mooeypoo

I'm confused. I am almost certain this quote of mine is not me saying something it's me quoting the frst OP, but I would be happy if you could give the NUMBER of the post so I can check out what I said in the full context.

Irreducible complexity was dismissed about two years ago by evolutionary biologists studying the claim. Behe (who coined the term) stated two main things that fall under it: Bacterium Flagelum (sp?) and the Immune System. They are BOTH perfectly explained through step-by-step evolution through natural selection (check out the Nova website for the show about the Dover trial, they talk about it quite a lot). It's not making any predictable statements -- actually, it makes *one* (that it is IRREDUCIBLY complex) and that was *proven* wrong. agreed, but the people who take it literally seem to also take very very strongly the battle to insert themselves and their unscientific claims into science classes. It's a war against reason. Not a violent one, but a war nonetheless. ~moo

You're absolutely right, I stand corrected. However - that actually supports my point that the fact we use terms in a specific way, don't mean science "behaves" according to our language... ~moo

I disagree. This is about intelligent design, and some very large and extravagant claims (according to reviews and the trailer) about the 'fact' scientists ignore a 'significant' scientific theory for their own benefit. Intelligence Design, whatever anyone's RELIGIOUS beliefs are, is NOT SCIENCE. Under *any* definition, it's NOT SCIENCE. Not. Science. Making a movie saying "science shuts me up" (which ISN'T quite true, is it? If anything, ID movement is attempting to undermine true science, IE dover case et al) because they aren't comfortable by this scientific theory is untrue, unfair, misleading and biased. So yeah, I don't see any problem at all in criticizing this movie. Making a movie as an attempt to convince the laymen that ID is true and evolution isn't, and that he's being mislead by the entire scientific community, is AGAINST rationality, against PROGRESS and against everything I believe is good in this world. In fact, promoting ID on the expense of science is something I find EXTREMELY harmful, to the level of calling it a true danger for the next generation. I see no problems is criticizing this movie. None at all. ~moo p.s: For this claim, we will probably have to wait until the movie is released (and download it. I refuse to give it money), but it is still an important point: This movie *needs* to be criticized. Quoting the trailer: "Like most people I also have questions. Very big questions like 'how did we get here', 'where are we going', 'is there a meaning and purpose in life, or are we, the universe, and everything in it, merely the result of pure dumb fate and chance. For most of my life I believed the answers to these questiosn are fairly straight forward: Everything was created by a loving God. That includes rocks, trees animals, people, really everything. All along I've been well aware that other people - very smart people - believe otherwise. Rather than God's handy work, they see the universe as the product of random particle collisions and chemical reactions. And rather than regard the human kind as carrying a spark of the divine, they believe we're nothing more than mud animated by lightening.." There's no need to quote forward. Just watch the trailer. In 3 minutes, he manages to fill the air with more straw-men and ridicule than actual words. QED.

Hehe that's a BIT too elementary, yeah. I understand the logic behind it (btw, I can't imagine why creationists used this as an 'irreducible complexity' when it's so intuitive to explain...) but the actual level -- we're talking, technically, (or.. well, almost.. i think..) about a symbiotic relationship between us and a set of rather complex organisms that protect us. Furthermore, I think I read somewhere that it's not just the immune system in the blood, but also our symbiosis with "good" bacteria that protects us. So .. yeah.. something a BIT more elaborate, please or.. resources to one. whichever thanks! ~moo

Maybe we should open a thread just for that

Yeah, fine, you have a point, but then again - we all use "what is before the big bang?" question when it is pointless, because 'before' is a question referring to TIME and time itself is hypothesized to be created in the Big Bang. Language is what we have, but the universe doesn't always confine to our language, or our perceptions, and sometimes it is a bit more difficult to understand than your usual scientific theories. Lack of understanding, however, doesn't prove falsifiability. ~moo EDIT: Another point about our 'language' is that we tend to say that space is a void - when in reality, it's FAR from it (there are plenty of "stuff"/matter in between stars and celestial objects. it's not a vacuum) but to always go back to petty explanations when dealing with other subjects is just against the point. If we want to hypothesize on the behavior of light in between galaxies, we will sometimes make the statement that "it travels in a void", knowing that the void is not PRECISELY a void, it's ALMOST a void, but it's irrelevant to the specific hypothesis at hand, at the moment...

My my.. we were just studying Janis' "GROUPTHINK" theory in class the other day. VERY Fascinating theory, and I recommend the read, specifically his analysis of the decisions that were taking in the incident of "The Bay of Pigs" (as a bad decision, caused by what he defines as "groupthink") versus the second, better managed incident, of the "Cuba Missile Crisis". His theory is that within the psychological interaction of a group, people can be subjected to methods and pressures that would make them not express themselves fully, become arrogant (something like 'as a group, we agree, therefore we must be right') and encourage unanimity. The symptoms for groupthink are (abbrev): ((source: http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm)) He's explaining it quite convincingly, and it's really fascinating to read. ~moo

Hey guys, Anyone following the Dover case could see Dr Behe's rediculous approach to the dozens of books explaining the evolution of the immune system through natural selection. I find the subject of evolution in general fascinating, but most of the resources I found online about the evolution of the Immune system were *waaaaay* beyond my level. I am not sure if I was just unable to find any good 'lay men' resources or if it's just a dificult subject, but I was wondering if anyone could perhaps give me a brief layman explanation on how the immune system evolved.. where does it come from? Or.. well.. resources would be fine too. Thanks! ~moo

maybe it's "the hand of god"... anyhoo, I'm not REALLY worried, I just found it really ironic and quite funny. "Kodak Moment" of the SFN. ~moo

Or us donating to his movie's popularity

I swear, I didn't photoshop this To all of you who don't know, "Expelled" is a new movie by Ben Stein, promoting Creation *against* science, and claiming Creationism is suppressed by 'mainstream science' as a sort of conspiracy against freedom of speech and the truth. Ironic, ain't it? So... how does this happen in a *science* forum? ~moo

A question (because I *really* don't know, so don't kill me here) uhm.. aren't the same agencies that today say Iran has no Nukes also were the same to ignore the warnings for 9/11? I dunno.. I'm a bit skeptical about the ability of Intelligence Agencies in america (in our current day) to analyze these subjects of the Middle East.. But again.. I'm not too well versed in the processes / agencies so -- please correct me if I'm wrong here. Another thing here -- The process of developing nuclear weapon has a lot of stages in it. As far as I read, Iran failed with the centrifuge, but is still enriching uranium. It still has a long-range missile, aswell (why would they need one without the *intent* of having a bomb, too?)... I am very worried about these things, I think we should keep this in mind. I don't see an *IMMINENT* threat from Iran, but I can't help but wondering if that kind of report won't lead to a kind of 'drop of guard' on the western-world's part, which is just another version of "the other extreme".. I think even though Iran probably doesn't possess a threat *today* (which I doubt it does) we should still keep an eye on it.. they do have the INTENT on the weapons.. the missiles and attempts to create centrifuge (thougth failed attempts) seem to prove it.. ~moo

Phi, darling, look at his spelling, grammar and choice of words. Do you truly believe he is capable of understanding your sentence? By the way -- I wonder who'se the other Gods. He's only "a god" so.. maybe the others are pissed at him for being banned. teehee. ~moo

Anyone knows of a good resource (other than facebook.com, which is VERY limited) in tutorials/explanations about the system and tweeks/hacks of facebook, specifically, the benefits for an organization to get into it? I'm looking and I can find lots of mySpace stuff but no Facebook... help? ~moo

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Awesome skeptical weekly Podcast and Forums. Richard Dawkins.net Specifically the video lectures are amazing. JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) Large resource site, with forums and video lectures.

Yeah.. I'm reading "The God Delusion" now (Richard Dawkins.. great book btw) and he's talking about that too.. the evolutionary basis for belief and religion.. he's saying interesting things, but I just never thought things go *that* far as to set your entire life in a completely rediculous "everyone who's not me is an alien" notion. But then again... religions believe insane things too, so.. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.. And yes, sure, me too, of coruse, I guess it *is* natural to believe in crap (or.. rather "fantasy" ) but the point is that we are logical enough to also LOOK at our world and pick the 'delusions' that do no 'harm' to our benefit (like Deism, for instance, is such belief.. it's just.. "THERE"... it's not STOPPING anyone from research or from respecting others. I don't share that belief btw, but I can respect it) from beliefs and fanatsies which are simply not true. I used to believe I have unique 'energetic' powers (like in reiki and 'chakras') and can influence people around me physically. As much as this is really flattering belief, it took a few failed attempts to realise this was a fantasy.. it explains nothing, leads nowhere, and is simply false by the mere fact that it's only working on people who believe the same thing. So.. there *is* a distinction. ~moo

Let me clarify something -- the belief itself can be amusing, and I'm far away from being scared of it or the people who seem to believe in it. What I'm asking is what type of people -- or rather, WHAT CAUSES A PERSON to take such insanely extravagant and stupid belief in the first place, and then hold it with such conviction? I don't imagine any of these loonies being anything other than a humorous footnote, but they are one extreme example of a type of people that believe idiocies and PROMOTE them - hence, believe in them with great conviction - while completely ignoring reality. I just don't understand how that can happen to a person, unless we are willing to define all of them as medically insane. Are they? ~moo

Yeah I'll read it after the end of the semester when I have a bit more time. But you know, I don't believe ANYTHING I'm told -- I try to double check things and research before I reach a conclusion (unless it's with things that aren't worth the time, like 'is it going to snow tomorrow', which has a futile research anyways ). But these people actually believe in this to the extreme.. to SUCH extreme, in fact, that they go around claiming not only that our entire government are ALIENS (EVERYONE?! There wasn't a SINGLE elected official that was human!? wow) but that they are *very specific* aliens - the 'reptilian' kind (whatever the heck that means).. I just don't get it. Are these people dimented?? is this a mental disease, or just... wishful thinking? what kind of person dreams this idiocy?? This is too weird. <sigh of frustration> Alright, I'm.. worried. See, I thought those idiots were 'fringe' group.. that they were 2 kids not understanding the world around them and devising silly 'conspiracy theories' ... I did that as a child (only I was sane enough to KNOW it was a fantasy and not reality, but.. i guess that's why I'm an aspiring astrophysicist and they're a bunch of scared sociopaths denying reality) but this is scary: http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?id=5847 There is a WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE talking friggin GIBERISH here! EXPANDING EARTH!!!!!!! They're TALKING EXPANDING EARTH!?!!?!?!!?!?!!!!! What the hell is wrong with our education system!? what the hell is wrong with us as a species that we have to resort to such insane way of running away from reality!?!? Are we really so STUPID as to give up our intellect for the sake of "adventurous conspiracy" !? Geesh. ~moo

Right, so I was roaming the net, answering comments on my vids on YouTube, doing some homework etc, when I got a suggestion (quite .. uhm.. "convincing"..) to "LEARN THE TRUTH! VISIT truthism.com " So, out of curiousity, I did.. I scrolled down three quarters of the page, trying to skip from "why not to believe anyone other than us" crap to the actual THING they BELIEVE IN. So. When I finally regained control over my bladder and breathing after laughing myself to madness, I started thinking. Here's an excerpt of the website: Obviously, I stopped laughing as soon as I realised this is something people actually believe. Now, here's an important point (so i'll bold it out): I am not interested in starting a "is it true/is it false" thread because this is too idiotic to even debate over. What I am interested in is your thoughts about the type of belief: this is an outlandish idiotic out-of-this-world conspiracy-went-mad unbased totally-denying-reality PIECE OF CRAP. How, in (insert-deity-name)'s name, does anyone believe in those things? I can understand how some psychics and others of this sort delude themselves. I can undertand how a person not knowing how the mind works can see the 'face of jesus' on a burnt bagel and declare God's love for his breakfast. I can even understand how a brainwashed child declares all who don't share his beliefs as infidels. What I just can't figure out is who the DAMN HELL believes *this crap*, that's SO out there and idiotic, that I was *certain* it's a joke page ('till I saw other sites discussing the same things. Go to http://www.falsebeliefs.com/ to see). How can people live with such hatred to society that they are willing to believe this idiocy, seemingly for the only reason of rejecting "modern science".... Is this a 'rebellion' thing? Isn't it silly, though? They're denying their own intellect for the sake of 'rebelling' against social 'norms' (as if science is a 'norm'..) this is really weird to me. So weird, in fact, that I just decided to buy Michael Shermer's "why people believe weird things"; but even that book is dealing more with pseudoscience and supertition than.. well.. THESE things. what the hell.... ~moo

Kant would say that using an innocent bystander (the kid) to save others for the price of his own life is wrong. So I think it's more than just "torturing a kid". If this was his older brother we may ahve been less "emotional" about it, but it would still get the same answer (at least according to Kant's principle, which I *usually* agree with). But yeah, it's hard to make clear-cut non-negotiable 'absolutes' in arguments of Morality. That's the entire point of morality... ~moo

I think that you are ignoring one very very important detail: Everything we know about the suicide bombers (such as, for example, that they're sending their own sons and daughters to explode or serve as human shield.. look at Iraq for reference, and I'll try to find other references to put here). Even if not "ALL OF THEM" do it, some of them do, so the very very important question to add to this dilemma is -- Will it WORK ? Will the torture of his son actually work in preventing this terrorist from blowing himself up? I think that this is very important to decide on ethical action; if we know for a fact that this will work (if we can ever know anything for a fact) then it's different than if this is only "possible".. and "how much" is it possible? The odds are 20 percent? Then my answer would be different than if the odds are 90 percent... Anyways.. that's one point I wanted to make. But in any case, I was thinking that there's also Kant's theory, which, very generally, states that you cannot use another person for the case of 'the end justifies the means'; you COULD kill someone if he is "collateral damage", even if you know it in advance (for instance, if you would blow up that man's appartment as retaliation, and his son is due home from school at the same time?) but actually killing - or torturing - the kid intentionally, would be wrong. I am not sure, btw, that I agree with Kant on this one (or that I managed to translate his theory to our current case.. anyone who knows better, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I think that's probably a decent presentation of another option. Also (and this is a VERY free interpretation of the text, I think) Rousseaux defined his freedom as possible to "forcefully convince others to be free", so I would *think* that he might approve of this torture.. his theory on the General Will and the Will of All may fit in, but I may need to re-read the text... just a thought, though. ~moo P.S: Another point is -- what are the alternatives, and what are their odds to success? There are always alternatives; better and worse in reality. This question would look entirely different (and the answers would too, probably) if you knew, for instance, that it is possible to: - Send S.W.A.T teams to capture the terrorist without him exploding the bombs. - Find the bombs using a geiger count device, possibly in time to prevent the explosion - confuse the bomber by showing him a fake television report of the president filling up his demands. The only real question is how plausible are these options with their odds to success? If the first one, for instance, and then you have a dilemma of weighing the odds. The question of Social value (your 4th) may increase with this option, even though it has much LESS odds at success.. so your dilemma grows. In short, i think we should remember that reality is far from perfect; that's why imho arguments about morality are always valid. There's no "definitive" answer.. the argument and debate should ALWAYS be considered, depending on the circumstances. ~moo

All hail the spaghetti monster! Ramen.

How can you stop a natural process of the universe while you *are part* of the natural process of the universe, though?

That was very truthful.. I agree, btw.