Unity+

Yes, a publication can have bias, but if multiple studies from various publications says one thing, then the likelihood of bias is decreased. If you only one present one study against a multitude, claiming that the group of articles are all bias to one agenda is somewhat irrational.

I think all species evolved to have sexual attraction to mates that have the best features, or fit enough features, for going about reproduction. It goes both ways rather than females being the only "choosy" ones. Males may have less(or more, it depends on the individual) specification as to the strictness of such features, but both sides have their requirements.

That's called promoting discourse for the evolution of ideas. Thank you for your enlightenment.

I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't relate to the point I made at all. There are multiple possibilities, even scientifically, for the origins of the Universe that remain and until the uncertainty of which one is true that uncertainty remains. However, that point remains separate from the fact that the quote states that the existence of a creator contradicts science rather than stating the argument you present. I fail to see how they are nit-picked out of context until you actually address how it is made out of context. At the end of this quote, it seems that it is speculative rather than set in stone. Is there a continuation on this point or is there an end to it? Therefore, our perception of reality, even science, can be a fallacy? Until then, I would like to see what work you are referring to of De Waal. The original idea resulted in the assumption that the belief in fallacies was best for survival, but a changing environment would result in fallacies no longer being necessary? How would a changing environment result in the belief in fallacies no longer being for our benefit? The age of enlightenment did bring about intellectualism, but it also brought about political upheaval. However, this does not suggest that the view of fallacy, hypothetically present before, ever changed if such a case was true. I'm merely challenging your points that you present. My beliefs are not relevant in this matter. Science is unmoved by assumptions of philosophy, but it is moved by the assumptions of mathematical axioms.

I think this wraps up the debate lol

Though one thing to consider is the existence of religion when going about the implementation of an economic system. I remember doing research and stumbling upon a Buddhist community that relied heavily on communist ideology that was able to thrive because of the common belief system instilled within that community.

Just because it is not explainable about science does not mean it contradicts science. Thank you for presenting an opinion. Whether it is short or not, it must be quotes for your argument. You can't use that excuse in a debate. What peer-reviewed mass of articles show that religion can be traced to genes? It seems that he implies that religion is merely there as something that came with rather than something useful for the evolution of humanity. I would disagree on his point of it being a by-product. I remember a paper about the Panopticon and read a book about it in regards to surveillance, and it seems to relate to the argument that religion is merely a way to stabilize society. While I agree this is true that a religion would be associated with a creator, this does not mean the creator itself is a result of this religion/Panopticon rather it being separate, but the creator of such a system. We evolved to believe in fallacies? Seems a bit far-fetched to me. It seems to be a target rather than an analysis of what the goal was when such evolution came about. I do not see how accurate perception would lead to loss of life. The only case this would be the result is sacrifice, but even that requires accuracy/analysis of the situation at hand. Case and point. At this point, his argument defeats itself at this particular point. It is merely speculation and cannot be proven because if the mind is to believe in fallacy as a result of natural selection, what we know could, as a result, be based on fallacies as well. The creator of matter and the creator of the Universe is a god by definition. Being a creator of a Universe should also mean the power to destroy as well. The only argument is what type of creator it is.

While we do have many stable and evidence-rich theories about the beginnings of the Universe, there yet remains mystery. That mystery keeps alive the belief in a creator in many. I would argue, however, that the discussion of God should be left in philosophy rather than science since the existence of what is not tangible has no place in science. All I see are links to pages that address the topic, but don't address your arguments or back them up directly. You will have to quote the sources so that we understand what evidence you have presented for scholarly sources instead of just blatantly accepting articles that you link. I usually associated "proving God" to be a general subject of a Supreme being, but I may be wrong. Addressing the thread title, I think it's quite irrational. It shouldn't even be up for discussion, whether it being proving or disproving. You state that scientists shouldn't waste their time on fiction and/or superstition. This is true, but I am assuming you imply the existence of a creator. It is a semantic argument and implies that the creation of a creator is fiction and/or superstition. I would agree scientists shouldn't spend their time trying to prove/disprove the existence of one, but the reasoning is somewhat demeaning in such an investigation of something that should be explored, whether or not you consider it a topic for science.

It isn't a moot point, actually. In politics, it is never a moot point because if numbers are misleading, then you would question the credibility of the media source, which is not a moot point. It is a big point. Do you have any reason or evidence to provide that this will be the case?

I would agree there are degrees of inaccuracy. However, as ydoaPs pointed out, only 20% of states have a caucus. Therefore, you might as well compare this situation to a statistic saying that a majority of people are Group A because the survey was done in a small neighborhood rather than a city-wide/state-wide survey. It is somewhat misleading, to say the least.

I don't see where he is implying that at all. The only argument I get from it is there is no real count from the caucus, therefore the count could be, and most likely is, inaccurate.

It would be better to say that if something created the Universe, it's existence would not be provable due to the fact that we would have to use whatever was created to prove the existence of the creator, which is something that can't be done. I think the issue, which is a valid point, is he is saying he needs some reference frame to see what your argument is addressing in regards to cited readings or articles that back up your argument. I don't think it's an unreasonable request for a particular set of quotes/data points/graphs/etc. that are intended to back up your argument. I would assume you would request the same if he did the same thing. Disproving the existence of man-made mythical beings does not rule out the existence of a creator. In fact, it shouldn't be considered disproving since they couldn't be proven in the first place, scientifically. There is no reason for scientists to scientifically investigate the existence of what can't be observed, that is true. It is best left to the study of philosophy. Though, the argument you present uses semantics to demean the argument of the existence of a creator. Fiction is not what is in concern, though the state of fiction or non-fiction suits better.

http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back It ranks 8th at a starter of $59,800 and at a mid of $102,000.

From what I understand, most money is made from developing database management software that is both fast and secure. I worked on a couple of projects for people that required this. Companies are in high demand for this, especially with all the hacking sprees occurring. Knowing about network security would be something to look forward to.

So, what does it do atm exactly? As ydoa said, it's kind of difficult to see how everything works. I can't even get matches to work in it, if it is supposed to. Clearly there is a click event, so something is supposed to happen.

Are you referring to the article located in the first post? Because there isn't anything talking about two teachers grading students' answers.

The drop rate at my University in sciences is equal among males and females. I guess it just depends on the area. I would agree with your other two points. However, even if a gender comparison has a basis, it could be linked on a biological/psychological level or a societal level, and there is no conclusive evidence of the latter. EDIT: And thanks for the welcome back. University has been taking much of my time, especially now.

What effect was measurable? Teacher or student bias? What data? The only data that the article contains is the bias of students towards certain fields.

Could you link the whole project so I can test with it to find the error? I'm having trouble understanding how you are doing the checking function.

I made an ssh client because I was tired of using PuTTy(due to it being limited in interaction with the local computer and the server). https://github.com/GreggSchaffter/SSH-Studio You can download both the project and the standalone of SSH Studio there. It has file/folder exploration, uploading and downloading, syncing of files. More information is located on the github project. It's open source, so anyone can add stuff to it, make branches as well. It's currently in development, so there are issues(like uploading and downloading large files).

I don't see how this really is a problem. The only thing this study reveals is how boys and girls think differently with respect to the attitude of subject and the abstractness involved in it. This more of a problem with a bad teacher rather than the subject itself. However, I rarely see this happening, especially in University, if at all. In fact, a majority of the time, I see professor cater towards the female audience, both from male and female professors. Of course they shouldn't be ignored, but if there is no significant affect on the population that this bias has on the population, it is pointless to bring it up as a sign of a larger problem. Whether that is a positive or negative is dependent on the attitude of treatment. For one thing, it could be a result of teacher experience with students in the past. For all we know it could be due to chivalry. Thing is, this study really doesn't lead to any other conclusion besides "girls are afraid of math." The article seems to imply that there is a systematic problem rather than something that is due to biological difference in males and females.