Sisyphus

Different religions do not have the same definition of "god" at all. Depending on context, the word can mean anything from a magical being not much different than a human, to abstract concepts like "infinity," "perfection," or "love." In some religions, "god" is not even a conscious being. There are many, many different uses of the word. As for what religion the ancient Egyptians followed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion

I'd say that that is mostly right, except: 2) We see those distinct colors because of how our eyes work, not because they are in fact distinct. Sunlight is a continuous spectrum. 3)It's violet that has the shortest wavelength, not blue. 10) I think you can be more specific than just particles. The ocean is full of green algae.

The chicken has been selectively bred for egg production for thousands of years. So, as with all traits artificially selected for, the "evolutionary advantage" of producing a lot of eggs, fertile or not, is that humans will allow it to breed. Hardly a waste! The egg has gained another function - pleasing humans - in addition to its original one of transmitting genetic material and nourishing offspring. It's similar to a natural symbiotic relationship, except that it can happen a lot faster if it is deliberately rather than statistically selected for.

Ah, sorry, I hadn't noticed you responded. Thank you. "Contingent" in my mind means an outcome that is dependent on unknown factors, which themselves may be deterministic or random. e.g., the output of a computer is contingent upon the input in a strictly deterministic system, or the truth value of a logical conclusion is contingent upon the truth value of the premises. If, however, all you mean by it is "not deterministic," then that simplifies things. The latter is not a valid alternative. Not that it doesn't happen, just that it doesn't make sense as an answer to this particular question. It is akin to saying that events can either be deterministic, random, or the result of the wind. I'm not saying there's no such thing as the wind, just that there isn't anything about it that makes it exempt from the "other" two options. So, a decision is made with an end in mind. Is there a reason this end was in mind? If yes, it is deterministic. If no, it is random. No matter one twists it, it always comes back to that basic dichotomy. That's not what I mean when I say random. The extreme majority of deterministic events are without purpose or end in mind. Random just means that there is no reason the event happens one way and not another. Why does the U-235 atom decay at one moment and not another? There is no reason. It is random. If it had consciously "decided" to decay, that would be the reason, true, but then why did it decide? Was there a reason that decision was made, and not the opposite decision? Deterministic or random. Where is it incomplete? "Given the totality of information in the universe, including hidden variables, at time X, is there more than possible state at X+1?" If there is a reason for one possible X+1 over another, then the other wasn't a possible X+1 in the first place. It was determined. If there is no reason for one possible X+1 over another, then that is the very definition of a random event. "You are changing my words when you remove the third fundamental mode of explanation namely the wind." This is how that statement sounds to me. I brought it up merely because it seemed like that was the reason you were arguing with me, and I wanted to get it out in the open. Not to debate it, but to explain that it doesn't matter one way or the other - in other words to avoid debating it. You seemed to be implying with demands for examples of things with "characteristics of design" that I would be wrong if the arguments for intelligent design were valid. However, I would not. If the Earth were 6000 years old and designed by Yahweh and Eve was made from Adam's rib and the material world was just a temporary prison for our immortal souls and it truly was impossible for us to exist through physical laws alone... I would still be right. Was there a reason we were designed this way, or was His decision a divine flip of the coin? Most theologies have God as a kind of perfect decision maker, which necessitates that He be perfectly deterministic. He will always act in whatever the ideal manner is. There is only one X+1. Note that this need not be in accordance with physical laws. Note also that He is certainly exercising will. There is no contradiction. Sounds deterministic. Never just because they disagree with me. Which part do you consider an insult? When I called you a troll? Alright, I'm sorry. But I should remind you that you've been accusing me of charlatanism, stupidity, and ulterior motives throughout this whole thread. I figured you would be ok with that kind of frankness. I know that I characterize it differently than you, but I believe that it is you who have mischaracterized the issue. Thank you. It and everything else, yes. I think I've made a very straightforward argument that events are either determined or not determined, by logical necessity. I should think the burden of proof would be on the one who asserts that free will is somehow an exception to logic. It is self evident that it is not self evident, because I disagree completely. Even a simple AI makes choices. Those choices are deterministic, contingent upon inputs. No, random chance by definition is without necessity. Suppose an AI chooses to go left or right contingent upon the result of a true random number generator. The choice is made, but it was not necessary that it be one way and not the other. (If it was, it would be deterministic.) Anyway, it seems that we hold contrary views that we both feel are self-evident. If you think you have something more to add that wouldn't be repeating yourself, then by all means I'd be interested to hear it. But if you still think I'm being intentionally obtuse or whatever, then I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

Horus is a god who is depicted with a falcon's head, or sometimes just as a falcon. The Eye of Horus looks like a falcon's eye. Is that really speculation? What about the rest of what I said? Is there any reason you're associating it with the red spot in particular, other than resemblance (which it lacks, IMO)? The rotation is not exactly ten hours, but if it were, then it would take five days to synchronize again. 24*5=120. By millionths of a second at most. I don't understand. You're saying that... 1) 4500 years ago Jupiter's rotation synchronized with Earth's every ten days, 2) that it doesn't today because of some unknown catastrophic events on one or both planets in the meantime, 3) all in order to fit in with a dubious translation of an ancient text, 4) that would require the Egyptians to have possessed technology there is no other "evidence" for, 5) to see a feature on Jupiter that probably wasn't there then, 6) to verify a completely different mythology than what we presently know they believed in. And for all that, it's a circular argument. You say the facts point to a certain conclusion, but then say the facts had to be because the conclusion requires them. And you're calling me speculative for saying a falcon's eye looks like a falcon's eye? Do you see why I might have a problem with all this?

Also, "the Egyptians" were a culture that lasted thousands of years. Horus was first worshiped in the pre-dynastic period (pre-3100 BC). The earliest known lenses were from around 700 BC, two and a half millenniums later. (Thanks, Wikipedia!) And it wouldn't have just been a matter of lacking the technique to make good lenses, either. You don't need to understand the geometry involved to use a curved piece of glass to concentrate sunlight on a small area, but you really do to make any kind of useful telescope.

Fair enough. Americans sure do seem to be a lot more uptight about sex, despite (or because of?) apparently being more obsessed with it. But I wonder: do we have policies like these because we're neurotic, or are we neurotic because we have policies like these? If we changed behavior, would everybody just get over it, like they did with racial desegregation?

Some nations, like Sweden, don't segregate military living quarters, bathrooms, etc. for men and women. They're just expected to be professional. And of course, if you're in the military, you already are showering with homosexuals, I promise you. If that bothers you even though nothing happens, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Horus was a falcon-headed god. The Eye of Horus is a stylized depiction of a peregrine falcon's eye: That looks like a much better fit than the Great Red Spot, since it: 1) includes the teardrop marking 2) includes the long, curved tail 3) is an actual falcon By contrast, the Great Red Spot: 1) Lacks teardrop and tail 2) Looks no more like the Eye of Horus than, say, a knot in a tree trunk 3) Probably didn't even exist back then, and if it did could easily have looked very different - it's just a storm 4) Would have required knowledge (like optics) that there is no other evidence for whatsoever I don't think I can support this speculation.

Indeed, I've played some games where the AI doesn't get any smarter (and in fact remains quite stupid) on the more difficult settings, it just cheats more. Civilization Revolutions is a particularly egregious example of this, where on the most difficult setting dozens of enemy armies will just materialize outside your cities every turn, and the combat result "dice" are loaded heavily in their favor, yet they remain incapable of strategy that would be obvious to any human. It's as difficult as playing an actually skilled human opponent, but completely different and ultimately much less interesting. [/nerd rant]

Yeah, sure. You can just add stuff to it when you're going to eat it. Sometimes I put in the the blender with fruit, or add honey or something. Usually I just have it straight or with granola. Also, supposedly you can also make it "Greek style" just by letting it drain through some cheese cloth for a while, but I haven't tried that yet.

Ha. It's basically just growing growing the right kind of bacteria in milk. Here: 1) Boil a few cups of milk. (I use the microwave.) 2) Let it cool until it's warm but not hot. 3) Stir in a spoonful of yogurt. (From the previous batch, or plain from the store.) 4) Let it sit uncovered at about 115 degrees for 8-12 hours or so. (I just leave it in the off oven overnight, kept about that warm by the pilot light.) 5) Cover it and put it in the fridge. Obviously, my recipe is vague...

I make my own beer. I've done IPAs, dark brown ales, bocks, pilsners, marzens, and witbiers. Next I'd like to try a saison, and then maybe go for a Belgian trippel. I also make my own yogurt, and yes, it is extremely easy.

There was a rudimentary steam engine at least as early as the first century AD, but there's no evidence it was put to practical use, and it was forgotten. In the third century BC, 1500 years before Columbus, Eratosthenes measured the size of the Earth with pretty good accuracy using only trigonometry. The Greeks and Romans had all sorts of knowledge and technologies that were never put to widespread use, or were put to widespread use but were later forgotten for millennia after the fall of the empire. So too with the Chinese, and then the Arabs.

One thing to consider is that proximity is not necessarily the only factor. Men's rooms, as a general rule, are disgusting. Sometimes I think I'm one the few adult males capable of successfully operating a toilet. I would take the far stall, all things being equal, but not if somebody clogged it, or pissed all over the seat, or something. That isn't a problem with urinals, since all one has to do is stand near it. Unnecessary adjacent urinal use is rightly condemned.

Is it really necessary to refute specific allegations of irreducible complexity as obstacle to evolution? There is always going to be something we haven't figured out yet, and creationists will always point to such things as evidence that it could only have been intentional. That's how arguments from ignorance work. Once upon a time the anger of the gods was "the only possible explanation" for lightning and earthquakes. Rather than directly refuting whatever the current specific claim is, make a general response. 1) Tell them to look up "argument from ignorance." 2) Tell them to look up "exaptation." 3) Go back to doing real science.

There are many examples of natural interspecific hybrids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29 "Species" traditionally means a population that is capable of interbreeding, but the realities of evolution make such a definition no better than a general rule of thumb. Such biological categories are inherently fuzzy. When two populations split, they don't become different species at one precise moment in time, but gradually. The exact cutoff is necessarily fairly arbitrary. Another example is something like a ring species, where population A can reproduce with population B and B can reproduce with C, but A cannot reproduce with C. Are A + B + C one "species?"

Do they use a wide stance?

It shouldn't be out of 21310, but out of however many members list their birthdays in their profiles. (SFN has no power to automatically deduce when you were born.) I would expect no more than a few hundred.

That's a funny way of putting it. But yeah, I guess they're declining to identify the flying object they're developing. Standard practice for military aircraft, no?

How do we dim the lights? The lounge needs some atmosphere.

Barack Obama was born in the United States to a United States citizen. The definition of "natural born" is unclear and subject to dispute, but he is a natural born citizen under any definition. Also, there is no legal mechanism by which he could have lost his American citizenship while living with his stepfather. So those statements are false. But even if they were true, what do you really think would happen if somebody proved it? He's been sworn in. He's been President for a year and a half. You think they're going to take him away in cuffs? And do you think that President Joe Biden would not sign the same bills?

Look at this video, and tell me, are cats a problem, or a good thing?

What does the video have to do with illegal immigration, aside from the fact that the attackers were illegals?

My guess about that is that it's got nothing to do with deceleration and everything to do with having a smooth enough flow for he currents to become dominant, which it can't settle into until after you've stopped stirring it with a spoon. By the time the leaves gather, it's already slowing to a stop, but the leaves aren't gathering because it's slowing. Just a guess.