The world of ideas interacts with the world of matter through us human beings, especially since that world of ideas is completely dependent upon us.
So we humans have the ability to make nature be uniform? Seems you think man is pretty powerful if we can make matter obey our ideas.
How can abstract, invariant, unchanging laws or ideas interact with the physical world? I wasn't aware that they had to.
If you want to rely on the Inductive Principle and uniformity of nature--they have to be abstract, invariant, and unchanging laws that rule over the physical world.
That's the beauty of it. You don't have to impose rationality on them, since evolution already has.
Ahhh, the "Evolution of the Gaps" argument. If you can't explain it--Evolution did it! Brilliant! Yet, it's unargued philosophical bias at work here. Why, it couldn't be God who created the Laws of Logic and uniformity of nature--therefore, it must be evolution!
No more than it makes sense for an individual bee to steal honey from its hive. Individual humans are less able to survive than a group of humans, so while stealing from others may have short-term advantages, it will hurt your chances of survival in the long run.
You misunderstand me. This is not a compelling reason to demand that man be rational. By the way, humans don't live in hives--unlike bees, humans can and do survive on their own. So, are you going to stand on a soapbox and say to your fellow man, "Now come on, be rational everyone! After all, evolution created it!" Silliness of the highest order. I ask the non-Christian again: what compelling reason is there to demand that humans be rational in their thoughts?
Because the existence of the Christian god has nothing to do with rationality. Humans were rational before that god was invented.
Question begging, my friend. It's your worldview speaking here.
Yes, the Christian Scriptures age and claims are relevant when compared against the FSM. The FSM is clearly invented and its credentials are clearly fabricated. Not so with Christianity. Even if you reject the Christian claims, you must admit that the manuscriptural and historical evidence beats the snot out of the FSM.
Besides--It is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim that if you reject it you undermine knowledge, science, and human dignity. That is the Christian claim and it is proven by our very dialog.
I was under the impression that we were arguing by logic here. My personal subjective beliefs should at no point be relevant.
Your worldview is very relevant here--because you are arguing from it. Every argument you make needs to be analyzed within the light of your basest presuppositions. For example, my worldview accounts for miracles and abstract universal absolutes like laws of logic. Your worldview denies them.
The age-old Christianity vs. Atheism debate ultimately comes down to a debate between two different worldviews. I have my set of presuppositions, you have yours. So the task before us is to become philosophically tough minded and to determine whose worldview is more rational. Whose worldview provides intelligibility to the human experience?
My worldview is that it is, indeed, impossible to find solid logical ground for knowledge.
Thanks for being intellectually honest here. My question to you is this: Do you really believe this? Do you live your life this way? If you are even unsure of your own senses--why not jump out in front of the next bus you see to see what happens. After all, you could be deceived--what looks like a bus may actually be a fluffy down pillow.
I'm not actually asking you to do this. I am trying to make a point: you say that a solid logical ground for knowledge is impossible to find. But you don't live your life that way. Rather, you presume upon the Christian Theistic worldview for a time, assuming things like laws of logic and the uniformity of nature, and then proceed forth denying that the Christian God exists.
It is like the man who denies he is breathing oxygen--even though he took a breath to tell you.
If I'd known you don't believe in absolute truth or universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic--I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to reason with you. What is the point? I mean, why don't I just adopt the logical convention that says "Theism is true" and then just declare myself the winner of this little slashdot debate?
Yes, logicians differ and prove things using different methods, but that doesn't mean that logic is merely convention. You don't treat it as if it were a convention when you disagree with a colleague, calling a statement irrational.
You are clearly a very intelligent person. You have studied Philosophy and you are aware of Epistemology. That's why I'm so surprised that you make claims that you don't know the laws of logic will change in the future, and that absolute truth does not exist--or at the very least, is unknowable.
You have admitted that within your worldview (your presuppositions that you take as self-attesting) knowledge isn't truly possible.
You have a pragmatic approach to logic: it works, but if it stops working, the laws could change in the future. That assumption about laws of thought and reason make this debate (and all debate) worthless.
You are inconsistent. You have the knowledge of God within yourself which makes it possible to know things about the world and about yourself. Because you know God, you have a rationale for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, man's dignity and ethical absolutes. You can then pursue science and other aspects of life with some measure of success--even though you cannot account for that success. You cannot provide the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of logic, science or ethics.
It is the Christian's contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, and beliefs which do not render science, logic, or ethics intelligible. OTOH, the Christian Theistic worldview demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man's reasoning, experience, and dignity.
The proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything. This is the boat you're in. Within your worldview, you cannot prove anything. You actually oppose yourself.
I can easily make the exact same claim as you, but replace "God" with the oh-so-popular Flying Spaghetti Monster. Other than the paragraph in the old book, the argument is exactly the same, and exactly as valid.
You can certainly claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) provides the necessary preconditions for logic--however, the Scriptural evidence for the FSM utterly pales in comparison to the Christian God.
There are Scriptures in evidence for Christianity--not so with the FSM.
There are thousands of manuscripts that textual critics can use to have a certain level of confidence that we can reconstruct the autographa.
And lastly, the FSM worldview is not available to you today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not a true adherent to the FSM religion--you don't really believe in it. If not, you cannot use it as a worldview in order to try to disprove the Christian worldview.
Remember, the Christian claim is that if you reject God, knowledge is impossible. What happens when you construct a worldview that is obviously false to refute Christian Theism? To what worldview do you return if you were to show that the FSM provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility? Do you become a FSM follower?
At the end of the day, you still live inside a non-Christian worldview that cannot account for the preconditions to logic that I specified earlier. That is, you are being inconsistent. You are living inside a worldview that contradicts itself.
Now, when you must invent a worldview in order to defeat mine--I ask, why aren't you willing to defend your own worldview? Why won't you put your worldview up to the challenge?
Sorry I couldn't get back to you quicker. I was out of town for the Holiday and I'm debating 20 different people at the same time. I must give you credit, however, because you actually understand what I'm trying to say. Most of the knee-jerk responses about "the Bible is stupid" and "religion is irrational" get old quick. I appreciate your tone and I'm shocked your post didn't get modded 5, Insightful.
Your confusion as to 1) derives from your use of the word "exist" in two different ways. Matter exists as an actual material thing. Platonic forms, however, do not exist in this sense; they only exist as something that men think up.
Yes, Yes, I'm aware of Plato's dualism! I'm glad you know of it, too. Do you have an answer to Plato's problem--that he can't give an account for how the world of ideas interacts with the world of matter? How can abstract, invariant, unchanging laws or ideas interact with the physical world?
If men simply "thought up" laws of logic, how can two people debate anything? How do we decide who won? Doesn't debate require a set of rules that are outside of the debaters? How can one justify imposing a Platonic form on the physical world?
Your confusion as to 2) seems to be grounded in a lack of understanding of, or perhaps a lack of consideration for, evolutionary principles. It's quite obvious that being rational is an evolutionary advantage.
Evolution boils down to survival of the fittest right? If I want to feed my family, and my car is broken down, is it not better to adopt a form of logic which says, "It is the case that this is my car and it is NOT the case that this is my car?" Steal anyone's car because my logic allows me to steal it--therefore, I can feed my family and survive?
The evolutionary argument for imposing rationality on other men has a very complex refutation. It boils down to this:
"Who cares."
Why should I adopt a form of logic that makes it easier for you to keep your car, food, and wealth? If evolution is true, it would be to my advantage to take whatever I want from you.
You have a very weak argument to impose rationality on other men. Instead, you should allow men to say and think whatever they want--why be rational if the Christian God doesn't exist? Why not let men be inconsistent and think whatever they want? After all, men think up whatever Platonic forms they want and there's no reason to believe the Platonic forms can actually interact with the physical world.
Does man control his own destiny, or is fate pre-determined? At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
It does if you argue (like most naturalists) that logic is a physical reaction in the brain. You see, the materialist/naturalist camp can't actually state that there are abstract, invariant, universal laws of logic, because that would require a departure from naturalism. When you dig further and find that the consistent materialist would claim that our entire existence and thought processes are controlled by physical laws--it becomes even more damning.
You could have evolved differently than I. How do I know that the "laws of logic" at work in your brain are the same "laws of logic" at work in my brain? Who would be able to decide the winner of a debate given the premise that they could both be operating with different laws of logic in their heads?
You can't decide the winner in that scenario. Everyone becomes a law unto themself--they alone decide the truthfulness of a claim--and the laws of logic in their head could be different than everyone else's in the world, too.
In order for knowledge to be possible, man needs (1) nature to be uniform, yesterday, today, and forever and (2) abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic that can be applied to all thoughts and ideas of men.
The Christian Theistic Worldview is the only one I've found that can supply those preconditions of knowledge. Would you be willing to defend your worldview and show how you can account and rely upon those two preconditions with absolute certainty?
That's not a straw-man argument. "Straw-man" is a debate tactic where one deliberately responds to an opponent with a logical fallacy derived from intentionally altering, misrepresenting or side-stepping the opponent's argument,
Yeah, I'm aware of what a straw man argument is. Go back and read our interaction with the Adam and Eve thing. I showed that Eve knew that she shouldn't eat from the tree because God told her ahead of time not to. The poster I was responding to was claiming that she had absolutely no knowledge that it was wrong, which is clearly false if one would simply let the text speak.
He misrepresented my position, tackling it and sending straw everywhere. I still have straw in my shoes from the collision.
I am speechless at the utter absurdity of this statement. It is not worth an answer - if you actually claim this, you are either so blinded by dogma that I could never get an argument through to you, or you are just plain putting me on.
I apologize, I haven't had much time to develop my argument because I am debating 20 people at once.
The Bible teaches that if you reject the Christian God, you will be reduced to foolishness. I know you don't accept that on the surface, but if you will take it for a Christian claim at this point, I'd appreciate it.
What I've been showing to the folks here on slashdot is this:
There are preconditions to knowledge.
Laws of Logic
Inductive Principle
The materialist (I'm aware not all non-Christians are materialists--I'm only tackling the prominent veiwpoint on/.) has a worldview which basically states that only matter exists. On top of that, the materialist struggles mightily with the Problem of Induction (see Hume, Russell).
Hume recognized that the Inductive Principle is really a "rule of thumb" if you will. The Inductive Principle basically teaches that the future will be like the past. Hume saw that you can't prove that the future will be like the past because we can't experience the future. Even as time marches forward, at best we can say that the past will be like this morning. Hume rejected the Inductive Principle for this reason.
By the way, the scientific method utterly depends on the Inductive Principle. You pull that carpet out from underneath Science, and that baby, she crumbles.
As for Laws of Logic--we need those for validating ideas and thoughts. They are universal, abstract, and invariant--if they weren't all three, they would be undermined. Philosophy depends on laws of logic being all three. If you pull that carpet out from underneath Philosophy, that baby, she crumbles. How can laws of logic "exist" in a world that denies that the supernatural cannot exist? How can Laws of Logic be forced upon the thoughts of others, if it is merely a chemical process in the brain?
No, Laws of Logic exist and they exist outside of the material world. It is right to impose them on other thoughts and ideas because God requires us to be rational beings, as He is.
The Inductive Principle can be relied upon because God made nature to be uniform and tells us that He fixes the world to be consistent in advance.
I will posit that the Christian Theistic Worldview is the only worldview that can account for and supply all the preconditions necessary for knowledge. Laws of Logic exist because God requires men to reason rationally.
If your worldview does not account for Laws of Logic or the Inductive Principle, how can knowledge even be possible?
That's why the Bible says that if you reject God, your worldview is reduced to foolishness. That's my position. Would you be willing to put your worldview up against mine to see if I'm "blinded by dogma?"
it wasn't invented by God either, because the laws could not be any different under any circumstance. Therefore, God didn't create them.
I'm glad we agree that laws of logic are abstract, universal, and invariant. However, I'm having trouble following your reasoning.
Specifically, how do you know the laws could not be any different? Why couldn't God have created them differently?
Secondly, I hold that the laws of logic reflect God's eternal character. He would not create the laws of logic contrary to it. How does the statement that "the laws could not be any different under any circumstance" imply that "God didn't create them."
It smells like a non sequitur, so please clarify.
A lot of theists stop short of suggesting that God would be capable of logically impossible actions. Creating or redefining a mathematical law would be logically impossible.
The laws of logic and mathematics do not change because God does not change. God created these laws and they reflect His character.
There is much hay made about the "can God build a rock so big that He cannot lift it," and "Can God make a square circle." The answer to both of those is no. God cannot do that which isn't in His character. God cannot lie--this doesn't remove His omnipotence. It just clarifies the bounds of omnipotence.
I really like mathematics because it's about the only thing we can know for certain, as it's self-defining rather than being based on evidence and experiments.
How do you know that all the mathematic tests you've performed in the past will be the same in the future? Will 2+2 always equal 4? How do you know for certain?
Mathematics provides certainty, with absolute proof. It requires no faith. Ultimately, everything else does.
What proof do you accept for mathematics? How do you know it is acceptable proof? I assume you believe logic requires faith, because logic isn't mathematics. How can you prove something in Math without using logic?
I apologize for getting back to you so late. You raised a good question, and I wanted to address it, but I had to leave town for the Holiday. I just got back tonight.
If there's an absolute logic that is true, then all these others must be wrong - so which one is the true one?
Are you being serious?
Most of those are subsets of the Philosophical Logic of which I speak. This is not a list of eleven mutually exclusive different forms of logic. For example, read how
paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing paraconsistent (or "inconsistency-tolerant") systems of logic.
Others, like Quantum Logic are fields that apply the symbols from formal logic to describe quantum mechanics--this isn't some separate form of logic that philosophers are using in formal debates.
There are a few logical schools of thought that disregard the law of the excluded middle for example, but when you understand why, this isn't to say there are philosophers that hold to different conventions or forms of logic. Fuzzy Logic allows for truth values between 0 and 1--it's used mainly in engineering applications for making decisions about the physical world.
Logicians disagree in some areas--even in defining what logic is. However, the mere fact that our world expects men to be rational and to apply laws of thought to their reasoning, shows that we all believe that there are universal, invariant, abstract laws that exist. We believe them to be universal because we expect the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be !A at the same time) to apply to everyone everywhere when they reason with us. We don't assume the law only applies to Americans or Europeans, for example.
My question to you is this--do you disagree with the classical, philosophical logic that I am referring to? Do you employ a different system of logic in your reasoning?
Are laws of logic merely conventions, agreed upon by men?
If they are merely conventions, do I not have the right to adopt my own conventions, and can I win debates using my own logical system?
If laws of logic are merely conventions, how do we know they won't change in the future?
There were, but they got lost, and anyway they were probably in a language no-one can read anymore.
How do I know that what you're saying is truly Bobism then? It sounds to me like you have to invent a worldview because you are unwilling to defend your own.
If you do, then that rather implies that God could change them or redefine them if He wished. Could you give an example of how a mathematical or logical law might be changed by an omnipotent being?
God is a rational, logical being. He created the laws of logic and holds men accountable to them--even creating man in His image, so that we too are logical, rational beings.
However, God does not change His mind. He doesn't change the laws of logic.
Num 23:19: Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
God does not do that which does not comport with his character. That's why he does not change His mind, nor do laws of logic change. However, if laws of logic were merely conventions agreed upon by men, they are subject to change. You'd find different systems of logic sprouting up all over the world. One debating society might use one set of logical laws, while another might not recognize that set of laws.
Now do you see why rejecting the Christian God results in foolishness?
Psalm 53:1 says:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
When the Bible says "fool" here it isn't engaging in name-calling. Rather, it is pointing out the absolute futility of rejecting the Christian worldview.
Yes, but the Christian Bible says that if you reject it, your reasoning is reduced to foolishness. Which, when you examine the presuppositions of those who reject the Christian God, is as plain as the nose on your face.
Anyone can make claims--you can have some guy walk in off the street and say he's God.
However, saying that rejecting the Christian God will result in the undermining of all human knowledge, morality, dignity, and science--that's extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim.
You see, once you assume laws of logic exist, and you obligate other men to adhere to them--you assume the Christian God exists. Your engaging in debate becomes your own refutation.
I would think that any religion which incorporates the concept of a rational "creator" would qualify, assuming that rationality is dependent on the existence of a creator in the first place (something I do not personally believe).
However, I've examined each of these worldviews and found them internally inconsistent. I could not rationally defend any the other "gods" proffered by other religions. Each of them is either internally inconsistent or undermine human reason and experience. For example, the god of Hinduism, named Bhrahman, is defined as the universal soul of which all things are part. Hinduism teaches that all thinking (maya) is an illusion because it presupposes distinctions between different objects in the universe. Therefore, Hinduism destroys any system of rationality. Other religions such as Daoism and Shintoism speak of impersonal forces ruling the universe without volition or intelligence-these forces are less than humans. Buddhism stresses meditation to empty one's mind of all content in order to drift away from consciousness of this world. Buddha taught that it is meaningless to look for an answer to God's existence. Instead one should follow the "Noble Eight-fold Path" (a strict ethical system) to escape the world and the cycle of reincarnation. When this occurs, one achieves "nirvana." Where does one go when one achieves nirvana? No answer is given-but the classical Buddhist will say the person ceases to exist. No rational answers are given for morals and laws of logic by the Buddhist.
Judaism and one offshoot, Islam, come closest to accounting for the inductive principle and use of laws of logic. However, both are internally inconsistent. For example, the Old Testament speaks of the need for blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins. Jews and Muslims of today no longer sacrifice animals for their forgiveness. It's true that Christians do not either, however we have an answer for that: Jesus Christ is our blood atonement and His sacrifice was complete for us so that we no longer need to offer sacrifices for our sins.
Why wouldn't they be? Rational thought is a definition created by man, and such humanocentric concepts do not require the presence of a supreme being. The world as perceived is the world as is. Man is the measure of all things. I think, therefore I am.
So they should be rational on your authority then? Because you think they should?
A non-Christian universe is not always materialistic. Just ask most native Americans, or most of the Wiccans I know. Or a buddhist monk, for that matter.
I'm aware of that. Plato's Dualism is a more rational worldview than the religion of this age: materialism. At least Plato could account for abstract things like laws of logic and human dignity. But the problem with Dualism (and Plato recognized this) is how the two interacted. He basically said somehow the world of "ideas" begat those into the world of material, and that the material remembered the world of ideas.
"How could this work?" Plato mused. "Well, grant me this one exception!" he replied. He knew he didn't have a good way to marry the world of material to the world of the immaterial.
But at least Plato recognizes that there are abstract non-material laws that govern the material world--even though he couldn't clearly account for them.
The Christian can, however. That's why we expect men to be rational.
Are you a Wiccan, Native American, or Buddhist? If not, those positions aren't available to you.
Men are not obligated to be rational in a Christian universe, either.
Yes, they are. Even though there are a lot of stupid Christians, they are obligated to reason rationally. Rationality reflects God's character.
That's why a "leap of faith" is often required in order to understand or accept commonly believed Christian doctrine.
Everyone must make a leap of faith at some point in their worldview. I can ask you, "how do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?" A
As a believer in the non-fictitious,all-powerful Bob, I share similar beliefs as you.
Oh, on what basis is Bobism founded? Is there a set of Scriptures with an excellent pedigree that I might examine? Is there a historical record of this Bob?
Everything going on in your head could be entirely chemical and biological, and can still be considered thought. There is no violation of physical laws going on when you think.
Ahh, but to the materialist, the physical laws in the end control your thought process do they not? BTW, this is an internal critique of the materialist worldview.
What is your evidence that rationality is anything more than 'whatever people end up thinking and doing'?
Because the materialist cannot account for abstract, non-material laws of logic. They don't exist. They are conventions which can change, as conventions are wont to do. Also, if all our thoughts are governed by physical laws (another thing unaccounted for by atheists).
The very premise of the religion, that man is born in sin because of the acts of the original man and woman, is illogical.
What law of logic does this violate?
If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree, they had no idea it was evil to disobey god.
God told them not to eat of the tree (Gen 2:16-17). They disobeyed. Your straw men is impressive, but a straw man nonetheless.
Your religion is no more rational than any other. Get used to it.
It is the only rational worldview I have found. It can account for laws of logic, morality, human dignity, and the inductive principle. Materialism does not. I ask you, why should men be rational in your worldview? In the Christian worldview, God is a logical being, He created laws of logic and made us in His image. We are to be consistent and abide by these laws. In the Christian worldview, laws of logic exist.
How does the atheist account for laws of logic? How can abstract universal absolutes exist in a world where only matter exists? Why should men be rational in your worldview?
Its proponents begin by asking you to suspend logic and assume an anti-entropic premise.
This is a canard--actually the reverse is true. It is the Christian faith alone that can account for logic, reason, and rationality.
Why should anyone be rational if the Christian God does not exist? Why are men under any obligation to be rational in a materialistic universe?
As a Christian Theist, I believe all men should be rational. I believe people should believe things on good evidence. I think we are under obligation to use our intellectual tools to glorify God, and to learn about this world--we should be consistent. I believe that becasse God requires all men to be rational. I can make sense of the obligation to be rational.
If this world is sound and fury signifying nothing, why must men be rational? Why don't I just live moment by moment and be inconsistent: thinking on thing one time and another thing another time, caring nothing for logic? After all, logic has no place in the material universe--it is an abstract, non-material set of laws. How can laws of logic actually exist in an atheistic universe?
The odd thing about the materialist is this: the materialist who wants to be rational has already departed from his materialism.
If you are a materialist, you have a naturalistic explanation for everything we say and do. What's going on in this gray matter in my cranium is controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. I don't really think, I'm really like a weed that's growing. Weeds don't think, and neither do I, we're all subject to the laws of physics, I'm just at a more complicated/complex level.
If naturalism is true, there's no such thing as rationality, there's just whatever people end up thinking and doing. Why call men to be rational then?
However, the Christian God calls men to be consistent and rational. For the Christian Theist, I can expect all men to be obligated to be rational. Not so for those who reject the Christian God.
After RTFA I have to say I'm impressed with this study. Science for far too long has neglected to roll its sleeves up and get to the nitty-gritty of how biochemical evolution might have occurred. Usually scientists show us a chart of, say, eyeballs, from the primitive light-sensitive patches of worms all the way to the more advanced eyeballs, like the humans. This is usually followed with some vigorous handwaving, capable of producing hurricane-like winds. "Behold! Evolution!" shouted with triumph, but without scientific backing.
Okay, they've shown us the simple to the complex, but there's a lot more to these organs evolving, as Dr. Thornton has tried to demonstrate. I hope he's able to do more work and tackle something a bit tougher, like the eye, or bacterial flagella, or perhaps our immune system. The enzyme cascades in blood clots would be incredibly interesting as well. These are the holy grails of irreducible complexity.
The hormone receptors, while an interesting scientific challenge, are a far cry from the problems presented by the biomechanical processes and machines listed above. Until a study can demonstrate, step-by-step, how the bacterial flagella (and the other IC challenges listed) came into existence without divine intervention, the Irreducible Complexity camp will not cower in defeat.
I don't think you understand what free speech is. It has nothing to do with nipples and getting modded down. My nipples, for example, do not speak, nor am I familiar with any medical literature that talks about nippular vocal abilities.
In addition, being "modded down" does not infringe upon your free speech. If you were taken to jail for your post, then we would have a free speech issue on our hands.
They all knew this was coming. Read an article in National Geographic that predicted all of this. It's downright prophetic.
The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level--more than eight feet below in places--so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.
Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.
Do you place any blame on those who stayed behind? I know for some it is impossible to move (elderly, handicapped), but I'm seeing a crapload of people who look healthy enough to wade through hip deep water. WTF were they doing staying in New Orleans? It was a mandatory evacuation. I'm sorry for the pain these people are going through, but you have to place some blame at their feet, don't you?
It's technically infesable and actually attaching a tracking device to a person, like a tagged animal, would involve so much legal fighting that it would probably end up in the US Supreme court.
You are misinformed. GPS tracking of offenders has been going on for years so it is not "technically infesable."
iSECURETrac has a cool demo (I think, anyway) that shows you what the system can actually do here.
And rather than oppose it, the courts have embraced GPS tracking...the judges welcome an alternative to overcrowding prisons for small-time crooks. And when we must release a sex offender back into society, we have a little something more than the sex offender registry which is not working.
There's assisted GPS and dead reckoning that can help in these situations where GPS is not available or is very weak.
Assisted GPS uses the information from cell towers to help triangulate the position when GPS is not available.
Dead Reckoning, offered by GPS units from U-Blox, features little gyroscopes that can "guess" your location based on the acceleration experienced by the unit.
Besides, a unit in motion when it doesn't have GPS is a violation that is reported to the case officer for some companies, like iSECURETrac. It's called "GPS Blocking". You, as a case officer can tell your client to not use the subway or he's going back to jail--if you think that's an issue. Walk, drive, or take a taxi or bus instead. If the offender violates by having a PTU in motion without GPS*, he is in trouble.
GPS tracking has come a long way and has counters to many perceived flaws.
NOTE: I work for iSECURETrac, a company that specializes in tracking offenders.
* After some dampening to eliminate false positives.
many transmitters are encrypted so you can't just clone an RFID without knowing the proper sequence. The tracking device will record a violation if it sees a repeat broadcast, since it knows the tracking tag will not send out dupes.
Secondly, without the tracking device, your little spree would mean nothing--you'd have to steal the GPS portion (it is a separate unit) of the system.
So after cracking the RF protocol, stealing this guy's GPS device, and then committing your crime without being seen--you still have to return to the house of the guy you stole it from. A lot of work...
Slashdot Mirror
The world of ideas interacts with the world of matter through us human beings, especially since that world of ideas is completely dependent upon us.
So we humans have the ability to make nature be uniform? Seems you think man is pretty powerful if we can make matter obey our ideas.
How can abstract, invariant, unchanging laws or ideas interact with the physical world?
I wasn't aware that they had to.
If you want to rely on the Inductive Principle and uniformity of nature--they have to be abstract, invariant, and unchanging laws that rule over the physical world.
That's the beauty of it. You don't have to impose rationality on them, since evolution already has.
Ahhh, the "Evolution of the Gaps" argument. If you can't explain it--Evolution did it! Brilliant! Yet, it's unargued philosophical bias at work here. Why, it couldn't be God who created the Laws of Logic and uniformity of nature--therefore, it must be evolution!
No more than it makes sense for an individual bee to steal honey from its hive. Individual humans are less able to survive than a group of humans, so while stealing from others may have short-term advantages, it will hurt your chances of survival in the long run.
You misunderstand me. This is not a compelling reason to demand that man be rational. By the way, humans don't live in hives--unlike bees, humans can and do survive on their own. So, are you going to stand on a soapbox and say to your fellow man, "Now come on, be rational everyone! After all, evolution created it!" Silliness of the highest order. I ask the non-Christian again: what compelling reason is there to demand that humans be rational in their thoughts?
Because the existence of the Christian god has nothing to do with rationality. Humans were rational before that god was invented.
Question begging, my friend. It's your worldview speaking here.
Yes, the Christian Scriptures age and claims are relevant when compared against the FSM. The FSM is clearly invented and its credentials are clearly fabricated. Not so with Christianity. Even if you reject the Christian claims, you must admit that the manuscriptural and historical evidence beats the snot out of the FSM.
Besides--It is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim that if you reject it you undermine knowledge, science, and human dignity. That is the Christian claim and it is proven by our very dialog.
I was under the impression that we were arguing by logic here. My personal subjective beliefs should at no point be relevant.
Your worldview is very relevant here--because you are arguing from it. Every argument you make needs to be analyzed within the light of your basest presuppositions. For example, my worldview accounts for miracles and abstract universal absolutes like laws of logic. Your worldview denies them.
The age-old Christianity vs. Atheism debate ultimately comes down to a debate between two different worldviews. I have my set of presuppositions, you have yours. So the task before us is to become philosophically tough minded and to determine whose worldview is more rational. Whose worldview provides intelligibility to the human experience?
My worldview is that it is, indeed, impossible to find solid logical ground for knowledge.
Thanks for being intellectually honest here. My question to you is this: Do you really believe this? Do you live your life this way? If you are even unsure of your own senses--why not jump out in front of the next bus you see to see what happens. After all, you could be deceived--what looks like a bus may actually be a fluffy down pillow.
I'm not actually asking you to do this. I am trying to make a point: you say that a solid logical ground for knowledge is impossible to find. But you don't live your life that way. Rather, you presume upon the Christian Theistic worldview for a time, assuming things like laws of logic and the uniformity of nature, and then proceed forth denying that the Christian God exists.
It is like the man who denies he is breathing oxygen--even though he took a breath to tell you.
Coryoth,
If I'd known you don't believe in absolute truth or universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic--I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to reason with you. What is the point? I mean, why don't I just adopt the logical convention that says "Theism is true" and then just declare myself the winner of this little slashdot debate?
Yes, logicians differ and prove things using different methods, but that doesn't mean that logic is merely convention. You don't treat it as if it were a convention when you disagree with a colleague, calling a statement irrational.
You are clearly a very intelligent person. You have studied Philosophy and you are aware of Epistemology. That's why I'm so surprised that you make claims that you don't know the laws of logic will change in the future, and that absolute truth does not exist--or at the very least, is unknowable.
You have admitted that within your worldview (your presuppositions that you take as self-attesting) knowledge isn't truly possible.
You have a pragmatic approach to logic: it works, but if it stops working, the laws could change in the future. That assumption about laws of thought and reason make this debate (and all debate) worthless.
You are inconsistent. You have the knowledge of God within yourself which makes it possible to know things about the world and about yourself. Because you know God, you have a rationale for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, man's dignity and ethical absolutes. You can then pursue science and other aspects of life with some measure of success--even though you cannot account for that success. You cannot provide the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of logic, science or ethics.
It is the Christian's contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, and beliefs which do not render science, logic, or ethics intelligible. OTOH, the Christian Theistic worldview demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man's reasoning, experience, and dignity.
The proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything. This is the boat you're in. Within your worldview, you cannot prove anything. You actually oppose yourself.
I can easily make the exact same claim as you, but replace "God" with the oh-so-popular Flying Spaghetti Monster. Other than the paragraph in the old book, the argument is exactly the same, and exactly as valid.
You can certainly claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) provides the necessary preconditions for logic--however, the Scriptural evidence for the FSM utterly pales in comparison to the Christian God.
There are Scriptures in evidence for Christianity--not so with the FSM.
There are thousands of manuscripts that textual critics can use to have a certain level of confidence that we can reconstruct the autographa.
And lastly, the FSM worldview is not available to you today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not a true adherent to the FSM religion--you don't really believe in it. If not, you cannot use it as a worldview in order to try to disprove the Christian worldview.
Remember, the Christian claim is that if you reject God, knowledge is impossible. What happens when you construct a worldview that is obviously false to refute Christian Theism? To what worldview do you return if you were to show that the FSM provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility? Do you become a FSM follower?
At the end of the day, you still live inside a non-Christian worldview that cannot account for the preconditions to logic that I specified earlier. That is, you are being inconsistent. You are living inside a worldview that contradicts itself.
Now, when you must invent a worldview in order to defeat mine--I ask, why aren't you willing to defend your own worldview? Why won't you put your worldview up to the challenge?
Ad-hominem and non-sequitur abounds!
And yet you don't address my arguments. Sigh.
DeviantQ,
Sorry I couldn't get back to you quicker. I was out of town for the Holiday and I'm debating 20 different people at the same time. I must give you credit, however, because you actually understand what I'm trying to say. Most of the knee-jerk responses about "the Bible is stupid" and "religion is irrational" get old quick. I appreciate your tone and I'm shocked your post didn't get modded 5, Insightful.
Your confusion as to 1) derives from your use of the word "exist" in two different ways. Matter exists as an actual material thing. Platonic forms, however, do not exist in this sense; they only exist as something that men think up.
Yes, Yes, I'm aware of Plato's dualism! I'm glad you know of it, too. Do you have an answer to Plato's problem--that he can't give an account for how the world of ideas interacts with the world of matter? How can abstract, invariant, unchanging laws or ideas interact with the physical world?
If men simply "thought up" laws of logic, how can two people debate anything? How do we decide who won? Doesn't debate require a set of rules that are outside of the debaters? How can one justify imposing a Platonic form on the physical world?
Your confusion as to 2) seems to be grounded in a lack of understanding of, or perhaps a lack of consideration for, evolutionary principles. It's quite obvious that being rational is an evolutionary advantage.
Evolution boils down to survival of the fittest right? If I want to feed my family, and my car is broken down, is it not better to adopt a form of logic which says, "It is the case that this is my car and it is NOT the case that this is my car?" Steal anyone's car because my logic allows me to steal it--therefore, I can feed my family and survive?
The evolutionary argument for imposing rationality on other men has a very complex refutation. It boils down to this:
"Who cares."
Why should I adopt a form of logic that makes it easier for you to keep your car, food, and wealth? If evolution is true, it would be to my advantage to take whatever I want from you.
You have a very weak argument to impose rationality on other men. Instead, you should allow men to say and think whatever they want--why be rational if the Christian God doesn't exist? Why not let men be inconsistent and think whatever they want? After all, men think up whatever Platonic forms they want and there's no reason to believe the Platonic forms can actually interact with the physical world.
Does man control his own destiny, or is fate pre-determined? At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
It does if you argue (like most naturalists) that logic is a physical reaction in the brain. You see, the materialist/naturalist camp can't actually state that there are abstract, invariant, universal laws of logic, because that would require a departure from naturalism. When you dig further and find that the consistent materialist would claim that our entire existence and thought processes are controlled by physical laws--it becomes even more damning.
You could have evolved differently than I. How do I know that the "laws of logic" at work in your brain are the same "laws of logic" at work in my brain? Who would be able to decide the winner of a debate given the premise that they could both be operating with different laws of logic in their heads?
You can't decide the winner in that scenario. Everyone becomes a law unto themself--they alone decide the truthfulness of a claim--and the laws of logic in their head could be different than everyone else's in the world, too.
In order for knowledge to be possible, man needs (1) nature to be uniform, yesterday, today, and forever and (2) abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic that can be applied to all thoughts and ideas of men.
The Christian Theistic Worldview is the only one I've found that can supply those preconditions of knowledge. Would you be willing to defend your worldview and show how you can account and rely upon those two preconditions with absolute certainty?
That's not a straw-man argument. "Straw-man" is a debate tactic where one deliberately responds to an opponent with a logical fallacy derived from intentionally altering, misrepresenting or side-stepping the opponent's argument,
Yeah, I'm aware of what a straw man argument is. Go back and read our interaction with the Adam and Eve thing. I showed that Eve knew that she shouldn't eat from the tree because God told her ahead of time not to. The poster I was responding to was claiming that she had absolutely no knowledge that it was wrong, which is clearly false if one would simply let the text speak.
He misrepresented my position, tackling it and sending straw everywhere. I still have straw in my shoes from the collision.
I apologize, I haven't had much time to develop my argument because I am debating 20 people at once.
The Bible teaches that if you reject the Christian God, you will be reduced to foolishness. I know you don't accept that on the surface, but if you will take it for a Christian claim at this point, I'd appreciate it.
What I've been showing to the folks here on slashdot is this:
The materialist (I'm aware not all non-Christians are materialists--I'm only tackling the prominent veiwpoint on
Hume recognized that the Inductive Principle is really a "rule of thumb" if you will. The Inductive Principle basically teaches that the future will be like the past. Hume saw that you can't prove that the future will be like the past because we can't experience the future. Even as time marches forward, at best we can say that the past will be like this morning. Hume rejected the Inductive Principle for this reason.
By the way, the scientific method utterly depends on the Inductive Principle. You pull that carpet out from underneath Science, and that baby, she crumbles.
As for Laws of Logic--we need those for validating ideas and thoughts. They are universal, abstract, and invariant--if they weren't all three, they would be undermined. Philosophy depends on laws of logic being all three. If you pull that carpet out from underneath Philosophy, that baby, she crumbles. How can laws of logic "exist" in a world that denies that the supernatural cannot exist? How can Laws of Logic be forced upon the thoughts of others, if it is merely a chemical process in the brain?
No, Laws of Logic exist and they exist outside of the material world. It is right to impose them on other thoughts and ideas because God requires us to be rational beings, as He is.
The Inductive Principle can be relied upon because God made nature to be uniform and tells us that He fixes the world to be consistent in advance.
I will posit that the Christian Theistic Worldview is the only worldview that can account for and supply all the preconditions necessary for knowledge. Laws of Logic exist because God requires men to reason rationally.
If your worldview does not account for Laws of Logic or the Inductive Principle, how can knowledge even be possible?
That's why the Bible says that if you reject God, your worldview is reduced to foolishness. That's my position. Would you be willing to put your worldview up against mine to see if I'm "blinded by dogma?"
it wasn't invented by God either, because the laws could not be any different under any circumstance. Therefore, God didn't create them.
I'm glad we agree that laws of logic are abstract, universal, and invariant. However, I'm having trouble following your reasoning.
Specifically, how do you know the laws could not be any different? Why couldn't God have created them differently?
Secondly, I hold that the laws of logic reflect God's eternal character. He would not create the laws of logic contrary to it. How does the statement that "the laws could not be any different under any circumstance" imply that "God didn't create them."
It smells like a non sequitur, so please clarify.
A lot of theists stop short of suggesting that God would be capable of logically impossible actions. Creating or redefining a mathematical law would be logically impossible.
The laws of logic and mathematics do not change because God does not change. God created these laws and they reflect His character.
There is much hay made about the "can God build a rock so big that He cannot lift it," and "Can God make a square circle." The answer to both of those is no. God cannot do that which isn't in His character. God cannot lie--this doesn't remove His omnipotence. It just clarifies the bounds of omnipotence.
I really like mathematics because it's about the only thing we can know for certain, as it's self-defining rather than being based on evidence and experiments.
How do you know that all the mathematic tests you've performed in the past will be the same in the future? Will 2+2 always equal 4? How do you know for certain?
Mathematics provides certainty, with absolute proof. It requires no faith. Ultimately, everything else does.
What proof do you accept for mathematics? How do you know it is acceptable proof? I assume you believe logic requires faith, because logic isn't mathematics. How can you prove something in Math without using logic?
If there's an absolute logic that is true, then all these others must be wrong - so which one is the true one?
Are you being serious?
Most of those are subsets of the Philosophical Logic of which I speak. This is not a list of eleven mutually exclusive different forms of logic. For example, read how
Others, like Quantum Logic are fields that apply the symbols from formal logic to describe quantum mechanics--this isn't some separate form of logic that philosophers are using in formal debates.
There are a few logical schools of thought that disregard the law of the excluded middle for example, but when you understand why, this isn't to say there are philosophers that hold to different conventions or forms of logic. Fuzzy Logic allows for truth values between 0 and 1--it's used mainly in engineering applications for making decisions about the physical world.
Logicians disagree in some areas--even in defining what logic is. However, the mere fact that our world expects men to be rational and to apply laws of thought to their reasoning, shows that we all believe that there are universal, invariant, abstract laws that exist. We believe them to be universal because we expect the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be !A at the same time) to apply to everyone everywhere when they reason with us. We don't assume the law only applies to Americans or Europeans, for example.
My question to you is this--do you disagree with the classical, philosophical logic that I am referring to? Do you employ a different system of logic in your reasoning?
Are laws of logic merely conventions, agreed upon by men?
If they are merely conventions, do I not have the right to adopt my own conventions, and can I win debates using my own logical system?
If laws of logic are merely conventions, how do we know they won't change in the future?
How is knowledge possible within this worldview?
There were, but they got lost, and anyway they were probably in a language no-one can read anymore.
:)
How do I know that what you're saying is truly Bobism then? It sounds to me like you have to invent a worldview because you are unwilling to defend your own.
I guess I win, then.
If you do, then that rather implies that God could change them or redefine them if He wished. Could you give an example of how a mathematical or logical law might be changed by an omnipotent being?
God is a rational, logical being. He created the laws of logic and holds men accountable to them--even creating man in His image, so that we too are logical, rational beings.
However, God does not change His mind. He doesn't change the laws of logic.
Num 23:19: Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
God does not do that which does not comport with his character. That's why he does not change His mind, nor do laws of logic change. However, if laws of logic were merely conventions agreed upon by men, they are subject to change. You'd find different systems of logic sprouting up all over the world. One debating society might use one set of logical laws, while another might not recognize that set of laws.
Now do you see why rejecting the Christian God results in foolishness?
Psalm 53:1 says:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
When the Bible says "fool" here it isn't engaging in name-calling. Rather, it is pointing out the absolute futility of rejecting the Christian worldview.
Yes, but the Christian Bible says that if you reject it, your reasoning is reduced to foolishness. Which, when you examine the presuppositions of those who reject the Christian God, is as plain as the nose on your face.
Anyone can make claims--you can have some guy walk in off the street and say he's God.
However, saying that rejecting the Christian God will result in the undermining of all human knowledge, morality, dignity, and science--that's extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim.
You see, once you assume laws of logic exist, and you obligate other men to adhere to them--you assume the Christian God exists. Your engaging in debate becomes your own refutation.
I would think that any religion which incorporates the concept of a rational "creator" would qualify, assuming that rationality is dependent on the existence of a creator in the first place (something I do not personally believe).
However, I've examined each of these worldviews and found them internally inconsistent. I could not rationally defend any the other "gods" proffered by other religions. Each of them is either internally inconsistent or undermine human reason and experience. For example, the god of Hinduism, named Bhrahman, is defined as the universal soul of which all things are part. Hinduism teaches that all thinking (maya) is an illusion because it presupposes distinctions between different objects in the universe. Therefore, Hinduism destroys any system of rationality. Other religions such as Daoism and Shintoism speak of impersonal forces ruling the universe without volition or intelligence-these forces are less than humans. Buddhism stresses meditation to empty one's mind of all content in order to drift away from consciousness of this world. Buddha taught that it is meaningless to look for an answer to God's existence. Instead one should follow the "Noble Eight-fold Path" (a strict ethical system) to escape the world and the cycle of reincarnation. When this occurs, one achieves "nirvana." Where does one go when one achieves nirvana? No answer is given-but the classical Buddhist will say the person ceases to exist. No rational answers are given for morals and laws of logic by the Buddhist.
Judaism and one offshoot, Islam, come closest to accounting for the inductive principle and use of laws of logic. However, both are internally inconsistent. For example, the Old Testament speaks of the need for blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins. Jews and Muslims of today no longer sacrifice animals for their forgiveness. It's true that Christians do not either, however we have an answer for that: Jesus Christ is our blood atonement and His sacrifice was complete for us so that we no longer need to offer sacrifices for our sins.
Why wouldn't they be? Rational thought is a definition created by man, and such humanocentric concepts do not require the presence of a supreme being. The world as perceived is the world as is. Man is the measure of all things. I think, therefore I am.
So they should be rational on your authority then? Because you think they should?
A non-Christian universe is not always materialistic. Just ask most native Americans, or most of the Wiccans I know. Or a buddhist monk, for that matter.
I'm aware of that. Plato's Dualism is a more rational worldview than the religion of this age: materialism. At least Plato could account for abstract things like laws of logic and human dignity. But the problem with Dualism (and Plato recognized this) is how the two interacted. He basically said somehow the world of "ideas" begat those into the world of material, and that the material remembered the world of ideas.
"How could this work?" Plato mused. "Well, grant me this one exception!" he replied. He knew he didn't have a good way to marry the world of material to the world of the immaterial.
But at least Plato recognizes that there are abstract non-material laws that govern the material world--even though he couldn't clearly account for them.
The Christian can, however. That's why we expect men to be rational.
Are you a Wiccan, Native American, or Buddhist? If not, those positions aren't available to you.
Men are not obligated to be rational in a Christian universe, either.
Yes, they are. Even though there are a lot of stupid Christians, they are obligated to reason rationally. Rationality reflects God's character.
That's why a "leap of faith" is often required in order to understand or accept commonly believed Christian doctrine.
Everyone must make a leap of faith at some point in their worldview. I can ask you, "how do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?" A
As a believer in the non-fictitious,all-powerful Bob, I share similar beliefs as you.
Oh, on what basis is Bobism founded? Is there a set of Scriptures with an excellent pedigree that I might examine? Is there a historical record of this Bob?
Everything going on in your head could be entirely chemical and biological, and can still be considered thought. There is no violation of physical laws going on when you think.
Ahh, but to the materialist, the physical laws in the end control your thought process do they not? BTW, this is an internal critique of the materialist worldview.
What is your evidence that rationality is anything more than 'whatever people end up thinking and doing'?
Because the materialist cannot account for abstract, non-material laws of logic. They don't exist. They are conventions which can change, as conventions are wont to do. Also, if all our thoughts are governed by physical laws (another thing unaccounted for by atheists).
The very premise of the religion, that man is born in sin because of the acts of the original man and woman, is illogical.
What law of logic does this violate?
If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree, they had no idea it was evil to disobey god.
God told them not to eat of the tree (Gen 2:16-17). They disobeyed. Your straw men is impressive, but a straw man nonetheless.
Your religion is no more rational than any other. Get used to it.
It is the only rational worldview I have found. It can account for laws of logic, morality, human dignity, and the inductive principle. Materialism does not. I ask you, why should men be rational in your worldview? In the Christian worldview, God is a logical being, He created laws of logic and made us in His image. We are to be consistent and abide by these laws. In the Christian worldview, laws of logic exist.
How does the atheist account for laws of logic? How can abstract universal absolutes exist in a world where only matter exists? Why should men be rational in your worldview?
Its proponents begin by asking you to suspend logic and assume an anti-entropic premise.
This is a canard--actually the reverse is true. It is the Christian faith alone that can account for logic, reason, and rationality.
Why should anyone be rational if the Christian God does not exist? Why are men under any obligation to be rational in a materialistic universe?
As a Christian Theist, I believe all men should be rational. I believe people should believe things on good evidence. I think we are under obligation to use our intellectual tools to glorify God, and to learn about this world--we should be consistent. I believe that becasse God requires all men to be rational. I can make sense of the obligation to be rational.
If this world is sound and fury signifying nothing, why must men be rational? Why don't I just live moment by moment and be inconsistent: thinking on thing one time and another thing another time, caring nothing for logic? After all, logic has no place in the material universe--it is an abstract, non-material set of laws. How can laws of logic actually exist in an atheistic universe?
The odd thing about the materialist is this: the materialist who wants to be rational has already departed from his materialism.
If you are a materialist, you have a naturalistic explanation for everything we say and do. What's going on in this gray matter in my cranium is controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. I don't really think, I'm really like a weed that's growing. Weeds don't think, and neither do I, we're all subject to the laws of physics, I'm just at a more complicated/complex level.
If naturalism is true, there's no such thing as rationality, there's just whatever people end up thinking and doing. Why call men to be rational then?
However, the Christian God calls men to be consistent and rational. For the Christian Theist, I can expect all men to be obligated to be rational. Not so for those who reject the Christian God.
After RTFA I have to say I'm impressed with this study. Science for far too long has neglected to roll its sleeves up and get to the nitty-gritty of how biochemical evolution might have occurred. Usually scientists show us a chart of, say, eyeballs, from the primitive light-sensitive patches of worms all the way to the more advanced eyeballs, like the humans. This is usually followed with some vigorous handwaving, capable of producing hurricane-like winds. "Behold! Evolution!" shouted with triumph, but without scientific backing.
Okay, they've shown us the simple to the complex, but there's a lot more to these organs evolving, as Dr. Thornton has tried to demonstrate. I hope he's able to do more work and tackle something a bit tougher, like the eye, or bacterial flagella, or perhaps our immune system. The enzyme cascades in blood clots would be incredibly interesting as well. These are the holy grails of irreducible complexity.
The hormone receptors, while an interesting scientific challenge, are a far cry from the problems presented by the biomechanical processes and machines listed above. Until a study can demonstrate, step-by-step, how the bacterial flagella (and the other IC challenges listed) came into existence without divine intervention, the Irreducible Complexity camp will not cower in defeat.
I don't think you understand what free speech is. It has nothing to do with nipples and getting modded down. My nipples, for example, do not speak, nor am I familiar with any medical literature that talks about nippular vocal abilities.
In addition, being "modded down" does not infringe upon your free speech. If you were taken to jail for your post, then we would have a free speech issue on our hands.
tS
For the lazy among you, I looked up what NILFS stands for:
New Implementation I'd Like to FSck
Two words: mandatory evacuation.
They all knew this was coming. Read an article in National Geographic that predicted all of this. It's downright prophetic.
The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level--more than eight feet below in places--so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.
Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.
Do you place any blame on those who stayed behind? I know for some it is impossible to move (elderly, handicapped), but I'm seeing a crapload of people who look healthy enough to wade through hip deep water. WTF were they doing staying in New Orleans? It was a mandatory evacuation. I'm sorry for the pain these people are going through, but you have to place some blame at their feet, don't you?
BeO is highly toxic by ingestion and inhalation
Not only that, but BeO STINKS! Man, wear some deoderant, is what I say.
tS
It's technically infesable and actually attaching a tracking device to a person, like a tagged animal, would involve so much legal fighting that it would probably end up in the US Supreme court.
You are misinformed. GPS tracking of offenders has been going on for years so it is not "technically infesable."
Companies like iSECURETrac, ADT, and ProTech have been doing it for years.
iSECURETrac has a cool demo (I think, anyway) that shows you what the system can actually do here.
And rather than oppose it, the courts have embraced GPS tracking...the judges welcome an alternative to overcrowding prisons for small-time crooks. And when we must release a sex offender back into society, we have a little something more than the sex offender registry which is not working.
tS
There's assisted GPS and dead reckoning that can help in these situations where GPS is not available or is very weak.
Assisted GPS uses the information from cell towers to help triangulate the position when GPS is not available.
Dead Reckoning, offered by GPS units from U-Blox, features little gyroscopes that can "guess" your location based on the acceleration experienced by the unit.
Besides, a unit in motion when it doesn't have GPS is a violation that is reported to the case officer for some companies, like iSECURETrac. It's called "GPS Blocking". You, as a case officer can tell your client to not use the subway or he's going back to jail--if you think that's an issue. Walk, drive, or take a taxi or bus instead. If the offender violates by having a PTU in motion without GPS*, he is in trouble.
GPS tracking has come a long way and has counters to many perceived flaws.
NOTE: I work for iSECURETrac, a company that specializes in tracking offenders.
* After some dampening to eliminate false positives.
many transmitters are encrypted so you can't just clone an RFID without knowing the proper sequence. The tracking device will record a violation if it sees a repeat broadcast, since it knows the tracking tag will not send out dupes.
Secondly, without the tracking device, your little spree would mean nothing--you'd have to steal the GPS portion (it is a separate unit) of the system.
So after cracking the RF protocol, stealing this guy's GPS device, and then committing your crime without being seen--you still have to return to the house of the guy you stole it from. A lot of work...