What kind of knowledge do you think should be pursued?

1 month 2 weeks ago

"Well as the kind of knowledge should be perused I would hope everyone would chose some branch of naturalistic inquiry and thus far (to my relief) this has been true. Myself, personally I feel that fundamental physics research should be an area that humanity should focus on. I could decide to write why I would chose this branch, but alas time is of the essence. "
View

Less mainstream bands?

3 months 3 weeks ago

"I'm not going to say to much but what I wil say is that I would recommend the band Nightwish."
View

Ignorance of law

4 months 2 weeks ago

"It isn't fair but it is the only way. If some one said that they where ignorant how would you know if they where telling the truth? If ignorance was an excuse for breaking the law there would be no reason for people not to say "I didn't know, now let me go"."
View

Independence

4 months 3 weeks ago

"Ahh, an excellent topic, particularly for me as I am an American citizen and yesterday was independence day for the United States; woot 233 years old, can't wait till 250.

On a more serious note though...

I would say revolution (violent or not) is justified only when the government that is to be overthrown has failed to properly serve the people. Yes the point of the government is to serve the people, in today's modern times I feel that too many people forget that. Now what it means to "properly serve" brings up the whole matter of what is the proper function of government but that is a different discussion, some might say it is to provide jobs for all while others might say to maintain the law and nothing else but this is a matter upon itself outside this thread."
View

Preparing your work for a larger audience

4 months 3 weeks ago

"I totally agree with your analysis. It really bugs me to see a really well done wallpaper only to see that it is 1024x768 or 1280x1024. I mean really if people want to crate art only for themselves they have every right, but they should realize that virtually no one with any modern screen can use there work.

(PS as some may know I do sometimes request different resolutions but I normally get one of four answers these being; yes, no it's too difficult, no I don't have the time or no reply at all. I can say most of the time it is not yes)"
View

Can you play any instruments?

4 months 3 weeks ago

"Violin since I was eight years old for me. A frustrating mistress the instrument is though, but if you manage to work things out a beautiful mistress she is.

Ok, I done with my poetics. "
View

Atheist?

4 months 4 weeks ago

"@$damoser

Well, yes and no. Yes I want to end this discussion on a dignified note. No science is not subject to personal interpretation but rather it is subject to a consensus by the scientific community as a whole; I feel that everyone knows how the scientific consensus is leaning, that is why publication and peer review is the last step in the scientific method, but I digress. I am just happy enough just to know that I have broken some stereotypical views on atheists. When working with theists a 50% success rate is pretty darn good.

If I must leave on one final note that would be to read a verity of literature. If one was a member of the communist party under Stalin and only read literature from the communist party one would assume Stalin was a good guy. Look at it all, not just the stuff you already agree with."
View

Atheist?

4 months 4 weeks ago

"@$damoser

On atheism ya there are a lot of types of atheists around. Most of them happen to be humanist methodological naturalists so most theists assume (with some justification) that all atheists are humanist methodological naturalists. Some atheists happen to be different than others though. I think of myself as an objectivity methodological naturalist, the knowledge system is the same but the moral system is quite different.

On macro and micro, that is my fault, no biologist speak of micro and macro in the way that creationists do. If you take a look at all three sources where your quote exists you find a paragraph where you see this statement about macro vs. micro in the context of the evolution vs creationism scuffle among the public.

All three sources here

Right above your quote regarding evolution vs creationism

These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.

Furthermore you can look at this and this. These two sites explain the above listed quote.

You must look at things in context of the whole, not just the one part that fits.

Last off, I must say one thing, I care about science and I feel that it is important and have assigned the promotion of science as an important issue in my life, unlike some atheists that would assign themselves the goal of eliminating religion. If you where to accept evolution as accepted by mainstream science this would not hurt your theist beliefs. One might think that evolution is a tool of God if one wishes. In fact Ken Miller, a very devoted Cristian is an evolutionary biologist that accepts evolution as is and still retains his faith. He was the one who stood as an expert witness in the legal case that affirmed that creationism was not science and he was the one who wrote the definitive book on how evolution and theism are not separate things but rather things that one can use to complement each other in his book Finding Darwin's God.

If there are two points that I would like to stress they would be that there are atheists other than the stereotypical humanist methodological naturalists that are ohh so well known and that there is no need to fight evolution in the name of faith. I care about science, not the elimination of faith.
"
View

Atheist?

4 months 4 weeks ago

"@$damoser

I know your insist I somehow don't understand but have you considered that you don't know my position better then I do? To say someone is atheist does not tell you anything but that that person does not have a belief in gods. For example my neighbor is a new age spiritualist that does not believe in gods but believes that all things have all been going though and will go on forever through a perpetual cycle of life. She lacks a belief in gods but does not believe in evolution.

I think you are confusing methodological naturalism with atheism. All methodological naturalists are atheists but not all atheists are methodological naturalists. Same thing with Buddhists. All Buddhists are atheists but not all atheists are Buddhists.

Furthermore I was taking you on your word that you understood evolution but if you fall for the "there is a difference between macro and micro evolution" thing I guess not. You will never hear a biologist talking of micro and macro evolution, you will only hear of micro and macro evolution on christian apologetic websites. If you really want to learn about evolution you should read sources other than christian apologetics. Otherwise you will end up in a situation where you think that such ideas as micro and macro are legitimate.

I would seriously recommend talking to your local biology professor, ask questions and to take a look at the books that that prof recommends."
View

Atheist?

4 months 4 weeks ago

"@~Gvnkwyr
Hehe, I would like a formal debate in the flesh in front of a panel of judges. "
View

Atheist?

5 months 4 hours ago

"@$damoser

First off evolution is completely unrelated to atheism one can be without a belief in god yet not have any knowledge of evolution or even have the faintest question about life at all. The lack of a belief in any god does not mean a belief in evolution is required.

Second off how life started is not crucial to evolution at all. I don't know is you attend any higher educational facilities but if you do you can ask your biology prof what evolution is. I guarantee you they will say something along the lines of "It is how life changes slowly over time" they might even expand upon it beyond that if you ask. Evolution does not deal with the origine of life. If you don't believe me ask a Biology Proffesor, whom I can assure you is more qualified to talk on the subject than I.

Third off there are many sources of evidence for evolution but I will explain my favorite, the long term E.coli experiment.

In 1988 Richard Lenski was responsible for starting the experiment. What he did was set up 12 flasks filled with E.coli bacteria. Each of the 12 populations is kept in an incubator in Lenski's laboratory at Michigan State University in a minimum glucose level with a high level of citrate. Each day, 1% of each population is transferred to a flask of fresh growth medium again at the minimum glucose level with a high level of citrate. Large, representative samples of each population are frozen with glycerol as a cryoprotectant at 500-generation (75 day) intervals. The populations are also regularly screened for changes in mean fitness, and supplemental experiments are regularly performed to study interesting developments in the populations.

The important part here is the citrate. E.coli bacteria do not have any ability to materialize citrate only the minimal levels of glucose so they where only able reproduce minimally.

There where some minor changes in the years such as larger cell sizes to better be able to metabolize the glucose but that was not important.

In 2008 33,127 E.coli generations later something important did happen. In one of the flasks the E.coli bacteria where able to metabolize citrate. Since every 500 generations was frozen and stored the scientists where able to look back upon the former generations and see how this came about. THey discovered that three mutations where responsible the first came about just after 20,000 generations of E.coli was a neutral mutation neither bring harm or good to the E.coli. The second occurred in E.coli between generation 31,000 and 31,500, this was also neutral. The third occurred at 33,127 generations and with the first two enabled the third that allowed that branch of E.coli to consume citrate. By all means this newly evolved by natural selection by means of small mutations lifeforms is more complex, more capable creature with more genetic "information" was certainly more advanced than the "Bc251 strain" from that it came.

Here is a picture of the flask containing the citrate variant of E.coli. (translucent one)



That is just one piece of evidence for evolution, there are many more.

If you want to talk about the origin of life I can't say I am confident enough to answer every possible thing you could though at me, I would recommend seeing your local confident biology professor and see if they can answer your questions. My arguments on this matter are more meta arguments but hey what can I say.

If you want to talk about scientific merits of evolution though I would be happy to, but if there is anything I would like to stress that how life started and how life changes are completely different matters. "
View

Atheist?

5 months 1 day ago

"Ok, ok there was a lot written there that I would like to show the flaws in but again, I don't want to get into 5 page rebuttals, I simply don't have the time or the desire to attempt to demonstrate points on the internet. I don't want to follow the xkcd (excellent comic by the way) model.

I do feel that I can sum up my point here. The whole point of me entering here was originally to state my position on atheism. That aside things changed and I want on to try to show to you how evolution works. From there we got on to the origin of the first bit of life, this is not evolution but rather a different area of science. All evolution says is that animals change slowly over time by means of small gradual changes and that specialization can occur though many small changes and isolation. Nothing more nothing less.

I have already shown you one direct piece of evidence that demonstrates evolution.

My task to you is show me one piece of evidence that supports creationism.

One thing you should take note of though. If evolution was totally shown to be false and all of the evidence humanity has accumulated was somehow invalid and it was found that the flu virus did not change slowly over time that would not prove creationism. TO say it does would be a false dichotomy. There could be other ways life does what it does beyond either being created "as is" or changing slowly over time that has yet to be discovered."
View

Atheist?

5 months 2 days ago

"I understand how you feel, but to simply denounce modern science and say "the fact is that there are no facts" is not the answer. As much as some would like to change it evolution is supported by 95% of all scientists in America and is accepted by 99.89% of the US's earth and life scientists. I understand that as a religions person why you might think science is based on dogma but it is not.

I'm not going to re-explain how science works again but I will offer this point. If you overcome a prior well established theory with your own now theory that brings you fame, grants and personal wealth. Think of this even 50 years latter nearly every man women and child knows a certain scientists name because he overturned out the very well established "laws" of Isac Newton and replaced it his theories of relativity and special relativity one of the formulas being e=mc^2). Do you know why? This is because the predictions of the theory where more accurate. Now do you really think science is something that people agree upon dogmas? No, of course not, it is a constant struggle for recognition and funding. If some scientist where to think of a theory that had better predictions on how life came about how it is than evolution then they would be set for life. Fame, money and the ability to do whatever he or she wanted. If one looks at how modern scientists work one would know there is an incentive to overthrow the old models rather than create dogmas.

Also I don't think you understood the Ionian Scientist parable. The point was that just because science doesn't have 100% of the answers or that one particular scientist can not explain every point that scientific knowledge has to offer does not mean that the priest has the right to clam that Phaethon pulls the sun. The same applies to the god Yahweh and you. Reread the story. Do you see now?

Furthermore I would agree that the probability of life forming is low, this is even more so if one does not understand the vastness of cosmic time or to bring it down to an earthly level even geologic time. The amount of time is simply absurd to us humans that think on a scale of hour to hour, day to day, year to year, decade to decade or even century to century. Think of it this way on the scale of the early geologic time scale 100,000 years isn't even a blip on the radar, nothing to notice at all. 100,000 years is less than 0.00005% of the age of the earth, a million years is less than 0.0005% of the age of the earth let alone let us not even think about cosmic time. Although life is improbable time is vaster on a scale that humans can't fathom to understand, only though math do we try.

As for nature I would agree that nature is wonderful and scientific knowledge has much to learn, but again I must say how much has been learned in the mere 300 years that science has been continuously practiced. Give science the time of 1% of the age of the earth and even then with all 45 million years of learning and it will still be young; then existing to study the universe for less than .003% of the existence of the universe itself. To bring it to more human numbers compare this to history from the dawn of modern man to today we have nearly 20% of all of that history in written record, yet even legitimate historians have disputes. The fact that in science durring the 0.00000006% of the existence of the earth that it has been around we have accumulated enough evidence to satisfy over 98% of all life and earth scientists who study the matter.

Well as for evolution I do claim that it occures with 100% certainty because I have the evidence to show it. There are a few direct observations of this but my favorite is the Longterm E.coli experiment

As for evolution in the past and natural selection I would never say it was 100% the source of all life as we know it, there might be some other way complex life could come about that may be supported someday, but as other posters have said I will continue to say that it is the best supported idea on the cause of life as we know it, certainly much more supported than any version of creationism."
View

Hello Anime World

5 months 2 days ago

"Hello and welcome from Pennsylvania, United States. Hope you enjoy AP.net"
View

life

5 months 2 days ago

"Hmmm... an interesting question. As many people have stated many things they think to be the point of life I will make a meta statement. I will say that the purpose of life is to find or create a purpose and by striving to meet that purpose to be happy in the effort and potentially the goal if achieved."
View

Hello :)

5 months 2 days ago

"Nice to meet you, hope you have a good time at AP.net"
View

Yo ... =)

5 months 3 days ago

"Nice to meet you too. Hope you enjoy AP.net"
View

Eternal Sonata

5 months 3 days ago

"I played the PS3 version, probably one of the better games I have ever played. The combat system is awesome. Particularly when you get chains. "
View

Atheist?

5 months 3 days ago

"@~Gvnkwyr

Fair enough not because I agree but sometimes one get tired of this. None the less as you said the march of science continues on. The one thing I must say is that one of us has the truth, either Phaethon pulls the sun or he does not. Either Yahweh designed life or he did not. It can only be one or the other."
View

Atheist?

5 months 4 days ago

"@~Izzy
Not this one, but this one if you want.

@tofuguy

I understand your "naturalism vs supernatural preference" standing and I guess that is where we differ. For my it is a goal in my life to know as many things that are consistent with reality as I can. I say what people prefer does not change reality in the slightest.

To be honest I would most defiantly prefer a xxxholic-esqe world where the supernatural is most defiantly real, but as I see no reason to believe in the supernatural as someone who values reality must put my wishes aside for what actually is.

I would prefer a world where when people die they all gain eternal life. Not just those who follow a certain click, act a certain way follow certain bronze age beliefs as some do, but as there is no more reason to believe in this than there is to believe that at flying spaghetti monster will hold all in it's eternal embrace after death.

I would prefer an existence where death did not occur, suffering never happened and people where treated with justice; but can my preference alone change reality? Of course not, to think so would show a bit more than irrationality.

I would prefer a world where a powerful, wise, loving being watched over us all and would keep all safe and secure, but alas a preference can not bring this to reality.

What I can say is that I can emphasize with your "it's a preference mentality". I can also emphasize with your choice to prefer the soft warm existence where you have absolute truths and divine protection, for the other, as you say "preference" is cold, harsh and indifferent to humanity.

Alas though I understand your preference for a divine security blanket, but in the end we just have different values. "
View

Atheist?

5 months 4 days ago

"@~tofuguy @ Gvnkwyr

Here we go again ^_^. I was talking of evolution and how small changes and seperation can produce species, but as everyone wants to bring it to how life started I would be happy to.

First off we again have a false dichotomy you say that it must have been spontaneous generation OR an act of a god.
I would say there there are other options; these including but not limited to the

The organic soup theory
The deep sea vent theory
The Sidney W. Fox theory
The Eigen theory
The iron-sulfur world theory
The Radioactive beach theory.
Or even unknown probabilities yet to be discovered

All of these theories are distinct possible origins of life that do not rely on spontaneous generation. To simply say either spontaneous generation or big brother in the sky did it shows that whomever would make that statement has most definably not looked into the matter.

Furthermore to say that since science isn't able to produce an answer to simply say "daddy magic man" must have done it is even more foolish.

Imagine this some 1500 years ago an ancient Ionian scientist may have been challenged by the priest of the god of choice at that time, Zeus. The priest would say "well you deny the existence of the gods? That gives you many problems." "Let me ask you this if not Phaethon who exists and pulls the sun, what makes the sun move?" well given the knowledge of the time the Ionian scientist would say something along the lines of "I do not know for sure, I have ideas but none of them can I confirm with 100% accuracy". The priest would declare victory and say "See, the fool can not explain the movement of the sun! I say to you that it is Phaethon who pulls it and without Phaethon there can be no movement of the sun." he would continue on to justify his claim by saying "for who among you think of an object that can move daily without slowing?" "Push, pull or though anything and no matter how hard you try it will slow and stop" "Thus I say to you the god Phaethon pulls the sun daily."

Is it true that Phaethon pulls the sun daily because the Ionian scientist could not explain the movement of the sun? Why, with our modern knowledge, no.

The same applies here. You feel that since science has yet to come up with an absolute 100% sure origin of life you have the right to say Phaethon crated life. Do you see the flaw in this? I hope so.

Science, as many gifts it has given us, these ranging from computer you are typing on, to the antibiotics that have saved billions of lives is still an infant. Science has been systematically and continuously practiced for under 300 years. Would you expect anything that has existed for less than a second on the geological calendar of time to understand the calendar fully with 100% confidence as a whole? Why that would be insane.

So my question is to you why do you feel so confident that Phaethon pulls the sun?"
View

Atheist?

5 months 5 days ago

"Thank you Gvnkwyr, I wasn't sure wither to write a 5 page response outlining some of the basic reasons evolution is seen as true or wither to simply not give creationism the creditability by actually arguing against it. I agree with most of what you said but the faith thing but as you yourself said evolution is "this is exactly what happened, and I can reproduce it in a lab" and I think that is safe to say an evidence based belief, so I don't mind.

You have answered in my lieu and I thank you. You saved me quite the bit of work."
View

Atheist?

5 months 5 days ago

"@$damoser

Darn it a was just about to come to terms with you but you had to bring in that science is faith fallacy. So before I go type out why science is not faith I want to clarify. Do you think science is based on faith? I mean last time I checked it was based on observation hypothesis, experiment, analyzation and publication."
View