Phi for All

A steel edge needs to have the right balance between toughness, which it gets from the iron, and hardness, which it gets from other elements like carbon or chromium. It needs to have an edge that's sharp enough to cut (which is more like 15-20 degrees for a straight razor; 90 degrees wouldn't be good even for a wedge or an axe), but not so brittle that the edge is destroyed the first time you use it. The glass is under no such restrictions. The only job it has at that point is to cut you. It doesn't have to preserve it's razor edge, and it breaks in such a way that the razor edge has smaller razor edges, so a piece of broken glass is like a serrated knife, with tiny little saws along its length. It's extremely efficient at parting skin with little pressure. It won't hold up to much abuse, though. Glass doesn't have a crystal structure the way you might think, iirc. It's an amorphous solid, and it behaves in some interesting ways.

I refuse to enable your laziness. Why did you just post a link? What is this, why is it relevant?

I forget, which one is OUR dimension?

I'm really pleased you took my suggestion in the spirit it was offered. The Khan Academy is a great place online to study the basics in subjects that interest you. Try them out first, see if you like the style they use. I'm actually a lot like you. I didn't study STEM subjects when I had the chance in school, so I've had to learn in the same sort of piecework way. The problem is, science is best understood when you learn how it all connects, when you learn the processes involved, rather than individual bits of information. Reading popular science is fun, but without knowing how it relates to the rest (which is even more difficult if we don't understand the rest), we make far too many assumptions and mistakes. Welcome, fellow student.

! Moderator Note OK, this is not the subject we're discussing. Let's stick to physics books with a more mathematical approach. Please feel free to start a Physics is a Waste of Time thread.

So, money is a tool that can be misused like any other, but perhaps has greater consequences when it is. Still, lots of examples on either side, though I have to think that overall, money has done more good than harm. Maybe that's what we should be discussing, if you disagree. Or, we could talk about an alternative. What would be better than money?

Imagine you're a hunter. You've gone to hunting school, and you've learned the ways of the wild, how animals behave, what plants can kill you or sustain you. You've learned how to camouflage yourself so you can't be seen as you move in the wilderness. You're a highly trained, knowledgeable hunter who is very successful at what you do. You're out in the wild, and you come across a different hunter, one with very different ideas. He tells you he quit hunter school, but has been studying hunting on his own as a hobby, out of interest only. He claims you should wear bright colors and make lots of weird noises when in the woods, because it confuses the animals who have never heard such sounds. The bright colors will paralyze them with fear, he claims, and you should be able to walk right up and kill them with your pocket knife. You think about it. You try to see where he's coming from, try to wrap your brain around his idea. But what you KNOW about hunting, what all your training and knowledge tells you about it, tells you that his idea might seem like it would work (IF the colors really paralyzed), just because it makes sense that bright colors and weird lights can be confusing. But you know that animals are going to run from the sound first, before they see any colors. You know it's impractical to use a pocket knife on them, and you know a thousand other things that are wrong about this ideas. Don't you wish you could tell this guy (who seems very smart, by the way) that he should go back to hunter school?

OK, now John316 is just pasting unattributed and off-topic junk links, after being asked to stick to irreducible complexity, which he failed to support. This is another tactic I hate, particularly as a moderator, because it gets them banned eventually for breaking the rules, but they always claim they're being banned for either their beliefs or their amazing debate skills.

OK, so that's a big NO on sticking to one topic, per the rules. I'm going to close this but recommend another staff member agree that this type of intellectual dishonesty is NOT the way to talk about any subject.

! Moderator Note Moved from Speculations to Other Sciences.

I always assume the creationist poster isn't going to listen if they've come with the typical, oft-refuted claims. It's more about the person who comes afterward, or the person who follows the discussion out of sincere curiosity without posting. We do get some who seem sincere, and they start out asking questions. Hopefully our desire to set the record straight with correct science will be highlighted by the creationist's willfully closed minds. And frankly, as long as the science is presented honestly, I don't care what people believe about the rest.

Hey, this thread is about the creationist claim of irreducible complexity. Abiogenesis is a whole other topic, and I don't want this all muddled together. Please stick with this topic, John316, until we've talked it out. I have to say, you don't bother to acknowledge when someone clearly refutes one of your claims, or pokes holes in the evidence you provide as support for those claims. I can guarantee that when YOU make a good point, it will be acknowledged by every rational person here. How about you give the same courtesy? Or could you send someone else from your church, maybe the guy who is writing your "stuff"?

I'd actually hoped we could use that one to start the thread, answer all the questions about irreducible complexity, and then move on to the next claim. Unfortunately, that poster is just copy-pasting from creationist sites, so we're not really getting a discussion. Too bad. We could still use it, but I don't think we'll invite John316 to discuss the next claim. Hopefully we'll get someone who can talk to us.

I agree. If we do this, I'd like to start with a single thread. If a need for more arises, we can address that, but I don't think there's enough meat on the bone of creation science to warrant more. They have a limited number of claims for which science is the appropriate tool. I don't know if this will work, but it seems like a compromise that opens learning opportunities. And I like that it will be treated as any other speculation, requiring more than waving hands and arguments from incredulity.

Wow, John316, that's a really massively mis-aimed attempt to look scientific. The problem here is, most reading your citations know what they mean, and you don't, so you think they apply to this situation. That's the problem, isn't it, when you're just given a bunch of quotes to copy/paste that you don't understand, you have no idea when they're appropriate or not. Yours aren't. Please don't use this tactic anymore. It's been done to death. Can't you just talk to us honestly? Maybe with your own voice instead of copypasta from creationist websites? Have you ever typed anything of your own? So far, we've shown where your science was wrong, but you haven't acknowledged any of it. Now it's almost like you're just leaving trash around because you don't like the party anymore.

I see where you're coming from on this, but science actually goes out of its way to remove as much subjectivity from it's process as possible, something none of the other "beliefs" you mentioned attempt. The scientist who spent a year on his theory, only to have it improved by someone else, may be unhappy, but science is looking for the best explanations, so it's unlikely his unhappiness is going to impact the science. Peer review will most likely choose the best of the theories, the way it should be. Dealing with science really isn't a "belief". Nobody is asking you to have faith in something that can't be supported rationally. Nobody is asking you to believe strongly in something you can't possibly know. When science makes a claim, the data it's based on becomes freely available so you can check it if you have the knowledge to understand what you're looking at. If you can do that, you don't have to believe, you can trust instead. "Entirely ruled out" is NEVER going to happen. No theory is ever going to give us that, but they do give us what faith can't, and that's trustworthiness. You can trust that a mainstream theory is one of the best explanation we currently have, and is constantly being tested and improved. I'm not sure what you're saying regarding scientifically proving god(s) existence wouldn't mean anything to you. Does this mean that if the Christian God suddenly became available for observation and measurement, and all claims proved to be true, it would just be a fact to you, it wouldn't cause you to do anything differently? I recall reading that He has quite a few hoops to jump through for believers. If He was scientifically proven, would you be a worshipper? I also prefer neutrality on the issue, as long as neutrality doesn't mean I'm equally divided. My neutrality is more like "I'll believe in what I can trust. I'm open to being persuaded rationally that god(s) exist, but I'm not holding my breath." My atheism is more implicit than explicit.

If our societies were set up where basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing, education were provided by common funds as long as you were part of the work force driving the economy, it might change our perspective on money. If you only needed money for upgrades on the basics, major travel, or luxuries, would it drive you to work harder to earn them, or would you be OK with just a place to stay, good food, healthcare, and schooling through college? It's easy to look at money as the root of all evil, but it's also hard to think of an alternative that doesn't remove all the good things about money. And there are good things, like incentive, and freedom to experience. Having money can spark generosity just as much as it feeds the greed. I think as long as we're willing to provide common monies for common programs and infrastructure, we continue to progress. Often people who focus on amassing money lose sight of the fact that the common funds from taxes helped them get where they are, and they decide they're paying too much. It does seem like a focus on money, rather than on the things you build/create/work for to earn it, causes many to lose sight of important things. Money is definitely a tool, usable for a whole spectrum of good and bad, all dependent on the wielder.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not a blog. This is soapboxing, and we don't let anyone do it, it's against our rules. Thread closed.

Alas, I'm the poor student in those courses. Usually to be found over in the corner, wearing a designer hat from Dunce.

Just a nitpick, but earth and water are the only "things" on that list. Wind and fire are events (I can't ask to borrow a cup of wind or fire like I can water or earth). They can only happen when certain other things are present and conditions are just right for them. They are emergent phenomena. I agree with the rest. Better to assume the whole argument is a no-starter since it can be refuted at every point that's mentioned so far, than to assume there's a point where it becomes meaningful. There's no more God in the Irreducible Complexity gap, it's all science. From here, the only argument is a religious one, that the Christian God purposefully put geological and biological evidence in place to mislead the intellectually unfaithful. And that's when science can step back, shrug, and say, "When you have a claim that can be tested naturally, let us know." Imo, the whole complexity argument is really about science being presented in a complex way. I remember getting the whole IC argument about the human eye in a face-to-face discussion once, until I stopped the guy and asked him if he knew that eyes started out as light-sensitive patches that did little other than to tell a creature when the sun was out, and if a predator passed closely between them and the sun. It stopped the whole argument. He simply didn't know that. Since they don't study evolution, creationists often think these incredible systems were just magicked into place fully developed, created that single day when God made men (or animals, depending on whether you use Genesystem I or Genesystem II).

Please don't mistake any efforts to streamline staff processes as a reluctance to engage in the effective discussion of science. If we can save time by being thoughtful beforehand, that's one thing, but the goal here is to take the time to address sincere emotionally-derived arguments with sincere critical thinking and civility. We have some members who are VERY good at expressing critical thinking in a way that doesn't seem to criticize. It's an art, and I think this is the approach that's needed. I for one have to work very hard not to use language that, while accurate, often comes off as inflammatory (mentioning intellectual ignorance in a specific area gets emotionally interpreted as, "Wow, you are incredibly STUPID!"). Accuracy is normally important, but when talking to some groups, it can be counterproductive, and their are always less divisive words that can be chosen (probably - I really do need to take more time to mellow out some of my replies). If we put all the creationist arguments under the spotlight in a single thread, one at a time, not moving on until each is answered and the replies acknowledged (at least that; I'd really prefer a concession, from either side, when an argument truly supports a position), I think we'll have an ongoing talk that has the best chance of laying out the scientific information anyone should have before deciding to trust an explanation. Creationists are usually pretty well indoctrinated by the time they start posting on the web, so we're simply wanting to show them the cool facts. They can then decide how those stack up against the hot sermons they've heard.

But this isn't about expressing religious beliefs or accepting religious people. This is about creationism, and the misrepresentation of science. It's about correcting the misinformation so as many people as possible can have the knowledge that allows them to fix their ignorance, if they so choose. If there was a religion that claimed we understand gravity very poorly and it's really the Earth inhaling, and only their god can save us when the inevitable exhale happens, I would expect the scientific response to focus on where the religion runs afoul of reality, not on the god or it's believers. Because of this, I still like the idea of compiling a single thread where the arguments are all in one place. Easier to moderate, and hopefully we can avoid redundant arguments this way. I like the suggestion about treating creationism as a speculation, because again, our interest in discussing it isn't religious. In this discussion, nobody should be trying to tell creationists their God isn't real (and that's the part of the Q&A I didn't like much, DevilSolution, it comes off as preaching). We should be trying to show why the Lucy's knee argument is misleading, or why the fossil record is so misunderstood by many fundamentalists. We should be focusing on those areas where the creationist arguments can be rationally shown to be false, and we should stay away from invective. Just remember you're really discussing this so someone in the future who is on the fence about accepting a reasoned explanation can get some facts, and not someone trying to recruit them.

This is not a completely honest statement. NOTHING is fully understood, right? NOTHING. So this statement implies that the process of gene regulation is poorly understood. That's what you read into it, that's what any creationist reads into it, am I right? But the truth is, we know AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT about this process. You don't, and that's why when you hear "not yet fully understood", your brain equates that with the amount you know about it, which is practically nothing. You form a bias against the process of gene regulation, and then everything you read (but don't check for accuracy) seems to confirm your bias.

Actually, I found your response to be more of an attempt to honestly appraise the situation with as much perspective as you could offer. You didn't seem to want me to feel anything, you were just informing me. I didn't want to derail the discussion, but I found the immediate responses intriguing. I'm perhaps overly sensitive these days to appeals to emotion, especially when it's in reaction to military engagements. This is a tense situation, and I don't think it helps to throw up your hands and immediately declare we'll be lucky not to die because Obama is a coward and NATO is doomed. I usually don't mention my positive rep votes, but perhaps I should have in this case. I enjoyed the rational response, Ophiolite. Thanks very much, +1.

Can Putin afford to take aggressive steps against Turkey when the more obvious enemy is still there? It's interesting to note that so far, the two conservative viewpoints shared are really slim on reason / heavy on emotional opinion. I don't mind it so much anymore. I find it highlight posts where some thought was involved, and some concern was shown for informing me rather than trying to bias me.