Edtharan

The best way I have heard it put is: Humans are just animals with delusions of grandure. B)

If the church didn't think that it didn't encourage extra marital sex, then there would be no reason to bring it up as a point of argument. The fact that it was brought up as a point of argument is proof that they believe it increases (ie: encourages) extra marital sex. In cases where one partner had HIV they were advised not to use condoms as it increased the risk of desease. I think that is pretty clear cut that they think it increases the risk. If evey family is poorer, then the country is poorer. Such as it is with a family. A country only has so many resources to go around. The more people in the counrty, the less resources any one person can get (and again, not all resources scale like this, but food, and other such reosurces do and these are the important ones). If a country has X resources, for a given population of Y. Then the amount of resouces is X/Y. But if the population of the country increases by N, then the resoucres each person gets is X/(Y+N) as as Y+N is greater than Y, then this means the amount of resources for each person is less than the first case. Children, until they are no longer children, can not contribute as much to the production of resources as adults can. Not only that, if children are requiered to do so, then this reduces the amount of time they can be doeing other things that would help their countries in the long term, like getting an education. If a family had to make a choice about feeding their children, or sending them to school, then I know which one they would choose. Which one would you choose? Which I then explained, in case it was not obvious. My proof was not that it was obvious. As I then went on to explain education about birth control and access to it are the factors that lead to lower birth rates. Actually, your statsitcs prove my point. Spain does not have the social moors against contraception. Proper education about birth control and what options is widly available, and even though the population is mostly Catholic, they have the education to see through the lies of the church propaganda about it. Thus even though theya re catholic, they practice birth control and thus have a lower birth rate. Thank you for proving my point.

Ok, so If we could show you that evolution is observabel, even letting you observe it yourself, would you be willing to then admit that evolution is real? I can do it. It is not that hard. But it will requier you to do some little experiments yourself (as I can't exactly get over there to show you them). If you are willing to do this, then read on. First, you have to understand two things: 1) Evolution is not just limited to biology. 2) Evolution is an algorithm. If you can understand what these things are, then I think we can continue. Biological evolution is just one implimentation of the algorithm of evolution. The algorithm of evolution is basically: 1) Replicate the data set with small variations in each duplicate 2) Apply some elimination function to select a subset of the data set for future replication. 2) Repeat steps 1 and 2 until all data sets are eliminated (or some other end condition is met). This is the basic algorithm of evolution. One thing about algorithms are that any algorithm can be implimented on a Universal Turing Machine. One type of Univsal Turing Machine is called a computer. So to prove that Evolution is an algorithm all one has to od is to attempt to impliment Evolution on a computer. If you can't do it, then Evolution is not an algorithm. Fortunately this has been done (I my self have done it, it is not all that difficult to program if you know how to program). This means that Evolution as an algorithm is a mathematical FACT. So to deny that evolution exists is to deny mathematics itself. Actually the car you drive, the roads you drive on, the circuits in the computer you are using to read this message and many other aspects of our daly life are dependent on the fact of this algorithm's existance. Genetic Algorithms (the name of computer programs that utilise the Algorithm of Evolution) are in common use around the world in many different industries. However, this does not prove that living organisms can run the algorithm of evolution and thus evolve, so accepting this does not (this far into my argument at least) mean you have to abandon your current position on biolgical evolution. Now, a Universal Turing Machine can run the Algorithm of Evolution, but for every algorithm that can be run by a Universal Turing Machine, there exists at least one (and almost cirtainly more) Non-Universal Turing Machine that is can run that particular algorithm. So to show that biological systems are subject to evolution all one has to do is to show that biology is capable of performing the requiered functions necesary run the Algorithm of Evolution. Now if you look back up to the basic algorithm you will see that reproduction with variation is the first necesary step. Do biological systems reproduce with variation? Yes The second step is applying an elimination function that selects a subset for future replication. This is probably the hardest to prove, but it can be done. First lets look at populations. A singe Rabbit can have between 2 to 12 babies in each litter (We will use an average of 6), can have 4 to 7 litters a year (we will use just 3 litters a year), can breed from 3 to 4 months of age (we will use 4 months) and they can live for around 9 to 12 years (so we will a life span of 10 years). So from these I am taking a moderatly conservative value of the breeding numbers of rabbits. Starting from a single breeding pair at 4 months of age. In this they will produce 6 offspring. 4 months latter, these young can now breed giving us 4 breeding pairs (6 offspring divided by 2 plus the orriginal breeding pair). This now gives us a total of 24 offspring giving us an extra 12 breeding pairs after the next 4 month period. We now have a total of 16 breeding pairs which leads to a birth population of 96 more young. Giving a total of 64 breeding pairs. After the next period we have 384 young giving us a total of 256 breeding pairs. So continuing: Offspring: 1536, Breeding Pairs: 1024 Offspring: 6144, Breeding Pairs: 4096 Offspring: 24576, Breeding Pairs: 16384 Offspring: 98304, Breeding Pairs: 114688 Offspring: 688128, Breeding Pairs: 458752 Offspring: 2752512, Breeding Pairs: 1835008 Offspring: 11010048, Breeding Pairs: 7340032 Offspring: 44040192, Breeding Pairs: 51380224 So after just 3 years, from a single breeding pair we would have a rabbit population of around 10,2760,448 rabbits. Yes, over 10 billion rabbits! But rabbits can live for over 10 years. How long would it take them to exceed the mass of the Earth? So where are all the rabbits? What this means is that not all rabbits live to breed. In fact, only 2 rabbits need to survive to breed for the population to remain stable. Any more then the population will quickly exceed even the mass of the Earth (unless somthing else descreases the survival rate). So what we have is an elimination function (starvation, predation, desease and competition for mates) that will "select a subset of the data set for future replication". The third part is easy, we know that generations exist, so steps 1 and 2 are repeated over and over again. What this proves is that Biological Evolution is a FACT, not "just a theory" as some people put it. If the mathematics that allow you to use a computer exist (and if they didn't you would not be able to read this message), then Biological Evolution has to occur. It is as much a fact as that 1 + 1 = 2. But I did say that I woudl allow you to observe evolution for your self. This is the next part. This requiers you to actually do some things and not just read. What you will need is a pen (or pencils if you prefer) and some paprer. We are going to play a little game. You may have seen a kind of puzzle in magazines or newspapers where you have one word, then by a series of steps where you change only 1 letter at a time, you have to change it into a different word. Well we are going to do that, just that we are going to use evolution to do so. Setup: 1) Write a word on a piece of paper. Make it as long as you like (although around 6 letters is good enough). 2) Write out a target word next to it. It doesn't have to be the same length, it could be shorter or longer. 3) On a new sheet of paper write our at least 20 variations of the starting word. When writing these variation you can make 1 change in each. You can add a lett, remove a letter or change one letter into another letter. You have already accepted that micro evolution can occur, in this, these changes are considdered micro evolution). Now we start the process of evolution: 4) Remove from the words you have any word that is not a real word. That is if it is not in the dictionary you can remove it from the words you are going to use. 5) From the remaining words calculate each word's "Fitness" using this method: - If a letter appears in the Target word also appears in this word, then give it 1 point for each letter that matches. Do this only as a 1 to 1 match, so if the target word had 1 'E' in it and the word you are looking at had 2 'E's in it, then it only gets 1 point not 2. - If the correct letter appears in the correct place in both words it gets 1 point for each corretly placed letter. 6) Take the top 5 scoring words from the previous step. These will become the "Breeder" words. 7) For each Breeder word create 10 variations using the method in step 3. 8) Repeat steps 4,5,6 and 7 until you get an exact match for the target word. If you do this, you will have witnessed Evolution for your self. As I shoed in the first part, the mathematics that underly computing state that if there exists an algorithm, then there can be a system that impliments that algorithm, and because of how Turing Machines describe the functioning of algorithms, any two systems that can impliment the same algorithm have an equivalence. Also that a system that can impliment the functions of an algorithm can impliment that algorithm. What this means is that both the systems in biology and the game you just played both can perform the same functions (Reproduction of data sets with variations, and Elimination of replicating data sets). But I have also shown that these functions are what are needed for evolution to occur, and as a system that can implimen thre functions of an algorithm can therefore impliment the algorithm, then you have to accept that Biological Systems are capable of evolving on a mathematical basis. This is not about theory, this is about mathematical fact. The same maths that allow you to use a computer dictate that Evolution is real. Thus to deny evolution exists is to deny your computer exists. However, why do scientists consideer evoltion to be a theory? Well there are actually many different types of evolution (Lamarkian, Darwinian, Mendelian, etc) and it is the theoy that applys to which one, specifically, is implimented. The differences lie in how variation is introduce and how selection take place, but in any type of evolution, they must have these functions that I have explained here to be called evolution. When you did the experiment, did you realise that the words you are creating , if they were shown to you seperately, would be considdered macroscopicly different. That is, by only making microcopic changes (1 letter at a time and only 1 type of change at a time) you built up large scale changes. That is the accumulation of microscopic changes lead to macroscopic changes. This is why if microevolution exists, then Macrevolution has to exist. It is as much a mathematical fact as the existance of the Algorithm of Evolution. And you think you are special because you have these skills. Well I can tell you now, you aren't the only one with them. I can do all this and more. What you are trying to do here is called "Argument From Authority". HYou are trying to set your self up as haveing skills and knowledge greater than other, and then by that position alone prove that what you are saying is true. Well reality check here. It doesn't matter what knowledge or skills you have accumulated in your life: Reality trumps all. In other words, even with all your knowledge, if what you are saying is not reality, then what you are saying is not real. This is why sciecne always tests their claims against reality. It wouldn't matter if you were Einstein or Darwin or Stephen Hawking. If what you said did not match reality, then it would be wrong. Actually Genocide is a denyal of evolution. As variation is essential to evolution, then any action taken to reduce variation is an attempt to stop evolution. Thus Hittler was actually denying evolution. Sorry, but you loose big time on this (and I invoke Godwin's Law here too ). And actually, Hittler was more influenced by the Bible (he was born a Jew and converted to Christianity), he was no Athiest.

What is wrong with a sentient animal? There are animals that have greater or lesser levels of inteligence, so why can't sentience be another such property? There are abilities that animals have that we don't have (infrared vision, the ability to fly, the ability to enter a suspended animation state, etc) but we don't excluede these form the animal kingdom because they have abilities that we, or other animals don't have. So why should just one ability (that some other aniamls do seem to have as well) cause us to be declasified as an animal when we have everything else in common with them? It is pure hubris and egocentrisim to assume we are not an animal because of just 1 thing (which is not unique to us either). Even if it was unique, 1 thing is not enough to seperate us from animals, it would mean we were just a unique animal (and I do agree we are pretty unique, but not totally unique which would be what is needed to remove us from being an animal).

Here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p6humana.htm (section 17) And Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm Yes, this is official Church policy handed down by the Pope. This is a simple matter of division. If a family earns X amount of dollars a week, and they have 3 family members, then each has (as an avarage) X / 3 resources each. If a family has 5 members, then each has X /5 resources each. As 1/3 is larger than 1/5, then larger families can devote less resources to each member. Of course, some of thes resources aren't shared like this (like the house the family is in) and I am only concentrating on resources that are shared like this (education, food, etc). As cost of Education is one, and education is one of the major contributors to poverty, then this is a critical issue. Less resources to put into education can mean that to get a decent education for some of the children will mean that other will have to miss out in large families. Ok, this is just obvious. In a country where contraception is activly discouraged and there is a social moor against it, then it will be used less. This means that there will be more children born because there is less ability to prevent pregnacy. When people (especially women) have control over how many children they have, then smaller families are preferred for many reasons.

Actually I don't think Athiests just disagree with Theists on principal, but that Athiests just don't believe things because someone told them to believe it. This means that things taken for granted by Theists are questioned by Athiests and are found to have problems. It is these problems that are brought up is discussions because they are points of disagreement between the two sides. It is no so much a "reflexive" reaction, but that these are actual points of interest and disagreement. It is a bit like showing supprise when two people who disagree about likeing a movie actually disagreeing with each other when talking about that movie.

Although I do agree that the brain does play a role in evolution, it was not what I was saying. The fact is that for a sexually reproducing specie's population to remain stable there needs to be exactly two (no more no less) offspring grow up to be breeders. Now, if a species of animals had reproduced to fill a niche, then there is a disadvantage for reproducing at greater than the stable rate. The reason is that the extra offspring use resources (food) that other members of the species need, and thus, even if these extra offspring die, the time they are around they consume more food. This means that there will be a lower population than if the species had less offspring. So as a species fills a niche you would expect them to evolve to have less offspring. There is no thought process involved, just selective advantage of having less offspring because it supports a larger population of adults (and thus becomes less vulnerable to extinction and has more variation in the gene pool which gives the species more opertunity to enter new niches as well). You might not have noticed, but humans are breeding (I was going to say like rabbits, but I think we even leave rabbits to shame in this regard ) very rappidly. Also, most of the children are born in wedlock (so extra marrital children are not a big problem). The real need is for married couples to be able to limit the number of children they have and family planing (which contraception is a big part of) is essential. The church likes to trot out reasons for banning contraception, like it encourages sex out side of marriage, but the numbers just don't add up. Extra marital children are not a big problem with or without contraception. The real place where contraception has the advantage and would greatly increase the quality of life for parents and children too is with married couples. In countries with contraception and less stigma attached to it, family sizes are smaller. In countried where the church has lied about contraception (that it encourages infedelity, that it increases the risk of deseases, etc) family sizes are much larger and the populations are poorer because if it (children need resources as they grow up and it is the parents and family that have to supply them which means less resources, like food, to go around all of them, including the new children too). Sex is an expression of the emotions one feels towards a partner. If the church told you you could not say "I love you" to your wife or husband, I think you would be outraged. They are controing how you express your feelings towards your partner. But, to use your argument and paraphrase it (bod where I have change it): "If you can't form an emotional bond with your wife without saying 'I love you', don't you think there is something wrong?" Some people like to write and some people like to dance. Each is an expression of the emotions they have inside them. Some people like to express their feelings towards their partner with words, other like to express them physically. The church is telling people they can't express their love physically if they want to, without the chance that they will have a child (which means the family could become worse off). The fact is, the majority of human communication is non-verbal (around 75% to 80% IIRC). Sex is just one way of expressing how a couple feels towards each other, and it is a non verbal expression. But, yes I can form an emotional bond with a partner without having sex, but why should the church try to limit the way I express that bond?

Inertia is a poor choice as it indicates a motion in a particular direction, and that without further input the system will keep heading in that direction. What you are talking about is called a "Phase Space". That is a conceptual space that describes the adjacent posible of all mutations the orgnaism can have happen. This phase space will also describe the relative fitness that the organism would have if that particular set of mutations occured to it. In this phase space if there is a local maxima of fitness, then it will tend to keep the organism at that maxima. So, yes, in evolution, the organisms always move to an adjacent possible location within the phase space of posible organisms, but it is completely wrong to call this inertia, it is a completely different concept. The reason beiong is that an organism in a phase space has no prefered direction of movemnt. That is it can be moving in one direction within the phase space and then completely change direction with as much influence as it takes to keep it movig in the same direction as it was. If looked at in terms of inertia, then it is actually an inertialess environment (with inertia an object in motion tends to stay in motion and an object at rest tends to stay at rest, but in this phase space an object in motion instantly comes to rest unless an outside force acts on it). You are only looking at aquatic environments that the organisms are already weall adapted too. But you are forgetting that not all environments are perfect. Tak for example some of the rivers here in Australia (and other places around the world). We experience droughts and wet times. In the wet times the rivers run just like any other river system does, fish and other aquatic organisms are living in a watery paradise (well may be for them ). However, we also experience droughts and at these times the rivers can almost dry up, leaving only seperated pools of water and the river does not flow at all. In these conditions these pools, without turbation to stir up the water and introduce oxygen will become quite anoxic. In these cases fish have to gulp in air or they will suffocate. Fish that are better adapted for this will do better than others that are not well adapted. ANd, because the river floods and the fich can move aorund, they can not be certain to end up in a large pool of water (so over time better air breathing will -and has - evolve). So here is a clear, real world example where your argument fails. Your argument is that situations don't occur where aquatic animals are forced to adapt to non-aquatic environments. Here is the wikipedia page for one such fish ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_lungfish ). So, in the cases where water gets stagnated in pools (or for other reasons) and becomes anoxic, then ther eis a clear benfit for adaptations that can be useful for getting about on land and your argument here is therfore incorrect. Again, as Genetic inertia does not exist and is an incorrect concept to use when thinking aobut evolution at all, your arguments here make no sense. However, you are again making the assumption that all aquatic environments are deep water. This is not the case. Shore dwelling animals can have an advantage by being able to avoid larger predators. However, shore environments are notoriously changeable (tides, waves, etc), so an animal that gets caught out would be in desperate straights. In a tidal flats environment, such animals would experience periodic times of anoxia as the small pools are exposed to that sun and heat up (warm water holds less oxygen) and without waves to sitr up the water and introduce more oxygen. In these situations there is a clear advantage for organisms to be able to survive by breathing air and or moving in shallow water by using fins as limbs (where swimming is almost imposible). As these locations offer the organisms an advatage over deep water (no predators, etc) then ther eis a reason that these organisms will adapt to these environments. But, these adaptations needed to survive in these locations pre-adapt the organism for surviveing on land as they already are semi-land dewlling by this time. Evolution does not work on the level of the individual, so this scenario is not useful. You have to look at whole groups of organisms and the allel frequencey within those groups. However, this type of thinking is understandable as a lot of natural history programs present this as evolution (David Attenborough is well know for it). It is a totally incorrect view and it probably is what has lead you to your confusions about evolution and how organisms evolve.

One of the main causes of punctuated equilibrium is that there exists local optimal fittnesses. That is it is posible for an organism to reach a point where any changes will cause it to be less fit, even though there is a "solution" (genetic code) that would allow them to be more fit for the environment than they currently are. However two things can disrupt this: 1) Genetic Drift With a large population you will get some degree of genetic drift, and this will cause the gene pool of the organism to spread out and even allow it to be "less" fit (but not significantly so) than the local optimum. Eventually this gentic drift will be enough that a mutation could cause a group to move outside the local optimum (may be in that it allows expansion into new territory) and into a large optimum across a local minimum fitness. This would then allow this "pioneering" group to eventually achieve a high level of fitness to the environment than the base group and thus split off from them into their own species. As there are many traits that any organism has, there is a massive range for this to occur in, and which particular trait (or traits) eventually lead to an emergance from a local optimum 2) Changeing environment In reality all environments are in a constant state of change, it is usually so slow that we don't notice it. However it is usually slow enough that evolution can adapt to these changes as they occur (although sudden ones like volcanoes are really hard to adapt to ). If a species has a local optimum that adapts them to one kind of environment, but then that environment slowly changes, then this can be the force that drives them out of a local optimum and evolution drive the organism's geneic codes to another local optimum. As the rate of evolution can be quite (relatively speaking as compared to the rate that environments typically change), then this sudden change will appear as a punctuated evolution.

Ok, the main mistake you have made is in thinking it is about "survival". Evolution is not about survival as such. Survival is used as a shorthand for saying that a replicator (like an organism) lasts long enough to make copies of itself before it is destroyed by some other process (entropy or a predator). So copying is not about survival, but about a process persisting or stopping. This is the second mistake, it is not pattern, but process that is important. A Pattern is like a snapshot of a process, it is static and can no0t change (if it changes it is no longer the same pattern). However a process is a dynamic entity and it is able to change and stillbe considdered the same entity (as processes are adynamic system, then they have to have this property or they could not be dynamic). This is touching on a belief that Life has an Elan Vital (living force), and has long been disproved. A computer is a blind machine, but we don't think of it as alive. But, what about that Tamagotchi craze that swept the world years ago. Many people though of these "computers" as almost alive, and even worried about them "dying" to the point it interfered with daily activities (with children it disrupted calsses in schools). When people talk about life being a Machine, they are really talking about ho it does not have any "Elan Vital" and operates by a set of rules. But, if you think about it, what does a machine do? It performs a process. As I explained above, life and evolution are about process, not patterns. The only way a pattern can be dynamic is if it possesses an elan vital, that is some external existance and force that retains its idenity even though the pattern itself changes, but then you are not talking aobut a pattern as the entity, but the external force that is represented by the pattern. A process does not need to be an animistic force. Think of a computer program. This exists within the computer and needs no supernatural explaination, but yet, it causes the hardware of the computer to perform a process. Such it is with life and evolution. The chemicals that make up life are structured in a way as to cause themselves to perform a process. This process is what we call living and it is this processing that we use to define the difference between living things and non living things. As your conclusions are based off of two false assumptions (that pattern is important, and that copying is the key to survival) you have, although followed a logical argument, come to a conclusion that is wrong. If you re-work your reasoning, but starting with the correct initial assumptions, then you will come to a different (and if your reasoning is correct) but correct conclusion.

However, the church also prohibits married couples from using birth control, so if it was just about birth control leading to discarding sex parteners, then they should have no problem with birth control with married couples. So all these arguments about how the birth control prohibition is about the relationships we have with partners does not match up. It has to be more than just how we treat sex partners. I also don't agree with your conclusion that casual sex means: "I don't care what happens to you in life after we finish having sex." If a person thought this way, then it would not just be the act of sex that made them treat other people like this, and if someone didn't have this attitude, then having casual sex with somenone won't turn them into the other type of person. In other words, the act of casual sex has no influence on how a person sees the other person and the attitude they have to the relationship after it.

In the scenario you describe, the theif started from a place of irrationallity (that the belongings of the rich person should also belong to him) wihtout using reason to justify this position. If the theif could indeed create a rational justification for this then it would be an valid argument you have presented, but all you have actually done is confirm my point. Because of irrationallity, it becomes easier to become corrupted because you don't need to have a valid justification. The theif you described did not use rational argument, but instead used a psudo rational argument (one that superficially looks like a rational argument, but is in reality not a raional argument). For an argument ot be truely rational, any initial premise must, at least, be able to be demonstrated as being true (ie if the theif could demonstrate that they originally owned the goods in question, then taking them back could be justified - however there is also the method that needs to be justified as well). Your argument here is one that often crops up in arguments against reason and rational approaches to morality. However they end up being strawmen arguments because they can be shown to use irrational justifications for the actions and not rational ones (usually because they start with an irrational assumption). Today I am less free to break the law as I am more likely to get caught. 200 years ago, they had no DNA analysis, no CCTV cameras and such. So in that respect I have lost freedom. But, does this reperesent a loss of freedom in general? No. We have more freedom today because we have more ability to catch criminals (but some criminals have also got smarter as well). The argument you presented actually is self contradictory. You are saying we are more free if we have an authoritarian control prevents us from being free (harsher and more demonstrative punishments). I do agree that subtle control is still control and that with the greater knowledge we have today it is posible to exhert more subtle control (in adition to the less subtle controls), and that it is possible for an organisation to potentially have more control over us than they used to. But, the question is: If, when and where this control is being used? Is such subtle control being used on a constant basis by organisations to manipulate us on a dayly basis? No, not at all. When this control is exersized, it is usually to protect our rights to be free from oppression. We can wear what we like (although with certain things - like wearing nothing - it is only in certain circumstances when it does not cause harm or offense to others), we have freedom to say things (so long as it does not cause unjustified harm to others like slander) we want, we have the ability to believe what we want (again without causing harm to others), we have the freedom to associate with who we want. Actually about the only restrictions we have is in: Not casuing harm to others. Now looking at where the control is being use. Well, it is often used in advertising, but we are bombarded with so much compeating advertising that the effects tend to cancel out (but we have always been subject to this, so it is nothing new, it is really only the effetivness and explicit comercialisation of it that is new). It is also used to stop people who wish to cause harm or to suppress out freedoms. So although there is more potenital for control, it is (generally) being used in a way that ensures our freedoms to make our own choices and beliefs and to prevent harm coming to us. In other words, the control is being used to enhance our freedoms (even though it could potenitally be used to restrict them).

The church use to sell indulgences. This is you could pre-purchace the right to sin. So the church has allowed people to knowlingly sin (and made a profit from it too). SO this argument is clearly false.

First of all, there is no such thing as Genetic Ineretia. This alone renders your proposition invalid. However there are also lots of other reason (even if genetic inertia existed) that counter act your proposition. This is false. There are many traits associated with land, that have distinct advantages in water. For one, water does not always have a lot of oxygen disolved in it. This can be because the water is stagnent, or because as water warms up less oxygen can be disolved in it. So, an aquatic animal living in such environments would have an advantage for being abel to get the oxygen they need form the air. As fish have swim bladders (which are a modification of their gut) that allow them to exchange air between it and their blood, then if the fish could use the swim bladder to get air from the environment into their swim bladder (gulping a mouthful of air and swollowing it) and then selectivly exchinging oxygen into their blood and carbon dioxide out of their blood, they could live more effectivly in these noramlly hostile environments. Many fish do do this, and they use it for exactly this reason. But, this is an advantage that can be built upon to allow an animal to live on land (by allowing the to directly get their oxygen from the air without the need for gills). Also,if an animal lives in an environment with shallow water, fins strong enough to move them in places where swimming is difficult, or imposible, will give them a selective advantage by allowing them access to areas that others can't go to escape predators, or access new sources of food. As such strong fins would also be an advantage to an animal on lnad, this preadapts the animal to living on land, without having to have adapted to land in the first place. There are plenty of fish that live in this halfway place between land and water and they do have strengthened fins which allows them to move arund. It is also known that these fins evolved into our limbs as the fossil record show this clearly, and we can even see that the bones in fish fins have direct matches with bones in out limbs. All this means that it is most certainly possible for an aquatic animal to have advantages for evolving traits that also happen to give them some faculty to living out of water, without directly having to make a big jump from aquatic to land dwelling. Even if your "Genetic Inertia" existed, these traits show a path that fits with your proposition of Genetic Inertia and allows animals to migrate onto land. But as I said at the start: Genetic Inertia does not exist.

Interesting article. I admit that I too have been facinated by time travel and do spend time think about whether it is posible or not. The experiment that Hawking suggested, I think (although I am not a scientiest either), was never going to work. As he explained a wormhole type time machine will self destruct through feedback. However there are other proposed time machines, and all of them (including the wormhole type) can't send information (or time travelers) back before the machine is started. As no known time machines exist (yet ), then it would be imposible for any time traveler to return to the time of Hawking's party. One of the more plauseable time machines use what is called frame draging (which has now been confirmed AFAIK). This where you have a massive object rotating (yes the Earth qualifies for frame draggin, but the effect is very small, but this is where it has been detected). To turn this into a time machine, the rotation of the massive object has to be very fast (surface velocity close to the speed of light). This will then cause large frame draging (a bit like sphagetti around a fork). Orbiting this object in one way will allow you to go backwards in time, and orbiting the other way will take you forwards in time - but only for as long as the machine is operating. So you can't go back beyond when it was started, and can't go forwards beyond when it is eventually switched off (so going to Hawking's party is not possible either ). As for paradoxes of time travel, I too believe that Hawking is right in that "somthing" will prevent the paradox from occuring. For an explaination of how this might occur is look at interference. According to Quantum Mechanics, all matter can behave as a wave and that a collection of matter can have a wave that describes the whole collection (although the wave would be a very complex wave). So, if you extend this to the entire universe (or just the matter directly affected by the paradox), then the state of the universe can be described by one such massive wave. Now, waves have the property that they can interfer with each other, and waves that postivly interfer re-enforce each other giveing a stronger wave amplitude, where as if waves negatively interfer with each other they cancel out. A paradox, in effect, acts like a negative interferance event with the time traveler cauings the paradox as the interfering wave. This causes the "loop" to cancel out and not exist, preventing the paradox from happening. Think of this in terms of "Sum over Histories" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation ) as used by physicists when looking at quantum physics. It means that anything is allowed, as long as the two events (when the time traveler gos back and when they arrive) occur. Anything that prevents these two events occuring cancels out and can not exist.

This is a good point. I don't see religion as any more corruptable than any other human institution, but for religion, they activly discourage attempts at using rational investigation as a basis of the attitudes they hold (as any such endevour ends up in conflict with faith). There are, of course, other, secular human institution that also discourage rational investigation, and these would be as corruptable as religion are. To answer the second part of this: How an institution can avoid (or at least reduce the amount) corruption is by transparency and inviation of ratioanl investigation into its operation. This is the core to western democracy (although not always implimented in reality ) and its success. When an organistion, whether religious or secular, does not have in place check and balances to limit corruption, then corruption will not be able to be controled (limited) within that organisation. I never argued that people haven't questioned docterine in the past, but just that we are now more free to do so than at any time in the past. Even your example proves my argument as you argued that "Jesus Christ himself was persecuted...". If I were, today, to raise the same questions about a church that christ was supposed to have done, I would not be persecuted nearly as much (there might eb some extremeists that would do so today, but I would not "officially" be persecuted by the organisations themselves). I wouldn't end up nailed to a cross in crusifixion. Therefore we are more free today than "Christ" was 2000 years ago. And this is by your argument. You are actually proving my argument for me. Is there any other time you think people were more free to explore their religious beliefs than today?

Science was called Natural Philosop[hy, so science is actually a branch of philosophy. Because of this, either science can use any philosophy, or not be able to use any argument. ALso, by not allowing one side to argue using the other side's framework, it is then possible to construct an argument that predictates the only counter argument as being wihtin that side's domain, thus negating the ability of either side to counter argume. As both sides can do this, it ends up being a deadlock and the debate is utterly pointless as ther can be no resolution.

This is a too simplistic look at evolution and the number of offspring a species has. There is selective advnatages in limiting the number of offspring, otherwise humans would still be using the same breeding technique pioneered early in reproduction evolution: That of having thousands or even millions of offspring and letting them survive on their own. The selective advantage of fewer offspring is that more effort can be spent careing for them and giving them the best starting advantage they can get. As a direct example: Imagine a couple that earns $50,000 a year (note: all these numbers are just made up, but I did try to use reasonable values). If their morgage was cosing them around $500 a week ($26,000 a year) and other expenses (food, rates, taxes, etc) was around $300 per week ($15,600), their excess income would be around $161 a week ($8,400 a year). Now if they had just 1 child, they could (at maximum) spend thise excess on raising this child (education, computers, etc), but if they had 2 children then they could spend only half on each. If they had 5 children, then each would only get around $32 a week spent on them (sure, there would be some overlap between children but this is only an example not an comprehensive analysis). In terms of survival in animals, the parents would not necesarily have money to spend, but this would equate to time spent bringing the young food, teaching them to hunt, protecting them from predators, etc. With a small number of offspring, more resources can be dedicated to raising the few young. If you look at animals in the wild, the number of offspring is a good indication of the amount of parental effort given to raiseing offspring, and you will also find that both are quite successful strategies but it depends on how much effort a species puts into the raising of their offspring. Now, huamns have a long development period. That is each child requiers a large dedication of resources and time to their raising. This means that there is a significant advantage for having smaller numbers of children. So family planing and birth control are actually a good survival strategy. Some other factors that come into the equation are that small populations have less impact on their food sources, so a smaller population can potentially have access to more resoufces from the environment as individuals for the same environmental impact and thus have a better quality of life, less risk of starvation and such (which is more "successful" a small healthy population of a large population on the verge of famine and starvation?). Smaller, less dense populations are less likely to develop new deseases (but too small and there won't be enough genetic diversity, so this is a case of balance between the two) or encourage the spread of deseases and so forth. For a sexually reproducing species to have a stable population, there needs to be exactly 2 offspring survive and reproduce for ever 2 breeding adults. If it is more than 2 the population will increase until other pressures (like starvation, desease, etc) increase the mortality rate or decrease fertility bring the population expansion under control. If it is less than 2 then the population levels will decrease until other pressures allow for more offspring or the species becomes extinct. One of the problems with humans is that we have drastically decrease the child mortality rate which means more chidlren are growing up to become adults and be able to successfully have children themselves. This measn we are in a massive population explosion, and the only way to stop it is to increase the child mortality rate (not something I advocate), or introducing elemtns that restrict the birth rate (family planning, etc). yes, this is about Malthu's and limits of growth, but there arw two typically overlooked factors that both sides of the argument seem not to mention: 1) Yes, human inginuity will allow for an increased level of food productivity. 2) This increased productivity can't continue indefinitly. The first is the argument against Malthus and has allowed us to continue population growth long after Malthus' predicted limits, however, this increased productivity can not continue to increase without limit, and it is a race between each of these increases as to when the limit is reached (we are probably a way off this limit to growth from food, but there are other factors that will have effect too - such as energy and access to other resources). But, all this asside. To address the question proposed in the OP: A society has rules that allow it to continue to exist, as any society that had self destructive rules would quickly self destruct and would no longer exist. These rules can be expressed as moral rules (as well as cultural traditions). With christianity, it continues to exist by teaching it to the young (really, all cultures do this). But, the more young there are, the more members are in that society and the bigger and stronger it is. With any society, there are two rules that have to exist in it: 1) The society must support the members of that society 2) The members of a scociety are requyiered to contribute to that society With rule 2, you can see that a contribution members can make to the society is to increase the number of people in that society. This means having children and teaching them to be members of that society. Actions that seem to harm a society can be seen as immoral, and with christianity reducing the number of children taught to be christians is seen as harmful to the propogation of the society, then using birth control (even if it is a valid biological reason such as over population, etc) is seen as immoral.

The fact that we can discuss this is one piece of evidence that we are more free, even when including your definitions of internal freedom. As an example, if we were haivng this discussion around the year 1230, we would be in real danger of being arrested, tortured and even killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition) just for questioning church docterine (which as you have demonstrated beliefs that were not in line with the christian church circa 1200, you too would be labled as a heritic and subject to the inquisition). So we obviously have more "spiritual" freedoms than the christian church allowed at a time when it was the most powerful church in europe (and you are trying to argue that christianity allows more spiritual freedoms). Through out history, religions have activly suppressed any actions, beliefs and thoughts that don't fit with the curent orthidoxy. It is only because of the rise of secularism and the divisions between church and state and the secular laws that prevent a state from forcing a particular religious view onto someone that we have the right to follow any religion we choose and to have any thought we want without fear of punishment. You are free to explore your beliefs and what God means to you because we have laws that prevent chruches from tourtuering you to determine if you hold beliefs that they don't want you to have and to force you to only believe in the way they want you to. You are spiritually free, not because of religion, but because of the lack of it.

(Bolded by me for reference) This is actually a false assumption. Just look at history. The Dark Ages was one of the most "spiritual" time in christianities history, and yet it was one of the most totalitarian and least free times of christian history. Today we are livign in one of the most secular times (probably the most of all history), and yet we enjoy more freedoms today than at pretty much any other point in history. So this argument that you have presented is demonstrably false. As the entire argumen presented rests on this proposition being true and it is actually false, the entire argument you have presneted is therfore false.

Yes, a lot of the reason that Whales are now considdered protected is that there is not very many of them. They take a long time to mature and are slow to breed. This means that as a high intensity source of protein they are very poor. If they were a much easier animal to breed and domesticate, then I don't doubt that they would have been farmed long before now. Well, there is no evidence that cows are sentient, but for that matter nither is there fore whales. But, the level of inteligence (thought to be necesary for sentience) is much higher in whales than cows (or Kangeroos). There was an interesting talk on TEd recently about plant inteligence (link: )and I think this is actually an important point. We have been brought up to think plants are not inteligent at all, that they have no "processing" capacity as they don't have brains (neural cells in a network). However plants do have complex responses to external and internal stimuli that go beyind a pure chemical response to their environment. They have non local responses where one part of the plant will sense something, and another distant part of the plant will respond to that stimulus, indicateing rapid signalling across the plant (a network). These signals are ahown to be conducted theough cells having an action potential, just like a neuron, but with the cell being a plant cell and not a neural cell. So, if plant have the capacity to show complex responses using a netowrk of cells that can process that information in a similar way to our neurons, all this means is a plant has developed structures similar to animals but through a different and unique method. As plants and aniamls diverges long before animals developed any form of proceeings and signalling structure (back in the single celled days), then we should not be suprised that their structures, although seeming to do the same tasks are constructed differently. But, as to my point: Why should we think of animals as more special than plants? Plants respond to injury in a similar way to aniamls (they act to protect themsleves), it is just that they can't get up and walk (or run) off. they responses are different, but they do respond. In the TED talk, the presenter talks about how plants use these signalling systems and the vast number of them they have (more than some animals in fact). So if we are going to talk about the ethics of killing and eating aniamls because they can sense when they are injured and try to protect themselves (and thus we considder it cruel to cause that harm), then we also have to considder plants as well because they too have the ability to sense harm and will try to protect themsleves as well. Whale kills are not quick. Typically the whale is harpooned and then drowned, but as the whale is able to surface and breath, the whale must first be exhausted before it will drown. Not a pleasent way to go and it take a long time. I do agree that factory farmed aniamls is similarly cruel as it causes suffering over a long time. However, the actual killing of animals like cows is typically (in most developed countries) is relativly quick. It is intended to be faster than the neural conductive speed, so the aniaml shouldn't feel the killing blow - however sometimes it is accidentally slower if the first blow misses, but then it is typically over in a few seconds, but then compare that to how aniamls (of the size we are typically using as food) are killed by predators in the wild, this can take anywhere from minuites to several hours if the predators have to chase them down (like in the case with wolves). So for me, there are 2 main factors that influence my decision to purchase food: 1) The suffering endured. 2) The degree of sentience (based on the level of inteligence). High levels of suffering I considder cruel (including a lower degree of suffering over a long time is also considdered a high level of suffering) as does the organism's ability to be aware of any harm being done to it (as someone who suffers from chronic pain, I have had to understand the difference between Pain, Suffering and Injury - until you know the difference between them you can't really make arguments about them as you would not have an understanding of what you are discussing).

Maybe I should have used the word "real" rather than "true". To continue my example: You reinterpereted my first example as: "If I am king of the world, then I am king of the world.", but if this is true, then does this mean I am king of the world? No. Yes, if the initial premise (being king of the world) is either true or false, thenn the the conclusion (being king of the world) is logically consistent (this is what I ment by internally consistent - that is the whole statement does not have a logical incosistency), and in this view it is "true". But, whether it is internally consistent (or true if you want), does not make what the statement is about true or false. So you might be abel to argue that the statemnt is true, but this has no relevence to anything else. It makes it meaningless. In terms of programming it is like a statment that reads: If (A = A). Of course A = A, but this does not allow you to do anyhting at all useful with it (like determine if A is actually true or false). You might as well have not included that line of code at all. To sum up what I mean. A tautology is only a statment where the syntax is true, and it has no impact on whether the subject the statement is about is true or false.

Being a tautology doe not make something true, or even false. A Tautology is only self constistant. For example: I am the King of the worlfd because i said I am the king of the world (and as king of the world I have the power to name the king of the world). This is a tautology. But it is also false (unless you are all willing to accept me as king of the world ). It is, however, self consistant (as if I was king of the world I could do such things). So, just because something is a tautology, it does not necesarily make it true (or false for that matter either).

For any social system to work (and not just human social systems), there are two "rules" that need to be in place: 1) The social system must support the members of that society. 2) The members of that society must support the social system. It is this reciprocal relationship that allows socities to exist and function. Taxation is just an economic contribution to support the social system, and there are other ways to contribute. So, even the person with "nothing" (in terms of economy) can still have plenty to contribute. In fact, if you look at it, money is not what is contribueted, but it actually the reward for contributing. What people contribut is their time and effort (work).

What we are doing is holding up the actions of God against what God said is good. If God defines certain actions as good or evil, and God is the ultimate authority on Good and Evil, then if God takes an action that is evil, is not God, by His own definition Evil? Ok, but I am talking about cruelty, not evil. Evil and cruelty are not the same thing. Sure, cruelty can be vil, but some cruelty can also be good. Also, just because something is evil does not make it cruel. Lets take killing as an example. According to the bible it is evil to kill (it is one of the 10 commandments). So, according to the bible, euthinasia is evil, but as it removes the suffering of the patient, then this action is not cruel. This means it is possible to have actions that are good and both cruel or not cruel. It is also possible to have actions that are evil, but they can also be cruel or not cruel. But knowing the difference between Good and Evil, because suffering is an unrelated property, does not give or remove or ability to suffer (BTW it wasn't Satan that said it, it was the serpent - they are not the same thing). No, that is the child trying to use guilt to cause their parents to change their minds. This is not knowedlge of good and evil, so this analogy is false. Not getting your own way is an essential thing we have to learn. We are not omnipotent beings, so it is imposible for us to get our own way all the time, thus this is something we have to learn and deal with. It is a suffering we can not remove by our limited powers. An omnipotent God could eliminate this suffering, and in fact must be able to do as all suffering is supposed to be eliminated once one gets to heaven (so we must be able to get our own way all the time). However, if God can eliminate this suffering, and we don't need this lesson once our mortal lives have been spent (as in heaven we will always get our own way), why then can't we have the power to get our own way (or God allow us to)? It means that as this "lesson" derived from the suffering of not getting our own way only applies to our mortal existance and is therefore unnecesary. In fact, if we apply this to all suffering that we can experience, the only suffering we can experience is when we are not in heaven. As existance in heaven is infinite, then any suffering we have is of finite length. Any finite number divided by infinity is infintesimal. IT means that the impact of any suffering on any of the existance of us or God is so minute it is virtually meaningless. This makes any suffering unnecesary as with all of infinity to achieve His ends, God could do anyhting to achieve it without causing any suffering. Also as God has the power to eliminate suffering (as He has done in heaven), then this means that all suffeirng for what ever reason is unnecesary and to allow it means that God is cruel.