Actually, philosophy is very much about "feel good". Not only is it about figuring things out, it's about being happy and so on to.
No, philosophy is about trying to understand. Some parts of philosophy ask "How can we be happy?", and some people enjoy doing philosophy, but that's not the same as the "If it feels good, believe it." stuff you're espousing.
there is even a branch of philosophy that deals specifically with religion
The philosophy of religion is different than religious philosophy, just like the philosophy of science is different than natural philosophy (i.e. science). One is a dispassionate, reasoned method of looking at religious topics, the other is rational only within the limits set by a particular religion - a set of assumptions held for irrational reasons.
IF you take otherwise identical things and segregate them only because of size... ... , other inherited characteristics, and most importantly kinship, then I've defined a particular population.
If that's what you think science is and proof of evolution should be...
It's isn't - the dog thing is a trivial, very poor example of a ring species, one that you brought up. Even the existence of ring species isn't very good evidence on its own - it was just an additional supporting point I threw in. But of course you'd rather argue over a detail in a bad example of something that we both agree wouldn't be good evidence on it's own, that way you don't have to deal with all the other, more definitive, evidence. None of this has anything to do with the original point - evolution is well-supported science while creationism is (to use your word) bunk.
Sure they would. You don't think there wasn't skeptics in biblical times?
There are always skeptics and believers, but not the kind reinterpretation you're suggesting.
distinguishing mini chihuahuas from the regular chihuahua as a breed of dog... when someone attempts to ignore part of it... certainly not a natural limitation.
The word 'population' in the definition does not have to mean the same thing as 'breed', nothing requires the inclusion of techichi or any other dogs from before contact with the Spanish in the population. It also doesn't matter if the divide developed naturally or artificially. There's a difference between ignoring something and acknowledging it exists but showing that it isn't relevant.
Unless doing that rain dance helps the person reconcile how the other possibilities failed to work. Religion is philosophical after all.
The rain dance doesn't need to be rationally justify, it's supposed to make you feel better about irrigating the fields. It's philosophical not scientific.
Saying god created it and it was good is enough...
Philosophy has a reliance on reasoned argument, in fact that's what distinguished it from religion. Defending beliefs merely because they make some people "feel better" is not part of philosophy, and you should be ashamed for implying that it is. If you want to say "Yes, it's irrational, but it helps me psychologically." that's fine, but don't turn around and demand that your opinion be treated with the same respect as rational thought.
It's like saying there is a 1 in 1 million chance that your lottery numbers will be drawn so you shouldn't check your numbers or hope they are winners after the drawing.
Doing that is wanting to remain ignorant. Checking your ticket is testing a hypothesis, which is entirely rational. From my perspective, you're advocating assuming that you ticket's a winner without checking it, and basing your financial decisions on that.
Can you for certain say that Saul wasn't conned instead of having actual magic done?...The logic behind this concludes that the bible isn't an accounting to everything/everyone...
But that's exactly my point - almost no-one would have interpreted that way until science comes along, and then it's "Oh, that's not what it really means.".
... unless you still think that concentrating on a subset of a population is proper to show the separation of the entire population like the bunk dog examples.
The definition of ring species is based on the relationship between populations (subsets of the whole ring species). The size of those populations is not relevant.
[Breeding with other dogs] ruins the entire concept of certain breed not being able to mate within the dog species.
No, part of the definition is that they "can interbreed with relatively closely related populations". If mini-Chihuahuas could not breed with any other dog, then they couldn't count toward dogs being a ring species.
We have humans right now that cannot reproduce... we certainly do not consider them different species...
Again, "can interbreed" is part of the definition - if you can't breed at all you don't count one way or the other. The definitions of "species" (as opposed to "ring species") that are in general use much more complex, and most have rules accepting sterile members, etc.
Who said they ignored everything other possibility?
My point was that they're "ignoring an almost unlimited number of other possibilities" with "no good reason to favor that choice over any other", not that they ignored "every other possibility". Doing a rain dance might work, but sacrificing a goat, praying to a god, holding a belching contest, and a vast number of other ways to try to make it rain have an equal amount of supporting evidence. So believing that the rain dance will work is an arbitrary choice that isn't backed up with any good reasoning.
"god helps those who helps themselves"
Yes, you can both irrigate your fields and do a rain dance. That doesn't make the rain dance more rationally justified.
Go back to the beginning of the big bangs and tell me,... You see, even science ends up to a point in time where they just don't know...
True, there are many questions that science doesn't currently have and answer to, and there may be some that it can't ever answer. That doesn't mean that any answer at all becomes reasonable. When you don't know, the reasonable thing to do is to admit that you just don't know.
It's not a big jump from god created the universe to something created the universe.
No, but going the other way is. Assuming something created the universe, the creating entity could be non-intelligent (something that randomly creates universes), or non-omnipotent (all it can do is create universes, nothing else), the "something" could be a group of gods, time-traveling humans from the future, or (most likely) something we don't understand at all. So picking 'god' over all the others really is making a big leap.
Modern witchcraft as practices by many people in free nations doesn't actually possess any magical power...
So in non-free nations people like Saul can get people like the Witch of Endor to do actual magic?
It's dogma to claim the earth and all life were created in 6 days instead of 6 periods of time or whatever.
But they'd still be out of order....
But the main arguments in conflict are the age of the earth which is decided by dogma and not the old testament, and the creation of man in which the bible gets pretty specific about. Then you have the flood...
Right, except for the history of the universe before man, the process by which most things were created, and a massive global event, there aren't many conflicts. Except for the existence of witches and sorcerers, the origin of language, the firmament,...
Even if you have a 100% complete understanding of meteorology and a deep scientific understanding, it still doesn't mean that an outside force can't impact the weather.
True.
Why would it be so crazy for someone to spiritually attempt to gain influence when we do not have a complete understanding of it? I mean that's just silly to claim someone is crazy for praying for rain, you do not know it won't have any effect, you only know you can't observe or measure it.
Are you serious? Sure, almost anything is possible, but believing one particular action will be effective, while ignoring an almost unlimited number of other possibilities, knowing that there's no good reason to favor that choice over any other, is a bit odd. Also, even without a mechanism to connect the ritual with the rain, it's would be possible to show a correlation between the two, and that would count as evidence. But when you handle things that way, you're testing a hypothesis, not just believing because you want to believe.
What I mean is that the pure breed of Chihuahua can actually mate with a great dane and produce viable offspring. The notion of it being incapable happens only when you limit the breed to the 9 lbs or smaller show class of the chihuahua breed.
Which is irrelevant - certain dogs cannot successfully reproduce with certain other dogs (of the appropriate sex) without intervening generations. Just because it's a very short, almost trivial ring doesn't mean it's 'bunk'. What it does mean is that it's a poor example for most purposes and probably only gets brought up because most people are familiar with dogs.
Well, from your post, it appears that I understand a lot more things then you do and you do not get a lot. I mean I counted several errors you made and you had to ask for clarification on the canine ring species comment.
I asked for clarification of your point of view, that's all - it's rather absurd for you do try to make that into a flaw. Your other insults and self-aggrandizement are just as silly.
But do not criticize someone for something you are clueless about.
Well, to be honest, evolution for some is a religion. You can tell by the people who insist on it as a fact.
The "Fact of Evolution" is that organisms change over time - an observable fact. The "Theory of Evolution" is that these changes explain the diversity of life. "Evolution" can refer to both.
On the other hand, some people forget that there's a difference between an incredibly well-supported theory and a fact - and they should be reminded that all scientific conclusions are provisional.
But most importantly, no matter how many sun worshipers there are, the sun itself is not a religion.
One of my favorites is the ring species of canine where the claim is that a Great Dane can't reproduce with a chihuahua. However, this is false because the chihuahua is originally a 40 lbs dog that was used to hunt venison by the Aztecs. The miniature breeds we are familiar with can be bred back to the 40 lbs dogs without breaking breeds and easily mate with a Great Dane.
What do you mean by "this is false"? Within a single generation there is no gene flow between current, small Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but there is over longer generational distances - which is essentially the definition of a ring species.
Take the ring species and the dog problem presented earlier. That's more of the bunk I was talking about.
Dogs show that a reproducing populations of organisms can develop into a state where not all members of the opposite sex can breed, but gene flow between the extremes is still possible. Horses and donkey's show that in other situations there is almost no gene flow at all, because their offspring are almost all sterile. Evolutionary theory predicts these sorts of scenarios, and these examples help to show how speciation occurs - how is this bunk?
In fact, there are such small contradictions in religion and science that there arne't many places it actually crosses.
It depends on which religion you practice and how you interpret it - science clearly contradicts plenty of Greek myths, but probably will never conflict with a Deist's religion. From my perspective, the reason that there's so little conflict is that whenever they have conflicted and there's been an even slightly level playing field religion gets its ass kicked, so modern religions generally avoid conflict as much as possible. The gods hide in the gaps before the big bang and after death, where science can't get to them.
When dealing with Science A is true, if it conflict in religion, then when dealing with religion B is true even if it's the exact opposite of A.
So, essentially, you work for a meteorological group and have a deep scientific understanding of the weather, but when you go home and your grass is brown you sacrifice a goat to make it rain? And then you wonder why your neighbors joke about you being crazy?!?
So we should all be polite, except for you, who can freely call things you don't understand 'bunk'. And we should all be non-judgmental to the extreme, but you can bluntly claim that you've debunked other people's ideas. This must be one of those "A in science, not A in religion" ideas you mentioned - I honestly just don't get it.
The increased population was in an artificial environment unlikely to occur in the wild.
So? It's still beneficial to the organism in its current environment.
[The genetic changes] may actually be a reduction in the information by way of damaging the mechanism used to regulate the e.coli metabolism in the presence of oxygen.
This is a much better argument than the one this thread started with. But for that scenario to work, there would have to be some reason to create and keep that inhibitory system around - and that adaptation's only effect visible is to prevent it from using a resource. More importantly, any time a new characteristic appears and we don't have a nearly complete understanding of it, it can be described in terms of the loss of information.
Anyway, you've brought up an important point, and while I do think you're grasping at straws, I can't be sure you're wrong - so I eagerly await the results of the DNA sequencing of these critters so the information theory guys can give us a definitive answer.
In short, we need to know a lot more about microbiology before we can call this beneficial or even evolution at all.
It's evolution because it's an inheritable change, and it created new information because they have a new ability based on the information in their genes.
If they have a parallel process that seems just as effective, then by not examining it, you are basically not critically comparing it, not comparing it with reality, not revising the existing methodology or science, and not making the ideas conform to known facts.
But I have - I regularly go to ICR's and Answers in Genesis' web sites. The problem is that 95% of the articles are rehashes of something that I've rejected before, 4% are new but don't make it very far past the laugh test, and the final 1% make me think (like the radiohalos), but in the end I find better explanations elsewhere. I can't claim perfect objectivity of course, but I really do try to give every idea I come across a fair shot at convincing me.
Either one or two of the worlds largest oil deposits were found by Young earth scientist using the young earth BS they cooked up to support their ideology.
But they have bred cows and sheep that can eat grains and cereals that others will not eat or gain nutritional benefit from.
And I'd love to give those ideas the chance they're due, but I would need a citation, a name, which grain or oil field... something to go on.
Theism is philosophical... Those are two entirely separate fields...
I partly agree with this. One way to keep things separate is to believe what science produces, but also that there are additional things as well - this is how most religious scientists deal with the issue. There's nothing scientifically wrong with that, but other people might think it's odd that you believe "relativity explains gravity, but that's true only because Vishnu wills it to be so" or "our minds are clearly based on physical phenomena, but some part of us gets reincarnated" or "evolution has an explanation for why human beings experience love, but I think you also need the Holy Ghost".
Another way is to keep things separate is to simply accept a religion on faith, and completely reject science when they come into conflict. There's nothing wrong with that, but since you're rejecting the mostly widely held (and provably beneficial) philosophical system, the one the rest of us use as a common basis for discussing things, on what looks like a whim, don't be surprised if you get left out of the conversation.
But (for the most part) creationist do neither - they claim that evolution is a religion, or that their faith counts as science. And I know it's frustrating, but science is based on a specific set of assumptions that evolution meets and creationism does not. If you want to change that, you're going to have to convince the rest of us that those carefully-chosen and almost completely non-controversial assumptions need to be changed.
Even the creation verses evolution theories are bunk because we have no empirical evidence...
There is so much empirical evidence supporting evolution it's hard just to name all of the categories of evidence that we have. Gross morphological, genetic, and molecular similarities among living things forming nested hierarchies are three separate lines of evidence, and the fact that the resulting trees are nearly identical is another. Then there are individual changes that can clearly be seen as a result of common ancestry, like the fact that humans have one less chromosome than other primates, but one of the chromosomes that humans have is clearly the result of two chromosomes fusing (telomeres in the middle, deactivated centromere for one half). Then there's the artificially produced evolution, in the form of human-induced breeding and speciation. Ring species demonstrate speciation in nature, and we haven't even had to look at a fossil yet...
You are who you are and if someone isn't happy about that, they need to change who they are, not attempt to put others down in order to feel better about themselves.
No, the difference is that 'Theists' (the kind that reflexively rejects evolution) open their heart to one particular dogma, with extreme prejudice against all others, without critical thinking. They feel God's influence (because they can't accept any other explanation for those feelings), and do draw simple conclusions about their reality, ones so simple that preliterate societies make them up, and almost all children see through them. Those that only believe in what they can 'show evidence for' know the difference between imagination and reality and are the more well-reasoned of the two.
Apologies if this the parent post was actually meant as a joke.
Richard Lenski could have saved himself a lot of time if he had asked himself "was any new information created when it mutated". The answer of course is NO!
1988: holding first flask - Does this flask contain information on citrate digestion? - No
2008: holding final flask - Does this flask contain information on citrate digestion? - Yes
But you do extend logic past the empirical evidence which is the same as making shit up.
Every idea starts out as made up shit. But there's a big difference between shit that's just made up and is never processed any further, and shit that's made up, critically examined, compared with reality, revised as needed, and abandoned when it can't be made to conform to the known facts.
This E.coli experiment does nothing to show speciation or anything other then evolution on a micro-scale is possible. But hell, we have known that for centuries.
But have we bred cows that can eat meat? This experiment greatly expanded the range of changes that can be conclusively proven to occur, and examining the frozen samples will allow us to examine the details of how those changes occurred.
How you can jump and fault someone over a belief in god because of this is just inane.
He wasn't jumped for his belief in god, he was jumped for his odd comment about Darwin's way of thinking. Granted is was in response to a similar remark about creationists, but please don't pretend that he was just innocently stating a personal belief.
No, but that wouldn't stop it happening if enough people wanted it to.
And for people like the original poster, that's completely irrelevant, because it would still be something immoral imposed on other people, which they would describe as violating their rights. You seem to have the strange notion that if something is physically possible, it can't be described as being immoral - as if the existence of fundamental rights would imply that magic shields should block any attempt to do evil.
Things which are fundamental and independent of human society, such as the laws of physics, cannot be violated even if everyone agrees to.
You're taking the word "fundamental" to a strange extreme. There's no "desire particle" in physics, but the fact that people desire things is fundamental to economics. Everyone could decide to shun attractive people, but that doesn't mean that psychological theories about attractiveness are pointless. In sociology, things like language and government seem to be fundamental parts of every society. And in the theory of natural rights, some rights are so basic and universal that they're considered fundamental.
>>...if I can get 'society' to think that we should all have the right to kill off a particular group... then that's all fine and dandy?
What do *you* think would happen? It may not be "fine and dandy" my your or my standards, but it would happen nevertheless.
I'll rephrase the last part of my statement for clarity: "... then that eradication is morally right?".
This has happened on many occasions, which should provide some evidence against the "fundamental rights" theory.
The fact that some people commit murders is not evidence that murder is morally right. By the same logic, the fact that people's rights are often violated is not evidence that they don't have those rights.
I fear people are confusing what they wish would be the case with what actually is.
And I think you're confusing "the ability to do X" with "the right to do X".
To explain the GP's "A right is something that cannot be taken from you, not an obligation on someone else to provide something to you.":
The right to free speech obliges others to tolerate offensive speech.
No, it only means that they can't use the legal system to shut someone up. You can ignore, speak against, and even mock offensive speech.
The right to a fair trial obliges others to provide you with one.
No, you have the right to a fair trial because someone else is trying to deprive you of one of your rights.
The right to bear arms... increases the risks of death from gunshot wounds for other people.
In the same sense that your right to live increases my chance of being murdered.
The right to own property denies others the use of that property.
In the same sense that your right to live denies me the right to shoot you in the head.
The question is whether the rights are worth the imposition.
That fact that you could even think that that clearly demonstrates that you aren't using the word 'right' in the same way as the GP. My dictionary has 62 definitions for the word 'right' - both of you are using the word correctly, but you're using very different definitions. I, and probably the GP, would be happier if there was a clearer distinction between negative, basic, absolute rights (right to speak freely) and the various kinds of positive rights (right to vote), entitlements (welfare), and other government services (roads).
A right is an ability or status that society thinks everyone should have.
So, if 'society' decides that we should no longer speak freely, that right disappears? And if 'society' decides that we should all have the right to our own space shuttle (or anything else imaginable), then it should be provided to us for free? And finally, if I can get 'society' to think that we should all have the right to kill off a particular group, or anything else abhorrent, then that's all fine and dandy?
Also, in your mind, what's the difference between 'rights' and 'what the government does for you'?
And then, well, 1914 happened. Anyone who, after that year, seriously believes that trade stops wars is hopelessly naive.
I think you're overstating your case. WWI might prove that trade doesn't stop all wars, but I don't think even Bastiat would have argued that. And even with the example of WWI trade could still be a major factor in reducing the scale or frequency of wars.
On the other hand, if Bastiat was still alive, he would understand that changing the expected outcome of winning a war from "money and territory in exchange for population" to "you still get annihilated" might affect people's willingness to go to war as well.
OK, now explain how Monsanto could develop GURT by using selection.
Since you have to be able to grow the plants to produce seeds to sell, there has to be a way around the sterility, and you could use the same work-around to develop the trait in the first place. Since many crops are already hybrids, and some hybrids are sterile, that would seem to be a possible way to duplicate the effect. A naturally occurring example would be mules.
Monsanto have already sued their victim(s) (and won!) in the past when their unwanted technology was passed to neighboring farms via pollen, through no fault of the neighboring farmer.
At least according to the courts, the farmers didn't have crops that were just passively inoculated with the outside genes, they were actively trying to produce plants that all had the trait.
It's similar to having RIAA sue you for downloading music which a computer worm transferred to your computer.
That's what the farmers argued, Monsanto argued that it was more like they got Kazaa from a worm and then used it to downloaded everything they could.
To some people, "Earth-like" and "like Earth is right now" are pretty distinct concepts. All I'm suggesting is that your original post would have been less prone to misinterpretation if it had used terms that more explicitly expressed your idea.
The key phrase I used was Earth-like.
No, I think the key phrase is: ... and, of course, enough time to do it in,...
If you want to argue that all (or most) Earth-like planets will produce intelligent life at some point, that's a perfectly good hypothesis. But even if that's true there still will be many Earth-like planets out there that's haven't reached that point yet (and might not last long enough to do so). My point was just that, if you take your post at face value, you find it "almost impossible to believe" an X could exist without Y, when you're standing on an X that didn't have Y for the vast majority of it's existence - and that sounds kind of silly.
I find the CDC fact sheet unconvincing, not just because
it doesn't even mention the existence of evidence to the
contrary, but because most medical groups (AMA, NIH) look
at the evidence from all sides, and then bluntly state
that newborns should not be circumcised. For all I know
the CDC may be right, but without an explanation for the
disparity, I have to be skeptical.
Your arguments about skin area and HIV uptake are
interesting, but since HIV is mostly transmitted through
blood contact, couldn't tighter skin lead to more minor
tears and abrasions, increasing the risk? And since outer
skin
cells are destined to die, couldn't they be built to
take up viruses to keep them outside the body?
I do agree with you whole-heartedly about one thing - as
long as the medical benefits are either minor or
controversial then the circumcision of a child is merely
a culturally accepted form of child abuse.
You make a good argument against a sudden outright ban,
but even as a purely practical matter it would be
impossible to pull off in the US. Get the medical
community in sync with the rest of the civilized world
first, push the culture of "let him choose", then when
only a handful of religious nuts are left legal
steps can be taken.
Oh, and I am sorry for the late and terse reply, but I'm
stuck with just my cell until I get home - and even with
a qwerty trying to edit a post sucks.
The CDC has a pretty good history performing studies...
I'd agree, but I have a couple of objections:
First, the studies weren't performed by the CDC. The
paper itself wasn't written by the CDC. The CDC link to
the.pdf even states that it might not reflect their
opinion. The reason it's on the CDC website is because
the authors wrote it to convince the CDC to look at
some possible policy changes.
Second, the article wasn't meant to be a balanced look
at an issue, it was meant to persuade. That's why there's
no mention of any of the studies that don't show a
connection between circumcision and AIDS, like New
Zealand's massive, long-term study that found no
statistically significant connection between circumcision
and any STD.
What is called "female circumcision" usually
involves...
You're right, the term is used loosely to refer to a
variety of practices. I was trying to refer to
clitoral hood removal, which is the closest homologue
to male circumcision.
Either way, my point was that you wouldn't object to
the characterization of other cultures' forced genital
modifications as mutilation, even the more benign ones,
so your objection to calling
circumcision by the same name is probably based only
on the fact that you're used to it.
It's purely a male controlling females thing.
Except where it's a woman performing the ceremony to
welcome her daughter into adulthood.
Male circumcision is pretty much like tonsil or apendix
removal. No loss at all.
It always amazes me how people can rationalize the loss
of something by claiming that it's worthless. A bully
destroys a favorite toy so we say we didn't really like
it. We lose an SO to another and we say were better off
without them. We lose a vast number of sensitive nerve
endings from our penis, and we simply refuse to believe
that it could possibly be a bad thing.
We "nutjobs" would take you guys a lot more
seriously if you stopped calling this practice
"mutilation" or "child abuse". It's long-ingrained
in many cultures that love and dote
on children.
The people who circumcise their daughters don't love them
any less than your people love their sons, and the practice
is probably just as ancient, but I doubt
you'd object to someone calling the practice
"female genital mutilation".
I'm circumcised and enjoy sex a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it
"more" without it, but I don't really care.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, philosophy is very much about "feel good". Not only is it about figuring things out, it's about being happy and so on to.
No, philosophy is about trying to understand. Some parts of philosophy ask "How can we be happy?", and some people enjoy doing philosophy, but that's not the same as the "If it feels good, believe it." stuff you're espousing.
there is even a branch of philosophy that deals specifically with religion
The philosophy of religion is different than religious philosophy, just like the philosophy of science is different than natural philosophy (i.e. science). One is a dispassionate, reasoned method of looking at religious topics, the other is rational only within the limits set by a particular religion - a set of assumptions held for irrational reasons.
IF you take otherwise identical things and segregate them only because of size ...
... , other inherited characteristics, and most importantly kinship, then I've defined a particular population.
If that's what you think science is and proof of evolution should be ...
It's isn't - the dog thing is a trivial, very poor example of a ring species, one that you brought up. Even the existence of ring species isn't very good evidence on its own - it was just an additional supporting point I threw in. But of course you'd rather argue over a detail in a bad example of something that we both agree wouldn't be good evidence on it's own, that way you don't have to deal with all the other, more definitive, evidence. None of this has anything to do with the original point - evolution is well-supported science while creationism is (to use your word) bunk.
Sure they would. You don't think there wasn't skeptics in biblical times?
There are always skeptics and believers, but not the kind reinterpretation you're suggesting.
distinguishing mini chihuahuas from the regular chihuahua as a breed of dog ... when someone attempts to ignore part of it ... certainly not a natural limitation.
The word 'population' in the definition does not have to mean the same thing as 'breed', nothing requires the inclusion of techichi or any other dogs from before contact with the Spanish in the population. It also doesn't matter if the divide developed naturally or artificially. There's a difference between ignoring something and acknowledging it exists but showing that it isn't relevant.
Unless doing that rain dance helps the person reconcile how the other possibilities failed to work. Religion is philosophical after all. ...
The rain dance doesn't need to be rationally justify, it's supposed to make you feel better about irrigating the fields. It's philosophical not scientific.
Saying god created it and it was good is enough
Philosophy has a reliance on reasoned argument, in fact that's what distinguished it from religion. Defending beliefs merely because they make some people "feel better" is not part of philosophy, and you should be ashamed for implying that it is. If you want to say "Yes, it's irrational, but it helps me psychologically." that's fine, but don't turn around and demand that your opinion be treated with the same respect as rational thought.
It's like saying there is a 1 in 1 million chance that your lottery numbers will be drawn so you shouldn't check your numbers or hope they are winners after the drawing.
Doing that is wanting to remain ignorant. Checking your ticket is testing a hypothesis, which is entirely rational. From my perspective, you're advocating assuming that you ticket's a winner without checking it, and basing your financial decisions on that.
Can you for certain say that Saul wasn't conned instead of having actual magic done? ...The logic behind this concludes that the bible isn't an accounting to everything/everyone ...
But that's exactly my point - almost no-one would have interpreted that way until science comes along, and then it's "Oh, that's not what it really means.".
The definition of ring species is based on the relationship between populations (subsets of the whole ring species). The size of those populations is not relevant.
[Breeding with other dogs] ruins the entire concept of certain breed not being able to mate within the dog species.
No, part of the definition is that they "can interbreed with relatively closely related populations". If mini-Chihuahuas could not breed with any other dog, then they couldn't count toward dogs being a ring species.
We have humans right now that cannot reproduce ... we certainly do not consider them different species ...
Again, "can interbreed" is part of the definition - if you can't breed at all you don't count one way or the other. The definitions of "species" (as opposed to "ring species") that are in general use much more complex, and most have rules accepting sterile members, etc.
Who said they ignored everything other possibility?
My point was that they're "ignoring an almost unlimited number of other possibilities" with "no good reason to favor that choice over any other", not that they ignored "every other possibility". Doing a rain dance might work, but sacrificing a goat, praying to a god, holding a belching contest, and a vast number of other ways to try to make it rain have an equal amount of supporting evidence. So believing that the rain dance will work is an arbitrary choice that isn't backed up with any good reasoning.
"god helps those who helps themselves"
Yes, you can both irrigate your fields and do a rain dance. That doesn't make the rain dance more rationally justified.
Go back to the beginning of the big bangs and tell me, ... You see, even science ends up to a point in time where they just don't know ...
True, there are many questions that science doesn't currently have and answer to, and there may be some that it can't ever answer. That doesn't mean that any answer at all becomes reasonable. When you don't know, the reasonable thing to do is to admit that you just don't know.
It's not a big jump from god created the universe to something created the universe.
No, but going the other way is. Assuming something created the universe, the creating entity could be non-intelligent (something that randomly creates universes), or non-omnipotent (all it can do is create universes, nothing else), the "something" could be a group of gods, time-traveling humans from the future, or (most likely) something we don't understand at all. So picking 'god' over all the others really is making a big leap.
Modern witchcraft as practices by many people in free nations doesn't actually possess any magical power ...
So in non-free nations people like Saul can get people like the Witch of Endor to do actual magic?
It's dogma to claim the earth and all life were created in 6 days instead of 6 periods of time or whatever. ....
But they'd still be out of order
But the main arguments in conflict are the age of the earth which is decided by dogma and not the old testament, and the creation of man in which the bible gets pretty specific about. Then you have the flood...
Right, except for the history of the universe before man, the process by which most things were created, and a massive global event, there aren't many conflicts. Except for the existence of witches and sorcerers, the origin of language, the firmament, ...
Even if you have a 100% complete understanding of meteorology and a deep scientific understanding, it still doesn't mean that an outside force can't impact the weather.
True.
Why would it be so crazy for someone to spiritually attempt to gain influence when we do not have a complete understanding of it? I mean that's just silly to claim someone is crazy for praying for rain, you do not know it won't have any effect, you only know you can't observe or measure it.
Are you serious? Sure, almost anything is possible, but believing one particular action will be effective, while ignoring an almost unlimited number of other possibilities, knowing that there's no good reason to favor that choice over any other, is a bit odd. Also, even without a mechanism to connect the ritual with the rain, it's would be possible to show a correlation between the two, and that would count as evidence. But when you handle things that way, you're testing a hypothesis, not just believing because you want to believe.
What I mean is that the pure breed of Chihuahua can actually mate with a great dane and produce viable offspring. The notion of it being incapable happens only when you limit the breed to the 9 lbs or smaller show class of the chihuahua breed.
Which is irrelevant - certain dogs cannot successfully reproduce with certain other dogs (of the appropriate sex) without intervening generations. Just because it's a very short, almost trivial ring doesn't mean it's 'bunk'. What it does mean is that it's a poor example for most purposes and probably only gets brought up because most people are familiar with dogs.
Well, from your post, it appears that I understand a lot more things then you do and you do not get a lot. I mean I counted several errors you made and you had to ask for clarification on the canine ring species comment.
I asked for clarification of your point of view, that's all - it's rather absurd for you do try to make that into a flaw. Your other insults and self-aggrandizement are just as silly.
But do not criticize someone for something you are clueless about.
Please take your own advice.
Well, to be honest, evolution for some is a religion. You can tell by the people who insist on it as a fact.
The "Fact of Evolution" is that organisms change over time - an observable fact. The "Theory of Evolution" is that these changes explain the diversity of life. "Evolution" can refer to both.
On the other hand, some people forget that there's a difference between an incredibly well-supported theory and a fact - and they should be reminded that all scientific conclusions are provisional.
But most importantly, no matter how many sun worshipers there are, the sun itself is not a religion.
One of my favorites is the ring species of canine where the claim is that a Great Dane can't reproduce with a chihuahua. However, this is false because the chihuahua is originally a 40 lbs dog that was used to hunt venison by the Aztecs. The miniature breeds we are familiar with can be bred back to the 40 lbs dogs without breaking breeds and easily mate with a Great Dane.
What do you mean by "this is false"? Within a single generation there is no gene flow between current, small Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but there is over longer generational distances - which is essentially the definition of a ring species.
Take the ring species and the dog problem presented earlier. That's more of the bunk I was talking about.
Dogs show that a reproducing populations of organisms can develop into a state where not all members of the opposite sex can breed, but gene flow between the extremes is still possible. Horses and donkey's show that in other situations there is almost no gene flow at all, because their offspring are almost all sterile. Evolutionary theory predicts these sorts of scenarios, and these examples help to show how speciation occurs - how is this bunk?
In fact, there are such small contradictions in religion and science that there arne't many places it actually crosses.
It depends on which religion you practice and how you interpret it - science clearly contradicts plenty of Greek myths, but probably will never conflict with a Deist's religion. From my perspective, the reason that there's so little conflict is that whenever they have conflicted and there's been an even slightly level playing field religion gets its ass kicked, so modern religions generally avoid conflict as much as possible. The gods hide in the gaps before the big bang and after death, where science can't get to them.
When dealing with Science A is true, if it conflict in religion, then when dealing with religion B is true even if it's the exact opposite of A.
So, essentially, you work for a meteorological group and have a deep scientific understanding of the weather, but when you go home and your grass is brown you sacrifice a goat to make it rain? And then you wonder why your neighbors joke about you being crazy?!?
So we should all be polite, except for you, who can freely call things you don't understand 'bunk'. And we should all be non-judgmental to the extreme, but you can bluntly claim that you've debunked other people's ideas. This must be one of those "A in science, not A in religion" ideas you mentioned - I honestly just don't get it.
The increased population was in an artificial environment unlikely to occur in the wild.
So? It's still beneficial to the organism in its current environment.
[The genetic changes] may actually be a reduction in the information by way of damaging the mechanism used to regulate the e.coli metabolism in the presence of oxygen.
This is a much better argument than the one this thread started with. But for that scenario to work, there would have to be some reason to create and keep that inhibitory system around - and that adaptation's only effect visible is to prevent it from using a resource. More importantly, any time a new characteristic appears and we don't have a nearly complete understanding of it, it can be described in terms of the loss of information.
Anyway, you've brought up an important point, and while I do think you're grasping at straws, I can't be sure you're wrong - so I eagerly await the results of the DNA sequencing of these critters so the information theory guys can give us a definitive answer.
In short, we need to know a lot more about microbiology before we can call this beneficial or even evolution at all.
It's evolution because it's an inheritable change, and it created new information because they have a new ability based on the information in their genes.
And it most certainly was beneficial to the bacteria - the reason the adaption was noticed was due to "a dramatically expanded population-size in one of the samples".
If they have a parallel process that seems just as effective, then by not examining it, you are basically not critically comparing it, not comparing it with reality, not revising the existing methodology or science, and not making the ideas conform to known facts.
But I have - I regularly go to ICR's and Answers in Genesis' web sites. The problem is that 95% of the articles are rehashes of something that I've rejected before, 4% are new but don't make it very far past the laugh test, and the final 1% make me think (like the radiohalos), but in the end I find better explanations elsewhere. I can't claim perfect objectivity of course, but I really do try to give every idea I come across a fair shot at convincing me.
Either one or two of the worlds largest oil deposits were found by Young earth scientist using the young earth BS they cooked up to support their ideology.
But they have bred cows and sheep that can eat grains and cereals that others will not eat or gain nutritional benefit from.
And I'd love to give those ideas the chance they're due, but I would need a citation, a name, which grain or oil field ... something to go on.
Theism is philosophical ... Those are two entirely separate fields ...
I partly agree with this. One way to keep things separate is to believe what science produces, but also that there are additional things as well - this is how most religious scientists deal with the issue. There's nothing scientifically wrong with that, but other people might think it's odd that you believe "relativity explains gravity, but that's true only because Vishnu wills it to be so" or "our minds are clearly based on physical phenomena, but some part of us gets reincarnated" or "evolution has an explanation for why human beings experience love, but I think you also need the Holy Ghost".
Another way is to keep things separate is to simply accept a religion on faith, and completely reject science when they come into conflict. There's nothing wrong with that, but since you're rejecting the mostly widely held (and provably beneficial) philosophical system, the one the rest of us use as a common basis for discussing things, on what looks like a whim, don't be surprised if you get left out of the conversation.
But (for the most part) creationist do neither - they claim that evolution is a religion, or that their faith counts as science. And I know it's frustrating, but science is based on a specific set of assumptions that evolution meets and creationism does not. If you want to change that, you're going to have to convince the rest of us that those carefully-chosen and almost completely non-controversial assumptions need to be changed.
Even the creation verses evolution theories are bunk because we have no empirical evidence ...
There is so much empirical evidence supporting evolution it's hard just to name all of the categories of evidence that we have. Gross morphological, genetic, and molecular similarities among living things forming nested hierarchies are three separate lines of evidence, and the fact that the resulting trees are nearly identical is another. Then there are individual changes that can clearly be seen as a result of common ancestry, like the fact that humans have one less chromosome than other primates, but one of the chromosomes that humans have is clearly the result of two chromosomes fusing (telomeres in the middle, deactivated centromere for one half). Then there's the artificially produced evolution, in the form of human-induced breeding and speciation. Ring species demonstrate speciation in nature, and we haven't even had to look at a fossil yet ...
You are who you are and if someone isn't happy about that, they need to change who they are, not attempt to put others down in order to feel better about themselves.
Well, I do like civility more than most, but
No, the difference is that 'Theists' (the kind that reflexively rejects evolution) open their heart to one particular dogma, with extreme prejudice against all others, without critical thinking. They feel God's influence (because they can't accept any other explanation for those feelings), and do draw simple conclusions about their reality, ones so simple that preliterate societies make them up, and almost all children see through them. Those that only believe in what they can 'show evidence for' know the difference between imagination and reality and are the more well-reasoned of the two.
Apologies if this the parent post was actually meant as a joke.
Richard Lenski could have saved himself a lot of time if he had asked himself "was any new information created when it mutated". The answer of course is NO!
1988: holding first flask - Does this flask contain information on citrate digestion? - No
2008: holding final flask - Does this flask contain information on citrate digestion? - Yes
But you do extend logic past the empirical evidence which is the same as making shit up.
Every idea starts out as made up shit. But there's a big difference between shit that's just made up and is never processed any further, and shit that's made up, critically examined, compared with reality, revised as needed, and abandoned when it can't be made to conform to the known facts.
This E.coli experiment does nothing to show speciation or anything other then evolution on a micro-scale is possible. But hell, we have known that for centuries.
But have we bred cows that can eat meat? This experiment greatly expanded the range of changes that can be conclusively proven to occur, and examining the frozen samples will allow us to examine the details of how those changes occurred.
How you can jump and fault someone over a belief in god because of this is just inane.
He wasn't jumped for his belief in god, he was jumped for his odd comment about Darwin's way of thinking. Granted is was in response to a similar remark about creationists, but please don't pretend that he was just innocently stating a personal belief.
No, but that wouldn't stop it happening if enough people wanted it to.
And for people like the original poster, that's completely irrelevant, because it would still be something immoral imposed on other people, which they would describe as violating their rights. You seem to have the strange notion that if something is physically possible, it can't be described as being immoral - as if the existence of fundamental rights would imply that magic shields should block any attempt to do evil.
Things which are fundamental and independent of human society, such as the laws of physics, cannot be violated even if everyone agrees to.
You're taking the word "fundamental" to a strange extreme. There's no "desire particle" in physics, but the fact that people desire things is fundamental to economics. Everyone could decide to shun attractive people, but that doesn't mean that psychological theories about attractiveness are pointless. In sociology, things like language and government seem to be fundamental parts of every society. And in the theory of natural rights, some rights are so basic and universal that they're considered fundamental.
>>...if I can get 'society' to think that we should all have the right to kill off a particular group ... then that's all fine and dandy?
What do *you* think would happen? It may not be "fine and dandy" my your or my standards, but it would happen nevertheless.
I'll rephrase the last part of my statement for clarity: "... then that eradication is morally right?".
This has happened on many occasions, which should provide some evidence against the "fundamental rights" theory.
The fact that some people commit murders is not evidence that murder is morally right. By the same logic, the fact that people's rights are often violated is not evidence that they don't have those rights.
I fear people are confusing what they wish would be the case with what actually is.
And I think you're confusing "the ability to do X" with "the right to do X".
To explain the GP's "A right is something that cannot be taken from you, not an obligation on someone else to provide something to you.":
The right to free speech obliges others to tolerate offensive speech.
No, it only means that they can't use the legal system to shut someone up. You can ignore, speak against, and even mock offensive speech.
The right to a fair trial obliges others to provide you with one.
No, you have the right to a fair trial because someone else is trying to deprive you of one of your rights.
The right to bear arms ... increases the risks of death from gunshot wounds for other people.
In the same sense that your right to live increases my chance of being murdered.
The right to own property denies others the use of that property.
In the same sense that your right to live denies me the right to shoot you in the head.
The question is whether the rights are worth the imposition.
That fact that you could even think that that clearly demonstrates that you aren't using the word 'right' in the same way as the GP. My dictionary has 62 definitions for the word 'right' - both of you are using the word correctly, but you're using very different definitions. I, and probably the GP, would be happier if there was a clearer distinction between negative, basic, absolute rights (right to speak freely) and the various kinds of positive rights (right to vote), entitlements (welfare), and other government services (roads).
A right is an ability or status that society thinks everyone should have.
So, if 'society' decides that we should no longer speak freely, that right disappears? And if 'society' decides that we should all have the right to our own space shuttle (or anything else imaginable), then it should be provided to us for free? And finally, if I can get 'society' to think that we should all have the right to kill off a particular group, or anything else abhorrent, then that's all fine and dandy?
Also, in your mind, what's the difference between 'rights' and 'what the government does for you'?
And then, well, 1914 happened. Anyone who, after that year, seriously believes that trade stops wars is hopelessly naive.
I think you're overstating your case. WWI might prove that trade doesn't stop all wars, but I don't think even Bastiat would have argued that. And even with the example of WWI trade could still be a major factor in reducing the scale or frequency of wars.
On the other hand, if Bastiat was still alive, he would understand that changing the expected outcome of winning a war from "money and territory in exchange for population" to "you still get annihilated" might affect people's willingness to go to war as well.
OK, now explain how Monsanto could develop GURT by using selection.
Since you have to be able to grow the plants to produce seeds to sell, there has to be a way around the sterility, and you could use the same work-around to develop the trait in the first place. Since many crops are already hybrids, and some hybrids are sterile, that would seem to be a possible way to duplicate the effect. A naturally occurring example would be mules.
Monsanto have already sued their victim(s) (and won!) in the past when their unwanted technology was passed to neighboring farms via pollen, through no fault of the neighboring farmer.
At least according to the courts, the farmers didn't have crops that were just passively inoculated with the outside genes, they were actively trying to produce plants that all had the trait.
It's similar to having RIAA sue you for downloading music which a computer worm transferred to your computer.
That's what the farmers argued, Monsanto argued that it was more like they got Kazaa from a worm and then used it to downloaded everything they could.
To some people, "Earth-like" and "like Earth is right now" are pretty distinct concepts. All I'm suggesting is that your original post would have been less prone to misinterpretation if it had used terms that more explicitly expressed your idea.
The key phrase I used was Earth-like.
... and, of course, enough time to do it in, ...
No, I think the key phrase is:
If you want to argue that all (or most) Earth-like planets will produce intelligent life at some point, that's a perfectly good hypothesis. But even if that's true there still will be many Earth-like planets out there that's haven't reached that point yet (and might not last long enough to do so). My point was just that, if you take your post at face value, you find it "almost impossible to believe" an X could exist without Y, when you're standing on an X that didn't have Y for the vast majority of it's existence - and that sounds kind of silly.
I find it almost impossible to believe that, if there's another rocky, Earth-like planet out there, that it doesn't have intelligent life on it.
Don't the first few billion years of earth's history provide strong evidence against that idea?
Plus, if you don't like it you can choose not to support the slave industry...
Well, as long as nobody is forced to support it, there isn't a slave industry.
I find the CDC fact sheet unconvincing, not just because it doesn't even mention the existence of evidence to the contrary, but because most medical groups (AMA, NIH) look at the evidence from all sides, and then bluntly state that newborns should not be circumcised. For all I know the CDC may be right, but without an explanation for the disparity, I have to be skeptical.
Your arguments about skin area and HIV uptake are interesting, but since HIV is mostly transmitted through blood contact, couldn't tighter skin lead to more minor tears and abrasions, increasing the risk? And since outer skin cells are destined to die, couldn't they be built to take up viruses to keep them outside the body?
I do agree with you whole-heartedly about one thing - as long as the medical benefits are either minor or controversial then the circumcision of a child is merely a culturally accepted form of child abuse.
You make a good argument against a sudden outright ban, but even as a purely practical matter it would be impossible to pull off in the US. Get the medical community in sync with the rest of the civilized world first, push the culture of "let him choose", then when only a handful of religious nuts are left legal steps can be taken.
Oh, and I am sorry for the late and terse reply, but I'm stuck with just my cell until I get home - and even with a qwerty trying to edit a post sucks.
The CDC has a pretty good history performing studies ...
I'd agree, but I have a couple of objections:
First, the studies weren't performed by the CDC. The paper itself wasn't written by the CDC. The CDC link to the .pdf even states that it might not reflect their
opinion. The reason it's on the CDC website is because
the authors wrote it to convince the CDC to look at
some possible policy changes.
Second, the article wasn't meant to be a balanced look at an issue, it was meant to persuade. That's why there's no mention of any of the studies that don't show a connection between circumcision and AIDS, like New Zealand's massive, long-term study that found no statistically significant connection between circumcision and any STD.
What is called "female circumcision" usually involves...
You're right, the term is used loosely to refer to a variety of practices. I was trying to refer to clitoral hood removal, which is the closest homologue to male circumcision.
Either way, my point was that you wouldn't object to the characterization of other cultures' forced genital modifications as mutilation, even the more benign ones, so your objection to calling circumcision by the same name is probably based only on the fact that you're used to it.
It's purely a male controlling females thing.
Except where it's a woman performing the ceremony to welcome her daughter into adulthood.
Male circumcision is pretty much like tonsil or apendix removal. No loss at all.
It always amazes me how people can rationalize the loss of something by claiming that it's worthless. A bully destroys a favorite toy so we say we didn't really like it. We lose an SO to another and we say were better off without them. We lose a vast number of sensitive nerve endings from our penis, and we simply refuse to believe that it could possibly be a bad thing.
We "nutjobs" would take you guys a lot more seriously if you stopped calling this practice "mutilation" or "child abuse". It's long-ingrained in many cultures that love and dote on children.
The people who circumcise their daughters don't love them any less than your people love their sons, and the practice is probably just as ancient, but I doubt you'd object to someone calling the practice "female genital mutilation".
I'm circumcised and enjoy sex a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it "more" without it, but I don't really care.
And what about the guys who do care?