This seems like a good time to point out that one way of "sparking" evolutionary progression is killing off 95% of a population. Given the likelihood of homo sapiens counting among the "impacted species," I'd have to ask you if you like your odds?
The odds of us going extinct is 100%. The only question is how and when. The odds of some GM food introducing a fatal bit of DNA into the wild and causing our deaths is negligible at best. We are far more likely to kill ourselves simply by continuing our current consumption rates and mining out vital ecosystems.
Others worked on more pressing problems, like preventing catastrophic global warming, trying to avoiding using the remaining oil by fighting over it and making sure we are all fed.
Sure, let's throw astrophysicists at economic problems. That's not inefficient and dumb at all. But, wait, we can head that problem off by forcing anyone who wants to be an astrophysicist to instead study something more practical. It's not like exploring esoteric physics has ever resulted in practical applications and the advancement of human well-being./SARCASM
If they are still not convinced, well they need to go write their own OS where proprietary drivers are okay, because we Linux users don't want them.
Well, thankfully there are people like you around to enforce what objects I'm allowed to install on my own PC./sarcasm
Oh, and I literally just finished installing the latest NVidia driver on a brand new Wheezy machine. If that bothers you, go suck an egg.
The likeliest scenario is probably a diving spider which dragged air bubbles with it on silk. The shape of the silk would alter towards a sphere over time, and the addition of the osmosis was just a happy accident which became incorporated in the adaptations.
Robots don't "evolve". They are clearly programmed (designed) that way. The fact that the designers aren't clever enough to realize the final outcome of their complex programming doesn't change the fact that they were programmed that way.
Unless the new traits came from copying errors or they have a program generator hooked up to/dev/random, this is not "evolution", by any reasonably scientific definition of the term.
There is a whole field of study regarding genetic algorithms. The outcome is certainly not "programmed" by the designer.
And evolution is not random, either. The entire point is that selection processes create a filter, and thus a non-random result.
It took you four days to come up with a response that answers not a single issue? Bravo. You are truly a master of the written word, and your intellect is stunning.
Your evidence depends entirely on how you label species.
Nope. We can determine derivation among related species via a number of methods, including genetic and morphological comparisons. You should educate yourself about things like horizontal gene transfer, which can paint a very rich portrait of decent. For example, in comparing 3 species, if you find that all three species share HGT point X(say, virus DNA which was integrated into the genome), which only 2 share HGT point Y(another viral integration), then you know that the 3 species are related(as they all share the same HGT point X), but that the 2 species with HGT point Y diverged from the common ancestor after the introduction of point X, and are thus more closely related to each other than the third species. I do wish that more Creationists would educate themselves in biology enough to know this trivial stuff, but then, those who have the drive to do that rarely remain Creationists.
Do they have different number of chromosomes?
Some do, some don't. And differing numbers of chromosomes do not always preclude interbreeding.
So do several species that interbreed. Do they interbreed? So do wolves and dogs.
Yes, because one was bred from another. Dogs are not naturally breeding with wolves, thus are considered a different species. In addition, there is a significant amount of genetic difference. It's fairly likely that we humans can interbreed with chimps, though I'm not aware of any attempts to prove or disprove that. Are you going to call us the same species on that basis?
Do they produce sterile offspring? Happens to groups that are considered the same species.
It is not the norm in members of the same species, for the simple reason that species which generally produced sterile offspring will be selected against fairly heavily(competing for resources while not contributing to the gene pool).
So what you're saying is that there's lots of proof that our arbitrary labellings don't quite fit with reality. Great science there buddy.
No, he's just proving that you are not well versed enough in biology or are too brainwashed by mythology to see that your objections are not even coherent in terms of what we know about species. I suggest that you remedy that before attempting this line of argument again.
Whoosh. So what you're saying is, the theory of evolution is so weak in your opinion it can not withstand debate from people who have no facts to support their position. If that's the case, then creationism has already won. Sad.
Are you completely daft? Are you completely ignorant of the evidence in favor of evolution? Creationism lost the debate long ago. Should we waste time in with every other failed explanation for the universe in our classrooms, too? Why not flat earth? Hey, let's bring back Vulcan as an explanation for volcanic activity! And I'm sure that explaining meteorological events using Thor won't be a complete waste of time. Maybe we can start teaching blood letting in medical school again. Teach the controversy, right?
Actually, you do. Period. Like it or not, legitimate or not, creationism is a semi-prevalent belief.
You can make this claim for literally every stupid or disproved theory that mankind has dreamed up.
Ignoring it is hiding and in doing so, you are directly empowering it. Pretending it doesn't exist, only implies you position is so weak and and invalid, you're attempting to hide the truth.
And here is where your reading comprehension apparently fails completely. I don't ignore it. I discuss it with my kids all the time, along with all the other weird bits of religion they run into. Seriously, are you unable to read?
And bluntly, you're ignorance and anger doesn't change anything. Like it or not, creationism is a theory.
No, it's not. Not a scientific theory, at least. It offers no evidence or explanatory power. It makes no testable claims. It's not science. And I will be angry about it as long as yahoos continue to try and get it accepted as such.
Granted, the theory has more or less been completely disproved but a theory it remains.
No shit.
And like it or not, its a theory which children are extremely likely to encounter throughout their life. So if you actually care for the education of your children, you have exactly one choice - and hiding from it isn't one of them.
As I said before, and you completely missed, my kids are exposed to it. Just not in a science class, where it does not belong.
At the end of the day, it absolutely does not matter one bit if YOU believe in it or not. It matters that other people believe in it and that your children may be influenced by it BECAUSE of the fact you hide from reality. Do your child justice and provide a well rounded education - not half an education from within a Kleenex box.
I've changed my mind. You are right. Tomorrow, I will demand that the science class teach Greek mythology instead of physics. And the week after, Norse mythology instead of geology. Maybe we can throw out chemistry and concentrate on some of the Native American mythologies after that. Why not? If we follow your suggestion, we're just cramming bullshit into the classroom anyway.
Kids are pretty smart about figuring things out so long as they have all the facts and its presented in a method and level relevant to their age and comprehension abilities.
This is the crux of your argument, and the point at which it fails. Creationism is not fact. It is not supported by facts. It is a lie. There are any number of lies(call them creation myths if you want) one could add to my child's science education. And none of them should, because science education is about teaching facts and the process for finding facts, not some superstitious nonsense that the teacher would like them to believe.
Ultimately, by attempting to hide creationism from them, you're actually making it more appealing (like drugs) and creating an environment where they are less likely to openly discuss their views and understanding of the subject matter.
I don't "hide" Creationism. As I pointed out in another reply, we dissect these weird beliefs regularly. The fact that they know about Creationism doesn't bother me at all. It's the fact that it is taught as science, when it is clearly religion, that pisses me off.
you would think that we could find one species somewhere that is a direct ancestor of another.
We can and do, where we can prove a complete relationship. Primarily bacteria, in this case.
But we are primarily talking about fossils here. We have to have definitive proof that species X was the direct ancestor of species Y to make that claim. We can use a variety of methods(DNA, and morphology, for example) to determine that species are in a familial lineage, but that's not proof of direct ancestry. So, this being science and not applied mythology, we can only state that these two species are part of an ancestral line.
Finally, you apparently don't understand that species evolve as groups, and that there is no clean break between any two species as they diverge. It's not like species X will suddenly start giving birth to species Y. And by the time reproductive isolation has brought about complete speciation, there may have been dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of subspecies which developed in this lineage. Coming millions of years later, which one will you arbitrarily pick as the definitive ancestor? The fact that you don't see the problem with your question betrays a deep misunderstanding of how the process of evolution works.
So you don't provide any guidance in the education of your children? You let the schools do it all yourself? You can't logically educate your child regarding your own beliefs and let them decide which way they want to go?
I do. I also choose not to have my children lied to in school, which makes educating them a lot harder.
I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.
Then you reject the biology you claimed to have studied, and for what? A handful of Bronze age myths that you find more compelling than empirical evidence? I guess congratulations are in order, if you find that to be laudable enough to admit in public.
My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs. I won't force either point of view on them - at some point they will make up their own mind. But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views.
Are you also going to educate them in every other creation myth from every other religion? My kids know about Creationism. We dissect that oddball assertion on a regular basis, as they have a lot of school friends who spout off the popular rhetoric of the churches they attend. But it's mythology, and doesn't belong in a science class. Nor does it rank anywhere near the level of science.
I don't think, or claim, that Evolutionists are "idiots" - I don't need to resort to name calling to try and discount the other point of view.
Should I award you a medal? You apparently don't understand the difference between groundless assertions and methodical research. Here's a hint: when a person chooses to reject the latter in favor of the former, they are an idiot. And it doesn't matter if we are talking about Creationism, conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine beliefs or the coming of Xenu. If you choose bullshit over knowledge, don't expect to be respected by the rest of us.
Having a child taught something at school is not "through the backdoor" - you're aware of it, you are ultimately responsible for your child - so don't blame their school for your inability to argue your point of view.
The backdoor is the attempt to teach Creationism as science. Let me make this totally clear for you: CREATIONISM IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE. I don't care one whit if you teach it in comparative religion class. I don't care if your pastor spouts off about it while you sit in a pew. You are free to believe any whacked out crap that you want, but KEEP IT OUT OF THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM!
Yes, it matters. It matters in medicine. It matters in education. It matters in public policy. It matters in understanding the fundamental underpinnings of the human race. It matters in knowing who the fuck you are and where you came from.
If you want to bury your head in the sand and shrug your shoulders at systemic ignorance, by all means, fuck off and have a nice day. You can take your mealy mouthed acceptance of the fundamental rejection of human knowledge and take a flying leap. The rest of us will stand up for the truth even if you won't.
How many kids do you have, and how many school districts are they attending, exactly? Aside from your entire argument, that was a great argument.
As a parent of two kids in public school in Kansas, yes, I am concerned. I could also point you to several other states, Tennessee being the most recent that I know of, who are attempting to pass laws to let Creationism in through the backdoor. The Creationist movement is quite active, and if we don't stand up to these idiots, they will happily eviscerate public school science education.
Answer is yes.
Multiple ascents with shallow dives can and do cause decompression sickness.
Is it possible? Certainly. But not using a computer is not the same as not planning a dive. I just calculate the dive at the max depth for that area, and go. A single 80cf tank at the depths we're talking about will run dry long before you hit anything close to a limit(around 30-40 minutes in my case), and I normally dive steel 72s,which are even smaller. I probably absorb more nitrogen doing my equipment checks in the local pool than I do at the lake(I rebuild my own gear, and my preferred gear is double hose regulators which were made long before I was born, FWIW).
Here's a question for the divers here: do you need special decompression routines if you dive at five meters for long periods?
No. That's the normal depth for doing a safety stop, so why bother? You'd usually run out of air long before you'd hit any nitrogen limits. I sometimes do a minimalist style of diving in the local lakes which involves hitting 10-15 meters while swimming up and down in the water column(chasing fish along cliffs, for what it's worth). I don't even bother with a computer for those.
But to claim that religion's basic dogma are "basic human societal norms" is false.
People are social animals who tend to organize themselves in similar ways. All of our societies and cultures are built upon that bedrock of biological cooperation. Religion does not generate ethics. It builds upon what is already present. And it is present because of the nature of human interactions. That's why you find low level similarities. The fact that you can point out good elements of a religion in no way supports the overall value or truth of that religion. And it certainly doesn't excuse the irrational flights of fancy that they tend to engage in.
Quite a bit of basic dogma does make sense. Don't kill, don't steal, etc.
Basic human societal norms, not unique to Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. It's all the other odious bits with which non-Christians have a problem.
Judging by the commentary Ive read so far, GP is starting to sound pretty spot-on. It'd be like seeing commentary on Boson Higgs by folks whose entire knowledge of the subject came from the Discovery Channel, friendly bar discussions, and partial exposure to the subject while researching something else.:/
You are right. It takes an ex-Catholic to truly understand how deeply irrational and fucked up the Catholic church and it's twisted theology really is. You read enough encyclicals, pay money to go to conferences with the likes of Keating and Hahn, watch EWTN daily, engage in endless apologetic debates with all takers, and eventually you have a truly rich understanding of Catholicism. And if, by some chance, you wake up and crawl out of that sewer, you'll never make the mistake of falling for that level of bullshit again. And you'll find pleasure in taking apart those same arguments, as you know how they've been constructed, and the historical house of cards that they rest upon.
Don't get your opinion of and/or information about religion on Slashdot. Slashdotters, as a general rule, are woefully ignorant of relgion.
Amen to that. I have no clue what "relgion" is.
Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible. In fact, if they do it the way that the Church recommends, they do more of it and in a more educated and studious manner than anyone else.
Just because it's similar doesn't mean that it's good. God isn't ambiguous, nor should He be. Why would God leave the scriptures into every man's personal interpretation? Why would He want His followers to be unsure of what is right or wrong? The Bible as a whole is confusing and can be misinterpreted in many, many ways. I'd trust the Church that organized the New Testament in the first place that directly descends from the original Church Fathers over some preacher below the bible belt that says that he is right and that the other thousands of Protestant denominations are wrong.
Yeah, and the Eastern Orthodox claim that your clan broke with them and are the heretics. Everyone claims that only they are favored with their deity's gift of divination. Everyone's personal witch doctors have real mojo, unlike all of those other pretenders.
And why shouldn't they? Faith is not software; you can't change it however you like and expect it to be okay. God doesn't mold himself to fit what you want Him to be. You fit yourself to what God is! Any Church that didn't tell me what to believe and why is no Church at all and I wouldn't trust them with my life.
You are an idiot for trusting them in the first place. Everything you mentioned is more parsimoniously explained as a series of parasitic human institutions fighting over and modifying human-written dogma and scripture as they attempt to adapt to the ever changing societies that they leech from. Quit your servile sniveling, grow a spine and get off your knees.
So the "religion" is named as it is to troll members of a different religion that they don't believe in any way.
I don't think trolling counts as a "religion".
I'm glad we have someone like you around to clear up exactly what everyone else gets to claim as a religion.
Quite correct. And to be more correct, she probably got into that "religion" because it offended Mom and Dad who didn't understand her any way. She was raised kind-of-Christian and when she went through her rebel phase she started hanging out with the group who claimed to be following the most famous rebel bad-boy that she had heard of. Even though their "religion" is whatever they saw in the movies or on this really cool TV show where the cute witch-girl was wearing this really awesome black lace outfit and...
Yeah, you get the idea.
Wow, not only do you get to be the Religion Police, you even get to paint caricatures of those who hold beliefs that don't meet with your strict "True Religion" criteria!
Fine, I'll simplify it / dumb it down: if an author has free will when writing a story, does your reading that story negate the author's will, simply because you're reading a fixed narrative? I submit that it doesn't.
No shit. Where your argument turns into a trainwreck is that, in this context, you are NOT an external reader, but rather a character in the narrative. And, as such, you have no free will. Your choices were dictated by the author. Try a more coherent example next time.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems like a good time to point out that one way of "sparking" evolutionary progression is killing off 95% of a population. Given the likelihood of homo sapiens counting among the "impacted species," I'd have to ask you if you like your odds?
The odds of us going extinct is 100%. The only question is how and when. The odds of some GM food introducing a fatal bit of DNA into the wild and causing our deaths is negligible at best. We are far more likely to kill ourselves simply by continuing our current consumption rates and mining out vital ecosystems.
Others worked on more pressing problems, like preventing catastrophic global warming, trying to avoiding using the remaining oil by fighting over it and making sure we are all fed.
Sure, let's throw astrophysicists at economic problems. That's not inefficient and dumb at all. But, wait, we can head that problem off by forcing anyone who wants to be an astrophysicist to instead study something more practical. It's not like exploring esoteric physics has ever resulted in practical applications and the advancement of human well-being. /SARCASM
If they are still not convinced, well they need to go write their own OS where proprietary drivers are okay, because we Linux users don't want them.
Well, thankfully there are people like you around to enforce what objects I'm allowed to install on my own PC. /sarcasm
Oh, and I literally just finished installing the latest NVidia driver on a brand new Wheezy machine. If that bothers you, go suck an egg.
The likeliest scenario is probably a diving spider which dragged air bubbles with it on silk. The shape of the silk would alter towards a sphere over time, and the addition of the osmosis was just a happy accident which became incorporated in the adaptations.
Um, no.
Robots don't "evolve". They are clearly programmed (designed) that way. The fact that the designers aren't clever enough to realize the final outcome of their complex programming doesn't change the fact that they were programmed that way.
Unless the new traits came from copying errors or they have a program generator hooked up to /dev/random, this is not "evolution", by any reasonably scientific definition of the term.
There is a whole field of study regarding genetic algorithms. The outcome is certainly not "programmed" by the designer.
And evolution is not random, either. The entire point is that selection processes create a filter, and thus a non-random result.
It took you four days to come up with a response that answers not a single issue? Bravo. You are truly a master of the written word, and your intellect is stunning.
Your evidence depends entirely on how you label species.
Nope. We can determine derivation among related species via a number of methods, including genetic and morphological comparisons. You should educate yourself about things like horizontal gene transfer, which can paint a very rich portrait of decent. For example, in comparing 3 species, if you find that all three species share HGT point X(say, virus DNA which was integrated into the genome), which only 2 share HGT point Y(another viral integration), then you know that the 3 species are related(as they all share the same HGT point X), but that the 2 species with HGT point Y diverged from the common ancestor after the introduction of point X, and are thus more closely related to each other than the third species. I do wish that more Creationists would educate themselves in biology enough to know this trivial stuff, but then, those who have the drive to do that rarely remain Creationists.
Do they have different number of chromosomes?
Some do, some don't. And differing numbers of chromosomes do not always preclude interbreeding.
So do several species that interbreed. Do they interbreed? So do wolves and dogs.
Yes, because one was bred from another. Dogs are not naturally breeding with wolves, thus are considered a different species. In addition, there is a significant amount of genetic difference. It's fairly likely that we humans can interbreed with chimps, though I'm not aware of any attempts to prove or disprove that. Are you going to call us the same species on that basis?
Do they produce sterile offspring? Happens to groups that are considered the same species.
It is not the norm in members of the same species, for the simple reason that species which generally produced sterile offspring will be selected against fairly heavily(competing for resources while not contributing to the gene pool).
So what you're saying is that there's lots of proof that our arbitrary labellings don't quite fit with reality. Great science there buddy.
No, he's just proving that you are not well versed enough in biology or are too brainwashed by mythology to see that your objections are not even coherent in terms of what we know about species. I suggest that you remedy that before attempting this line of argument again.
Whoosh. So what you're saying is, the theory of evolution is so weak in your opinion it can not withstand debate from people who have no facts to support their position. If that's the case, then creationism has already won. Sad.
Are you completely daft? Are you completely ignorant of the evidence in favor of evolution? Creationism lost the debate long ago. Should we waste time in with every other failed explanation for the universe in our classrooms, too? Why not flat earth? Hey, let's bring back Vulcan as an explanation for volcanic activity! And I'm sure that explaining meteorological events using Thor won't be a complete waste of time. Maybe we can start teaching blood letting in medical school again. Teach the controversy, right?
Actually, you do. Period. Like it or not, legitimate or not, creationism is a semi-prevalent belief.
You can make this claim for literally every stupid or disproved theory that mankind has dreamed up.
Ignoring it is hiding and in doing so, you are directly empowering it. Pretending it doesn't exist, only implies you position is so weak and and invalid, you're attempting to hide the truth.
And here is where your reading comprehension apparently fails completely. I don't ignore it. I discuss it with my kids all the time, along with all the other weird bits of religion they run into. Seriously, are you unable to read?
And bluntly, you're ignorance and anger doesn't change anything. Like it or not, creationism is a theory.
No, it's not. Not a scientific theory, at least. It offers no evidence or explanatory power. It makes no testable claims. It's not science. And I will be angry about it as long as yahoos continue to try and get it accepted as such.
Granted, the theory has more or less been completely disproved but a theory it remains.
No shit.
And like it or not, its a theory which children are extremely likely to encounter throughout their life. So if you actually care for the education of your children, you have exactly one choice - and hiding from it isn't one of them.
As I said before, and you completely missed, my kids are exposed to it. Just not in a science class, where it does not belong.
At the end of the day, it absolutely does not matter one bit if YOU believe in it or not. It matters that other people believe in it and that your children may be influenced by it BECAUSE of the fact you hide from reality. Do your child justice and provide a well rounded education - not half an education from within a Kleenex box.
I've changed my mind. You are right. Tomorrow, I will demand that the science class teach Greek mythology instead of physics. And the week after, Norse mythology instead of geology. Maybe we can throw out chemistry and concentrate on some of the Native American mythologies after that. Why not? If we follow your suggestion, we're just cramming bullshit into the classroom anyway.
Kids are pretty smart about figuring things out so long as they have all the facts and its presented in a method and level relevant to their age and comprehension abilities.
This is the crux of your argument, and the point at which it fails. Creationism is not fact. It is not supported by facts. It is a lie. There are any number of lies(call them creation myths if you want) one could add to my child's science education. And none of them should, because science education is about teaching facts and the process for finding facts, not some superstitious nonsense that the teacher would like them to believe.
Ultimately, by attempting to hide creationism from them, you're actually making it more appealing (like drugs) and creating an environment where they are less likely to openly discuss their views and understanding of the subject matter.
I don't "hide" Creationism. As I pointed out in another reply, we dissect these weird beliefs regularly. The fact that they know about Creationism doesn't bother me at all. It's the fact that it is taught as science, when it is clearly religion, that pisses me off.
you would think that we could find one species somewhere that is a direct ancestor of another.
We can and do, where we can prove a complete relationship. Primarily bacteria, in this case.
But we are primarily talking about fossils here. We have to have definitive proof that species X was the direct ancestor of species Y to make that claim. We can use a variety of methods(DNA, and morphology, for example) to determine that species are in a familial lineage, but that's not proof of direct ancestry. So, this being science and not applied mythology, we can only state that these two species are part of an ancestral line.
Finally, you apparently don't understand that species evolve as groups, and that there is no clean break between any two species as they diverge. It's not like species X will suddenly start giving birth to species Y. And by the time reproductive isolation has brought about complete speciation, there may have been dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of subspecies which developed in this lineage. Coming millions of years later, which one will you arbitrarily pick as the definitive ancestor? The fact that you don't see the problem with your question betrays a deep misunderstanding of how the process of evolution works.
So you don't provide any guidance in the education of your children? You let the schools do it all yourself? You can't logically educate your child regarding your own beliefs and let them decide which way they want to go?
I do. I also choose not to have my children lied to in school, which makes educating them a lot harder.
I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.
Then you reject the biology you claimed to have studied, and for what? A handful of Bronze age myths that you find more compelling than empirical evidence? I guess congratulations are in order, if you find that to be laudable enough to admit in public.
My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs. I won't force either point of view on them - at some point they will make up their own mind. But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views.
Are you also going to educate them in every other creation myth from every other religion? My kids know about Creationism. We dissect that oddball assertion on a regular basis, as they have a lot of school friends who spout off the popular rhetoric of the churches they attend. But it's mythology, and doesn't belong in a science class. Nor does it rank anywhere near the level of science.
I don't think, or claim, that Evolutionists are "idiots" - I don't need to resort to name calling to try and discount the other point of view.
Should I award you a medal? You apparently don't understand the difference between groundless assertions and methodical research. Here's a hint: when a person chooses to reject the latter in favor of the former, they are an idiot. And it doesn't matter if we are talking about Creationism, conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine beliefs or the coming of Xenu. If you choose bullshit over knowledge, don't expect to be respected by the rest of us.
Having a child taught something at school is not "through the backdoor" - you're aware of it, you are ultimately responsible for your child - so don't blame their school for your inability to argue your point of view.
The backdoor is the attempt to teach Creationism as science. Let me make this totally clear for you: CREATIONISM IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE. I don't care one whit if you teach it in comparative religion class. I don't care if your pastor spouts off about it while you sit in a pew. You are free to believe any whacked out crap that you want, but KEEP IT OUT OF THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM!
If you want to bury your head in the sand and shrug your shoulders at systemic ignorance, by all means, fuck off and have a nice day. You can take your mealy mouthed acceptance of the fundamental rejection of human knowledge and take a flying leap. The rest of us will stand up for the truth even if you won't.
How many kids do you have, and how many school districts are they attending, exactly? Aside from your entire argument, that was a great argument.
As a parent of two kids in public school in Kansas, yes, I am concerned. I could also point you to several other states, Tennessee being the most recent that I know of, who are attempting to pass laws to let Creationism in through the backdoor. The Creationist movement is quite active, and if we don't stand up to these idiots, they will happily eviscerate public school science education.
Answer is yes. Multiple ascents with shallow dives can and do cause decompression sickness.
Is it possible? Certainly. But not using a computer is not the same as not planning a dive. I just calculate the dive at the max depth for that area, and go. A single 80cf tank at the depths we're talking about will run dry long before you hit anything close to a limit(around 30-40 minutes in my case), and I normally dive steel 72s,which are even smaller. I probably absorb more nitrogen doing my equipment checks in the local pool than I do at the lake(I rebuild my own gear, and my preferred gear is double hose regulators which were made long before I was born, FWIW).
Here's a question for the divers here: do you need special decompression routines if you dive at five meters for long periods?
No. That's the normal depth for doing a safety stop, so why bother? You'd usually run out of air long before you'd hit any nitrogen limits. I sometimes do a minimalist style of diving in the local lakes which involves hitting 10-15 meters while swimming up and down in the water column(chasing fish along cliffs, for what it's worth). I don't even bother with a computer for those.
Why the hell is the parent post not rated +5 Informative?
I'm not the original author, but you can see some of the arguments flat-earthers used here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
But to claim that religion's basic dogma are "basic human societal norms" is false.
People are social animals who tend to organize themselves in similar ways. All of our societies and cultures are built upon that bedrock of biological cooperation. Religion does not generate ethics. It builds upon what is already present. And it is present because of the nature of human interactions. That's why you find low level similarities. The fact that you can point out good elements of a religion in no way supports the overall value or truth of that religion. And it certainly doesn't excuse the irrational flights of fancy that they tend to engage in.
Quite a bit of basic dogma does make sense. Don't kill, don't steal, etc.
Basic human societal norms, not unique to Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. It's all the other odious bits with which non-Christians have a problem.
Judging by the commentary Ive read so far, GP is starting to sound pretty spot-on. It'd be like seeing commentary on Boson Higgs by folks whose entire knowledge of the subject came from the Discovery Channel, friendly bar discussions, and partial exposure to the subject while researching something else. :/
You are right. It takes an ex-Catholic to truly understand how deeply irrational and fucked up the Catholic church and it's twisted theology really is. You read enough encyclicals, pay money to go to conferences with the likes of Keating and Hahn, watch EWTN daily, engage in endless apologetic debates with all takers, and eventually you have a truly rich understanding of Catholicism. And if, by some chance, you wake up and crawl out of that sewer, you'll never make the mistake of falling for that level of bullshit again. And you'll find pleasure in taking apart those same arguments, as you know how they've been constructed, and the historical house of cards that they rest upon.
Don't get your opinion of and/or information about religion on Slashdot. Slashdotters, as a general rule, are woefully ignorant of relgion.
Amen to that. I have no clue what "relgion" is.
Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible. In fact, if they do it the way that the Church recommends, they do more of it and in a more educated and studious manner than anyone else.
GIGO.
Just because it's similar doesn't mean that it's good. God isn't ambiguous, nor should He be. Why would God leave the scriptures into every man's personal interpretation? Why would He want His followers to be unsure of what is right or wrong? The Bible as a whole is confusing and can be misinterpreted in many, many ways. I'd trust the Church that organized the New Testament in the first place that directly descends from the original Church Fathers over some preacher below the bible belt that says that he is right and that the other thousands of Protestant denominations are wrong.
Yeah, and the Eastern Orthodox claim that your clan broke with them and are the heretics. Everyone claims that only they are favored with their deity's gift of divination. Everyone's personal witch doctors have real mojo, unlike all of those other pretenders.
And why shouldn't they? Faith is not software; you can't change it however you like and expect it to be okay. God doesn't mold himself to fit what you want Him to be. You fit yourself to what God is! Any Church that didn't tell me what to believe and why is no Church at all and I wouldn't trust them with my life.
You are an idiot for trusting them in the first place. Everything you mentioned is more parsimoniously explained as a series of parasitic human institutions fighting over and modifying human-written dogma and scripture as they attempt to adapt to the ever changing societies that they leech from. Quit your servile sniveling, grow a spine and get off your knees.
So the "religion" is named as it is to troll members of a different religion that they don't believe in any way.
I don't think trolling counts as a "religion".
I'm glad we have someone like you around to clear up exactly what everyone else gets to claim as a religion.
Quite correct. And to be more correct, she probably got into that "religion" because it offended Mom and Dad who didn't understand her any way. She was raised kind-of-Christian and when she went through her rebel phase she started hanging out with the group who claimed to be following the most famous rebel bad-boy that she had heard of. Even though their "religion" is whatever they saw in the movies or on this really cool TV show where the cute witch-girl was wearing this really awesome black lace outfit and ...
Yeah, you get the idea.
Wow, not only do you get to be the Religion Police, you even get to paint caricatures of those who hold beliefs that don't meet with your strict "True Religion" criteria!
Fine, I'll simplify it / dumb it down: if an author has free will when writing a story, does your reading that story negate the author's will, simply because you're reading a fixed narrative? I submit that it doesn't.
No shit. Where your argument turns into a trainwreck is that, in this context, you are NOT an external reader, but rather a character in the narrative. And, as such, you have no free will. Your choices were dictated by the author. Try a more coherent example next time.