on the details? If the latter, can you please lay out the "supporting evidence" that persuaded you to become a creationist?
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
"God and Darwin can be both correct."
1 346238&mode=thread
So let's say we have two theories. One is some form of Darwinism, the other is identical but ALSO says "God started the process", "wound the clock", "put in the magic soul bits" or whatever. Unless the second theory is explaining some observation that the first isn't explaining, Occam's Razor demands we take the first theory as true. Otherwise, God is just cluttering up a perfectly workable theory.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
"Darwinian evolution is analog, genetics is digital. The two aren't compatible."
1 346238&mode=thread
And this is exactly why everyone is either white OR black with no in-between shades. Same for hair color, height, intelligence, etc. None of these things fall into gaussian curves, no, uh-huh.
Use your brain for a minute.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
And GOD said to Man, oooh, you are so grounded, let not thy foot leave the LAND for unto many years. For I, the LORD thy GOD hath spoken, and ye shall not make another trip unto the MOON, even unto the second and third generation. And Man looked, and saw that indeed, no TRIPS were taken.1 346238&mode=thread
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
I was going to post the very same thing.
1 346238&mode=thread
I might also add, to be fair, that this doesn't prove evolution "indisputably" either. For one thing, nothing can be proved "indisputably". For another, evolution is a theory about history--using facts about the present alone isn't necessarily conclusive.
All that said, I fully support evolution (and, more specifically, natural selection)--but I also doubt any True Disbelievers will be swayed by this evidence.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Not only can it shrink quarters, but it changes the "United States of America" to "Liberty".
--
"The SCOTUS injected themselves into the process, not because of any legal argument, but because they wanted to make sure their candidate won the election."
Ummm...how exactly did they "inject themselves" into it? The SC can only act on questions that people ask, it can't go out and find things to judge. And the question(s) asked of the SC were the same ones asked in Florida--questions, as I've pointed out, that REQUIRE a federal-level court to decide them.
I didn't like their decision much either, but that doesn't mean I think they are corrupt.
--
"I'm just saying the hubris comes from believing in the 10 angstrom slice that was left behind after occums razor cut through the evidence and said, 'geez guys, why would you seriously consider a lonely universe theory in the almost complete absence of any evidence to support it'."
The actual parsing of this sentence is beyond me, but I think I get the gist. Let me explain where I'm coming from here:
It used to be that people thought the sun revolved around the Earth. This was hubristic but not just because they thought they were in the middle. It was hubristic because it elevated the status of Earth despite the fact that it made the theory more complicated (by requiring retro-grade motion for planets, etc).
Now, one could make the argument that a universe with only one life-bearing planet requires more explanation than a universe with multiple such planets, in which case I agree that saying Earth is alone without providing that special explanation is probably hubristic. However given how little we know about general biological (not to mention geological, climatological, etc) principles--we only really have one example--then such special explanations can easily abound.
--
"I've always though it interesting that so much of life on Earth has developed so similar. Take the Mammals group for instance. Mammals tend to have 4 legs (sometimes used as arms), similar diets, similar mating techniques, etc."
I sincerely hope you are some kind of 5 year-old typing prodigy, because the thought of an adult (or even a high-schooler) not understanding why the above is true is truly frightening.
--
...but yes, this is that company.
--
Me: "Citing "hubris" as a reason to believe in life on other planets is pretty lame. Would it be hubristic to believe there was no life in the rest of the Solar System?"
You: "Yes. That was my position. It would be hubristic to believe that we are alone."
Let me get this straight. If I said to you "I think that Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the Solar System" you would call me hubristic? What if we visited all the (solar) planets and found no life? What if I said "I think Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the Earth-Moon system"? Is it hubristic to think that humans are the only intelligent being on Earth?
"My theory is obvious and the fact that people don't see that is because of their hubris. As you say, the fact should be proven and I agree 100% on that. Somehow that thought in my head was lost in the translation to paper."
Something was lost here, too. If your theory is obvious, why do you think it needs to be proven? Or do you mean "it's obvious but possibly false" (kind of like Aristotle's theories of motion)--in which case, why is hubris the only answer for non-adherents to your cause? Couldn't it be that we see through the "obviousness" to the truth?
--
Let me start by saying that I believe in life (although maybe not intelligent life) exists on other planets. BUT
Citing "hubris" as a reason to believe in life on other planets is pretty lame. Would it be hubristic to believe there was no life in the rest of the Solar System? If not, why not--it the same as your argument about the universe. How about if I believed ours was the only planet that had produced "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor"? After all with all the "billions and billions" and stars out there with their "obvious" life, surely some other intelligent entity has generated these same tones. To believe otherwise would be hubristic.
Concerns about hubris are really just the inductive principle: things around here are probably average. But note the "probably". Induction is a good way to come up with a new hypothesis, but calling the output "obvious" is a fallacy. Why don't we just go see? At the very least it can show us WHICH planets the life is living on before we go haring off in all directions.
As for intelligent life: intelligence isn't some kind of "ulimate endpoint" of evolution--evolution has no goals. Our ancestors happened to have had selection pressures that resulted in descendents that are intelligent. Elephants happened to have had pressures that result in trunks. Would it be hubristic to think that elephant trunks are unique in the universe? Who knows what conditions will obtain at another location. I sure hope there's intelligent life out there, but I don't think it's "obvious".
--
It could make all the difference. Ideally, they are about 3 billion years distant. That way, if we start NOW in our light-speed ships, it'll give time for these "complex carbon chains" to evolve into dinosaurs and then be killed off by an asteroid. When we arrive, ta-da! strategic oil reserves!
Hey, it's more intelligent than what we're doing NOW....
--
"Sorry, the mechanism for deciding disputes was in place... The Republicans just didn't like the decision that was made."
You are right, they didn't. And that's why they made a big stink. But that alone doesn't invalidate their claim OR my point. The case was kicked up the the US Supreme Court on the grounds that the state court made a ruling that conflicted with the Constitution (voter discrimination based on county of residence). You may not agree that this condition held, but regardless it's not a matter the state court can decide. Since the conflict was at a higher level, the higher level court had to be invoked.
But all these details are beside the point. The point the OP was making was that non-criminal matters are being decided by judges. My response is: who else? The decisions have to be made by SOMEBODY.
--
"In a true libertarian government, the judicial system would only have the ability to sentance people accused of crimes, and yet now in this socialist system it's gotten so powerful that they're selecting our president for us."
Leaving aside why you think arguments about a "true libertarian government" apply to the US, let me ask this question: Who do would you rather have selected the president? It simply isn't (and especially, wasn't in this case) possible to be exactly accurate and fair when you are talking about millions and millions of people. When disputes arise (and disputes ALWAYS arise), somebody has to be the final arbiter. In this country, that's the Supreme Court.
Would you rather have left it to the Florida legislature? Or ANY elected official, in or out of Florida? Or perhaps we should have "let the people decide"--of course, we did that once; it was called "election night" and it didn't work the first time around. Maybe we should have broken out the guns and nooses (neece?)? I don't necessarily think the Supreme Court was right, but I DO think it was reasonable.
Any system of government that doesn't provide for the resolution of disputes won't last very long. And some of those disputes will be self-referential, but there's literally no mathematical way around that.
--
You are underestimating your conformity. Do you drive on the right side of the road? Why? Do you spit in people's faces? Why not? Do you wear clothes at work? At home? In the pool? Do you watch any television? If so, do you laugh at any of the same things as the laugh track? Do you speak English? When a friend experiences pain (death in the family, loss of job, etc) do you comfort him or her? When your child hangs out with kids who smoke and then decides to smoke when you tell him not to, is he thinking for himself--or conforming to a different "authority figure"?
Some of these things are innate to being human. Some are socially acquired. In any case they do not necessarily equate to "thinking for yourself". What the previous poster was saying was that, in order to function in a group, you have to be using the same protocol as the rest of the group. But as you hint (although not clearly) conformity and free-thinking are actually perpendicular. Person A may conform because that's the way they were raised. Person B may conform because they've analyzed the protocol and are just emulating it "on the outside". Real people are a combination of both.
Feel free to spout on about how non-conformist and free-thinking you are. The very fact that you want to communicate with us (and are succeeding) points out that you are less different than you think.
--
...because you aren't thinking very logically. Let's say, for the sake of argument that you are right, schools intend to produce children meeting those characteristics. Let's further assume that they succeed. How does that rule out children thinking for themselves?
For instance, I consistently show up on time and am relatively organized. I have no discipline problems in my recent history (legal, work, etc). My wife doubly so. Yet both of us routinely hold opinions differing from that of the majority. Neither of us is a factory worker.
Good discipline and free thought are not opposites. Nominal "free-thinking radicals" can be just as conformist, within their subgroup, as a military academy.
PS: Note what I did NOT say: "Good discipline causes free thought."
--
Like:
Where's the line between fish and fowl? (penguins)
Where's the line between hacker and cracker?
Where's the line between mother and non-? (host/surrogate/adopted mother)
You are confusing at least three different concepts. The first is "these two categories are so conceptually close that drawing a line between them is difficult" (hacker vs cracker). The second concept is "ill-defined categories" (fish, mother). The third "very different categories that contain many of the same members"--which concept applies to programmers and artists, I would argue.
Art is about conveying beauty and/or a message to an audience (sometimes just the artist himself).
Programming (and other mathematical/engineering disciplines) is about building useful structures. The humans doing the building may be partially guided by artistic concerns, but that doesn't make the output "art". The primary purpose is "does it work" not "is it nice to look at" or even "is it elegant."
Just because the categories of "artist" and "programmers" contain many of the same members, doesn't automatically make the output of the Programmer class art any more than it makes the output of the Artist class software.
--