Teaching children GNU/Linux and other free software exclusively will merely limit their employment opportunities.
If you listen to all the Microsoft hype about how unix/linux administrators cost companies more money, then not teaching children GNU/Linux and other free software will limit their employment opportunities!
It's true that by switching to FOSS now, they won't save anything, today. They've already paid for the proprietary software. The real savings comes in the next year or two when they don't have to pay for new software to stay on the proprietary upgrade path and they won't have to pay for new hardware to meet the demands of the new software.
It sounds like these government schools are being a little short-sighted in their reasoning.
This is really just supply and demand with a high fixed cost. NYTs knows very few are going to pay $2.95 for an article. But, they have to host all the articles, just in case. Therefore, they have to have the infrastructure to support the outside chance it will be used. That drives the high price.
Of course another economic model with supply and demand, would be to use a low price to spread the fixed costs out over a larger base. Unfortunately, that method, while better in the long run, has a longer ROI.
How do you figure? If neuron's act as I describe, then there is no room for free will because in theory neuron's work just as mechanically as logic gates in a computer. In a AND gate, if two inputs are recieved, an output is triggered. Likewise in a neuron, if N inputs are recieved (where N is that particular neuron's threshold) then an output is triggered. In order to have free will, you need neurons to be triggered (and hence thoughts though) by something other then the automatic stimulation by other neurons.
Using (if a then b) and (if b then c) then (if a then c): For a neuron to work like a logic gate in a computer, something has to trigger the inputs. That trigger is the cause and the effect is the neuron firing. The neuron firing then is the cause and the effect being free will. So the trigger to neuron is the cause and the effect is free will.
The real question is what triggers the inputs. Most likely, other neurons, but then we keep tracing it further and further back and either we end up with some kind of cycle routine (assuming we remove the external inputs of the sensory system) or we have to admit that we just don't know.
Regardless, extrapolating back, whatever causes that first neuron to fire witch triggers the cascade firing of all the others is the cause. Whether that cause if from God, or a stray gamma ray, doesn't matter, it is a cause which leads ultimately to the effect of free will.
Even your last statement: In order to have fre will, you need neurons to be triggered... shows a cause and effect. Unless what you are really suggesting is that we don't have free will and everything is pre-destined on how we will act/react. But then, that leads to the question of how did it/we get that way. And, however we did, again God or a stray gamma ray, that becomes the cause and the pre-destination is the effect.
Under both scenarios free will and pre-destination, there is a cause. So, to use either to suggest that the universe could exist without cause introduces an error in your logic. We know that the universe exists and we know that something caused it to exist. We don't neccesarily know what that something is, though. People can argue till the end of time whether that something is God or not (and they probably will), but that doesn't change that something "caused" the universe come into existance.
Thanks for the explanation, but it still isn't logical. If free will works as you describe, then it is still dependent on the neuron's acting as you describe, therefore free will is still part of the cause (neuron firing) and effect (choice made).
If the universe happening without cause is based on free will happening without cause but, it really does have a cause (the neuron firing), then the argument fails.
No, you stated that universe can exist without cause because of free will. Well, if it requires free will for the universe to exist without cause, then the existance of free will is the cause. Now, free will by itself cannot exist. Because it implies by it's very nature that it is the will of something else (free or otherwise). Therefore, if the universe existing is dependent on free will and free will is dependent on this other entity that can exercise that free will then it stands to reason that the universe is dependant on that other entity.
It doesn't matter what caused the excercise of the free will, that fact that it was exercised is the cause to the effect you are talking about.
If you want to say that the denial of religious truths is a religious truth, knock yourself out. That doesn't make it a religion.
Nor does saying something isn't a religion make it not one. Kind of like saying there isn't a God make God diappear.
You are correct though, Atheism isn't a religion in the traditional sense, it's just a set of religious beliefs about the nature of a deity.
You can deny the relgious beliefs are what atheism is about, but then you would have a hard time discussin what even atheists themselves refer to as weak atheism (lack of belief in gods) and strong atheism (gods do not exist).
Face it, if you want to profess that there isn't any God, that's fine, and is your choice, but it is still a faith statement and faith statements are religious statements and religous statements organized into formal positions are (are you ready?) religion!
So, I guess I was wrong above when I said you were right that atheism isn't a religion, it is. Too, bad.
To use your reasoning of a soul having a meta-soul, how about your body? Shouldn't it have a meta-body inside it? And shouldn't that meta-body have a meta-meta-body, etc., etc.
I think that you must misunderstand Occam's Razor to postulate what you have.
If you do postulate that the universe can exist without cause, then you negate all of the cosmology on how the universe came to exist (such as the big band, etc.)
I'm not sure you want to go there, because if the universe can exist without cause that means it exists outside the natural order of things, because the natural order is for cause and effect.
Taking it a step further, the universe does exist which means it is outside of nature.
If the universe is outside of nature, then it's nature of existence of being outside of nature is it's cause and therefore the universe has a cause.
Since nothing can have and not have a cause, there must be a flaw in your reason and it goes back to your original hypothesis of the universe existing without cause.
Note, none of this presupposes that the cause in question is God. It is just that that the universe has a cause. Note, also, that none of this makes any statement as to whether God or the Creator in the original post exists without a cause, that would be another logic flaw (if a then b does not mean b therefore a).
Ummm, for free will to apply, doesn't there have to be an entity to excercise that free will? If there has to be such entity, then doesn't that still imply a cause (the entity excercising their free will) to the effect?
Now, why couldn't you have posted this earlier! It sure would have saved a lot of typing and reading of stupid comments.
It seems that the education system in the US (maybe elsewhere) has been very successful at turning out graduates who have no capability for critical thought and analysis.
I believe that the story of Creation in Genesis is true, but just not factual. It states that God created everything and imparted in man a special role in that act of creation. That's the true part. As to being a textbook on how God did that, the early Hebrews weren't concerned with that and Genesis, was never intended to be such.
When a four year old asks her parents where she came from and the parents respond that she came from mommy and daddy's love for each other, that is true (well hopefully it is), but not a factual answer, at least not from a biological perspective.
Another problem with looking at Genesis as a factual account is that there are two stories of creation in Genesis (Gn 1.1 and Gn 2.4). Things are created in a different order between the two accounts. If they are both 100% factual accounts, then how can this be (although I hear that some denominations remove the second account to eliminate this problem).
Again, the purpose of both of these stories of creation is not to give us a text book on how God did it, but instead, to shed light on our place in all of God's creation and our relationship to our Creator.
From that framework, evolution and God's act of Creation are not mutually exclusive. The Bible contains the why and science contains the how.
As for the comment about schools teaching intelligent design, well, they can't even get evolution correct (most teach Darwinism instead of evolution), so I wouldn't trust them regardless of what they taught (evolution/Creation/ID, etc.).
Maybe we're having a problem with semantics. When I refer to lower primates, I'm referring to lower primates that are those primates in existance today, but not as advanced as man( in the zoological sense of the word). Like man, they have former ancestors from which they have evolved. But these former ancestors are no more a lower primate(zoological) than our human ancestors are human. They (the ancestors) are just one step along the evolutionary chain that has produced the lower primates and man.
I agree that there is substantial circumstantial evidence to evolution besides using pure DNA, but a lot of people would try to discount it and there have been some pretty big blunders in classifications of species of animals.
My use of probability in this discussion is based on the normal mathematical probability one learns or should learn in school. DNA testing is not 100% accurate and there are numerous things that may impact the results. Being a pure mathematical endeavour, once error is inserted, that error tends to multiply (or maybe I should say the probability of that error multiplying is high). Scientist rely on this introduced error in back-tracing DNA to other species to determine how far back the common ancestor was.
The probability that you describe with the oxygen atoms in the room is based on Heisenberg's (sp?) uncertainty principle which I related to in a different post. In short it says that for an object in motion (and atoms are in motion, so for everything), we can either now how fast it is moving or where it is at, but we can't know both. Instead, we rely on probability to determine where the object (atom, electron, 747) should be at and as long as we find it there, we aren't to suprised. However, if it's not there, ie all of the oxygen moves to the upper corner of the room, we would be in for a real suprise.
Even with all of the uncertainties that scientists must deal with, they refer to things as facts, but in reality, they know they aren't. Just look at how physics and chemistry have changed their theories (not facts) over the last 100 years. Even matter, may no longer be matter, but some kind of energy string vibrating in space. But, to be fair, for those kinds of things, scientist do refer to things as theory.
My point in talking about probability, is that even with probabilities pretty high in support of evolution (which I do believe occurs), we can never be 100% sure of what evolved from what. If we use DNA, then we have an ever increasing error rate the further back we go. If we use the fossil record, well, lots of structures can look similar without necesarilly being related to each other.
You are correct, you didn't claim that humans evolved from any other modern primate. I was responding to two different posts and inadvertantly attributed that to your post. Sorry, my mistake.
I'm not sure what the definition of human has to do with the discussion.
If you reread my original post, I brought God into the discussion only to point out that God creating everything (Judeo-Christian perspective) is not mutually exclusive of evolution.
My post did not actually say God exists (although I believe God does), nor did it make any other points in reference about God. I simply pre-answered the critique one normally hears from the fundamentalist argument about evolution being contrary to God creating man.
As for it being pointless to discuss, because God's existence can't been shown is inconsistent with the original reason the mention of God was presented, but hey, I'll bite.
I assume that you believe that you exist. I also assume that you believe you are made up of molecules which are made up of atoms. Prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that these atoms exist. And then, please tell me what they are like. I don't think you can, but if I'm wrong, make sure to include me in your Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. (BTW, if you are planning on talking about protons, neutrons, electrons or quarks, you would also have to prove their existance, too -- although, electrons would be pretty straight forward).
In short, we accept all kinds of things in life that we can never fully understand or prove and it doesn't seem to cause any sort of problem. The best we can do is describe the effect of something, but that isn't the thing itself.
Without becoming too metaphysical, very often what we observe is not the reality that exists but only our interpretation of that reality. Furthermore, it is often the case that the actual observation changes the reality of what is observed, too (ie electron microscopes, super-colliders, etc.)
If we get into things like Heisenbergs (sp?) uncertainty principle which states something like if you know how fast something is moving then you can't tell exactly where it is and if you know exactly where something is, you can't tell how fast it's moving. (has all kinds of implications for your proof of atoms and their particles, above), then we realy have a problem with determining if anything that moves exists or not. Heisenberg was talking about electrons, but it does scale well.
If I shoot an arrow through the air, at any given moment I can only tell it's speed or where it's at, not both. Why, well to tell where it's at, I would probably have to resort to high speed photography and capture an image of it related to everything else. But, if I do, then I can make no statement about it's speed, because it is now still. If my only observation is that of the moving arrow, then at any given moment, I don't know precisly where it is at or whether it is even there. Probability will tell me where it should be at, but there is no guarantee that it actually is. Likewise, with all of those still images, I can calculate the speed, but that is also assuming the arrow is where it is supposed to be in the fractions of time that aren't covered on the film.
It's all based on probability, so most likely it is where it's supposed to be, but we can never know for sure, even if we time slice smaller and smaller frames, there is always a frame in between. And if that in between frame, the arrow happened to be on the moon, well then it's speed is significantly faster than we calculate based of the known frames. As highly fetched as all of that sounds a lot of physics depends on it.
But, given the above, if we can't every "truly" know where the arrow in flight is or whether it actually exists, but we don't have a problem talking about it, why then is it a problem to talk about God without knowing exactly where God is or actually exists?
Items one through four all feed into/from each other. No problem with that.
Item 5 is not dependent on 4 or it's precedants, so it doesn't really belong unless you are starting a new construct. But, that's beside the point.
Item 6 is where your logic breaks down. You have done/written nothing to support this statement. The key part is not the starvation but that God does nothing to stop it.
Is it possible that your item 6 is wrong and therefore rest of your statements based on it?
How about substituting:
6. God provides a world that can produce more than enough food to feed everyone on it. 7. Some of mankind has taken the resources provided it and hoards them, leading to further starvation. (20% of the population consumes 80% of the worlds resources). 8. Deliberately causing children to starve to death is cruel. 9. Man is cruel.
See, if you remove the intentionally false statement, then logic follows and the true result is presented.
I wasn't confused about how theory is used in mathmatics vs other sciences. Where it becomes problematic is in the application of mathmatics to the real world and there, things do become very theoretical.
I had a professor who once stated that all of physics was just applied mathmatics. So yes, at it's very core, it may not be theoretical, but then again, where does it's very core stop and application take over. Or put a different way, when do I stop studying mathmatics and start studying physics?
In my post, I was thinking more of the applied mathematics vs pure mathematics. It is in the application, where we have to rely on theories (hey, don't even get me started on quanta-mechanics or wave equations).
You are correct in stating that two species developing long pointy fingers do not develop matching DNA. However, two species that share a common ancestor that has short stubby fingers, who go on to develop long pointy fingers (from those short stubby ones) will have very similar DNA as related to finger length (there are only so many genes related to finger length in organisms with a shared ancestor).
You are also correct in that looks don't figure into relatedness. A shark and a dolphin look very similar but have significant differences in DNA.
On the otherhand, there is quite a bit of shared DNA among all living creatures. This means that somewhere, various organisms shared common ancestors.
The problem with using DNA to delineate common ancestors is that it is all based on probabilties. Even paternity testing is not 100% accurate unless there is an abnormal gene that is passed on and that is only one generation removed. The results are always given as a probability, because there is always room for a slight error.
But as the generations expand between the ancestor and the individual, those slight errors can introduce major deviations.
Now mitochondrial RNA is very interesting, as it is only passed on by the mother. I believe it created quite a stir a number of years back, when Newsweek ran an article that all humans alive today shared a common maternal ancestor 10,000 years ago. If I recall, they called her "Eve."
Of course, once again, the research relied heavily on probabilities, as does all DNA/RNA extrapolations. This isn't a fault, but it always needs to be kept in mind when evaluating research or test findings.
B evolved from A. C evolved from B. D evolved from B. E evolved from C. F evolved from D.
Both E and F share a common ancestor B. But E didn't evolve from F, nor did F evolve from E.
Now substitute humans and chimpanzees for E and F. We get Bothe humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor (we don't know what). But humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees and chimpanzees didn't evolve from humans.
You are mixing cause and effect and the point of the post. The cause and effect error is that common ancestor does not equate to evolving from two similar species. The point error was that evolution does not negate that somewhere along the line humans came into existance. This is not incompatable with those who belief that God created man. None of the post, btw, was about whether God exists or not. Your bias brought that into the discussion.
Although the Bible does say "...Unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains but a grain of wheat." So death is not incompatible with Bible believing.
I know that I over simplified the DNA sharing, but then again, I didn't think slashdot was the place for a doctoral thesis.
Humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor is not the same thing as evolving from monkeys or chimps. Nor is it the same as saying man has evolved from lower primates. All that can be said is that man and the lower primates shared/evolved from a distant common anscestor.
And, even saying that, is soley based on the mathematical probabilities used to extrapolate the data.
Using the same data, it's possible to state that the common ancestor between primates and man was more human than not and at some point in the past, the branch which became modern primates broke off of the human branch (I don't hold that to be the case, just that the probabilities do allow for it).
Because all of the DNA "evidence" is based on these mathematical probabilities, to say anything more than modern man and modern primates share a common ancestor is not fact, not even theory, but supposition.
If a religion posits that "number theory is only a theory", and comes up with some religious alternative, then should math classes give them equal time?
Not to pick nits, but number theory along with most mathmatics are theories. Take geometry, or Euclidian geometry, to be exact. One of it's tenets is that the shortest distance between to points is a straight line. Of course, you can't circumnavigate the globe or go to the moon or put something in orbit with that theory. That's why there is non-Euclidan geometry, too, another theory.
Or another example would be the square-root of negative one. We were all taught that a square root is that number when mulitiplied by itself gives the square of that number (ie 2 is the square root of 4). We were also taught that two negative numbers mulitplied together give a positive number (as well as two positive number multiplied together).
Therefore, the square root of negative one can't exist because whatever number multiplied by itself would give a positive number, not a negative one. However, it must exist or a whole lot of the physics we study just won't work. To account for that paradox, we have a whole new area of mathematical theory called "imaginary numbers"
Face it, most of what we hold as facts in mathmatics and science, really are just theories. But, since they give reproducable results over and over again, we accept them as fact.
As for your secular humanist comment. I checked the site you linked to and they make statements about the existance or non-existance of God and therefore make a theological statement. Isn't a religion a set of theological beliefs and wouldn't that therefore make secular humanism another relgion? As such, why should the government prefer that religion over any other?
Slashdot Mirror
Teaching children GNU/Linux and other free software exclusively will merely limit their employment opportunities.
If you listen to all the Microsoft hype about how unix/linux administrators cost companies more money, then not teaching children GNU/Linux and other free software will limit their employment opportunities!
It's true that by switching to FOSS now, they won't save anything, today. They've already paid for the proprietary software. The real savings comes in the next year or two when they don't have to pay for new software to stay on the proprietary upgrade path and they won't have to pay for new hardware to meet the demands of the new software.
It sounds like these government schools are being a little short-sighted in their reasoning.
This is really just supply and demand with a high fixed cost. NYTs knows very few are going to pay $2.95 for an article. But, they have to host all the articles, just in case. Therefore, they have to have the infrastructure to support the outside chance it will be used. That drives the high price.
Of course another economic model with supply and demand, would be to use a low price to spread the fixed costs out over a larger base. Unfortunately, that method, while better in the long run, has a longer ROI.
How do you figure? If neuron's act as I describe, then there is no room for free will because in theory neuron's work just as mechanically as logic gates in a computer. In a AND gate, if two inputs are recieved, an output is triggered. Likewise in a neuron, if N inputs are recieved (where N is that particular neuron's threshold) then an output is triggered. In order to have free will, you need neurons to be triggered (and hence thoughts though) by something other then the automatic stimulation by other neurons.
Using (if a then b) and (if b then c) then (if a then c):
For a neuron to work like a logic gate in a computer, something has to trigger the inputs. That trigger is the cause and the effect is the neuron firing. The neuron firing then is the cause and the effect being free will. So the trigger to neuron is the cause and the effect is free will.
The real question is what triggers the inputs. Most likely, other neurons, but then we keep tracing it further and further back and either we end up with some kind of cycle routine (assuming we remove the external inputs of the sensory system) or we have to admit that we just don't know.
Regardless, extrapolating back, whatever causes that first neuron to fire witch triggers the cascade firing of all the others is the cause. Whether that cause if from God, or a stray gamma ray, doesn't matter, it is a cause which leads ultimately to the effect of free will.
Even your last statement: In order to have fre will, you need neurons to be triggered... shows a cause and effect. Unless what you are really suggesting is that we don't have free will and everything is pre-destined on how we will act/react. But then, that leads to the question of how did it/we get that way. And, however we did, again God or a stray gamma ray, that becomes the cause and the pre-destination is the effect.
Under both scenarios free will and pre-destination, there is a cause. So, to use either to suggest that the universe could exist without cause introduces an error in your logic. We know that the universe exists and we know that something caused it to exist. We don't neccesarily know what that something is, though. People can argue till the end of time whether that something is God or not (and they probably will), but that doesn't change that something "caused" the universe come into existance.
Thanks for the explanation, but it still isn't logical. If free will works as you describe, then it is still dependent on the neuron's acting as you describe, therefore free will is still part of the cause (neuron firing) and effect (choice made).
If the universe happening without cause is based on free will happening without cause but, it really does have a cause (the neuron firing), then the argument fails.
No, you stated that universe can exist without cause because of free will. Well, if it requires free will for the universe to exist without cause, then the existance of free will is the cause. Now, free will by itself cannot exist. Because it implies by it's very nature that it is the will of something else (free or otherwise). Therefore, if the universe existing is dependent on free will and free will is dependent on this other entity that can exercise that free will then it stands to reason that the universe is dependant on that other entity.
It doesn't matter what caused the excercise of the free will, that fact that it was exercised is the cause to the effect you are talking about.
If you want to say that the denial of religious truths is a religious truth, knock yourself out. That doesn't make it a religion.
Nor does saying something isn't a religion make it not one. Kind of like saying there isn't a God make God diappear.
You are correct though, Atheism isn't a religion in the traditional sense, it's just a set of religious beliefs about the nature of a deity.
You can deny the relgious beliefs are what atheism is about, but then you would have a hard time discussin what even atheists themselves refer to as weak atheism (lack of belief in gods) and strong atheism (gods do not exist).
Face it, if you want to profess that there isn't any God, that's fine, and is your choice, but it is still a faith statement and faith statements are religious statements and religous statements organized into formal positions are (are you ready?) religion!
So, I guess I was wrong above when I said you were right that atheism isn't a religion, it is. Too, bad.
Ummm, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
To use your reasoning of a soul having a meta-soul, how about your body? Shouldn't it have a meta-body inside it? And shouldn't that meta-body have a meta-meta-body, etc., etc.
I think that you must misunderstand Occam's Razor to postulate what you have.
If you do postulate that the universe can exist without cause, then you negate all of the cosmology on how the universe came to exist (such as the big band, etc.)
I'm not sure you want to go there, because if the universe can exist without cause that means it exists outside the natural order of things, because the natural order is for cause and effect.
Taking it a step further, the universe does exist which means it is outside of nature.
If the universe is outside of nature, then it's nature of existence of being outside of nature is it's cause and therefore the universe has a cause.
Since nothing can have and not have a cause, there must be a flaw in your reason and it goes back to your original hypothesis of the universe existing without cause.
Note, none of this presupposes that the cause in question is God. It is just that that the universe has a cause. Note, also, that none of this makes any statement as to whether God or the Creator in the original post exists without a cause, that would be another logic flaw (if a then b does not mean b therefore a).
I believe the world came out of my ass...
I guess that would be the Big Butt Theory?
Ummm, for free will to apply, doesn't there have to be an entity to excercise that free will? If there has to be such entity, then doesn't that still imply a cause (the entity excercising their free will) to the effect?
Now, why couldn't you have posted this earlier! It sure would have saved a lot of typing and reading of stupid comments.
It seems that the education system in the US (maybe elsewhere) has been very successful at turning out graduates who have no capability for critical thought and analysis.
Good post! I hope you get modded up.
I believe that the story of Creation in Genesis is true, but just not factual. It states that God created everything and imparted in man a special role in that act of creation. That's the true part. As to being a textbook on how God did that, the early Hebrews weren't concerned with that and Genesis, was never intended to be such.
When a four year old asks her parents where she came from and the parents respond that she came from mommy and daddy's love for each other, that is true (well hopefully it is), but not a factual answer, at least not from a biological perspective.
Another problem with looking at Genesis as a factual account is that there are two stories of creation in Genesis (Gn 1.1 and Gn 2.4). Things are created in a different order between the two accounts. If they are both 100% factual accounts, then how can this be (although I hear that some denominations remove the second account to eliminate this problem).
Again, the purpose of both of these stories of creation is not to give us a text book on how God did it, but instead, to shed light on our place in all of God's creation and our relationship to our Creator.
From that framework, evolution and God's act of Creation are not mutually exclusive. The Bible contains the why and science contains the how.
As for the comment about schools teaching intelligent design, well, they can't even get evolution correct (most teach Darwinism instead of evolution), so I wouldn't trust them regardless of what they taught (evolution/Creation/ID, etc.).
"de Chardin" isn't his last name, it's where he's from. So technically, you should state "This is just Teilhard's orthogenetic noosphere..."
Maybe we're having a problem with semantics. When I refer to lower primates, I'm referring to lower primates that are those primates in existance today, but not as advanced as man( in the zoological sense of the word). Like man, they have former ancestors from which they have evolved. But these former ancestors are no more a lower primate(zoological) than our human ancestors are human. They (the ancestors) are just one step along the evolutionary chain that has produced the lower primates and man.
I agree that there is substantial circumstantial evidence to evolution besides using pure DNA, but a lot of people would try to discount it and there have been some pretty big blunders in classifications of species of animals.
My use of probability in this discussion is based on the normal mathematical probability one learns or should learn in school. DNA testing is not 100% accurate and there are numerous things that may impact the results. Being a pure mathematical endeavour, once error is inserted, that error tends to multiply (or maybe I should say the probability of that error multiplying is high). Scientist rely on this introduced error in back-tracing DNA to other species to determine how far back the common ancestor was.
The probability that you describe with the oxygen atoms in the room is based on Heisenberg's (sp?) uncertainty principle which I related to in a different post. In short it says that for an object in motion (and atoms are in motion, so for everything), we can either now how fast it is moving or where it is at, but we can't know both. Instead, we rely on probability to determine where the object (atom, electron, 747) should be at and as long as we find it there, we aren't to suprised. However, if it's not there, ie all of the oxygen moves to the upper corner of the room, we would be in for a real suprise.
Even with all of the uncertainties that scientists must deal with, they refer to things as facts, but in reality, they know they aren't. Just look at how physics and chemistry have changed their theories (not facts) over the last 100 years. Even matter, may no longer be matter, but some kind of energy string vibrating in space. But, to be fair, for those kinds of things, scientist do refer to things as theory.
My point in talking about probability, is that even with probabilities pretty high in support of evolution (which I do believe occurs), we can never be 100% sure of what evolved from what. If we use DNA, then we have an ever increasing error rate the further back we go. If we use the fossil record, well, lots of structures can look similar without necesarilly being related to each other.
You are correct, you didn't claim that humans evolved from any other modern primate. I was responding to two different posts and inadvertantly attributed that to your post. Sorry, my mistake.
I'm not sure what the definition of human has to do with the discussion.
If you reread my original post, I brought God into the discussion only to point out that God creating everything (Judeo-Christian perspective) is not mutually exclusive of evolution.
My post did not actually say God exists (although I believe God does), nor did it make any other points in reference about God. I simply pre-answered the critique one normally hears from the fundamentalist argument about evolution being contrary to God creating man.
As for it being pointless to discuss, because God's existence can't been shown is inconsistent with the original reason the mention of God was presented, but hey, I'll bite.
I assume that you believe that you exist. I also assume that you believe you are made up of molecules which are made up of atoms. Prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that these atoms exist. And then, please tell me what they are like. I don't think you can, but if I'm wrong, make sure to include me in your Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. (BTW, if you are planning on talking about protons, neutrons, electrons or quarks, you would also have to prove their existance, too -- although, electrons would be pretty straight forward).
In short, we accept all kinds of things in life that we can never fully understand or prove and it doesn't seem to cause any sort of problem. The best we can do is describe the effect of something, but that isn't the thing itself.
Without becoming too metaphysical, very often what we observe is not the reality that exists but only our interpretation of that reality. Furthermore, it is often the case that the actual observation changes the reality of what is observed, too (ie electron microscopes, super-colliders, etc.)
If we get into things like Heisenbergs (sp?) uncertainty principle which states something like if you know how fast something is moving then you can't tell exactly where it is and if you know exactly where something is, you can't tell how fast it's moving. (has all kinds of implications for your proof of atoms and their particles, above), then we realy have a problem with determining if anything that moves exists or not. Heisenberg was talking about electrons, but it does scale well.
If I shoot an arrow through the air, at any given moment I can only tell it's speed or where it's at, not both. Why, well to tell where it's at, I would probably have to resort to high speed photography and capture an image of it related to everything else. But, if I do, then I can make no statement about it's speed, because it is now still. If my only observation is that of the moving arrow, then at any given moment, I don't know precisly where it is at or whether it is even there. Probability will tell me where it should be at, but there is no guarantee that it actually is. Likewise, with all of those still images, I can calculate the speed, but that is also assuming the arrow is where it is supposed to be in the fractions of time that aren't covered on the film.
It's all based on probability, so most likely it is where it's supposed to be, but we can never know for sure, even if we time slice smaller and smaller frames, there is always a frame in between. And if that in between frame, the arrow happened to be on the moon, well then it's speed is significantly faster than we calculate based of the known frames. As highly fetched as all of that sounds a lot of physics depends on it.
But, given the above, if we can't every "truly" know where the arrow in flight is or whether it actually exists, but we don't have a problem talking about it, why then is it a problem to talk about God without knowing exactly where God is or actually exists?
Items one through four all feed into/from each other. No problem with that.
Item 5 is not dependent on 4 or it's precedants, so it doesn't really belong unless you are starting a new construct. But, that's beside the point.
Item 6 is where your logic breaks down. You have done/written nothing to support this statement. The key part is not the starvation but that God does nothing to stop it.
Is it possible that your item 6 is wrong and therefore rest of your statements based on it?
How about substituting:
6. God provides a world that can produce more than enough food to feed everyone on it.
7. Some of mankind has taken the resources provided it and hoards them, leading to further starvation. (20% of the population consumes 80% of the worlds resources).
8. Deliberately causing children to starve to death is cruel.
9. Man is cruel.
See, if you remove the intentionally false statement, then logic follows and the true result is presented.
You can look at the design of creatures and think, "would this be the sort of thing that an intelligent designer would make?
Certainly not if I were looking at a platypus!
I wasn't confused about how theory is used in mathmatics vs other sciences. Where it becomes problematic is in the application of mathmatics to the real world and there, things do become very theoretical. I had a professor who once stated that all of physics was just applied mathmatics. So yes, at it's very core, it may not be theoretical, but then again, where does it's very core stop and application take over. Or put a different way, when do I stop studying mathmatics and start studying physics? In my post, I was thinking more of the applied mathematics vs pure mathematics. It is in the application, where we have to rely on theories (hey, don't even get me started on quanta-mechanics or wave equations).
You are correct in stating that two species developing long pointy fingers do not develop matching DNA. However, two species that share a common ancestor that has short stubby fingers, who go on to develop long pointy fingers (from those short stubby ones) will have very similar DNA as related to finger length (there are only so many genes related to finger length in organisms with a shared ancestor).
You are also correct in that looks don't figure into relatedness. A shark and a dolphin look very similar but have significant differences in DNA.
On the otherhand, there is quite a bit of shared DNA among all living creatures. This means that somewhere, various organisms shared common ancestors.
The problem with using DNA to delineate common ancestors is that it is all based on probabilties. Even paternity testing is not 100% accurate unless there is an abnormal gene that is passed on and that is only one generation removed. The results are always given as a probability, because there is always room for a slight error.
But as the generations expand between the ancestor and the individual, those slight errors can introduce major deviations.
Now mitochondrial RNA is very interesting, as it is only passed on by the mother. I believe it created quite a stir a number of years back, when Newsweek ran an article that all humans alive today shared a common maternal ancestor 10,000 years ago. If I recall, they called her "Eve."
Of course, once again, the research relied heavily on probabilities, as does all DNA/RNA extrapolations. This isn't a fault, but it always needs to be kept in mind when evaluating research or test findings.
Let's try going back to Logic 101.
B evolved from A.
C evolved from B.
D evolved from B.
E evolved from C.
F evolved from D.
Both E and F share a common ancestor B. But E didn't evolve from F, nor did F evolve from E.
Now substitute humans and chimpanzees for E and F. We get Bothe humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor (we don't know what). But humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees and chimpanzees didn't evolve from humans.
You are mixing cause and effect and the point of the post. The cause and effect error is that common ancestor does not equate to evolving from two similar species. The point error was that evolution does not negate that somewhere along the line humans came into existance. This is not incompatable with those who belief that God created man. None of the post, btw, was about whether God exists or not. Your bias brought that into the discussion.
Although the Bible does say "...Unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains but a grain of wheat." So death is not incompatible with Bible believing.
Actually, Atheism is a set of core values or beliefs about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Christianity is a set of core values and beliefs about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Judaism is a set of core values and beliefs about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Islam is a set of core values and beliefs about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Hinduism is a set of core values and beliefts about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Get the point. Whether or not there is a God is not germain to whether or not something is a religion.
Even the language used on their website has religious tones to it in using words like "belief system" and "purpose of existance" and "world view."
What I don't understand is why Atheists are so embarrassed to recognize that they actually have a set of religous beliefs?
I know that I over simplified the DNA sharing, but then again, I didn't think slashdot was the place for a doctoral thesis.
Humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor is not the same thing as evolving from monkeys or chimps. Nor is it the same as saying man has evolved from lower primates. All that can be said is that man and the lower primates shared/evolved from a distant common anscestor.
And, even saying that, is soley based on the mathematical probabilities used to extrapolate the data.
Using the same data, it's possible to state that the common ancestor between primates and man was more human than not and at some point in the past, the branch which became modern primates broke off of the human branch (I don't hold that to be the case, just that the probabilities do allow for it).
Because all of the DNA "evidence" is based on these mathematical probabilities, to say anything more than modern man and modern primates share a common ancestor is not fact, not even theory, but supposition.
If a religion posits that "number theory is only a theory", and comes up with some religious alternative, then should math classes give them equal time? Not to pick nits, but number theory along with most mathmatics are theories. Take geometry, or Euclidian geometry, to be exact. One of it's tenets is that the shortest distance between to points is a straight line. Of course, you can't circumnavigate the globe or go to the moon or put something in orbit with that theory. That's why there is non-Euclidan geometry, too, another theory. Or another example would be the square-root of negative one. We were all taught that a square root is that number when mulitiplied by itself gives the square of that number (ie 2 is the square root of 4). We were also taught that two negative numbers mulitplied together give a positive number (as well as two positive number multiplied together). Therefore, the square root of negative one can't exist because whatever number multiplied by itself would give a positive number, not a negative one. However, it must exist or a whole lot of the physics we study just won't work. To account for that paradox, we have a whole new area of mathematical theory called "imaginary numbers" Face it, most of what we hold as facts in mathmatics and science, really are just theories. But, since they give reproducable results over and over again, we accept them as fact. As for your secular humanist comment. I checked the site you linked to and they make statements about the existance or non-existance of God and therefore make a theological statement. Isn't a religion a set of theological beliefs and wouldn't that therefore make secular humanism another relgion? As such, why should the government prefer that religion over any other?