zapatos

I think it is ok. The only change I would suggest is to first make the blacks do all the baking but not pay them. Seems to me that would make this event a more robust analogy to preferential treatment.

"that you would not have the right to kill the attackers to stop the assault?"

Straw man alert!

Let's see. Herp said "I believe that humans have no right to kill other humans, even if they're evil serial killers or whatever". There was no equivocation in her statement. I neither misrepresented her position nor attacked it. I asked a question to help clarify it. You'll have to explain why that is a straw man.

To do something in order to stop them killing your family during an attack is not the same as killing the perpetrator, cold bloodedly, afterwards when it won't bring anyone back from the dead.

Obviously. There are some times when people have the right to kill others. You seem to think you have the right under certain circumstances. I think I have the right under certain circumstances. We just disagree when it comes to what the circumstances are.

I'm by no means a religious person, but even I believe that humans have no right to kill other humans, even if they're evil serial killers or whatever. They should be locked up so they can't hurt decent people, but we have no right to take their lives, only God has that right, and if we killed them, who is to say that we'd be any better than they are, just because they're criminals, and we're doing it legally? I don't believe in war either, or soldiers killing each other. To me that's just as evil as anything else. I would rather die young, than die an old woman with blood-soaked hands. I'm a Ghandi fan. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Hmm. So in the example of the doctor whose wife and daughters were sexually assaulted and murdered, do you feel that if that was your family, that you would not have the right to kill the attackers to stop the assault?

And in the case of war, if your country was invaded, do you not feel you have a right to kill the invaders to stop them?

Is it known where dark matter resides? For example, does it seem to be concentrated in the center of galaxies, or is it perhaps evenly distributed?

I turn on a fan close to my bed, switched to high. Worked wonders for me.

So a combination of aerobic, anaerobic, and stretch exercises -- when followed with this diet -- will really increase the quality of one's life.

Depends upon how you define "the quality of one's life". I'm pretty sure the quality of my life would decrease if I followed this plan. The quality of my health may go up, but again, maybe not if I'm depressed because I can't eat home grown tomatos with salt on them anymore.

Adaptations such as fur color and beak length are established based on observation.

 

Not sure why you would Extend this to wholesale devlopment of an entire optical system like the eye. It is unconfirmed speculation and the scientific method does not accept speculation. I say this because experiments confirm that at the molecular level in cells, novel function of complex multipart systems like the optical system requires a mutitude new binding sites, protein shapes, expression controls, regulation controls, cell process controls, developmental controls and these functions are codependent. Thus far, experimental work has not been observed any instance of these precursor components being derived. In fact there are exactly zero examples of observed evolutionary pathways greater than 4 contiguous (uninterupted) steps involving mutations that lead to these precursor molecules.

I did a quick read of some of your posts and am just looking for an overview of your position on evolutionary theory. Is it your postion that evoltionary theory is correct in some ways but insufficient to explain some things such as the amount of diversity we now see? If so, where would you guess the explanation lies? For example, is evolutionary theory simply not understood well enough yet, or is it something else? I apologize if I did not interpret your posts well. It seems obvious you have issues with evolutionary theory but I am not sure if you are suggesting alternatives or if you are simply pointing out weaknesses.

There is also the "Naked Mirror" diet. You can eat whatever you want, but you have to do it while standing naked in front of a mirror. Very effective for weight loss!

(And I do notice how it is hard to make a small pot of soup! Happens to me everytime I make chicken vegetable.)

I also think a healthy diet varies depending upon the physical condition of the person on the diet.

Actually it was your quoting of what I wrote that didn't add to the conversation. You quoted out of context, leaving off the next sentance I wrote that showed why it was obvious (ie: basic maths that most people learn in primary school).

 

Either you deliberatly made that chocie or you just didn't read what I said. The fact that anyone who actually read my post would have seen this glareing mistake is why I facepalmed.

 

Too often people only grab the first thing that seems to support their case, but so often it is that with a little bit of thought, the "evidence" they provide actually disproves their arguments. I do find it amusing when people do this because it shows they are not really taking the argument seriously, or at least not seriously enough to think about their responses.

 

See your statistics, on the surface, seems to support your position, but with a little bit of thought, you would have known that Spain has active family planing centres and education. Where as Niger does not and discourages family planing.

 

My point was that in countries with family planning and education then the birth rate is lower, but in countries where these things are discouraged then the birth rate is higher. As your statistics directly demonstrated this, you obviously did not put much effort into it and so indicate that you are not taking this seriously at all.

 

If I laughed, it was because the statisitics were a joke.

I apologize that my attempt to engage you on this topic was so inferior. I won't bother you again.

If a family had to make a choice about feeding their children, or sending them to school, then I know which one they would choose. Which one would you choose?

 

 

Which I then explained, in case it was not obvious.

 

My proof was not that it was obvious. As I then went on to explain education about birth control and access to it are the factors that lead to lower birth rates.

 

Actually, your statsitcs prove my point. Spain does not have the social moors against contraception. Proper education about birth control and what options is widly available, and even though the population is mostly Catholic, they have the education to see through the lies of the church propaganda about it. Thus even though theya re catholic, they practice birth control and thus have a lower birth rate.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

All I wanted was for you to supply some sources to back up the assertions you made. I find that you are very good at that when you are on the science forums. Over here you seem to accept a much lower standard. And laughing at me ( ) and implying that I'm a dumbass ( ) isn't really adding much to the conversation.

I notice that a strong opinion on the politics forum gets significantly more rep than a good post on any of the science sub forums.

That's because someone who posts an opinion that matches mine must clearly be of superior intelligence and deserving of positive rep!

Here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p6humana.htm (section 17)

This says that conjugal infidelity is easier, not that it is an encouragement. I'm not sure that is the same thing. When Eisenhower put in the interstate highway system was he making it easy for me to get to California, or was he encouraging me to go?

 

And Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm

Yes, this is official Church policy handed down by the Pope.

 

This says the church is accused of telling people condoms do not protect against HIV. Once again, I'm not sure that is the same as condoms "increasing the risk of disease". I didn't see the pope mentioned at all.

 

This is a simple matter of division.

 

If a family earns X amount of dollars a week, and they have 3 family members, then each has (as an avarage) X / 3 resources each. If a family has 5 members, then each has X /5 resources each.

 

As 1/3 is larger than 1/5, then larger families can devote less resources to each member.

 

Of course, some of thes resources aren't shared like this (like the house the family is in) and I am only concentrating on resources that are shared like this (education, food, etc). As cost of Education is one, and education is one of the major contributors to poverty, then this is a critical issue. Less resources to put into education can mean that to get a decent education for some of the children will mean that other will have to miss out in large families.

In the previous post you didn't say a family would have less money while raising the children, you said the population would be poorer. Presumably people grow up and go to work and then there is more income. If everyone gets a job when they grow up, then having more children has no impact on the wealth of the population.

And thanks for pointing out that 1/3 is larger than 1/5, but what I asked for was a study pointing out that larger family sizes causes poorer populations.

 

Ok, this is just obvious. In a country where contraception is activly discouraged and there is a social moor against it, then it will be used less. This means that there will be more children born because there is less ability to prevent pregnacy.

 

When people (especially women) have control over how many children they have, then smaller families are preferred for many reasons.

So your proof of argument is that it is obvious to you. Good job!

And I don't know what this proves except that it is not obvious to me, but:

Birth rate in Niger: 51.6 births/1000 population

Birth rate in Spain: 9.72 births/1000 population

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sp&v=25

% Catholic in Niger: 0.1%

% Catholic in Spain: 94%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country

It's very easy to make inaccurate generalizations when you're talking about religion in general. It's very tempting to say, "Well, religious people think ______, but clearly that's wrong, so..." when you'd be hard-pressed to find religious people who hold that exact position.

 

I suppose when you're talking science you have clear context and clear subject matter. You're talking about whether a certain thing is possible, whether a certain theory is true, or whatever; the relevant facts are visible and available for your inspection. When discussing religion, it's difficult to define many concepts -- what exactly do they mean by "spirit"? -- and the definitions vary between groups, religious beliefs are variable, the relevant facts are more philosophical than empirical, and very few people have a grounding in the philosophy of religion, or the fundamental theology of their religion. (I've heard many Christians proclaiming things that would be called heretical by an early Church leader.)

 

Also, not very many of us are into serious study of religion. I'm taking courses in the field out of curiosity, but I'm no expert, and I doubt many people here are. Whereas we have practicing biologists, physicists, and chemists here who can talk with real expertise about science.

Yes, but I find many inaccurate statements by atheists that put theism in a bad light, when coming up with an accurate statement is 20 seconds away on Google. It seems as if the rigor is not as important when criticizing religion as it is when supporting science.

Well he gave a couple of atheists the finger after they pissed all over him. It takes both sides to get into a fist fight.

It certainly does. So do you think it was the atheist's fault? Did the theist ignore reasonable arguments? Was he right or wrong?

Evolution is a hot topic because it is largely a prior conclusion based on a commitment to a particular worldview as opposed to a pure scientific area of study and it directly contradicts the theistic worldview. These more pure sciences that you mention don't have that baggage so the controversy is reduced.

(my bold)

Exactly my point. It seems like it takes a lot more evidence to convince a theist of something if a theory contradicts their worldview, than if it doesn't. Shouldn't the same standard hold for all science?

I think you misunderstand that group.

I wouldn't be at all surprised. But let's take evolution as an example. There was a lively thread going tonight where a theist (he didn't bring up his belief in God until he symbolically gave us the finger while signing off for the night) appeared to ignore or make fun of what I felt were reasonable arguments for evolution. It appeared to me that he was doing this because it was at odds with the bible. I don't see that kind of behavior for topics like plate tectonics or medicine. That type of behavior is why it appears to me that theists feel under attack by science.

I guess to a theist it seems as if science has been after them for centuries. Earth is no longer the center of the universe. Earth is no longer 6000 years old. Evolution. Big Bang. etc. etc.

I was watching a thread in the Religion forum which touched on this and thought I'd start a new thread on the topic. Do theists and atheists fight fair with each other? (I use the terms theist and atheist loosely.)

When I first started visiting the Science forums it seemed as if the theists often played loose with the scientific facts when it came to religion. I attributed this to the fact that it's hard to find a lot of science backing God, the bible, etc. And the atheists would be very precise and supply volumes of empirical evidence supporting their positions.

Then I started to notice that in the Religion forum, it seemed as if some of the atheists who were so particular about their facts in the Science forums, didn't find the need to be so precise in the Religion forum.

So do atheists and theists fight fair with each other? Does it just seem as if they don't because people are simply more comfortable arguing from their own area of expertise? Is there a natural animosity between the two that makes it hard to understand the other's point of view? Is it just not possible to find common ground?

What do you think?

Somebody needs to catch on camera an ape evolving into a human.

Are you having fun with this? Did you make a bet about how many times you can get someone to take the bait?

Evolution has never been observed. Saying species evolved over millions of years is a faith statement and is not the scientific method. Science is knowledge from observation.

 

If you believe you have empirical evidence that evolution has been observed. Please put it up. I am not talking about words i am talking about video footage or a photo.

 

I am willing to pay £10 to anyone that has a photo or video evidence of macroevolution taking place.

Have you ever observed the passage of millions of years? I'll give you £20 for a photo or video footage.

So yes, we are 'more than just animals', we live in a way completely alien to any other species on earth, our closest comparisons would perhaps be ants, termites, bees, wasps, moles or groundhogs, but their societies are still completely incomparable to ours beyond a few 'skin-deep' similarities.

I've always thought of humans as just another animal, albeit the one with the most advanced brain and living in a way completely alien to other species on earth. But using your scenario there are other animals that have the most advanced (whatever) and are living in a way completely alien to other species on earth. So it seems they too could be considered "more than just animals". I just don't see being at the top of a particular food/ability/complexity chain as giving some sort of exalted status.

So it's possible to interpret someone's dream and have a pretty good idea of the types of things (not specifics I assume) that are going on in their life at that time?

However, I agree with Pioneer about shared consciousness and symbols.

 

Some research on dreaming and telepathy has been done.

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=5&pageid=62&pgtype=1

 

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

From your link:

"At this point in the discussion, Stuart Kauffman shared a poignant story that supports much of what Schlitz is trying to demonstrate in her research. Kauffman related that several years ago while living in Philadelphia, he had a striking image of his own daughter walking down the middle of a road and being struck by a car that crushed her. It was a stunning image that stopped him in his tracks and made him very concerned for his daughter. About a month later around the time of Halloween, his daughter died in a way that was strikingly similar to the image that he had seen. To this day, Kauffman is not sure how to explain this shocking experience. Was it clairvoyant or telepathic? He is not sure. But what Kauffman did offer is that time might have some kind of structure that we have not even begun to understand.

Kauffman’s story seemed to open up the floor to some wilder explorations. Jenny Wade speculated openly and intuitively that if the quantum realm reveals non-local phenomenon, then perhaps our brains are capable of being quantum processors. We are capable of picking up a small piece of quantum information and then turning that into an image, just as Kauffman had seen the image of his daughter even though it had not happened yet."

Sounds like time travel.

High concentration sugar will raise your blood sugar levels, which can be deadly or just plain nasty (just ask a diabetic about the effects). If you eat a lot of candy quickly you will feel sick sick sick. Also, I'm pretty sure rapidly changing your blood sugar levels increases your odds of getting diabetes. Also, sugar is fermented by bacteria on your teeth into acids which locally remove calcium from your teeth (cavities), whereas normally the sugar would be eaten with a fruit that could at least brush off your teeth a little. There's probably another reason, eg I've heard something about the rate that fructose can be processed is limited.

 

That, and they're "empty calories".

It still doesn't sound to me like sugar is unhealthy. I know sugar can result in unhealthy spikes in diabetics, but I'd say it is being diabetic that is the problem, not the sugar. (Similar to exercise being unhealthy is some with heart disease.) I can also feel sick if I eat plums too quickly. From what I can find online I'd say the jury is out when it comes to increased blood sugar levels increasing the odds of getting diabetes. And I'd say not brushing your teeth is the unhealthy practice, not the eating of sugar, although I'm not sure about this one.

Couldn't most things be considered potentially unhealthy?

http://rheumatic.org/sugar.htm

Sounds like we should all be dead by now. And look how bad exercise is...

CHICAGO, IL – Scientists at Loyola University have proved what many of us have suspected all along – exercise is bad for your health.

Dr. Harold Crampe of Loyola University and his colleagues spent six months studying the effects of exercise, comparing a group of men aged 20 to 50 who walked or ran at least 3 times a week with a control group of men in the same age range who spent the same time on the couch, watching TV.

Dr. Crampe says they were surprised by their findings. "You have a 4000% higher risk of being hit by a car or other motor vehicle, if you're out running," he says, "and some of the other risks are even higher."

Runners and walkers were nearly 3 times more likely to be attacked by dogs, 5 times more likely to sprain or break a limb, and nearly 50 times more likely to be struck by lightning.

"You're even 12 times as likely to be mugged," says Dr. Crampe.

http://buffetoblog.wordpress.com/2006/03/30/exercise-is-bad-for-you-new-study-shows/

Examining 2,000 runners after completion of the Los Angeles marathon demonstrated that immune systems may be suppressed enough to significantly increase our chances of contracting infections and developing illnesses. The study found that 13% of the runners who participated in the marathon developed an illness in the following week. The combination of increased volume and intensity of the exercise left an significant impact on the participants and as a result, many of them contracted infections as a consequence of impaired immune function.

http://www.science20.com/erin039s_spin/too_much_exercise_bad_you

Other studies have shown an increased risk of arthritis in middle-aged female ex-athletes, and another reported that long-term weight-bearing sports activities like jogging, squash, hockey, badminton and aerobics are linked to arthritis. Two other Swedish studies have shown that high participation in all kinds of sports increases the risk of arthritis of the hip in both sexes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/could-exercise-be-bad-for-you-634211.html

Despite its benefits, exercise can produce harmful free radicals and a new study is set to find out just how bad it is for you and what can be done to minimise the damage.

http://machineslikeus.com/news/exercise-may-be-bad-you

Again, it is a matter of concentration. Sugar can be an effective energy source, however overindulgence coupled with insufficient exercise can lead to a number of adverse effects. E.g. links have been established with obesity and type II diabetes. The reason is simply that our metabolism is not adapted to the consumptions level that are now possible.

Ok

Mostly because it's "empty" calories that don't make you feel full.

Ok, I guess I was reading into the statement the implication that it was unhealthy, as opposed to just not being of any benefit.

Are we all just animals and that is all there is to it?

I assume you are implying that we are more than "just animals". Is that correct? If so can you expand a bit and tell me what you mean by this? Thanks.

Also, with regards to "but XXX is good for your health": it all boils down to concentration. Soft drinks are generally extremely rich in simple sugars and/or high fructose corn syrup, which is not very healthy.

In what way is it not healthy?