Wow, I'm not sure I've read anything so poorly researched and unsubstantiated.
Who is this person "R.G. Price"? What are his/her qualifications? The rest of the website seems to be filled with the same sort of drivel that panders to conspiracy theorists and pseudo-intellectuals alike.
This reminds me of one of my buddy's D&D stories. The DM would track the corpses on the map and would force players to make a skill roll (I forget which one) if they wanted to step over a body. My buddy asked if he could carry a kobold corpse around with him to lay in front of enemy combatants to force them to make a roll. The request was denied, of course.
What I'm wondering, however, is if the situation is such that there are tracts of land that aren't suitable for growing such protein-rich vegetables. The same land, however, may yield grasses and other plants that would make fine rabbit food. The rabbits become a supplement to the protein-deficient diet of the people, because they can convert plant matter that was once non-beneficial to something that is.
I'm not a vegetarian myself, but even this raises questions regarding the efficiency of such an operation.
Is it more efficient to feed these rabbits vegetable matter to be converted to protein (which, according to the article, is what the diet of many N. Koreans is deficient in), or would it be better instead to grow protein-rich plants that can be consumed directly by the people?
If the rabbits can consume grasses and other things that humans are unable to digest efficiently, and convert that into protein, then I suppose it would make sense.
There's already several items regarding this showing up in my mashup, and I wrote about it in my blog, and I talked about it extensively in my podcast, and I updated the wiki....sorry, I can't go on. If I spew any more stupid buzzwords I won't be able to tell if I'm puking or not.
You're right that it would never make it in the U.S., but for the wrong reasons. The real reason is that 1) It discriminates against women, and 2) it discriminates against the handicapped. I remember an article not too long ago about a high-tech public bathroom that cleaned itself every few hours. It was banned in the U.S. because it didn't provide handicapped access, even though it was welcomed by the general public at the time.
For it to succeed in the U.S., it would have to be enclosed to provide walls with hand-rails, and provide a commode with a seat. In effect, it would have to be a complete bathroom.
I really don't see a contradiction. Presupposing the creation of earth by an omnipotent God, I would be more suprised if there *weren't* similar acts of creation all over the universe. If you read popular fiction nowadays though, the prevailing attitude is that an alien landing on earth would somehow "shut up" all the theists. I doubt it would.
Didn't you hear? Microsoft bashing is guaranteed karma, man.
Why would someone need to think of something original when they can just keep recycling the same old jokes over and over?
I'm no MS fanboy myself, considering some of the mistakes they've made in the past. However, I'm disappointed with what passes for humor here sometimes.
That kind of crap annoys me to no end... Someone sets up the conditions for a test such as "fewest lines possible", you give them a working, legitimate answer, and they reject it because it wasn't what they expected.
Something like that happened to me recently, in fact. I figure if they have expectations like that they should state them up front. Otherwise, they should be prepared for anything.
No one has even proven the existance of irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Well, there you go then! Once we have the proper evidence for or against the existence of irreducible complexity, then the real argument may or may not begin:)
Is the book closed on the (non)existence of IC? From what little research I've done in the past few minutes, it seems like no one has been able to provide definitive evidence one way or another.
Nope. Because any explanation that may appear to be non-Intelligent Design would still fit the Intelligent Design criteria. Who are you to say that the Designer did not Design whatever you are looking at to do what you saw in the fashion it did it and so forth?
That doesn't seem to be very scientific reasoning, and doesn't appear to provide any argument against the premise of the author.
Suppose someone said told me that maggots are the result of abiogenesis, because they appear to come from nowhere.
That is a falsifiable statement. In fact, I can provide an alternate explanation (flies depositing eggs) that can be tested very simply.
So, back to the topic: All the scientific community has to do is provide an explanation that can be tested in a repeatable fashion, and *poof* the concept disappears like the idea of Aristotelian abiogenesis. Seems logical enough to me.
And again, I already stated I haven't investigated the matter myself, and this is not an endorsement one way or another. I was hoping someone would provide me the scientific explanation for irreducible complexity.
I've always been intrigued by the idea of "untestable hypotheses".
I can imagine several types of realities where the underlying structure can not be directly tested by mechanisms contained therein.
One example I can think of is a universe that is modeled within a computer system. All interaction occuring within the model occurs at a very high level, and the underlying data structures are hidden from view.
A being within this universe would have absolutely no way of ever knowing that, at the basic level, it was comprised of a series of bits stored in a computing device. All the testing in the world could only dig as deep as what the software would reveal.
This doesn't argue against the idea that there are no testable hypotheses in religion. However, I believe it demonstrates that certain religious ideas, such as faith, can be examined intellectually by establishing a view of the universe that is not limited only to what we can percieve.
Intelligent design? As far as I know, nobody has actually refuted "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.
Since he doesn't make a falsifiable statement, it cannot be "refuted".
Actually, the author's premise is that there is no other more reasonable explanation for irreducible complexity than intelligent design.
That is indeed a falsifiable statement. All someone has to do is provide a better explanation for irreducible complexity in biological systems. While I've not investigated it personally, the original poster seems to indicate that this hasn't happened yet.
Now, if you ask scientists (which pretty much includes anyone with a higher degree in science, but presumably people of intelligence and education), the percentage that believe in Naturalistic Evolution goes up to 55%, with only 5% believing in creationism and 40% in Theistic evolution.
40% of scientists believe in theistic evolution? You mean, there are people with higher degrees in education that believe in a supernatural god? How can that be true when everything I have read indicates that anyone who does is an uneducated bigot with no interest in science?
That tingling sensation must be my presuppositions being challenged.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I'm not sure I've read anything so poorly researched and unsubstantiated.
Who is this person "R.G. Price"? What are his/her qualifications? The rest of the website seems to be filled with the same sort of drivel that panders to conspiracy theorists and pseudo-intellectuals alike.
This reminds me of one of my buddy's D&D stories. The DM would track the corpses on the map and would force players to make a skill roll (I forget which one) if they wanted to step over a body. My buddy asked if he could carry a kobold corpse around with him to lay in front of enemy combatants to force them to make a roll. The request was denied, of course.
What I'm wondering, however, is if the situation is such that there are tracts of land that aren't suitable for growing such protein-rich vegetables. The same land, however, may yield grasses and other plants that would make fine rabbit food. The rabbits become a supplement to the protein-deficient diet of the people, because they can convert plant matter that was once non-beneficial to something that is.
I'm not a vegetarian myself, but even this raises questions regarding the efficiency of such an operation.
Is it more efficient to feed these rabbits vegetable matter to be converted to protein (which, according to the article, is what the diet of many N. Koreans is deficient in), or would it be better instead to grow protein-rich plants that can be consumed directly by the people?
If the rabbits can consume grasses and other things that humans are unable to digest efficiently, and convert that into protein, then I suppose it would make sense.
There's already several items regarding this showing up in my mashup, and I wrote about it in my blog, and I talked about it extensively in my podcast, and I updated the wiki. ...sorry, I can't go on. If I spew any more stupid buzzwords I won't be able to tell if I'm puking or not.
For it to succeed in the U.S., it would have to be enclosed to provide walls with hand-rails, and provide a commode with a seat. In effect, it would have to be a complete bathroom.
Arcade games used that configuration long before the NES came out.
Hannibal Chew: I just do eyes, j'j'... just eyes... just genetic design, just eyes. You Nexus, huh? I design your eyes.
Batty: Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes
I enjoyed today's (semi-relevant) Ctrl+Alt+Del comic
I really don't see a contradiction. Presupposing the creation of earth by an omnipotent God, I would be more suprised if there *weren't* similar acts of creation all over the universe. If you read popular fiction nowadays though, the prevailing attitude is that an alien landing on earth would somehow "shut up" all the theists. I doubt it would.
Yes, I'm picking up your creative signals at this very moment.
I'm getting a mental picture...
It is sort of fuzzy...
Wait... I see it now. I'm picturing myself sitting in front of a computer, with a huge bong in my hand. I feel like everything I say is very profound.
Very cool.
Good to know that the only leg ID had to stand on was the lack of knowledge scientists had about the way bees fly.
Step 1) Discover the way bees fly.
Step 2)
Step 3) ID is dead
Or how about Platinium?
Doh! Pardon me while I commit ritual Sepuku for the sin of not reading TFA. :(
I thought I noticed the handiwork of Akira Toriyama.
I did a little research and he designed the monsters and characters
Not that I haven't been guilty of re-hashing old jokes myself.
Didn't you hear? Microsoft bashing is guaranteed karma, man.
Why would someone need to think of something original when they can just keep recycling the same old jokes over and over?
I'm no MS fanboy myself, considering some of the mistakes they've made in the past. However, I'm disappointed with what passes for humor here sometimes.
That kind of crap annoys me to no end... Someone sets up the conditions for a test such as "fewest lines possible", you give them a working, legitimate answer, and they reject it because it wasn't what they expected.
Something like that happened to me recently, in fact. I figure if they have expectations like that they should state them up front. Otherwise, they should be prepared for anything.
Does that make Rumsfeld brilliant too?
Well, there you go then! Once we have the proper evidence for or against the existence of irreducible complexity, then the real argument may or may not begin
Is the book closed on the (non)existence of IC? From what little research I've done in the past few minutes, it seems like no one has been able to provide definitive evidence one way or another.
That doesn't seem to be very scientific reasoning, and doesn't appear to provide any argument against the premise of the author.
Suppose someone said told me that maggots are the result of abiogenesis, because they appear to come from nowhere.
That is a falsifiable statement. In fact, I can provide an alternate explanation (flies depositing eggs) that can be tested very simply.
So, back to the topic: All the scientific community has to do is provide an explanation that can be tested in a repeatable fashion, and *poof* the concept disappears like the idea of Aristotelian abiogenesis. Seems logical enough to me.
And again, I already stated I haven't investigated the matter myself, and this is not an endorsement one way or another. I was hoping someone would provide me the scientific explanation for irreducible complexity.
I've always been intrigued by the idea of "untestable hypotheses".
I can imagine several types of realities where the underlying structure can not be directly tested by mechanisms contained therein.
One example I can think of is a universe that is modeled within a computer system. All interaction occuring within the model occurs at a very high level, and the underlying data structures are hidden from view.
A being within this universe would have absolutely no way of ever knowing that, at the basic level, it was comprised of a series of bits stored in a computing device. All the testing in the world could only dig as deep as what the software would reveal.
This doesn't argue against the idea that there are no testable hypotheses in religion. However, I believe it demonstrates that certain religious ideas, such as faith, can be examined intellectually by establishing a view of the universe that is not limited only to what we can percieve.
Actually, the author's premise is that there is no other more reasonable explanation for irreducible complexity than intelligent design.
That is indeed a falsifiable statement. All someone has to do is provide a better explanation for irreducible complexity in biological systems. While I've not investigated it personally, the original poster seems to indicate that this hasn't happened yet.
40% of scientists believe in theistic evolution? You mean, there are people with higher degrees in education that believe in a supernatural god? How can that be true when everything I have read indicates that anyone who does is an uneducated bigot with no interest in science?
That tingling sensation must be my presuppositions being challenged.
Your forgot to blame the apathy on religion.
After all, it's important to have something to blame.