Ringer

Not necessarily, the understanding and using of grammatical structure is instinctual and very much involves higher level brain function. IIRC an instinct is an unlearned behavior common throughout a species given a specific stimulus. Usually this only includes complex behaviors because simple behaviors are considered reflexive (though I think it's a fairly arbitrary point since complex and simple behaviors aren't very well defined).

How about, I heard the same people who think divorce is bad also believe pre-marital sex is bad. So it could easily follow that people who don't have pre-marital sex don't get divorced at the average rate without regard to what is best for them.

Well the codon triplets were probably preferred because it allows redundancy, so not every mutation would cause a change in amino acid sequence. Also, if you only had 16 for 16 AA there wouldn't be a stop sequence.

The conscious part of our mind is anything but complete. The vast majority of things that happen in the nervous system have nothing to do with conscious thought, hell many things that we decide have little to do with conscious thought. No single part of the brain is 'aware' of its function any more than your muscle cells are 'aware' of their function. They are just carrying out biochemical reactions. Muscle memory happens, more or less, when there is enough neuronal control of firing patterns that conscious control is no longer needed. That directly contradicts the idea that there is no subconscious. But the Freudian idea that we are split into pieces is simple fantasy and misunderstanding of his work. It's likely the result of a dalience with a sister in law that was intellectualized and then misunderstood. I agree that Freud's ideas were purely fantastical. That doesn't negate the fact that there are aspects of our thinking, decision making, etc that never go through 'executive processes' that would be considered consciousness. Enough so that the conscious part of our minds have virtually no control over many of these things. Again how do you control these things? You may be able to indirectly control many of these aspects, but direct control is very hard to believe. What behavior is consistent with having a subconscious? Regulation of body temperature? Feeling pain? The shortcuts the brain uses that makes our perceptions lie to us consistently? Yes, there is plenty of evidence of our conscious awareness having limited access to our brain, but we do use all the parts of our brains. It depends on what you mean by information. I don't know of a good hypothesis on the absolute limitations of learning or storage for the brain, but if I were to make a (complete and utter) guess I would say that the limitation of the brain would be related to the amount of novel neuronal connections (or series of connections) in different specialized areas. But like I said, that's just a guess. A pretty good book on the subject is called Incognito ( http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/0307389928 ).

Well then I obviously meant that, not what I actually said. . .

Hm. I thought the neutron was absorbed into the products of the fission process.

Not in the least. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/ http://promoteacceptance.samhsa.gov/publications/facts.aspx?printid=1

Yeah? And very few people with mental illness get tied to mass murder at all. So again those who do not have a mental health problem are more dangerous.

Well, considering Australia did a buy back program, the government must have amazing mind control skills to 'confiscate' since that was voluntary. Certain guns were outlawed, but I don't know of actual confiscations. I'm less sure about how Europe's laws progressed. How is it not a straw-man and scare tactics? They cannot legally ban many guns, and it would be unbelievably ineffective to search and take every gun. So government confiscating guns won't happen, straw-man, and saying 'crazy' people will still have guns while 'normal' people don't is using scare tactics. And you know what the most amazing thing is about trying to keep 'nuts' away from guns. It won't really do anything. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people without mental health problems.

Yes, as long as you completely ignore Mesopotamia, whose writings have been dated around 3000 BCE.

Yes, they love losing, that's why they have guns. Gun regulations aren't about taking guns away from responsible people, it's about minimizing unnecessary dangers. In the US it has been deemed unconstitutional for handguns to be overtly outlawed at the federal level nor would it be cost effective to try to find and take legally held firearms, so saying they are 'taking guns' is just a scare tactic and strawman.

But you said that sets of particles will not join if they do not have similar amounts. So how does a neutron join a uranium atom to cause the chain reaction?

If no small set of particles can combine with a larger set how do you explain nuclear chain reactions?

There has been quite a bit of speculation on things such as that. Many Dinosaurs were pack hunters which usually allows for more intelligence (social animals tend to have higher levels of intelligence). Many seem to believe that Dinosaurs such as Troodontidae could have been extremely intelligent by reptile standards. It could have been possible that there were quite a large number of dinosaurs that had relatively high intelligence but evolutionary pressures didn't necessarily favor those traits, obviously that is quite speculative though. The main problem is we don't have a good definition for what intelligence is, or what physiological characteristics cause intelligence. So it is quite possible the intelligence of birds, and ancient equivalents, have different characteristics than mammalian intelligence, similar to how birds four chambered heart and mammalian four chambered hearts differ due to separate evolutionary origins.

Porn stars are supposed to have regular check ups to make sure they don't have AIDS, or any other STD/STI.

How about you sum it up for us. If the truth is so important, isn't it important enough for you to actually explain it?

That's assuming we believe if it's the word of God, it's correct or justified. That is not the case for anyone I've seen. On the contrary, most of us have probably read the Bible and thought, "That's guy's a dick, I wouldn't want to follow him even if he was real." Which Christianity also has, so that argument makes no sense whatsoever. Any definitions of religion include religions that fit the definition, you're using a tautology. It's not universal because it doesn't include what most people consider religions.

And I would advise you to not misinterpret and cherry-pick parts of texts when attempting to make a case against others who do so. It lowers your credibility as someone who can decide what the authors of certain books meant when you refuse to understand what people who can clarify what they meant. Again, who are you to chose which way of life is religious? More specifically, can a banker be religious?

Who ever defended them? All anyone said was that they were following religious ideals. You are asking two different questions. Would I let someone fraudulently publish data? Absolutely not. Would I allow 'bad', assuming bad means incorrect, data to be published if the researchers followed proper procedures? Absolutely, because we wouldn't know if it was bad unless it couldn't be reproduced. Introspection as a means to religious truth doesn't really help your argument. If someone truly believes women are lesser beings their introspection would show women are beneath men as being a religious truth. I agree for the most part that a great many religious text have passages in them that could be considered pro-equality and pacifistic, and could be used to promote those ideas. That aside, there are also many passages that are blatantly violent and anti-equality. I don't have my Bhagvad Gita, but I do remember some parts saying something about killing and not being held accountable and other accounts of non-war violence. Again I loaned mine to my brother, but I may be able to get it this weekend for specific quotes. Anyway, the point is that there are contradictory passages that can be used either way. To ignore some and claim them to be not part of the religion is done by both the violent, pacifists, and everyone in between. I still don't see how one can claim only one of them is religious. Just so we can be on the same page, can you list the books that you believe are the word of God. Also, can you tell me the conditions you have that make you believe those are to be followed while the others shouldn't be? What about the argument of Timothy and Titus taking place after Acts? Since Acts ends before Paul's trial it would explain the the internal problem of being chronologically inconsistent. Since he would be been older it would be likely he deferred writing to a scribe, which would take care of the difference in writing style. Yes, he broke many laws, which would be one reason he was legally crucified. I have heard this argument as a basis for people breaking various laws, such as killing, because they follow the laws of God not the laws of man. So, do the laws of God apply, such as killing those who do not worship the correct god, or do man's laws apply? Anyway, we are getting pretty far off topic with this. The core problem is, why do you consider those who do not treat women with religious even with they use religion as an excuse for non-equality? Again, still in the Bible. Even if they are not written by Paul, people still use them for religious teachings. Not really. I see that you do not hold a literal interpretation of the Bible and accept that Moses didn't write many of the books attributed to him, but that does not answer if you believe those teaching were divinely inspired or not. Nor does it let me know which, if any, of the rules from the OT should be followed. If some should, such as the 10 commandments, how do you know which are to be followed and which shouldn't? Again, if some should, doesn't the argument of socio-political events inspiring your personal idea of what Christianity teaches hold? I understand why you believe your definition is correct, but I don't understand why you believe those who don't fit your definition aren't religious. Even if they are misinterpreting the books themselves and are incorrect that doesn't make them less religious. If being religious is defined by correctness, one cannot assume to be religious until one is dead. If one must be Christian to become Christ, therefore they are your idea one must become Christ to qualify as Christian is false. Obviously it is not universal because no one so far has agreed with your definition, nor is it objective because you have a personal stake for it to be correct. So which sect is the one that should be joined, and by not accepting all the biblical scriptures are you not furthering the separation of Christianity further? Furthermore, and back to the original point, aren't all these sects still religious in nature? There are many religions that do not have specific stated beliefs of the supernatural, a less strict definition has to do with beliefs of the cause and purpose of nature, but the problem is without the supernatural using words like 'cause' or 'purpose' have no meaning in the context. When those things are removed, it just turns in to philosophy. I would like to know what specific sects do not have supernatural beliefs so I could make a better argument. I agree it would be fallacious to assume all religions, or more specifically their sects, support violence (association fallacy I believe). But that's not the argument, the argument is that those who commit violent acts in the name of religion are still religious. But using a description of nature as a guideline for life is the naturalistic fallacy. Just because things do happen doesn't mean hey should happen, or we should do them. I don't believe science should, or even can, attempt to create a moral framework for a few reasons, but that's a different discussion all together. Suffice to say when a scientist is attempting to create a more framework they take off their scientist hat and put on their philosopher hat. Yeah, it tends to be fairly difficult for a lot of people to remain calm and objective when conversing about something as personal as religion.

But they believe they are, therefore they are religious. It has nothing to do with whether the religious actions are based on the truth, it only matters if they are using religious texts and believe their actions are divinely sanctioned. If they do something that contradicts their own religious text it is alright as long as the contradiction is in the text as well, and most of the time the contradictions are in the text. Sadly my JStor account makes me have to buy those papers to read them, but from your later responses it seems they argue that they were written and added to the bible after the rest of the New Testament. Is that correct? If not could you give a summary of what they say. If that is what they are saying that argument could be made about the entirety of the NT, none of it was written down until decades after the events were supposed to happen. In fact the oldest manuscript is from the late second century Here's the thing, you say I am misinformed while you completely disregard what I said. I didn't say he anything about how he treated them, I said he said very little about them, and didn't make any specific rules about them. I was mistaken that he technically allowed women to divorce (and he stated men could also commit adultery) but his treatment of women does not let you stretch and say that it nullified previous issues stated by Moses and others. You could make the argument of Galatians 3:28, but that was Paul's (IIRC), is the best argument of gender equality in the NT, but then you have to decide which part of the NT is to be followed. You choose Galatians while others choose 1 Timothy, both are still religious books and the people who follow them are still religious. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.(2 Timothy 3:16-17) If you accept Moses' scriptures as the divine word, do you accept that his works (in which women were not equal) are divinely inspired? Is that why God says: thy desire is to be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16) "If [the city] accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you." (Deut. 20:11-14) "Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days."(Lev. 12:2-5) If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money."(Exodus 21:7-11) a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity, then the young womans father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, I did not find your daughter to be a virgin. But here is the proof of my daughters virginity. Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young womans father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young womans virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her fathers house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her fathers house. You must purge the evil from among you.(Deut 22:13-21) I could go on, but you get the idea. From Google Christian: Adjective Of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings. Noun A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. So the definition doesn't agree with you. No you made your own definition of what is required to qualify as someone being religious, that's why it's a fallacy. Some definitions of God (which not all sects agree on) are androgynous, but that does not mean that if people do not believe God is androgynous they are not religious. Higher power does not have to be a deity, it could be nearly anything supernatural that relates to humanity (spiritual purpose, reincarnation, etc.). I would agree that higher power is poor wording because its connotation assumes a deity, but it isn't necessarily the case. I disagree. Hitler's justification blatantly disregards population genetics (higher diversity means higher population fitness), the biological definition of species, etc. He does not use science, or scientific texts, to support his ideas. Social Darwinism is not biologically scientific, it is an attempt to extend misunderstandings of evolution into the political arena. Not only that, science is not a guideline on how anything SHOULD act, only observations of how things DO act. Religion, on the other hand, specifically states what people SHOULD do, not what people DO do. In fact, evolutionary theory directly contradicts the idea of races being a strict distinction. In fact in Decent of Man Darwin states: "Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he perceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly variable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other races. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant." http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

Why do they not qualify as being religious? 1 Timothy 2 is in both the King James Version and New International Version (the two I have) of the Bible so why are those texts not legitimate? What Bible do you use for worship? IIRC Christ specifically makes very little mention of women, and no rules that I know of, but at the same time does not discredit previous rules set forth about them. Using religious texts as a reference to further an agenda of subjugating women is exactly what you were asking for. They are exact quotes though. A women's hand being cut off if they interfere with a man's altercation, selling a women to her rapist, killing all males and raping the females of entire villages, killing your neighbor for worshiping incorrectly, killing children that curse at their fathers, etc. Those are not misinterpretations, they are in the major books of religious texts that people use as guidelines for life. I could make your same argument towards the equality of women, that women are lower in God's eyes, but political and societal views shape us into believing that they are equal. Again, why can you see which of these are true teachings and which are not?

Please refer me to where I ever said that religion is defined by fundamentalists. I was actively involved in religion for a large part of my life as is the majority of my family. I just happen feel it makes absolutely no difference to me if religion is true or not, and if any deity is just they would base judgment on merit not worship. I think of myself more as apatheistic instead of atheistic. You never asked to show an example of your interpretation of biblical texts necessitates women being lesser in stature than men, you asked for any example and one was given. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't invalidate it as evidence. To say that the very parts of biblical texts that are very obviously and literally anti-equality aren't misinterpretations or are being misused seems to be more dishonest than any of the other posts I've seen on here. Not to mention to say that you, personally, know which parts of religious teachings are really God's words and which aren't seems to be extremely arrogant. And to address the parts I snipped, do you think I can't find counter-quotes in most, if not all, of the very same books? All it really does is show that the teachings are contradictory, which is to be expected when books of rules are written in different time periods and then put together. But that does less to show that any god wrote the books and does more to show that the books were written by people who were making guidelines that fit into contemporary views.

The ad hominem is both unnecessary and incorrect. I have been interested in religion since I was a child, just because someone isn't religious doesn't mean they don't know what it entails. And no true Scottsman . . . Just because you personally ignore certain teachings of he Bible doesn't mean they are not in there and are not used by other religious people in their belief system. Who are you to say which of the gospels are the true word of God and which are not? Your whole argument does nothing to dispute the fact that there are teachings in religious texts that put the role of women beneath that of men and specifically deny them rights men have.

That traits that allow us to do mathematics is most likely just a by product of other adaptations that were selected for. An example of such an adaptation would be our linguistic ability allowed us to have recursive types of statements, it could have followed that understanding universal applicability of mathematical functions followed from similar mental abilities. This is a supremely oversimplified example, but hopefully it helps.

In the broadest sense we already do that with our eyes, radio waves are just lower energy. But in he way you are describing it, that type of adaptation is very unlikely. There is no selection pressure pushing towards that type of communication, and if the trait was developed people would probably believe the individual is severely mentally ill and lower that individual's odds of passing on the trait.