Ringer

There have been multiple cases of children dying due to neglect for religious reasons. It may be against the law, the parents may even be prosecuted (which is somewhat on and off depending on the area), but it doesn't do the dead child a whole lot of good. When it's the law vs. religious extremism the law doesn't usually win out on the decision making for them.

That works fine until children die because their parent's religion doesn't allow them to treat certain illnesses. Or a science teacher's belief causes a child to wrongly learn basic science. Or when a religious belief causes people to think they have the right to destroy nature, or that human's can't strongly effect the global ecosystems. Or various other ways that beliefs can have negative effects on people.

I would say that evolution (really scientific thought in general) doesn't necessitate atheism. But what it does do is make theism necessary in practical terms. Meaning that using science and skepticism creates a naturalistic thought process in general, but it doesn't force one to have a solely naturalistic philosophy.

As sad as it is, sometimes you just have to accept that the cheater will 'win' in some people's eyes. But to minimize that you can point out the flaws by learning common fallacies and tactics, use their falsities against them by making them go deeper and then point out why what they say is wrong, don't be distracted by moving goalposts, and (most importantly) only debate when you are very comfortable with the topic and your ability to convey it.

If you can't give a reasonable mutation of an already known enzyme that could do that as well as an explanation of how the cell would survive to produce enough become a danger then we can say there isn't an ignition source. The enzyme would have to be produced in massive quantities for it to make enough phosphine for combustion. Which means a single cell that dies after making a couple of the enzymes wouldn't be enough because the phosphine would diffuse before there is a high enough concentration. Not to mention how the enzyme is remains active with no regulation inside or outside of the is another factor you would need to explain in more detail. Frank Baker said his doctor said he burnt from the inside out, without a doctor's report or even a method on how he found this out this means absolutely nothing other than people can say whatever they want. Jack Angel is a liar, either he lies about the SHC or he lied to the courts about being burnt by hot water. You can probably figure out which one is more likely to be the lie. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/not-so-spontaneous_human_combustion/

So a large barrier in the form of moisture is more unrealistic to you than combustion with no ignition source?

The image is beautiful and it hurts me a bit to critique it because it's wonderfully done, but a couple notes on the evolutionary links. The thecodontia lineage to crocs should have biped ancestors. The thecodontia/euryapsid/squamata/etc. branch point is super cluttered where I didn't see squamates at first. During the amphibian evolution there is an animal that is lifting its head and another above it with a bend in its back. There may have been that neck movement but ventral/dorsal trunk movement probably didn't develop that early on. I apologize for critiquing because it is truly a beautiful piece of work.

Why would the mass per unit volume change depending on your latitude and what does that have to due with your idea?

That's why they test for common allergens. And if there is an allergen present it would be in their best interest to add a label, else they would lose an unbelievable amount of money to law suits. Why would the fungus resistance automatically code for some allergen we know to check for? Do you think these engineers are ignorant enough to not be able to selectively code for resistance, or alter the gene, so the allergen is not present? Again, just because the code came from a wheat plant =/= wheat allergens are present. So, since we know allergens in wheat we will not add those genes. In case there is an unknown, we test the protein that is being coded to see if there is some sort of allergic reaction. Then further tests are conducted to see if there are dangerous metabolic products or reactions when eaten. If none are found we can conclude the inserted gene is relatively safe.

That's what science does and those who believe literal interpretations don't. It's also why science is the reason for health, high life expectancy, and general quality of life while those beliefs haven't seen to be able to give much at all to humanity at large.

This constant bald assertions with no backing evidence is getting seriously old. There are three threads that are going back and forth in this way: A: GMO is dangerous B: Studies have shown no such danger *link* A: What about factors not talked about in link, they didn't study enough B: *other studies* A: It's not enough, you don't know what what the effects will be. It's seriously getting tiresome to follow 3 different threads that are doing the same damn thing over and over.

Because the body is a system and each portion develops at a rate comparable with other parts of the body. When bones develop and are much longer the muscles must also become longer to have their origin and insertion points, and conversely shorter stature means less length the muscle must have to function. This means that for the same absolute amount of muscle one of shorter stature will probably have more muscle per unit area. There's also the different types of muscle and a number of other factors, but I think that gets at what you're asking.

The brain is not just mass, mass is a property the brain has. That's like saying a road is just distance. Neither memory nor consciousness is necessary for evolution. If it were early evolution would have never happened. Memory is also not stored in DNA, even by attempting to stretch the definition of both memory and epigenetics to their breaking point. The brain doesn't use electric impulses, it uses movement of ions. This is much slower than the speed of light. Why would memory be divided by mass, how many memories per mass unit are there? What unit is squared for past and future? What do these even mean

The study was on generational effects on reproduction, so lifetime exposure isn't an issue (reproductive capacity lowers with age anyway so it would have given too many false positives) The retraction was not unexplained. Rigorous =/= more in absolute numbers. They had more rats per group, fewer comparisons, and times more in line with that type of rat. All of these mean that statistical noise is minimized. "Differences were not considered biologically meaningful and were not indicators of harmful effects." Methodologically a general health study looking for any difference will find something, probably multiple times. No matter what you study, what controls, or what methods you use. Because there are so many ways for negative health effects to occur comparing everything is statistically useless. There would be so much noise in the data that there would be no way to see if there was a real effect. But you're just using special pleading for GMO testing. You have not made any valid claim that GMOs should be considered more dangerous than anything else we use or eat.

Also, a relevant article pertaining to other testing being voluntary. http://grist.org/food/the-gm-safety-dance-whats-rule-and-whats-real/

And why shouldn't it? You have yet to make a single point as to why GMO should be tested and regulated more strictly than any other food or additive.

So the 1,000 mg/kg dosage with an accumulation of 300 ng/g is a fear? The pregnant woman's stomach would explode to get a dangerous dosage, probably causing more damage to the baby than the chemical. Hmmm, that's odd http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm352067.htm Why would the FDA lie to me like that? Yeah, they probably do this because crossovers in hybrids (or really any mutation type) has the chance to create novel or variant proteins and functions. So the difference is we know less about the mutations occurring in non-modified plants, in fact we don't even know if they're there. So if we use the principle of unknown = too dangerous that means any individual who has not been genotyped most likely genocidal.

Because many laws are arbitrary. Are you wanting to discuss something scientific about marijuana or are you wanting to rail against its legal status. I ask because this isn't the politics section.

I know, it drives me insane to see studies of 'natural' herbal products have ridiculous amounts of contamination, mislabeling, and 'fillers' and people react with a collective "meh". Then hear angry shouts about a described gene with research backing its safety that has been reviewed by the FDA being fed to people. Then again, think of all the funding that would be available when no genetic mutation (because if what's the difference between inserted genes and, say, crossovers in hybrids [besides mutation type]) can go to market without at least 30 years of intensive study. Then again the farming industry might drop off when all farmers have to genotype every individual to make sure there are no 'unknowns' that could be dangerous.

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion about the 'lack' of research of GMOs. Do I need to post another wall citations? Most anti-GMO talk is just special pleading that GMO is different and should be studied more extensively than any other food product. We have as much (more IIRC) research on GMO foods as we do on most other things we eat. I don't see the push against vitamins (which have been shown to be less than honest about what's even in them), of every new genotype livestock may have (or sometimes if the livestock is what's actually listed on the package), of every combination of soda combination to make sure no combination is too harmful, etc. Why is it GMO that needs all the tests, but it's the only one?

The statements after the sentence where I responded to the quoted text don't need to rerespond to the same point. And it still wouldn't be quote mining, the context the statement was snipped from doesn't change the message or my response. What? I was making a point that you said by any standard we are more intelligent, when shown a standard measure of intelligence you responded with what amounted to 'that doesn't count'. Then go on to talk about the amazing things people have achieved. What does that context change about anything I have written? We can't, we have developed things that allow us to. The bacteria inside of us has been to all those places as well and have survived much better with less work. And if we can be dominant in any habitat why aren't we living in deep sea vents? Why aren't we living in volcanoes? Why aren't we living inside other organisms? Why aren't we living at the top of Mt. Everest? I don't see how you think that general argument transcends specific contexts. [edit] typos [/edit]

I agree it has nothing to do with intelligence, I never said it did. That's why I specifically stated that I was measuring accomplishments instead of intelligence. I never posted a video, and we never stated we are measuring general intelligence. Not to mention just measuring g factors to say that humans are superior is using a measurement made specifically for humans to measure other species. Like Ophiolite said, you are using a metric of making human cognitive traits important while minimizing all other factors. Humans are an amazing species, I don't deny that. But it's ignorant to think that because we are good at the things we consider important (obviously) that we are superior. In effect it's like having a professional basketball player and a professional rugby player and saying rugby player is superior because he plays rugby better. To measure superiority one most define what metrics are being used. Generally, there is no superior species unless parameters are defined.

It's only a fallacy when the context changes the meaning, which it didn't. Memory is one measurement of intelligence.

And so are many other religions, Or they're being persecuted badly enough that they can't freely make websites to talk about how persecuted they are. No, you don't get sued for your faith. What will get one sued is owning a business (therefore agreeing to follow the laws governing businesses) then breaking discrimination laws. If you really want to pull that card, there are states that won't allow an atheist to hold some public offices. I'd rather know about problems so they can be fixed. I'm not going to get on an airplane if the mechanic says, 'well do you really want to know if there's a problem?' And those people are ignorant about how governments work, so their ignorance is making them paranoid. Well the OT verses given by Mooey, remember Jesus says he isn't overturning OT laws Matthew 5:18-19 - “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” We also have Matthew 10:14-15, 10:21, 10:35-37, 11:20-24 etc. for talking about killing are battling with those who don't believe.

I don't believe original sin, I'm just giving a reason within that belief system.