Re:For those interested in a modern intro to the m
on
Charles Darwin Online
·
· Score: 1
Don't argue with me, argue with Sister Ann Marie. (Best science teacher I ever had, by the way!)
I would, but I'd ask her to clarify first. For instance, I agree that quite often, Evangelical Protestants are worshiping a Dead Book instead of a Living God....
Re:For those interested in a modern intro to the m
on
Charles Darwin Online
·
· Score: 1
I think the problem with Quantum Mechanics might be the fundamentally statistical nature of it. Think of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, for example, p and x can't both be measured accurately at the same time. And that is not just because our instruments are interfering, but that's a fundamental feature of small scale physics in general.
Actually, it's smaller than that. It's the last phrase in specific- the idea that on a very fundamental level there is statistically unpredictable behavior that will *never* be known, even to God.
Observables that are fundamentally statistical might interfere with the concept of a Free Will...
Oddly enough, it interferes equally well with Predestination AND the concept of a Free Will. It intereferes with the concept of a Free Will because there is no solid rock to stand on, only shifting sands that we will never be able to control. It interferes with the concept of Predestination because it postulates, in effect, a mindless and insane god that is *always* interfereing in the universe on a micro scale.
Re:frames or why I luv Flying Spaghetti Monster
on
Charles Darwin Online
·
· Score: 1
No, he's saying that Intelligent Design isn't a theory, it's a belief pretending to be a theory.
Then so is evolution, since the theoretical aspects of ID and atheistic evolution are identical and inseparable.
That given, most GUI websites aren't designed very intelligently and use Graphically Ugly Interfaces.
That's because they failed to learn the Darwin school of engineering.
Also, as pointed by other/.ers, there ARE a lot of RANDOM natural events : decay of radioactive elements, almost anything that deals with quantum mechanics, etc. all those phenomenons cannot be predicted exactly, even if that scares mister Albert "God doesn't play with dices" Einstein.
An inability to predict is not randomness- it's a limitation of our species at present time. To say otherwise is just arrogance.
Also, don't forget the chaos theory were some seemingly small and simple events may chain and produce after a lot of generation rather unbelievible events.
I see chaos theory as arrogance also; it's just a mathematical model to adjust for what is really merely a limitation of our species.
One flame war in this thread is enough. Don't use the specificity of this field (evolution and the sicence behind it) to excuse complete ignorance in other fields (history of religion and culture) to flame about theologic topics.
(Note: I'm not muslim. I don't have extensive knowledge about Islam, but at least I refrain from trying to make smart comments on a religion that I don't know deeply).
It's all tied together, and is in fact the real central debate of the time. This is a cosmological/theological debate that only touches on evolution in three areas that aren't really central to the theory of evolution at all- the theory of evolution is compatible with two out of three sides, for the reasons you posted above. Luckily, that third side is a very small minority of believers in religions. Unluckily, at present time, that small minority controls suicide bombers in Islam and nuclear weapons in Christianity.
Workers can buy stock. Or they can leave and start their own corporation. Or they can be grateful people who are willing to take risks to create jobs have given them something to do for a living.
I've never met a grateful capitalist yet- they all seem to take a stable economy, national defense, free public schools, and roads for granted. They often work very hard for tax evasion to avoid paying for such things.
If you want to know the truth of Enron, read this.
Oddly enough, I agree with that assessment- but it fails to ask the question why. Why did Enron choose to expand into areas beyond their expertise? The answer is obvious- it is in fact the basic fallacy of the free market, than anybody can own stock and make good business decisions and make money. It's the very CAUSE of free market crashes and collapses, and nobody ever learns the lesson that for every period of economic growth, there is a crash.
1) Corporations do not fund volunteers. The never do. I'm managing a volunteer effort now. Everyone is giving freely of their time. Seniors, students, working single people, married people, parents - very wide strata from every economic level. They just care enough to make it a priority in their lives. I've been managing volunteer efforts since I was in high school at every level - local, state, national. It's jsust people who care who can spend a few nights a week. I can tell you've never gotten off your ass and gotten involved because you can think anything contrary to this.
Volunteer efforts are never enough- they fail due to a lack of available resources. What we need is a constitutional amendment.
2) The test case for RvW is on the ballot in South Dakota (voteyesforlife.com). If it wins in November, it goes to the SCOTUS. Why don't you cut them a check. The state passed the law because the SCOTUS membership had changed.
I have cut them a check- and in my own state I'm a supporter of Measure 43 as well as a volunteer effort. But neither of these would be required if Congress would pass the Right to Life Amendment- it would make all three moot. A suggestion in the original RvW opinion, IIRC, was for RvW to be reversed by Congress rather than the Courts- simply by defining non-citizens as persons.
3) Tax breaks to the productive are what allow people to have jobs. Nowhere has Marxism resulted in anything less than death and starvation. Just look at the satallite imagery of the Koreas. North versus south. All the same - but the North is a death camp. I suppose you think that Marxism wasn't really tried there, but it was with great 'success.'
That's not Marxism, that's a cult of personality- even the Maoists in China don't think the cult of the Kims is communism. Having said that- the real effort is towards pre-Marx communism- see Acts Chapters 4 & 5.
4)I think you have a government job because that is the only kind of job someone with your mindset is suited for. You want someone to 'give' you a job. Let me tell you something. One and a half years ago, I had never made a website in my life. In that time, I have learned some coding, marketed myself, provided a job to an artist, and created enough wealth for me to live very comfortably - and that is just a fraction of what my firm does.
And if your customers knew the truth, they'd just hire somebody in Bangalore to do the same thing. Websites are just a bubble market.
I can't really continue to give you a free education. You can read some Ayn Rand and she will fix you up just fine as long as you have an open mind and givev it a fair try. You tangle with me a lot (and others, too, I think) on slashdot, and you need some help.
I've read Ayn Rand- and now that I know you're just another unthinking Randroid, what you've said makes more sense.
FYI - don't think that government jobs can't be outsourced or eliminated through AI. Working very hard on that now.
Well, Wahsington State is....and actually, the second part is my job here in Oregon. I'm working on the AI to eliminate bureaucracy in Oregon.
There is no "theory of intelligent design" (for valid definitions of theory). There is a faith-based intellectual exercise called "intelligent design", however.
You're incorrect on that one- the theory of intelligent design links cosmology to evolution, and is a direct refutation of a central hypothesis of quantum mechanics.
But far too many see only the surface, and fail to research.
Quantum effects are inherently random (see: the uncertainty principle). Those happen on a small scale (the sort of scale where a single photon breaks appart a single strand of DNA causing a mutation, for example!)
Thus the problem I have with quantum mechanics in general. These events aren't inherently random; limitations of our species prevents us from predicting their outcome. One shouldn't mix up the limitations of one's species and anthromorphisize those limitations onto the universe.
Even if it wasn't quantum randomness, you certainly believe in a certain level of entropy, don't you? Chaos theory? You realize your PC has a fairly good "random number generator" and that people have a hard time predicting the weather.
Once again, unpredictability and randomness are two different things, and the limitations of the human species are not neccessarily the limitations of the universe.
But yeah, if you're supposing that some god is guiding the beems of light that gave my grandfather cancer, I suppose I can't argue with you.
Likely it wasn't the beams of light at all anyway; we now know that cancer isn't directly caused by radiation, but rather that radiation destroys the self-repair functions of DNA and RNA. But no, I'm not saying that God guided that radiation, I'm saying that God set up the laws that determine how that radiation is created and behaves.
Re:For those interested in a modern intro to the m
on
Charles Darwin Online
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Here in the US, I've found that many people call themselves "Christian" rather than any denomination, as they they're the "real" Christians or something. It's very confusing.
Yes, indeed it is- which is why I avoid calling myself a Christian.
Where exactly is this bit in Peter about good works? I'll have to remember that next time I talk to a Christian.
Actuall, Peter was the "Cloud of Witnesses", the Saints. James is the one who said "Not by faith alone are we saved, but by every good work"- a direct refutation of the common Evangelical Protestant doctrine of Sola Fides/Sola Gracias- by faith and grace alone are we saved. I never remember the verse number (I'm about the furtherest thing you can get from a Bible thumper) but a search of any online English bible for the words "Faith Alone" will turn it up.
The statues bit comes from what I've heard many Protestants say about Catholics. They seem to think that Catholics actually worship the statues they have in churches, rather than them being just statues to look at and remind you of certain people like the rest of the sane world.
Part of the problem there is that Catholics have a different meaning of the word "Pray" than other Christians do- we use it in the Old English form of a petition, or even just talking to a beloved but dead family member. It has nothing to do with worship for us.
What's wrong with Quantum Mechanics? It's a little weird, but it has accurately predicted many things and hasn't been superceded by anything else yet. Of course, it breaks down for many cases, just as Einstein's and Newton's theories break down for some cases which is why Physicists have been looking for the "holy grail" of unification theories for quite some time.
The theological problem with Quantum Mechanics is the same problem we have with Islamic Fundamentalists right now- an unpredictable universe. A random event just isn't rational from our understanding of God and the Universe; but there's a way out theologically, simply by redefining the word random to that which human beings cannot predict. A fine line, but the more the philosophy behind science progresses, the closer we get to knowing the mind of God, the more miraculous His creation seems, and the smaller his actual act of creation is.
Really? So you don't accept the randomness of, say, radioactive decay because it contradicts your beliefs?
Actually, it's a bit less than that- I don't accept the randomness of radioactive decay because it's a misnomer that mixes up the limitations of the observer with the limitations of the universe. Just because YOU can't predict something due to limitations of your species does not mean either that it is random or unpredictable for somebody with sufficient knowledge and power.
you ought to notice the difference between the Koran and the Bible, first of all. Secondly, you should reread the 10 commandments: "Do not murder." The Christian God, THE God, is unchanging. Forgive me for going off topic a bit in this, but God is perfect, and doesn't waver from His own laws (hence the need for Christ as atonement). People who follow God, however, aren't perfect themselves, hence the commencement of evil things in the name of God. I will happily debate this with anyone.
For anybody cherry picking their proof texts, there is no difference between the Koran, the Bible, or War and Peace- they're all works sufficiently long enough to find proof texts to prove any point of view if you pull them out of context and ignore the rest.
Thus, I agree, and there's no need for debate. There are many people who follow God or Allah or even Science who pick the data to support their own conclusions, and you can hardly fault God, Allah, or Science for that fallacy.
Re:For those interested in a modern intro to the m
on
Charles Darwin Online
·
· Score: 1
It's all a matter of lifecycle of religious sects- they're just still young enough to believe it's their turn.
So which particular atom will next decay in a pile of uranium isn't random?
No, just unpredictable using our current science. It's the atom that has been struck by a positron from the last atom that decayed. Our inability to track positrons doesn't make the decay random, it just makes us unable to predict the decay. Nothing truly random happens in the universe- it's all as ordered as a computer program.
How about telling me when a particular atom will decay?
I can't, but that's a limitation of my species, not a limitation of the universe- track the positron from a previous decay and you'll have the atom that will decay next. It's important not to confuse your own limitations with the limitations of the universe.
All science is related to the mind of God if it is to be rational at all.
Evolution says nothing about the laws of the universe; that's physics, not biology, and Darwin wasn't involved in that end of things at all.
Exactly my point- the existance (or non existance) of God is a matter of physics, not biology, and only impacts evolution at three points: 1. How mutations happen. 2. Whether mutations are beneficial, harmfull, or neither. 3. The surrounding climate that dictates #2.
True, we could learn to apply the theory. Let us say, we create by genetic engineering some species or strain and set it to work, and use our understanding of evolution to predict its effect on the ecology. But that doesn't make much difference to evolution as an explanation of our origins. If we're reduced to postulating miraculous interventions, we're not doing science.
That depends on the meaning of the word miraculous- most athiests (and other fundamentalist Christians, for let's face facts, atheism in the United State would not exist if it were not for the outlandish and non-rational theologies of fundamentalist Christianity) are using it wrong. God doesn't break his own rules. His interferance in evolution is no more magical than our interferance in the creation of laboratory mice or hatchery fish.
Ah, we've been at cross-purposes. What I understand by 'theistic evolution' is that evolution proceeds naturally, but that God intervenes from time to time to adjust its direction, like an alien with a Monolith, with some ultimate aim in mind. What you have there is something different, which I'd call 'deism': God rigs the universe at the outset, presses the detonator switch for the Big Bang, and then walks away. That's another issue entirely, all about the fine-tuning of universal constants and so forth, and I'd class it as part of cosmology, not evolution. It's something to take up with Einstein, not Darwin.
And Einstein, with his infamous rejection of quantum mechanics, is on my side in that one. But the truth is, it's a mistake to silo scientific thought like that; the laws of physics *do* affect evolution, mutation, and the survival of species. It's all one big cosmological whole.
Oh, and BTW- you can't quite chain a being that exists outside of our space time continum to space and time either; another way to intervene would be to see a nonviable solution and adjust the constants to make the solution viable.
Re:For those interested in a modern intro to the m
on
Charles Darwin Online
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Also, I mentioned Catholics and you call them a small percentage of Christians, but I'd just like to point out to people not aware of this that here in America, Catholics are not considered Christians because they worship statues and believe that good works will get you into heaven. Don't argue with me about the worshipping statues bit either; argue with all the fundamentalists, since that's their position.
I avoid using the word Christian to describe my beliefs for exactly that reason. I've always wondered why the Fundamentalists avoid the Epistle of James and a traditional reading of the Epistles of Peter.....where both good works getting you into heaven (James) and the "cloud of witnesses" those statues represent (Peter) are literally mentioned.
Still, there's a billion Roman Catholics out there, 400 million lesser Catholics, 500 million liturgical Protestants, and only about a hundred million Evangelical Fundamentalists in comparison- and thanks to their reading of Sola Scriptura, they don't hold to a single interpretation of scripture anyway. Very few of them know more than about 30 verses from the Bible, I've found. All the rest of us have no problem with evolution. What we have a slight problem with is Quantum Mechanics- very slight, but it's enough to make atheistic evolution stick in our craw sometimes.
I've read parts of it and while microevolution has been proved, macro-evolution hasn't and that's where my problem comes in. Darwin said that eventually fossils would be found to back him up. It's been over 150 years and still no fossils showing a 'transitional' animal.
I know of at least three common fossils showing transitional animals- lizard/bird, mammal/aquatic mammal, and lizard/mammal. What are you talking about?
I don't even have a problem believing in macro-evolution if they ever come up with real evidence for it.
My problem is belief in random mutation. Specifically with the word RANDOM. I don't believe in a random universe- that's as silly as the random God of Islam to me.
Contrariwise: Darwin's theory made no mention whatever of God, as he felt it unnecessary to postulate the involvement of such an entity. What more do you ask of atheistic evolution?
Absolute proof that the base laws of the universe are random rather than intelligently ordered, of course.
It's evolution happening without the involvement of a god. That's the whole point. If you're going to allow for evolution 'helped over the jumps', in Dawkins' phrase, by some magician, then why bother at all?
Because it's a damned interesting engineering method; one that could prove highly useful in the sciences of Artificial Intelligence, biology, robotics, and maybe best of all, environmental cleanups.
An intellgently guided environment for mutations to live or die in is a highly powerful idea.
Why not have the magician create the universe last Thursday? It's just as scientific.
Oh, that's a different quetion. THAT is the difference between beliving in a rational, dependable God whose thought process can be discerned by science and who never breaks his own law, vs the God of the Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fascists who changes his mind at random and says "Thou shalt not kill" one day and "Blow up the Infidel" the next. A scientist can choose to believe in the first and disbelieve in quantum mechanics, it makes no difference to the science in the macro world. The second is merely a form of insanity. But I'd say the athiest falls into the same insanity by *not* believing in an ordered universe.
"If I were convinced that I needed such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish... I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."
The descent for a theistic evolutionist comes *after* the miraculous additions. Without the miraculous addition, there'd be no life because the Big Bang itself would have collapsed back in under it's own gravity and chaos. The descent Darwin wrote about happened at least 15 billion years later by what we now know- the physical laws that govern it were already in place by then, having been decided during that strange injection of information and energy during the Big Bang. When we figure that out (if we ever can) we will know the face of God that was the original reason for scientific research to begin with.
Re:For those interested in a modern intro to the m
on
Charles Darwin Online
·
· Score: 1
Sadly, since estimates of the opinions/beliefs of the US population usually hit around 40% "young earthers" and 45% "guided by the great spirit in the sky," this may be of interest to only a relatively small segment of the population...
Are you sure about those figures? I would have thought more like 25% "Young Earthers", 50% "guided by the great spirit in the sky", and 25% "I only believe in what I can touch and see". These works would be of interest to anybody in the second two groups- since Darwin's original theory said *NOTHING* about God and except for a very small percentage of Christians in this world, the Bible says nothing factual about the origin of the species.
Are you saying evolved websites are ugly (which to me would seem to be caused by the environment given), or that you don't know the real theory of intelligent design?
Better yet, maybe somebody will actually *read* the theory before attacking it (now if we could only get some theories of theistic evolution and atheistic evolution published online for comparison, since Darwin's version wasn't partial either way).
More to go back where they came from, and live in a traditional, sustainable way for the carrying capacity of the climate and eco system into which the tribe evolved. The problem with this is, of course, that some tribes (Islamics and European Christians, primarily) actually evolved a way of life that is *not* sustainable and requires ever increasing amounts of natural resources to continue. Some native populations also evolved this unsustainable system, but due to natural bariers to migration simply died out instead of violently taking over their neighbors.
In a nutshell, bubbles are unsustainable excessive growth not explained by underlying fundamentals. Kindleberger's historical analysis strongly suggests that excessive speculative credit is usually the best method for creating bubbles. When credit gets loose and easy, credit quality also degrades quickly and it becomes a highly elastic dynamic like a slingshot that snaps back very quickly when it is finally realized that the underlying fundamentals don't provide for the credit environment.
The thing is, I can't find a single period of "Ecconomic Growth" in the United States that doesn't fit this model of a bubble. The entire intent of having a stock market is to make credit loose and easy; over and over again this creates crashes but nobody ever seems to learn the lesson that loose and easy credit is a severe problem that should be permanently banned by law. It should be HARD to invest, HARD to enter a market where you have no expertise, INCREDIBLY HARD to find investors and expand faster than your market share allows.
The Janitor can form a corporation, too - and he can also vote - with his feet.
Yes, but only a COMPETING corporation. A corporation that is a democracy would be one in which all the workers and stockholders have a vote, instead of C-level executives.
Your problem with Ken Lay is more a legal issue than a corporate governance issue.
No, I don't think so. There were legal issues with Ken Lay, but they are outside of the primary problem, which is a C-level executive acting like a dictator and forcing immorality on lower functionaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't argue with me, argue with Sister Ann Marie. (Best science teacher I ever had, by the way!)
I would, but I'd ask her to clarify first. For instance, I agree that quite often, Evangelical Protestants are worshiping a Dead Book instead of a Living God....
I think the problem with Quantum Mechanics might be the fundamentally statistical nature of it. Think of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, for example, p and x can't both be measured accurately at the same time. And that is not just because our instruments are interfering, but that's a fundamental feature of small scale physics in general.
Actually, it's smaller than that. It's the last phrase in specific- the idea that on a very fundamental level there is statistically unpredictable behavior that will *never* be known, even to God.
Observables that are fundamentally statistical might interfere with the concept of a Free Will...
Oddly enough, it interferes equally well with Predestination AND the concept of a Free Will. It intereferes with the concept of a Free Will because there is no solid rock to stand on, only shifting sands that we will never be able to control. It interferes with the concept of Predestination because it postulates, in effect, a mindless and insane god that is *always* interfereing in the universe on a micro scale.
No, he's saying that Intelligent Design isn't a theory, it's a belief pretending to be a theory.
Then so is evolution, since the theoretical aspects of ID and atheistic evolution are identical and inseparable.
That given, most GUI websites aren't designed very intelligently and use Graphically Ugly Interfaces.
That's because they failed to learn the Darwin school of engineering.
Also, as pointed by other /.ers, there ARE a lot of RANDOM natural events : decay of radioactive elements, almost anything that deals with quantum mechanics, etc. all those phenomenons cannot be predicted exactly, even if that scares mister Albert "God doesn't play with dices" Einstein.
An inability to predict is not randomness- it's a limitation of our species at present time. To say otherwise is just arrogance.
Also, don't forget the chaos theory were some seemingly small and simple events may chain and produce after a lot of generation rather unbelievible events.
I see chaos theory as arrogance also; it's just a mathematical model to adjust for what is really merely a limitation of our species.
One flame war in this thread is enough. Don't use the specificity of this field (evolution and the sicence behind it) to excuse complete ignorance in other fields (history of religion and culture) to flame about theologic topics.
(Note: I'm not muslim. I don't have extensive knowledge about Islam, but at least I refrain from trying to make smart comments on a religion that I don't know deeply).
It's all tied together, and is in fact the real central debate of the time. This is a cosmological/theological debate that only touches on evolution in three areas that aren't really central to the theory of evolution at all- the theory of evolution is compatible with two out of three sides, for the reasons you posted above. Luckily, that third side is a very small minority of believers in religions. Unluckily, at present time, that small minority controls suicide bombers in Islam and nuclear weapons in Christianity.
Workers can buy stock. Or they can leave and start their own corporation. Or they can be grateful people who are willing to take risks to create jobs have given them something to do for a living.
I've never met a grateful capitalist yet- they all seem to take a stable economy, national defense, free public schools, and roads for granted. They often work very hard for tax evasion to avoid paying for such things.
If you want to know the truth of Enron, read this.
Oddly enough, I agree with that assessment- but it fails to ask the question why. Why did Enron choose to expand into areas beyond their expertise? The answer is obvious- it is in fact the basic fallacy of the free market, than anybody can own stock and make good business decisions and make money. It's the very CAUSE of free market crashes and collapses, and nobody ever learns the lesson that for every period of economic growth, there is a crash.
1) Corporations do not fund volunteers. The never do. I'm managing a volunteer effort now. Everyone is giving freely of their time. Seniors, students, working single people, married people, parents - very wide strata from every economic level. They just care enough to make it a priority in their lives. I've been managing volunteer efforts since I was in high school at every level - local, state, national. It's jsust people who care who can spend a few nights a week. I can tell you've never gotten off your ass and gotten involved because you can think anything contrary to this.
Volunteer efforts are never enough- they fail due to a lack of available resources. What we need is a constitutional amendment.
2) The test case for RvW is on the ballot in South Dakota (voteyesforlife.com). If it wins in November, it goes to the SCOTUS. Why don't you cut them a check. The state passed the law because the SCOTUS membership had changed.
I have cut them a check- and in my own state I'm a supporter of Measure 43 as well as a volunteer effort. But neither of these would be required if Congress would pass the Right to Life Amendment- it would make all three moot. A suggestion in the original RvW opinion, IIRC, was for RvW to be reversed by Congress rather than the Courts- simply by defining non-citizens as persons.
3) Tax breaks to the productive are what allow people to have jobs. Nowhere has Marxism resulted in anything less than death and starvation. Just look at the satallite imagery of the Koreas. North versus south. All the same - but the North is a death camp. I suppose you think that Marxism wasn't really tried there, but it was with great 'success.'
That's not Marxism, that's a cult of personality- even the Maoists in China don't think the cult of the Kims is communism. Having said that- the real effort is towards pre-Marx communism- see Acts Chapters 4 & 5.
4)I think you have a government job because that is the only kind of job someone with your mindset is suited for. You want someone to 'give' you a job. Let me tell you something. One and a half years ago, I had never made a website in my life. In that time, I have learned some coding, marketed myself, provided a job to an artist, and created enough wealth for me to live very comfortably - and that is just a fraction of what my firm does.
And if your customers knew the truth, they'd just hire somebody in Bangalore to do the same thing. Websites are just a bubble market.
I can't really continue to give you a free education. You can read some Ayn Rand and she will fix you up just fine as long as you have an open mind and givev it a fair try. You tangle with me a lot (and others, too, I think) on slashdot, and you need some help.
I've read Ayn Rand- and now that I know you're just another unthinking Randroid, what you've said makes more sense.
FYI - don't think that government jobs can't be outsourced or eliminated through AI. Working very hard on that now.
Well, Wahsington State is....and actually, the second part is my job here in Oregon. I'm working on the AI to eliminate bureaucracy in Oregon.
There is no "theory of intelligent design" (for valid definitions of theory). There is a faith-based intellectual exercise called "intelligent design", however.
You're incorrect on that one- the theory of intelligent design links cosmology to evolution, and is a direct refutation of a central hypothesis of quantum mechanics.
But far too many see only the surface, and fail to research.
Quantum effects are inherently random (see: the uncertainty principle). Those happen on a small scale (the sort of scale where a single photon breaks appart a single strand of DNA causing a mutation, for example!)
Thus the problem I have with quantum mechanics in general. These events aren't inherently random; limitations of our species prevents us from predicting their outcome. One shouldn't mix up the limitations of one's species and anthromorphisize those limitations onto the universe.
Even if it wasn't quantum randomness, you certainly believe in a certain level of entropy, don't you? Chaos theory? You realize your PC has a fairly good "random number generator" and that people have a hard time predicting the weather.
Once again, unpredictability and randomness are two different things, and the limitations of the human species are not neccessarily the limitations of the universe.
But yeah, if you're supposing that some god is guiding the beems of light that gave my grandfather cancer, I suppose I can't argue with you.
Likely it wasn't the beams of light at all anyway; we now know that cancer isn't directly caused by radiation, but rather that radiation destroys the self-repair functions of DNA and RNA. But no, I'm not saying that God guided that radiation, I'm saying that God set up the laws that determine how that radiation is created and behaves.
Here in the US, I've found that many people call themselves "Christian" rather than any denomination, as they they're the "real" Christians or something. It's very confusing.
Yes, indeed it is- which is why I avoid calling myself a Christian.
Where exactly is this bit in Peter about good works? I'll have to remember that next time I talk to a Christian.
Actuall, Peter was the "Cloud of Witnesses", the Saints. James is the one who said "Not by faith alone are we saved, but by every good work"- a direct refutation of the common Evangelical Protestant doctrine of Sola Fides/Sola Gracias- by faith and grace alone are we saved. I never remember the verse number (I'm about the furtherest thing you can get from a Bible thumper) but a search of any online English bible for the words "Faith Alone" will turn it up.
The statues bit comes from what I've heard many Protestants say about Catholics. They seem to think that Catholics actually worship the statues they have in churches, rather than them being just statues to look at and remind you of certain people like the rest of the sane world.
Part of the problem there is that Catholics have a different meaning of the word "Pray" than other Christians do- we use it in the Old English form of a petition, or even just talking to a beloved but dead family member. It has nothing to do with worship for us.
What's wrong with Quantum Mechanics? It's a little weird, but it has accurately predicted many things and hasn't been superceded by anything else yet. Of course, it breaks down for many cases, just as Einstein's and Newton's theories break down for some cases which is why Physicists have been looking for the "holy grail" of unification theories for quite some time.
The theological problem with Quantum Mechanics is the same problem we have with Islamic Fundamentalists right now- an unpredictable universe. A random event just isn't rational from our understanding of God and the Universe; but there's a way out theologically, simply by redefining the word random to that which human beings cannot predict. A fine line, but the more the philosophy behind science progresses, the closer we get to knowing the mind of God, the more miraculous His creation seems, and the smaller his actual act of creation is.
Really? So you don't accept the randomness of, say, radioactive decay because it contradicts your beliefs?
Actually, it's a bit less than that- I don't accept the randomness of radioactive decay because it's a misnomer that mixes up the limitations of the observer with the limitations of the universe. Just because YOU can't predict something due to limitations of your species does not mean either that it is random or unpredictable for somebody with sufficient knowledge and power.
you ought to notice the difference between the Koran and the Bible, first of all. Secondly, you should reread the 10 commandments: "Do not murder." The Christian God, THE God, is unchanging. Forgive me for going off topic a bit in this, but God is perfect, and doesn't waver from His own laws (hence the need for Christ as atonement). People who follow God, however, aren't perfect themselves, hence the commencement of evil things in the name of God. I will happily debate this with anyone.
For anybody cherry picking their proof texts, there is no difference between the Koran, the Bible, or War and Peace- they're all works sufficiently long enough to find proof texts to prove any point of view if you pull them out of context and ignore the rest.
Thus, I agree, and there's no need for debate. There are many people who follow God or Allah or even Science who pick the data to support their own conclusions, and you can hardly fault God, Allah, or Science for that fallacy.
It's all a matter of lifecycle of religious sects- they're just still young enough to believe it's their turn.
So which particular atom will next decay in a pile of uranium isn't random?
No, just unpredictable using our current science. It's the atom that has been struck by a positron from the last atom that decayed. Our inability to track positrons doesn't make the decay random, it just makes us unable to predict the decay. Nothing truly random happens in the universe- it's all as ordered as a computer program.
How about telling me when a particular atom will decay?
I can't, but that's a limitation of my species, not a limitation of the universe- track the positron from a previous decay and you'll have the atom that will decay next. It's important not to confuse your own limitations with the limitations of the universe.
But that would be atheistic cosmology.
All science is related to the mind of God if it is to be rational at all.
Evolution says nothing about the laws of the universe; that's physics, not biology, and Darwin wasn't involved in that end of things at all.
Exactly my point- the existance (or non existance) of God is a matter of physics, not biology, and only impacts evolution at three points:
1. How mutations happen.
2. Whether mutations are beneficial, harmfull, or neither.
3. The surrounding climate that dictates #2.
True, we could learn to apply the theory. Let us say, we create by genetic engineering some species or strain and set it to work, and use our understanding of evolution to predict its effect on the ecology. But that doesn't make much difference to evolution as an explanation of our origins. If we're reduced to postulating miraculous interventions, we're not doing science.
That depends on the meaning of the word miraculous- most athiests (and other fundamentalist Christians, for let's face facts, atheism in the United State would not exist if it were not for the outlandish and non-rational theologies of fundamentalist Christianity) are using it wrong. God doesn't break his own rules. His interferance in evolution is no more magical than our interferance in the creation of laboratory mice or hatchery fish.
Ah, we've been at cross-purposes. What I understand by 'theistic evolution' is that evolution proceeds naturally, but that God intervenes from time to time to adjust its direction, like an alien with a Monolith, with some ultimate aim in mind. What you have there is something different, which I'd call 'deism': God rigs the universe at the outset, presses the detonator switch for the Big Bang, and then walks away. That's another issue entirely, all about the fine-tuning of universal constants and so forth, and I'd class it as part of cosmology, not evolution. It's something to take up with Einstein, not Darwin.
And Einstein, with his infamous rejection of quantum mechanics, is on my side in that one. But the truth is, it's a mistake to silo scientific thought like that; the laws of physics *do* affect evolution, mutation, and the survival of species. It's all one big cosmological whole.
Oh, and BTW- you can't quite chain a being that exists outside of our space time continum to space and time either; another way to intervene would be to see a nonviable solution and adjust the constants to make the solution viable.
Also, I mentioned Catholics and you call them a small percentage of Christians, but I'd just like to point out to people not aware of this that here in America, Catholics are not considered Christians because they worship statues and believe that good works will get you into heaven. Don't argue with me about the worshipping statues bit either; argue with all the fundamentalists, since that's their position.
I avoid using the word Christian to describe my beliefs for exactly that reason. I've always wondered why the Fundamentalists avoid the Epistle of James and a traditional reading of the Epistles of Peter.....where both good works getting you into heaven (James) and the "cloud of witnesses" those statues represent (Peter) are literally mentioned.
Still, there's a billion Roman Catholics out there, 400 million lesser Catholics, 500 million liturgical Protestants, and only about a hundred million Evangelical Fundamentalists in comparison- and thanks to their reading of Sola Scriptura, they don't hold to a single interpretation of scripture anyway. Very few of them know more than about 30 verses from the Bible, I've found. All the rest of us have no problem with evolution. What we have a slight problem with is Quantum Mechanics- very slight, but it's enough to make atheistic evolution stick in our craw sometimes.
I've read parts of it and while microevolution has been proved, macro-evolution hasn't and that's where my problem comes in. Darwin said that eventually fossils would be found to back him up. It's been over 150 years and still no fossils showing a 'transitional' animal.
I know of at least three common fossils showing transitional animals- lizard/bird, mammal/aquatic mammal, and lizard/mammal. What are you talking about?
I don't even have a problem believing in macro-evolution if they ever come up with real evidence for it.
My problem is belief in random mutation. Specifically with the word RANDOM. I don't believe in a random universe- that's as silly as the random God of Islam to me.
Contrariwise: Darwin's theory made no mention whatever of God, as he felt it unnecessary to postulate the involvement of such an entity. What more do you ask of atheistic evolution?
... I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."
Absolute proof that the base laws of the universe are random rather than intelligently ordered, of course.
It's evolution happening without the involvement of a god. That's the whole point. If you're going to allow for evolution 'helped over the jumps', in Dawkins' phrase, by some magician, then why bother at all?
Because it's a damned interesting engineering method; one that could prove highly useful in the sciences of Artificial Intelligence, biology, robotics, and maybe best of all, environmental cleanups.
An intellgently guided environment for mutations to live or die in is a highly powerful idea.
Why not have the magician create the universe last Thursday? It's just as scientific.
Oh, that's a different quetion. THAT is the difference between beliving in a rational, dependable God whose thought process can be discerned by science and who never breaks his own law, vs the God of the Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fascists who changes his mind at random and says "Thou shalt not kill" one day and "Blow up the Infidel" the next. A scientist can choose to believe in the first and disbelieve in quantum mechanics, it makes no difference to the science in the macro world. The second is merely a form of insanity. But I'd say the athiest falls into the same insanity by *not* believing in an ordered universe.
"If I were convinced that I needed such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish
The descent for a theistic evolutionist comes *after* the miraculous additions. Without the miraculous addition, there'd be no life because the Big Bang itself would have collapsed back in under it's own gravity and chaos. The descent Darwin wrote about happened at least 15 billion years later by what we now know- the physical laws that govern it were already in place by then, having been decided during that strange injection of information and energy during the Big Bang. When we figure that out (if we ever can) we will know the face of God that was the original reason for scientific research to begin with.
Sadly, since estimates of the opinions/beliefs of the US population usually hit around 40% "young earthers" and 45% "guided by the great spirit in the sky," this may be of interest to only a relatively small segment of the population ...
Are you sure about those figures? I would have thought more like 25% "Young Earthers", 50% "guided by the great spirit in the sky", and 25% "I only believe in what I can touch and see". These works would be of interest to anybody in the second two groups- since Darwin's original theory said *NOTHING* about God and except for a very small percentage of Christians in this world, the Bible says nothing factual about the origin of the species.
Too bad his greatest discovery goes largely unnoticed and underused.
Are you saying evolved websites are ugly (which to me would seem to be caused by the environment given), or that you don't know the real theory of intelligent design?
Better yet, maybe somebody will actually *read* the theory before attacking it (now if we could only get some theories of theistic evolution and atheistic evolution published online for comparison, since Darwin's version wasn't partial either way).
Doesn't go far enough, because it's addressing a symptom, not the original problem of easy credit from investors.
More to go back where they came from, and live in a traditional, sustainable way for the carrying capacity of the climate and eco system into which the tribe evolved. The problem with this is, of course, that some tribes (Islamics and European Christians, primarily) actually evolved a way of life that is *not* sustainable and requires ever increasing amounts of natural resources to continue. Some native populations also evolved this unsustainable system, but due to natural bariers to migration simply died out instead of violently taking over their neighbors.
In a nutshell, bubbles are unsustainable excessive growth not explained by underlying fundamentals. Kindleberger's historical analysis strongly suggests that excessive speculative credit is usually the best method for creating bubbles. When credit gets loose and easy, credit quality also degrades quickly and it becomes a highly elastic dynamic like a slingshot that snaps back very quickly when it is finally realized that the underlying fundamentals don't provide for the credit environment.
The thing is, I can't find a single period of "Ecconomic Growth" in the United States that doesn't fit this model of a bubble. The entire intent of having a stock market is to make credit loose and easy; over and over again this creates crashes but nobody ever seems to learn the lesson that loose and easy credit is a severe problem that should be permanently banned by law. It should be HARD to invest, HARD to enter a market where you have no expertise, INCREDIBLY HARD to find investors and expand faster than your market share allows.
The Janitor can form a corporation, too - and he can also vote - with his feet.
Yes, but only a COMPETING corporation. A corporation that is a democracy would be one in which all the workers and stockholders have a vote, instead of C-level executives.
Your problem with Ken Lay is more a legal issue than a corporate governance issue.
No, I don't think so. There were legal issues with Ken Lay, but they are outside of the primary problem, which is a C-level executive acting like a dictator and forcing immorality on lower functionaries.