Area54

Bollocks. Complete and utter nonsense. Bilge. Profound and deeply offensive ignorance. Anatomy can define the detailed structure of your fish and their component organs and systems. Zoology can detail the function of each of these organs and systems. Embryology can review the development of these organs and systems from a zygote to an adult fish. Neurology can provide information on the nature of their nervous system. Evolutionary biology can trace their lineage back a billion years. Ethology can describe and explain their behaviour. Cytology can explain the workings of individual cells. Biochemistry can detail their metabolism. Genetics can illuminate how all of these are controlled. Ecology can describe how they fit into and influence their environment. In short Mike, science knows a great deal more about your fish than you will ever know, as long as you choose fairy stories over sound, multiply validated observations and their resultant hypotheses and theories.

It also got a lot less likely. If the juxtaposition of two glaciations in close proximity is necessary for complex life to develop, then it is less likely to have occurred on other planets.

"20,000 years ago" seems like an error. The Indus Valley civilisation dates to only 5,000 years ago. Underwater remains in the Gulf of Kutch and the Gulf of Cambay may be as old as 11,000 years, but I believe there are question marks around them. Any sites from 20,000 years ago are primitive neolithic examples. I do not know of any evidence for societies of the kind you suggest 20,000 years ago. Do you have some?

Indeed. The Pause is preferred to the claws from the paws. Edit: I should probably have used it here.

I seem to be seeing people who are in fundamental agreement, arguing with each other in a hostile manner. Let's see if I can make matters worse, er, better. There is a statement " White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism". This appears to be a very simple, direct, straightforward statement, but as with many such seemingly simple statements it is likely a little more complex. There is the simple text and then there is the sub-text. The sub-text can be more difficult to discern and may be read differently by different people. How did iNow intend it? In expanded form I think it was something like this. (I'd like iNow to correct me if I have it wrong.) If we look at the membership of the KKK and the people engaged in the current extremism we find that they are overwhelmingly white and generally male. Females are present in a small minority, or have limited to zero impact upon policy and activity. Non-whites are pretty well excluded. It should go without saying that the white males involved in this are a subset of all white males and probably represent a (very) small percentage of the total. From koti's point of view. The statement, as written, is misleading, even dangerous, on principle. Koti believes that assigning explanations/blame to issues based upon gender or ethnicity represents a convenient oversimplification that exacerbates rather than alleviates the problem. Therefore, to identify white males at being at the heart of this extremism is to obscure the underlying causes rather than to illuminate them. (koti, do I have that correct?) I suspect koti would have been (more) comfortable with the statement, if an implicit caveat had been made explicit. Namely, "A subset of white males is at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism". iNow may feel that this is unecessary, but I hope he does not have an objection to the modification. This now refocuses our attention on what it is about this subset of humanity that is leading to extremist views and behaviour. I hope that would satisfy koti's objections.

@CharonY. Excellent, thoughtful post. I am definitely strongly left leaning and I hope, despite limited proper experience in the field, well aligned with scientific thinking. However, it seems to me that these positions are "defended" by some members, some of the time at the merest suspicion the positions are being challenged. I can't readily cite examples, since it is something I have simply noted in passing, but it is concerning. It is as if, in order to defend a scientific approach to issues, or a left view of the world, the principles of one, or both are simply abandoned. I recall threads where the OP has asked a question in the form of a statement. Rather than recognising this members have immediately attacked the OP in a manner that is dismissive, patronising or worse. That's not scientific, nor does it honour leftist principles that are supposedly inclusive. The effect on the "attacked" member is likely to be negative, in the worst case turning them away from science, or cementing extremist political views. Thank you for raising this topic. I hope other members engage in it actively, or at least reflect on what you have said. I believe attention to your points can improve not only the quality of dialogue on the forum, but the beheviour of each of us. Thank you.

"things unseen and not of the normal run of things" is a pretty fair definition of unsubstantiated. I am not being unecessarily dismissive of your claim. It is necessary for me to dismiss those claims precisely because they are offered without justification, without meaningful evidence, without reasoned argument. They are unsubstantiated. Now, you are welcome to try to substantiate them, but thus far all of your efforts to do so have consisted of an argument that amounts to "I believe it is true because I believe it is true". Let's look at your latest attempt. (By the way, why make a note of Point 1, then fail to provide, or identify subsequent points by number? I mention this not as a true aside, but because I believe that it is symptomatic of your demonstrably wooly thinking.) You assert that the universe is "full to bursting with cause and effect". Agreed. I trust you will agree, though I don't think it impacts your argument, that some events appear to occur without cause. For example the fission of a radioactive particle at a specific point in time, rather than at some other point in time. The universe is large, possibly infinite. Agreed. It is arguably complicated, though I could write a term paper that argued it is immensely simple, governed by four fundamental forces, a smattering of fundamental particles and a small selection of universal constants. The emergent properties that appear complex are merely the application of cause and effect to that recipe. Humans have thus far been responsible for practically none of it. Agreed. You then come up with an explanation. An explanation that is unsubstantiated. An explanation that you pluck out of the air. An explanation that is merely one of several explanations one might produce. An explanation selected simply because you "like it", because it seems to you to make sense. Yet it remains an explanation tha tis unsubstantiated. Your so called roundabout route is not a route at all. In it you jump across an unbridgable chasm, based entirely upon belief and faith and imagination. Sterling qualities I am sure, but when used in this way they represent the worst kind of deceit. Self deceit.

I am British but I would not object to a statue of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel being erected in the UK, though I do object to the one of Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris in London. There is much to admire about the former, and much to decry about the latter.

Your opinion is flawed and you appear to be working to a militant atheist agenda. I view militant atheism much as I view Young Earth Creationists or climate change deniers. I don't think further discussion between us would be productive. For those with more open minds, here are some examples: The teachings of bhuddism are cogent. The prayer rituals of Moslems are focused. The Sermon on the Mount is ethical.

It's not quite what you were thinking of, but the bulk of the Earth is made of silicates. Perhaps a simple display of the minerals of Bowen's Continuous and Discontinuous Reaction Series would let you talk about how the "versatility" of silicon bonding permits a diverse array of minerals that then form many of the metamorphic and most of the igneous rocks encountered in the crust (not to mention the mantle). This lets you provide an introduction to crytalography.

Alterntaively you can reject your unsubstantiated concept of hierarchy, a product - it seems - of wishful thinking, and instead embrace a universe where the warmth and the heart are provided by humans and such other intelligent entities as may exist.

A proper answer would require a book length treatment, composed over a decade, with several hundred pertinent references. One of the many improper answers would be that it can offer a cogent, organised ethical focus for individuals predisposed to be followers rather than leaders. You seem to be an intelligent person. I find it unlikely that you cannot produce even better examples to answer your question, if you try.

I'm reasonably sure that iNow was talking about the instinctive and cultural tendency of humans to cluster in small groups and, as an outgrowth of that, to identify strongly with those that have similar appearance and habits, and to suspect those who are different in these characteristics. I don't think he was expressing a problem with the Shoshone.

It isn't. It isn't. Let me help you out by disposing of any excess and valueless gold you have. I'll even refund you the postage.

That is how I read DrmDoc's post. He presents a sound argument, with evidence. While I don't rule out a possible psychological element you have not presented any meaningful evidence to support your supposition. Do you have any?

Well that's good, but sixteen minutes ago you posted this " Simulation theory is the actual physics theory " So I'm confused as to what you are actually trying to say.

Randolpin, can you point me to the portion of the quoted paper that deals with simulation? (Spoiler Alert: You can't. It doesn't.) Edit: Cross posted with Strange

I'm blindly optimistic!

FFS, they are all valid and relevant as possible reasons for why the Religious forum was created. I did not say they were good reasons. I simply answered your question with "I suspect it may be one of several reasons", some of which I then listed. Now please don't reply, I don't wish to spend anymore time on this.

Not at all. The scientific investigation of religion is a distinct susbset of scientific investigation and so is arguably entitled to its own section. Personally, I would place such discussions in Biology, or introduce a Social Sciences section, but - to repeat yet again - I have nothing to do with how the admin team created subdivisions. I simply offered you some possible reasons they may have had. You seem hell bent on objecting to the very existence of the section that you are blind to rational proposals. That looks awfully like something prompted by a belief. Anyway, I've answered your question. I suggest you wait till a mod or admin gives you the "real" reason there is a Religious sub-forum and then you can argue the case with them. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

One would also need the latitude and longditude of these two locations. Time of year could also impact on the result. It would take me two days flat out to reteach myself the limited amount of mathematics necessary to make the calculation, so we'll have to wait for someone smarter than both of us.

I never suggested you needed faith. I never suggested I needed faith. I made no explicit comments about faith. The only reason I can currently come up with for you introducing it is that you are obsessed with your agenda of non-belief. You might want to consider the risks of that approach. (I remind you that the irony you placed in the title may be a two edged sword.) Scientific investigation of geology (for example, a study of the chemical changes in a rock undergoing metasomatism) would still fall appropriately under chemistry. And yet we have a section on Earth Science. And we have a section on Politics. And some forums have sections on History. You asked me why there was a religion section. I pointed out that it was nothing to do with me and offered some possible reasons it had been created. I'm not defending or attacking those hypothetical reasons. I was just answering your question. Therefore those other points are relevant as a direct answer to your direct question. If you wish to ask another question please go ahead.

My second, third and fourth list items have nothing to do with "the religious unravelling their worries". It appears that you believe they do.

Thank you for your links. You will be aware that I could post similar ones on the relationship between belief and cherry picking of research. Why is there a religious section on these Forums? I don't know. I don't work here. I suspect it may be for one of several reasons. Somewhere to isolate the religious fundamentalists Somewhere to discuss the conflicts between science and religion Somewhere to discuss the common ground between science and religion Somewhere to discuss the scientific investigation of religion Somewhere to discuss religion because a lot of members seem to want to There are probably more

Ted, I won't comment on your thoughts on nothing, as there would be nothing to say. However, I shall challenge your (possibly self deprecating) remark that at 83 you don't have time to learn anything. I read recently of a researcher, a chemist, or biochemist, who at 103 was still publishing papers. I believe that gives you twenty years. Many people have packed an undergraduate, post-graduate and post doctoral career into twenty years. Just saying.