arknd

Only one generation would have to be restricted. People do it to dogs all of the time.

For all of the genetic disorders and diseases that seem to be rooted in family history, would there be significantly less people with these disorders after 1 generation, if anyone with a trace of these problems in their genetics were not allowed to reproduce. If you had even a slight portion of your genetics with the chance of developing cystic fibrosis, if you did not pass those genes on to children, they would not have the chance, and their children would not have the chance either. Sure, that family tree would not be able to grow, but it would create more room for the healthier family trees to grow in the genetic forest. Instead of fixing problems as they arise in people, and prescribing new medication for more widespread problems, these people with the problems could not exist. And future generations would be safer.

"Ignorance is bliss"

I go to a private high school, and we are reading an awful religious book by C.S. Lewis. My mind hurts when I read it. The teacher loves this book, and she says it represents the basis for Christian morality perfectly, which is why we are being forced to read it. I feel bad for the gullible and "open-minded" people who take what this author has to say seriously. He throws his "factual" premises all around, acting like he as a higher level of thought than atheists or people of other religions, and makes open-ended statements to prove his point. Anyway, the book is riddled with irrational and now incorrent statements, ranging from how organized the universe is, to how people have souls; different souls when comparing to every other organism. One point he made that really stuck with me, was when he explicitly said there is evidence for a higher being because there is an evident part of him in all people. The part he is talking about is human morality. In the same book, he also goes about saying a creator is never part of the creation, and the creator cannot interact with the creation because he is of a different "medium." How can he explicity say there is evidence for a creator in the creation, then in the same book say the creator cannot interact with the creation? How is evidence not also an interaction? For Catholicism's sake, I asked my teacher if she thought it was a religion of faith. She agreed, I brought up this point, then she changed her argument to it is a religion of faith only sometimes, and only at certain parts of our lives. I don't want to read this book anymore. But for all of you, if a religion is based on faith, can there ever be evidence for it?

In my high school physics class last year, I was dissapointed to hear that machines can never be 100% efficient. They will always lose energy through heat or some other medium because, to me, "that is just how it works." Is there any debate open to there being a 100% efficient machine, or is it literally impossible? I have had dreams of a magnetically powered self-sustaining engine, but it can't happen.

Every piece of matter in a singularity. How did time even go forward at all? Sorry I can't elaborate much further, as my background in physics is very, very, very limited. Also, since gravity does affect the forward motion of time, why bother giving the entire universe deadlines? People say the universe will collapse in so many years, when certain parts of the universe are "further" into the future than others.

For our physics class we are supposed to pick a book to read then present it to class. Are there any easy to understand books (for a layman), under 250 pages, that doesn't really delve into the mathematics part of the physics, but the conceptual part? I've always loved this kind of science but I can't understand it because of the level of math and science I am at right now.

So, to simplify the explanation to my question into something I can understand. Would I say, "Light is always traveling at 3*10^8, just its average forward motion is hindered, in some way (that being the interactions the photons have with the electrons), by whatever medium it's passing through"?

I found another version of my question on another forum and one of the answerers said that light is always traveling at c, just when it hits a medium, it bounces around off of the particles in the medium, so it appears to have slowed down. Are the interactions with electrons you're talking about the same as light bouncing around the particles in the medium?

We just learned in physics today that the reason light changes direction when it passes through different mediums is because it's speed changes. When it leaves the new medium and travels back into the original medium, it goes back to its normal direction and speed. How can it go back to it's original speed if it has already slowed down? Unless there is something constantly propelling light so it can regain the energy it lost. My teacher couldn't answer it, she also said because a when a light's angle changes, all that is changing is it's speed.

I think because there is debate about what "perfect" means, an argument using the term could be rendered illogical because of it's non-concrete definition from a philosophical standpoint. My reasoning for bringing up the original post was because we just learned about Thomas Aquinas' 5 arguments proving god, or a being that dictated the universe. I felt they were all baseless assumptions that didn't offer any proof. For example, one of them basically says, for everything to be rated by perfection, there needs to be a grand perfect being that trumps all others for the basis of true perfection. Since perfection is subjective though, it is a baseless to me. Have Thomas' arguments been officially declared illogical, or do they still stand today?

Upon further inspection of my own work, I definetely agree with you, morality only being dependant on your enviornment is not correct. Using enviornment very, very broadly, you can still give it SOME credit, but it is definetly not 100%. I really think after looking at what I wrote there, I really wasn't even paying attention to what I was writing. Do you feel the rest of my argument is at least somewhat reasonable, though?

I would if they didn't call it "church." A simple "Atheist community gathering" or something of that nature would be fine. The only thing beneficial thing that religion adds to society, in my opinion, is a community. So I feel like it only makes sense to draw from the only positive of religion and add it to Atheism.

I believe morality is 100% relative to your enviornment. Because of that, you cannot make a universally moral person. Maybe by our standards, for as long as our society is the way it is, we can, but only relative to our enviornment. Back when the bible was put together, it was reasonable to kill our wives for not being virgins, and in some parts Africa today, witchcraft is still around. So, I do not think it is possible to create a moral person. You can immerse someone into whatever society you wish and they will turn out as fine, morally correct people, but only in that society. So to answer your question, religion might be a good starting point to instill relatively good morals into a person, but you could just as easily let everyone run wild and base their morals on human nature and their own individual conciense.

Philosophically speaking, if something was claimed to be perfect, and it was directly associated with another thing that is imperfect, would the perfect object really be perfect because of the association? I am using perfect objectively, as if it were a subjective term, this argument would be illogical. To me at least.