Peterkin

How do you learn it? Even supposing such a hospitable planet is found, how many centuries would it take for the microbes to travel there, and how long before they report back?

Fair enough. You got one opinion. Carry on.

No. Educational institutions should teach us about how governance is supposed to work. Unfortunately, it does a very poor job of that, in the hands of conservative state and provincial governments. Public television and radio should tell us about the daily activities of government, and usually tries, even though it's underfunded and undervalued. Comedy news tells us the things regular news - for whatever reason - doesn't.

Then why propose it? I'm not averse to looking at the universe; I am to tampering with it. Look how badly we messed up our one little planet! I'm not in favour of exporting our manias.

Exactly. It's one of those hobgoblins the Republicans trot out every election, to cover up their massive voter suppression. I'm pretty sure civics classes wouldn't cover that as well as they ought, simply because, in the US, the education system is under the control of state authority. OTH, it would be quite useful to give Stephen Colbert's and John Oliver's shows as homework, with a quiz every week.

A little project? How many $billions; how many scientist and technician-hours, how much effort that might be directed at saving lives on Earth? While we can - which we actually can, while terraforming and seeding another planet is a long shot, at best.

What for? So we can get credit (from whom?) as intelligent designers? Shouldn't we rather let the promising worlds work out their own fertility issues? But that's an ethics question, not an evolution question. Only if 'we' take all the other life forms on Earth with us. That's unlikely. Most of them, sure; probably not all. So this planet can still have a second chance. Better yet, suppose we stop short of mass extinction?

Absolutely! I gather it used to be more rigorous, as well as standard in all schools, but here is an article on what's happening in the US now. I haven't checked whether it's mandatory in Canad now, but resources are available to teachers.https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&dir=bkg&document=bkg_civic&lang=e . When I went to school, lessons on government structure, responsibilities, powers, parliamentary procedure and electoral process were part of the History/Geography program in Grades 7, 8 and 12.

Small differences. Tick-picking seed eater. 468 of the little guys, picking ticks off the 10 rhinos in the ark. In London. Got it.

Okay. Explain why the differences and similarities among these birds: https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/birds/british-finches-how-to-identify-and-where-to-see/

You really have no frickin idea, have you?

What are primary observations? What is the secondary observer looking at? I didn't know observation comes in degrees. Please to elucidate. How does one build an observation on an assumption? And what is "the assumption of naturalism"? Having assumed a 'naturalism' (admittedly, a skill I have not yet mastered), how do I proceed to build an observation on it? It... does...not....com...pute. They're lovely! And clever, too. All different kinds for different food sources and environments. One damn cool bird is the finch.

I've never noticed any. For example, the snow doesn't melt off; it falls off if the incline is steep enough. Here is one site I found off the bat - uncritically. Seems plausible. We have had a little trouble keeping the batteries charging efficiently, even with grid hydro top-up, as they're in an unheated storage room.

It doesn't work the same way. The readers of harry potter stories are passive consumers. The believers in Jesus were prepared to die gruesome, painful martyr deaths. That kind of devotion is not earned through some contribution from various people writing a story. Inspiring fanatics is the work of a charismatic leader. That's two very different propositions. My stance is: there was a charismatic revivalist preacher, and he had contemporary peers, disciples and imitators, the most successful of whom were identified with him by the followers, who later attributed to this composite memory everything that supported their belief. But the belief, the enthusiasm, the fanaticism comes before the embellishments, not after.

How do you know? It's impossible to trace the origins of most religions. But somebody started Judaism and somebody led the Jews against all those other tribes. Myths don't just rise up out of the sand. What, then, was that head made of? We all know about that. The Christian god(s), just like the Roman gods, were deliberately identified with whatever mythology already existed. The Holy Virgin was added to make up for the lack of goddesses in Judaism, because most of the pagan belief systems have female deities. The saints more or less represent the guardian spirits of various localities. None of this precludes an originator of the doctrine. A real person is easy to mythify. A myth is very hard to make flesh.

Ay, there's the rub! They are loath to be 'part of' a world full of wond'rous flora and fauna, but wish rather to be clay-footed angels.

Not all by themselves. And that's a problem. Also, of course, that Adam and eve didn't seem to know they had genitals, let alone what those were for, until they ate the fruit of knowledge - and then they were doomed to work, suffer and have kids. Men are hairier, have more covering. But what's the point, if it doesn't keep you warm? And some guy takes the credit if right, burns them at the stake if they're right about something some guy wants to keep secret. occasional and problematic

Grasping the basics is easy; understanding the details is complicated. Not even close. Except the slower part - yes, evolution is a very long process. I don't believe the virus is evolving. I believe the virus is adapting. Given the way viruses reproduce, they're unlikely ever to develop a warp drive. Extend to animals --- from what? All plants, animals, fungi and micro-organisms have DNA. mushrooms hardly ever commit crimes, but DNA can absolutely nail their parenthood. You'll have to be very clever in formulating the question.

You don't need crooked thinking. The people who make them know what they mean and expect everyone else to know what they mean. Sometimes they're wrong. Well, geez, they're only human - and maybe of a different generation or a different culture. I'd guess that icon means the sound is turned off. The only way I can think of to test the hypothesis is to have someone call me and listen, then toggle it to the other setting and have the same person call me and listen. (The person who calls must be a cohort and sympathetic, and now I owe him one we won't talk about.) I shun the devil's devices! nevertheless, they are inescapable. I've been ducking Microsoft's nags about Windows 11 for a week or more. Probably can't avoid it forever: it will just sneak up on my compy in the night while I'm sleeping and order me to restart so it can install and reconfigure or whatever and half my programs will promptly crash. I don't. I self-medicate, then punch buttons at random and live in constant doubt.

Deleted. I shouldn't pursue this topic: I just don't understand what you're after.

Think in terms, not of Judea, but the Roman Empire. The original Christian narrative is simple: an itinerant preacher comes out of an obscure province and gives sermons that resonate with simple men. He has a magnetic personality, a commanding presence and a clear, compelling message. He collects a small, devoted following. Everywhere he goes, people gather to listen: he gives them hope and does some faith-healing.... IOW, revival meetings of the kind we still know today. All that magical stuff, that's tacked on much later. Partly by exaggeration, partly through faulty memory... "Oh that ain't nothin'! I was there when he brung a dead guy back to life." But the divine bits, the pagan gods and feast days - that's all deliberately added by Roman prelates, the better to sell their new messiah to the conquered nations. Rome had already been in the habit of identifying the local deities with their own gods.https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/story-of-england/romans/religion/ It's silly to expect a real, practicing hedge-priest of Judea to anticipate any of this. He was just trying to drag his own people back to the path of righteousness, so that their god would help them again. (Jehovah had a history of forsaking the Jews whenever they were disobedient. Every time some big military empire rolled over them, their prophets would yell at them about sin and shame and how it's all their fault.) Really? I don't think attitudes are ever different. People who feel helpless - as in foreign occupation or under a harsh dictatorship - are always looking for supernatural help. Even relatively peaceful and prosperous nations give rise to revival and reformist movements from time to time. https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/new-religious-movements-new-religious-movements-europe Remember, Jesus (whoever) wasn't trying to start something new or become a god himself - he was just trying to clean up and perhaps liberalize a corrupt version of Judaism. If you look at the core of the message, it's quite straightforward and plausible. It doesn't need virgin birth or astral travel. All those embellishments come later. The real Jesus would have found them cripplingly burdensome. (While Life of Brian gives a vivid picture of the times, I think Jesus Christ Superstar is closer to the probable man. Without all the singing, obviously. Though i liked the singing.) Through what mechanism? Given the communications capability of those times, how does a nebulous myth - especially a foreign one - spread and take hold so fast in ancient Judea, Syria, Cyprus....? All of these peoples had complex established religions, with their own mythologies, legends, heroic figures, monuments, temples and rituals. Besides, somebody would still have to have started it, and convinced other people of it.

I do not like the sound of 'preferential' in a scientific study. Of course, most are done on university students, which might level the field, especially if all the students are a. in institution in their native country and b. chosen from the same range of disciplines in every country. (Coz, if you were using exchange or foreign students, you have a huge bias from the get-go.) You can never know, if you ignore them. The commonalities are easy. It's the differences that are hard.

Except Christianity itself, which started before Paul's ministry and spread, via zealous missionaries, all across the Roman occupied territories and into Rome itself, during the first half of the first century CE. The time-line would strongly suggest a precipitating event or person at or near the beginning of that century, in or near Jerusalem. After the temple was destroyed in 70CE, each Jewish community was centered on its own local synagogue, but the Christian idea had already been transmitted to Gentiles, and by 100 CE, it's an independent religion. This is long before it becomes a Roman official religion, long before the Bible is compiled or the canon decreed. So it had to get going and take root on its own merits and by the efforts of its apostles. They didn't come from nowhere for no reason, and they were not preaching any mish-mash of pagan demigods and equinox myths: they had a clear, strong, coherent message that won people over.

I said I wouldn't, but.... Okay, I lied. How are you making sure that the subjects you choose from each linguistic group have the same level and type of linguistic development? You might have a science teacher from group, who has an extensive specialized vocabulary in his field, but little or no interest in kitchenware, and a bricklayer from another group whose hobby is collecting archaic folk sayings. Different ages, genders, occupations, proclivities, interests, education, literacy and reading habits, facility in language acquisition and familiarity with foreign languages... How do you choose the subject population?

Don't we already have a pretty thorough understanding of how languages are related? The similarities of German and Dutch is not coincidental, as they're closely related, while Faroese belongs to the Nordic branch of Germanic languages, more like Icelandic and Danish. Here is a striking graphic depiction I would also expect differences in vocabulary based on geography: while a Sudanese might need no words for snow, a Laplander is likely to have a dozen, and their description of wind and water would also be quite different. But I'm skeptical as to whether difference can be measures strictly by vocabulary, without reference to structure, grammar and inflection. However, as I don't get what it is you're tying to measure, or why, I'll stay out of this thread.