Im essentially arguing that this is the best of all possible worlds. Or potentially i may switch to this is becoming, through natural and social evolution, the best of all possible worlds. Although the outcome depends on human choice, the reason it is the best possible outcome is because of the existence of human choice, and the ability to grow.
I know there is a 1 week window to make a debate, but i was expecting the investigators opening statement sooner. I hope you havent forgotten.
Btw, this debate was not at my request. I simply insisted on the truth as i will defend it when i received this challenge in my notifications. I did not request it, but i will certainly not decline it.
I disagree with athias's statment. Forum discussions are irrelevant to a debate as per rules, and our PMs were limited to clarifying your juxtaposition statement. The short argument period got you a forfeit instead of preventing one, and is absolutely unrealistic for a dual statement, economic research heavy debate. It was a mistake on my part to rush to accept.
The president can do that because he is the commander in chief. He says go, they go. It isn't officially a war, but it could sure seem like it to the deployed nation.
Are there any examples of democratic constiution dodging that you know of?
Perhaps you are right that the constitution is vague on this issue. For America's sake i hope this precedent does not hold. I conceed it was not unconstitutional, but it was a low blow that made america weaker in the long term. Shame on them.
These are people entrusted by the people to run there government. It is their duty to advise and consent the president. They can reject the nomination, but they cannot ignore it.
Im not saying they broke the law, I'm saying they are failing to do their job. They swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and yet they are ignoring it.
Also the supreme court was designed by the constitution to have 9 judges.
Theory (as used in science): an tested explanation of a natural occurrence.
Evolution is a fact
The theory of evolution explains that fact
Lets look at evolution. It is made of only 2 parts, mutations, and natural selection.
1. Mutations. A fact. We know them to exist. We have seen them first hand. We understand how they work.
2. Natural selection. A fact. If you cant survive and make babies, you die out.
1+2=evolution.
They dont have to accept him, but they do have to consider and vote on whether to accept him. The constitution says the president nominates new judges, and the senate interviews and confirms them. They just ignored it, refusing to do their constiutional duty.
You clearly dont understand the history of the constitution. Nor do you understand liberals, conservatives, or the concept of individuals without a hive mind. Your partisanship is starting to control you.
The constitution was a series of compromises, not a perfect document, that restricted voting to not even include all white men, forget everyone else. It registered humans as property. The consitution of today is not the original broken document. The constitution was given ammendment rules for a reason. Not for it to be worshiped blindly, but for it to evolve and grow.
Also republicans ignore the consitution all the time. Remember not confirming obamas court choice cause mitch had a better idea?
I think youve been triggered in another debate. Your much less open and much more aggressive then in our previous debate.
Cities dont get representation because they get representation thru their state. Texas state representatives represent dallas residents. I addressed that point when i said washington dc does not belong to a state and therefore has no representatives.
If you wish to give them to a state thats fine. The key, objective, issue is they need representation. Any solution is fine. The partisanship is all you, own it.
The problem with your argument is that your opponent believes everything was designed so all natural examples are invalid in his eyes. In other words all examples that disagree with him are invalid. He must think himself infallible, as if he is god, because there is no way he can be wrong, its just those damned blind liberals (lmaorofl)
"In what ways is it useful to think of the cell as a system? (In general, thinking about a cell as a system helps in understanding individual cell organelle functions, and how they operate within the larger context of the cell.)"
This is a simplification to help young students understand a cell. It is a learning tool. It is not an accurate comparision of cells and factories. It is a simplification for children trying to grasp complex subjects. You need to upgrade from grade school information to something more advanced.
And yet we have non white animals in the arctic as well, like the moose which has no reason to hide because he is big, fast, and has big antlers... if the reason was just for it to look nice, why isnt the arctic moose white? Your agrument has just collapsed.
Is it possible god is behind it all? Yes. But your arguments are just as easily explained by nature as they are by god. Thus your arguments fail. Not because i am blind, but because they are weak, and you refuse to adapt. Cause you think yourself infallible.
People matching red cups to red plates is a subjective style choice. During the 60s people liked to mix colors. In japan many young people go out of their way to not match, or at least used to. An intelligent designer can make all things possible. White rabbit, white snow; white rabbit red snow, he can do it.
Nature cannot have mismatch because animals need to hide. The fact that your analogies also happen to always fit the natural model, while god would fit any and all models is a point in favor of the natural argument.
Also science very good at telling us where things came from. Like why many artic animals are white, the rest got eaten, or were unable to sneak up on food and starved. Sounds like a simple, logical conclusion that also fits everything else we found.
You say all planets, stars, etc are all round, but they are all different types of round. None of them are pervect circles. All of them are different shapes when looked at closer. Where was the planning there?
Many animals grow in winter coats. Hair is not permanent, it grows and changes constantly. Some animals can even change their skin color for camouflage using simple mechanisms we know and understand.
Cells work through chemical processes and controlled via negative feedback loops. Industrial Plants work through mechanical processes and have almost no negative feedback loops. They are completely different.
Wow.
You do know it is possible to be correct but not have a convincing argument? You seem to think that the only reason you are losing is because you are arguing for god, and completely dismissing the possibility that your argument is no good.
I believe in evolution, but ive seen people trying to defend evolution in completely incorrect ways. Their conclusion is good, but their arguments sucked. Your arguments are not very convincing regardless whether you are right or wrong. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can work to improve your arguments.
Believing that everyone simply doesnt like your conclusion is a sure way to never improve.
The only word play i see is "logically you can make arguments but they arent neccesarily logical arguments". That sounds like nonsense. If you make an argument logically, you make logical arguments.
A fact is a single sentence: germs spread disease. Thats it.
A theory can fill multiple books. How disease is spread, how germs cause injury, how the body combats the germs, how to break the chain of infection, etc. All of this can fill numerous textbooks and the details are always subject to change with new data. That is a theory.
A theory does not become a fact, a theory describes a fact. They exist together.
Please look up the definition of scientific theory.
There is a difference between theory and fact. Do you think that germs cause infection disease is a fact? Of course it is. To describe this fact we developed the germ *theory* of disease. The same way the *theory* of relativity describes the fact of gravity. Many parts of the theory of evolution are up for debate, with new discoveries fleshing out more details. But the fact that evolution happens is a fact. The theory describes and explains the fact.
Thinking logically can be dangerous. Logically i can make arguments for a flat stationary earth. Logic can lead to many different, even contradictory answers. Which is why science is superior to philosophy for objective knowledge.
Einsteins theory was developed by mathematics (not experimentation) and confirmed recently through observation (not experimentation) of gravity waves. Sure we can experimentally verify some aspexts of his theory, but not the whole thing. The same applies to evolution.
evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution describes that fact.
And i disagree, returning smarty comments has had excellent results in calming people down from their hype and continuing a productive conversation. It is unfortunate you missed the purpose of my statment.
And we can deduce objectively what you had for breakfast by studying your feces, your left over dishes, and other observational evidence. All of astronomy has barely any experimentation, almost exclusively observation. Will you claim that astronomy is not science? We know the composition, age, distance, and brightness of every star without ever tested them in any lab. Experimentation is but one tool of science. A good tool, but not the only one. Thinking otherwise is a major misconception.
If you want a less technical description, scientists ask questions and try to find out how the world functions. As a medical professional to another medical professional, the last thing you want a doctor to do is start guessing and experimenting on his patients. You want a doctor to apply *known* knowlede in his trouble shooting, not making new hypotheses. Im sorry you got offended by this realization but the sooner you accept that a doctor is not meant to do guess work the better.
Im not sure what your point with einstein is at all. Einstein didnt experiment but he did ask questions and searched for novel answers. Not something i want a doctor to do unless all conventional treatments fail. There is nothing wrong with being a doctor and not a scientist. This negativity is completely imagined.
Laugh all you want but there isnt much funny here. Scientists research new ideas or test old ones. Doctors apply known and tested knowledge into actual practice. They are known as applied science, rather then research science (like actual scientists), in that sense they are closer to engenieers, only working on far more advanced machines.
Some doctors do do research, but their numbers and scope is limited compared to a biologist. I hope this cleared up the perceived joke.
Your confusion is based on a classic misconception. Science is not limited to experimentation. Einstein didnt do any experimentation, at least for his famous theroems. Does that mean einstein and relativity arent science? Sorry, now im laughing.
An MD is trained in known knowledge and how to apply it. He is not trained in the discovery of new knowledge which usually involves a PhD. Knowing the function of systems doesnt automatically lead to knowing how those systems change and evolve, although it does give one a good head start. Slow clap back at ya :)
An MD is not a scientist. I would trust them with my life regarding applied science and treatment of disease, but not in a discussion over what qualifies as a theory. Doctors mostly read study results, very few do studies, and most of those studies involve medicine, not evolution.
This is like citing a psychologist for a climate question. Expertise is not transferable. An MD and a PhD are 2 different types of degrees.
You ignored the recoil problem completely. Do you think full auto is easy to handle by a noob? The problem isnt that it runs out of ammo, but that the ammo is often completely wasted lowering its lethality.
Yeah, totally confused pro and con. Pro will have an easy job winning this debate based on techical definition.
However the ar should not be a civilian rifle and has no purpose as such. I will agree with you that it isnt any more deadly *then other semis*, but my stance is that semi autos should not be civilian weapons, nothing specifically against the ar.
People hunt for 2 reasons: food and sport.
If your hunting for food, filling your meat full of lead is not smart. If your hunting for sport, and you use a semi auto, your not a sportsman, your a coward.
If they have a tripod or incredible arm strength, then yes. Semi auto is incredibly fast on its own, and you are less likely to end up shooting at the ceiling within 2 seconds from the recoil.
Theres a reason why the military doesnt typically use it. Because except for special situations, like a tripod (or whatever its term is), its less lethal.
We'll be alittle extra safe. There would be slightly smaller casualty counts if thats ok. Although if a crazy/angry non amateur gets his hands on one....
This seems like an easy win for con. No K necessary. It flat out isnt.
It certainly looks like it should be though. "Sporting rifle" my @s. What sport is this for? Its a slightly nerfed military weapon, that doesnt mean civilizans should have it. Removing full auto makes it more accurate and deadly for stupid amateurs.
Re: Bible continued
I have thought much about the afterlife, and I think nothingness is an option, even with a god.
I have also heard of several different interpretations to the afterlife, mostly from Judaism, which officially almost never mentions it, thus many interpretations, including no afterlife, are presented.
My favorite 2 interpretations involve heaven and purgatory, where purgatory is like hell, but temporary (finite punishment relative to the crime, rather then eternal punishment for any and all who dont qualify for heaven.
The other interpretation I like is that the afterlife is an empty estate at birth. Every good deed you build up your land/house. Every sin, you dump a bunch of garbage or knock something down. In the end, you live in whatever it is you built.
Both interpretations are based of deeds. An afterlife based on faith speaks to a vain, imperfect, possibly evil god, imo.
One interpretation from a christian that sounded ok was that if you dont have faith in god, why would you want to spend eternity with him... which sounds ok, if the alternative for good people who did not believe was something other than eternal torture.
Re: Bible
I cannot provide specific passages, only the spirit of the message in general, although I'm sure you have enough experience with the bible to refute me if I'm wrong. What I can say is that many of the sayings and narratives attributed to Jesus in the first person feel very different to the spirit of christianity as practiced in the mainstream today. And many of the practices in maintstream christianity today are justified by 3rd person accounts of Jesus, presumably by the disciples.
For example, I've heard many of the passages regarding homosexuality and how to treat homosexuals came from Paul, a person who never met Jesus except for by his own account in a vision. Paul persecuted christians prior to conversion, and seemingly brought his intolerance to the faith after conversion. Instead of embracing the sinner and finding out what lead them on that path, sin became something to shame. Nowadays gays are protested rather then welcomed by Christians. I do not believe that is what Jesus taught, but it is the teaching that has been passed down.
I certainly hope jesus, in the first person, did not put faith above deeds. If he did, rather then being convinced, I will be disappointed. But you will certainly be a greater authority on this subject then I.
1. You are right regarding the reformation, however since the reformation, there have been a vast number of protestant ideologies that came from that personal reading of the scripture. This subjectivity in interpretation is one strong proof against it being a divine word. Unless god intended for different people to receive a different message from his text, this confusion is not becoming of a divine word. I would greatly dispute how trustworthy that testament is. This testament is presented to us by humans, and it is blind faith that we assume that this is its original form. Its meaning could have been corrupted intentionally by evil men, or even unintentionally due to fallible translation.
Re: morality
Nobody claimed moralities independent of god are objective, rather I am claiming that moralities dependent on god are also subjective, as the god behind them is also subjective. You seem to support this by saying that each theistic group has "its own objective moralities." if there are numerous objective moralities, then they are not objective.
The concept of good I was referring to is subjective. I am referring to my own concept of good that was built based off the values of the society I was raised in. Although it would be comforting, I do not believe there is an objective morality, so none of my points were designed to demonstrate, defend, support, or mimic an objective morality. Simply my western definition of what is good, and my judgement of other culture's historical moralities.
It is my subjective opinion that more individual rights are better. That is based off the individualistic western society I was raised in. Many eastern cultures are collectivistic. Actually almost all human societies prior to modern western culture were collectivistic, and they valued the greater good above the individual. Personally I can understand the reasoning and certainly some aspect of that seem good, but the values of my culture seem better, at least to me. These opinions are as subjective as me saying that modern action movies are better. Many would agree with me, and I can say it with confidence, but we can all agree art is a subjective subject, despite many very decisive opinions.
It is historically agreed upon that most Germans did not know the full truth about the holocaust. There have been some atrocious moralities in history, like Sparta, but the secrecy of the holocaust shows that even Germany knew this was wrong. It was just politically convenient and lust for power overpowered the morality of those in power. I hope that answer is more palatable. Germany was, after all, a western nation with western ideals/morals.
re: intelligent design cont
the question of who set the law of physics is different from the goldilocks habitable environment rarity question which has, imo, been debunked. We have no knowledge of what is beyond our universe, or other universes if they exist, so objectively we dont know. However I do not believe the big bang was the beginning of everything, I believe in the multiverse, which may or may not allow for variable physical laws. I cannot answer this question objectively, and yes my multiverse idea is a belief, not a known fact.
The multiverse is not science, it is science fiction. Not only is it just a hypothesis, it is an untestable hypothesis. Many scientifically inclined people may support the idea, just like many scientists believe in god. but their belief doesn't translate into science until it is testable.
could you please explain how nature could be used to answer all situations? Our view of nature assumes natural laws function the same everywhere. An intelligent designer can turn rules on and off at will. Nature simply follows the same rules throughout without error. How can nature be anything but consistent? Can you elaborate?
Yes math is always theoretical as far as I can tell, a good example will easily convince me otherwise, but if you look at einstein's celebrated theory of relativity. It has long been accepted, but only after we discovered physical gravitational waves did the headlines say "einstein's theory proven." his theory was entirely mathematical, which was good enough as it never failed. But it was never empirical until we saw physical evidence of waves of the fabric of space.
Re: intelligent design
I didn't say it was a 1:1 ratio, but i did say it is inevitable given the scale of space and time.
What I said is that although an intelligent designer can make literally anything, nature can only proceed along 1 course of action. That course of action is the one we see.
As for the dice roll, as you roll more and more dice it is increasingly likely that *overall* it will become closer and closer to 50/50, but it is also increasingly likely to get unlikely streaks. A professor from Berkley, Deborah Nolan, had a famous activity where she would have her class split into 2 groups, 1 group would make up a series of 100 coin flips, while the other group would actually flip a coin 100 times. She would always know which was based off real coin flips because it would always have unlikely long streaks in the mix. Overall both are true. if you roll enough times you will have both outsized streaks AND an overall 50/50 result. Time, scale, and repetition make the unlikely inevitable.
It is difficult to tell how unlikely a "ball of matter *of unknown origin" would result in a big bang. The fact that it is unknown leaves too many variables to result in your conclusion. We have no idea what the ball was, what set it off, or what the conditions were before it went off. It is impossible to determine likelihood objectively. Remember, the big bang is the origin of our universe, we do not know that there is nothing before our universe, or beyond it. Science does not assume or guess, it recites what we know. no more, no less. We did get slammed by a meteor, maybe even a planetoid. Its ripped off a giant chunk of our planet. That chunk is now called the moon. Life is more resilient then you give it credit for, and even if this planet was made uninhabitable, there are countless planets which would be alternative candidates. There inevitably will be a success and that success may not be as unlikely as you think.
Why does what not apply to evolution?
Im essentially arguing that this is the best of all possible worlds. Or potentially i may switch to this is becoming, through natural and social evolution, the best of all possible worlds. Although the outcome depends on human choice, the reason it is the best possible outcome is because of the existence of human choice, and the ability to grow.
I know there is a 1 week window to make a debate, but i was expecting the investigators opening statement sooner. I hope you havent forgotten.
Btw, this debate was not at my request. I simply insisted on the truth as i will defend it when i received this challenge in my notifications. I did not request it, but i will certainly not decline it.
Interesting choice of direction.
I disagree with athias's statment. Forum discussions are irrelevant to a debate as per rules, and our PMs were limited to clarifying your juxtaposition statement. The short argument period got you a forfeit instead of preventing one, and is absolutely unrealistic for a dual statement, economic research heavy debate. It was a mistake on my part to rush to accept.
Also assuming is generally not good.
When im wrong, I'm wrong.
The president can do that because he is the commander in chief. He says go, they go. It isn't officially a war, but it could sure seem like it to the deployed nation.
Are there any examples of democratic constiution dodging that you know of?
You did say you agree republicans ignore the constiution when convenient. What are your examples?
Perhaps you are right that the constitution is vague on this issue. For America's sake i hope this precedent does not hold. I conceed it was not unconstitutional, but it was a low blow that made america weaker in the long term. Shame on them.
These are people entrusted by the people to run there government. It is their duty to advise and consent the president. They can reject the nomination, but they cannot ignore it.
Im not saying they broke the law, I'm saying they are failing to do their job. They swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and yet they are ignoring it.
Also the supreme court was designed by the constitution to have 9 judges.
Fact: something that is known to be true.
Theory (as used in science): an tested explanation of a natural occurrence.
Evolution is a fact
The theory of evolution explains that fact
Lets look at evolution. It is made of only 2 parts, mutations, and natural selection.
1. Mutations. A fact. We know them to exist. We have seen them first hand. We understand how they work.
2. Natural selection. A fact. If you cant survive and make babies, you die out.
1+2=evolution.
They dont have to accept him, but they do have to consider and vote on whether to accept him. The constitution says the president nominates new judges, and the senate interviews and confirms them. They just ignored it, refusing to do their constiutional duty.
Electoral votes dont give you representation in the legislative body.
You clearly dont understand the history of the constitution. Nor do you understand liberals, conservatives, or the concept of individuals without a hive mind. Your partisanship is starting to control you.
The constitution was a series of compromises, not a perfect document, that restricted voting to not even include all white men, forget everyone else. It registered humans as property. The consitution of today is not the original broken document. The constitution was given ammendment rules for a reason. Not for it to be worshiped blindly, but for it to evolve and grow.
Also republicans ignore the consitution all the time. Remember not confirming obamas court choice cause mitch had a better idea?
I think youve been triggered in another debate. Your much less open and much more aggressive then in our previous debate.
Cities dont get representation because they get representation thru their state. Texas state representatives represent dallas residents. I addressed that point when i said washington dc does not belong to a state and therefore has no representatives.
If you wish to give them to a state thats fine. The key, objective, issue is they need representation. Any solution is fine. The partisanship is all you, own it.
I never claimed to disprove god, only your arguments. Moose are not white year round. They do not match. Does that mean god made a mistake?
Why do you think yourself infallible?
I have no idea where your statement about evolution came from. It is a fact, what did i say that contradicted that?
Washington dc is not part of any state, and no state representatives represent them. You do know that right?
Taxation without representation and has been on their official license plates for decades now.
The problem with your argument is that your opponent believes everything was designed so all natural examples are invalid in his eyes. In other words all examples that disagree with him are invalid. He must think himself infallible, as if he is god, because there is no way he can be wrong, its just those damned blind liberals (lmaorofl)
In your link, if you return to the lesson plan:
"In what ways is it useful to think of the cell as a system? (In general, thinking about a cell as a system helps in understanding individual cell organelle functions, and how they operate within the larger context of the cell.)"
This is a simplification to help young students understand a cell. It is a learning tool. It is not an accurate comparision of cells and factories. It is a simplification for children trying to grasp complex subjects. You need to upgrade from grade school information to something more advanced.
And yet we have non white animals in the arctic as well, like the moose which has no reason to hide because he is big, fast, and has big antlers... if the reason was just for it to look nice, why isnt the arctic moose white? Your agrument has just collapsed.
I agree.
Would you like to debate the economic benefits of min wage with me after this finishes?
Is it possible god is behind it all? Yes. But your arguments are just as easily explained by nature as they are by god. Thus your arguments fail. Not because i am blind, but because they are weak, and you refuse to adapt. Cause you think yourself infallible.
People matching red cups to red plates is a subjective style choice. During the 60s people liked to mix colors. In japan many young people go out of their way to not match, or at least used to. An intelligent designer can make all things possible. White rabbit, white snow; white rabbit red snow, he can do it.
Nature cannot have mismatch because animals need to hide. The fact that your analogies also happen to always fit the natural model, while god would fit any and all models is a point in favor of the natural argument.
Also science very good at telling us where things came from. Like why many artic animals are white, the rest got eaten, or were unable to sneak up on food and starved. Sounds like a simple, logical conclusion that also fits everything else we found.
You say all planets, stars, etc are all round, but they are all different types of round. None of them are pervect circles. All of them are different shapes when looked at closer. Where was the planning there?
Many animals grow in winter coats. Hair is not permanent, it grows and changes constantly. Some animals can even change their skin color for camouflage using simple mechanisms we know and understand.
Rabbit is white because all the not white rabbits couldnt hide and were eaten. Maybe there is a god, but you are failing to demonstrate it.
All the cells work. What does that have to do with chemical self regulating processes and mechanical processes?
1. Being liberal has nothing to do with being a theist. Lots of conservatives are atheist. Lots of liberals are theists.
2. If you assume the only reason you are wrong is because others are blind, then you are beyond help. Do you think yourself perfect and infallible?
Cells work through chemical processes and controlled via negative feedback loops. Industrial Plants work through mechanical processes and have almost no negative feedback loops. They are completely different.
Wow.
You do know it is possible to be correct but not have a convincing argument? You seem to think that the only reason you are losing is because you are arguing for god, and completely dismissing the possibility that your argument is no good.
I believe in evolution, but ive seen people trying to defend evolution in completely incorrect ways. Their conclusion is good, but their arguments sucked. Your arguments are not very convincing regardless whether you are right or wrong. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can work to improve your arguments.
Believing that everyone simply doesnt like your conclusion is a sure way to never improve.
The only word play i see is "logically you can make arguments but they arent neccesarily logical arguments". That sounds like nonsense. If you make an argument logically, you make logical arguments.
A fact is a single sentence: germs spread disease. Thats it.
A theory can fill multiple books. How disease is spread, how germs cause injury, how the body combats the germs, how to break the chain of infection, etc. All of this can fill numerous textbooks and the details are always subject to change with new data. That is a theory.
A theory does not become a fact, a theory describes a fact. They exist together.
So your using partisanship to deny people representation? Thats kinda scummy.
If they voted republican you would go the other way right? Their rights dont matter to you do they?
Please look up the definition of scientific theory.
There is a difference between theory and fact. Do you think that germs cause infection disease is a fact? Of course it is. To describe this fact we developed the germ *theory* of disease. The same way the *theory* of relativity describes the fact of gravity. Many parts of the theory of evolution are up for debate, with new discoveries fleshing out more details. But the fact that evolution happens is a fact. The theory describes and explains the fact.
Thinking logically can be dangerous. Logically i can make arguments for a flat stationary earth. Logic can lead to many different, even contradictory answers. Which is why science is superior to philosophy for objective knowledge.
Einsteins theory was developed by mathematics (not experimentation) and confirmed recently through observation (not experimentation) of gravity waves. Sure we can experimentally verify some aspexts of his theory, but not the whole thing. The same applies to evolution.
evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution describes that fact.
And i disagree, returning smarty comments has had excellent results in calming people down from their hype and continuing a productive conversation. It is unfortunate you missed the purpose of my statment.
And we can deduce objectively what you had for breakfast by studying your feces, your left over dishes, and other observational evidence. All of astronomy has barely any experimentation, almost exclusively observation. Will you claim that astronomy is not science? We know the composition, age, distance, and brightness of every star without ever tested them in any lab. Experimentation is but one tool of science. A good tool, but not the only one. Thinking otherwise is a major misconception.
If you want a less technical description, scientists ask questions and try to find out how the world functions. As a medical professional to another medical professional, the last thing you want a doctor to do is start guessing and experimenting on his patients. You want a doctor to apply *known* knowlede in his trouble shooting, not making new hypotheses. Im sorry you got offended by this realization but the sooner you accept that a doctor is not meant to do guess work the better.
Im not sure what your point with einstein is at all. Einstein didnt experiment but he did ask questions and searched for novel answers. Not something i want a doctor to do unless all conventional treatments fail. There is nothing wrong with being a doctor and not a scientist. This negativity is completely imagined.
Laugh all you want but there isnt much funny here. Scientists research new ideas or test old ones. Doctors apply known and tested knowledge into actual practice. They are known as applied science, rather then research science (like actual scientists), in that sense they are closer to engenieers, only working on far more advanced machines.
Some doctors do do research, but their numbers and scope is limited compared to a biologist. I hope this cleared up the perceived joke.
Your confusion is based on a classic misconception. Science is not limited to experimentation. Einstein didnt do any experimentation, at least for his famous theroems. Does that mean einstein and relativity arent science? Sorry, now im laughing.
An MD is trained in known knowledge and how to apply it. He is not trained in the discovery of new knowledge which usually involves a PhD. Knowing the function of systems doesnt automatically lead to knowing how those systems change and evolve, although it does give one a good head start. Slow clap back at ya :)
More related, yes. Identical, no.
I think you can still edit the topic until it is accepted. Just remove the "not" and youll be good.
An MD is not a scientist. I would trust them with my life regarding applied science and treatment of disease, but not in a discussion over what qualifies as a theory. Doctors mostly read study results, very few do studies, and most of those studies involve medicine, not evolution.
This is like citing a psychologist for a climate question. Expertise is not transferable. An MD and a PhD are 2 different types of degrees.
Didnt get to appreciate this golden article due to nyt paywall... but are you really trying to establish fact via a 30 year old opinion piece?!?
You ignored the recoil problem completely. Do you think full auto is easy to handle by a noob? The problem isnt that it runs out of ammo, but that the ammo is often completely wasted lowering its lethality.
Yeah, totally confused pro and con. Pro will have an easy job winning this debate based on techical definition.
However the ar should not be a civilian rifle and has no purpose as such. I will agree with you that it isnt any more deadly *then other semis*, but my stance is that semi autos should not be civilian weapons, nothing specifically against the ar.
People hunt for 2 reasons: food and sport.
If your hunting for food, filling your meat full of lead is not smart. If your hunting for sport, and you use a semi auto, your not a sportsman, your a coward.
If they have a tripod or incredible arm strength, then yes. Semi auto is incredibly fast on its own, and you are less likely to end up shooting at the ceiling within 2 seconds from the recoil.
Theres a reason why the military doesnt typically use it. Because except for special situations, like a tripod (or whatever its term is), its less lethal.
We'll be alittle extra safe. There would be slightly smaller casualty counts if thats ok. Although if a crazy/angry non amateur gets his hands on one....
This seems like an easy win for con. No K necessary. It flat out isnt.
It certainly looks like it should be though. "Sporting rifle" my @s. What sport is this for? Its a slightly nerfed military weapon, that doesnt mean civilizans should have it. Removing full auto makes it more accurate and deadly for stupid amateurs.
Re: Bible continued
I have thought much about the afterlife, and I think nothingness is an option, even with a god.
I have also heard of several different interpretations to the afterlife, mostly from Judaism, which officially almost never mentions it, thus many interpretations, including no afterlife, are presented.
My favorite 2 interpretations involve heaven and purgatory, where purgatory is like hell, but temporary (finite punishment relative to the crime, rather then eternal punishment for any and all who dont qualify for heaven.
The other interpretation I like is that the afterlife is an empty estate at birth. Every good deed you build up your land/house. Every sin, you dump a bunch of garbage or knock something down. In the end, you live in whatever it is you built.
Both interpretations are based of deeds. An afterlife based on faith speaks to a vain, imperfect, possibly evil god, imo.
One interpretation from a christian that sounded ok was that if you dont have faith in god, why would you want to spend eternity with him... which sounds ok, if the alternative for good people who did not believe was something other than eternal torture.
Re: Bible
I cannot provide specific passages, only the spirit of the message in general, although I'm sure you have enough experience with the bible to refute me if I'm wrong. What I can say is that many of the sayings and narratives attributed to Jesus in the first person feel very different to the spirit of christianity as practiced in the mainstream today. And many of the practices in maintstream christianity today are justified by 3rd person accounts of Jesus, presumably by the disciples.
For example, I've heard many of the passages regarding homosexuality and how to treat homosexuals came from Paul, a person who never met Jesus except for by his own account in a vision. Paul persecuted christians prior to conversion, and seemingly brought his intolerance to the faith after conversion. Instead of embracing the sinner and finding out what lead them on that path, sin became something to shame. Nowadays gays are protested rather then welcomed by Christians. I do not believe that is what Jesus taught, but it is the teaching that has been passed down.
I certainly hope jesus, in the first person, did not put faith above deeds. If he did, rather then being convinced, I will be disappointed. But you will certainly be a greater authority on this subject then I.
1. You are right regarding the reformation, however since the reformation, there have been a vast number of protestant ideologies that came from that personal reading of the scripture. This subjectivity in interpretation is one strong proof against it being a divine word. Unless god intended for different people to receive a different message from his text, this confusion is not becoming of a divine word. I would greatly dispute how trustworthy that testament is. This testament is presented to us by humans, and it is blind faith that we assume that this is its original form. Its meaning could have been corrupted intentionally by evil men, or even unintentionally due to fallible translation.
Re: morality
Nobody claimed moralities independent of god are objective, rather I am claiming that moralities dependent on god are also subjective, as the god behind them is also subjective. You seem to support this by saying that each theistic group has "its own objective moralities." if there are numerous objective moralities, then they are not objective.
The concept of good I was referring to is subjective. I am referring to my own concept of good that was built based off the values of the society I was raised in. Although it would be comforting, I do not believe there is an objective morality, so none of my points were designed to demonstrate, defend, support, or mimic an objective morality. Simply my western definition of what is good, and my judgement of other culture's historical moralities.
It is my subjective opinion that more individual rights are better. That is based off the individualistic western society I was raised in. Many eastern cultures are collectivistic. Actually almost all human societies prior to modern western culture were collectivistic, and they valued the greater good above the individual. Personally I can understand the reasoning and certainly some aspect of that seem good, but the values of my culture seem better, at least to me. These opinions are as subjective as me saying that modern action movies are better. Many would agree with me, and I can say it with confidence, but we can all agree art is a subjective subject, despite many very decisive opinions.
It is historically agreed upon that most Germans did not know the full truth about the holocaust. There have been some atrocious moralities in history, like Sparta, but the secrecy of the holocaust shows that even Germany knew this was wrong. It was just politically convenient and lust for power overpowered the morality of those in power. I hope that answer is more palatable. Germany was, after all, a western nation with western ideals/morals.
re: intelligent design cont
the question of who set the law of physics is different from the goldilocks habitable environment rarity question which has, imo, been debunked. We have no knowledge of what is beyond our universe, or other universes if they exist, so objectively we dont know. However I do not believe the big bang was the beginning of everything, I believe in the multiverse, which may or may not allow for variable physical laws. I cannot answer this question objectively, and yes my multiverse idea is a belief, not a known fact.
The multiverse is not science, it is science fiction. Not only is it just a hypothesis, it is an untestable hypothesis. Many scientifically inclined people may support the idea, just like many scientists believe in god. but their belief doesn't translate into science until it is testable.
could you please explain how nature could be used to answer all situations? Our view of nature assumes natural laws function the same everywhere. An intelligent designer can turn rules on and off at will. Nature simply follows the same rules throughout without error. How can nature be anything but consistent? Can you elaborate?
Yes math is always theoretical as far as I can tell, a good example will easily convince me otherwise, but if you look at einstein's celebrated theory of relativity. It has long been accepted, but only after we discovered physical gravitational waves did the headlines say "einstein's theory proven." his theory was entirely mathematical, which was good enough as it never failed. But it was never empirical until we saw physical evidence of waves of the fabric of space.
I'm sorry, got distracted.
Re: intelligent design
I didn't say it was a 1:1 ratio, but i did say it is inevitable given the scale of space and time.
What I said is that although an intelligent designer can make literally anything, nature can only proceed along 1 course of action. That course of action is the one we see.
As for the dice roll, as you roll more and more dice it is increasingly likely that *overall* it will become closer and closer to 50/50, but it is also increasingly likely to get unlikely streaks. A professor from Berkley, Deborah Nolan, had a famous activity where she would have her class split into 2 groups, 1 group would make up a series of 100 coin flips, while the other group would actually flip a coin 100 times. She would always know which was based off real coin flips because it would always have unlikely long streaks in the mix. Overall both are true. if you roll enough times you will have both outsized streaks AND an overall 50/50 result. Time, scale, and repetition make the unlikely inevitable.
It is difficult to tell how unlikely a "ball of matter *of unknown origin" would result in a big bang. The fact that it is unknown leaves too many variables to result in your conclusion. We have no idea what the ball was, what set it off, or what the conditions were before it went off. It is impossible to determine likelihood objectively. Remember, the big bang is the origin of our universe, we do not know that there is nothing before our universe, or beyond it. Science does not assume or guess, it recites what we know. no more, no less. We did get slammed by a meteor, maybe even a planetoid. Its ripped off a giant chunk of our planet. That chunk is now called the moon. Life is more resilient then you give it credit for, and even if this planet was made uninhabitable, there are countless planets which would be alternative candidates. There inevitably will be a success and that success may not be as unlikely as you think.
Noticed voting is your goal... wouldnt want you to miss out :p
Dibs on the next rock battle