Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on May 21, 2010, 03:04:25 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm
Very interesting stuff indeed, the opportunities are incredible, as are the risks, particularly in medical applications, but all in all, I consider it a positive step.
This is likely to be quite a divisive topic, so I'll say at the start, let's keep it polite ;)
-
creationists that's your cue for some crazy.
-
creationists that's your cue for some crazy.
:wtf:
-
Not the most auspicious start.... :nervous:
-
creationists that's your cue for some crazy.
:wtf:
Yeah :wtf:
Belief in Creation is not exclusive with the advance of science. Indeed, most of the discoveries from the forefronts of physics and chemistry imply that there is more than random convergence going on in the universe.
On topic:
I'm confused. So basically they constructed an artificial cell(with mitochondria and everything) complete with artificial "programming" and it did what they told it to?
This could be a great thing or it could be more dangerous than a nuke.
It's like they're children playing with a hand grenade and one of them just asked what the pin is for.
-
Well, not quite, I think scientists are quite aware of the implications of what they have discovered, they aren't as innocent as they used to be, but yes, when scientists start talking about 'The flu jab you get next year might be created using this method', I can't help but be a little nervous, influenza is not a good example of where to start playing with DNA ;)
It's a question of failsafes, a bacteria that eats Greenhouse gases is a wonderful idea, however, if things get out of control, the risks are, quite literally, all life on the planet. It's a rocky road to walk, the gains are massive, the risks are equally massive.
-
It's a question of failsafes, a bacteria that eats Greenhouse gases is a wonderful idea, however, if things get out of control, the risks are, quite literally, all life on the planet. It's a rocky road to walk, the gains are massive, the risks are equally massive.
Bioengineered bacteria created with good intentions with a negligible possibility of running amok?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpost_2#Storyline
That's all I have to say. Kind of lame, I know. :doubt:
-
This is a good thing. A Prototype Alex Mercer scenario is a potentially bad thing.
-
Indeed, most of the discoveries from the forefronts of physics and chemistry imply that there is more than random convergence going on in the universe.
Like what?
-
I think it may be one of those false lines of reasoning, i.e. Man can create life, therefore life can be created, therefore life was created.
It's like a paradox I read somewhere, where someone suggested that life came around by Humanity developing Time Travel, going back in time, and creating themselves...
-
This is a good thing. A Prototype Alex Mercer scenario is a potentially bad thing.
I'd like that second scenario.
-
this is definatly one of thoese scenarios where we need to be carefull of human nature and create things just because we can. as a technology this has the potential to do wonders in correcting many of the problems we face today, but this has much greater potential to backfire with devestating effects than even nuclear technology.
also how will this effect areas like geneticaly modifying humans and farm stock now we know how to create fresh genetic code.
one interesting concept i have not heared mentioned is how far are we from an artificial biological computer?
-
(http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/actors_films_images/jeff_goldblum.jpg)
NOTE: This is not what I actually believe, I'm just being silly.
-
Bioengineered bacteria created with good intentions with a negligible possibility of running amok?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpost_2#Storyline
That's all I have to say. Kind of lame, I know. :doubt:
Maybe, but the game is good :P
-
eats Greenhouse gases
if only such a thing existed in nature... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant)
I'm confused.
it's not quite as big as you are thinking, but it's about halfway there, they made a fully artificially constructed genome (it was assembled from parts by a machine), note the basic design of the genome and the cell it was implanted into was natural.
-
eats Greenhouse gases
if only such a thing existed in nature... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant)
i lol'd
-
eats Greenhouse gases
if only such a thing existed in nature... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant)
Must admit, my first thought when reading about it was, "Oh great, another excuse to do nothing about the source of the problem", so I'm sort of inclined to agree with you, but, the truth is, the problem is there, and whilst plants help, they are not going to solve the problem all on their own, even if deforestation and the destruction of micro-organisms in the oceans wasn't taking place.
Edit: The fact is, you cannot simply say 'Hey! We've got plants!' and then think that's going to solve the problem.
-
but you hardly need artificial biology for an organism that eats CO2. if this strategy were feasible at all then there probably exists a plant that is already sufficiently hungry to do the deed. I doubt we are going to come up with something better at the job than chlorophyll.
-
Plants use carbon dioxide. They don't have much effect on other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxides (which ALSO contribute to acidic rains along with sulphuric oxides) or chlorofluorocarbons.
I have a few queries about the nature of this "synthetic life". Mainly, does it reproduce? And more importantly, does it reproduce sexually? Is there any way to control mutations and, if they reproduce sexually, is there any conceiveable way to prevent their evolution bypassing the built-in "failsafes"?
Is it possible for these synthetic bacteria to swap genetic material with non-synthetic bacteria? What sort of metabolism does this synthetic lifeform have?
What sort of immune response would this life form invoke if introduced to animals or plants?
-
it's basically exactly like a normal bacteria, if you didn't know it's history then you wouldn't notice anything extraordinary, the only thing interesting is that the genome was assembled by machine using a digital copy of the original genome (with a few markers added in) rather than copied the old fashioned way.
the reason why this is big news (and you probably already understand this but I'm gona say it anyway) is because now they can make genomes that are NOT verbatim digital copies, this is basicly the same as giving someone a hex editor for DNA, they can make anything they want, they could even try doing something funky like introducing new base pairs.
-
it's basically exactly like a normal bacteria, if you didn't know it's history then you wouldn't notice anything extraordinary, the only thing interesting is that the genome was assembled by machine using a digital copy of the original genome (with a few markers added in) rather than copied the old fashioned way.
the reason why this is big news (and you probably already understand this but I'm gona say it anyway) is because now they can make genomes that are NOT verbatim digital copies, this is basicly the same as giving someone a hex editor for DNA, they can make anything they want, they could even try doing something funky like introducing new base pairs.
Sounds like the next step in genetic engineering.
-
Nice. One step closer to Homo Superior. :D :yes:
What? Is it wrong to want mankind to be all it can be, rather than what evolution has left us (appendix, joint issues, congenital defects like dwarfism, Tay-Sachs, muscular dystrophy, phenalketonuria, cystic fibrosis)?
I do hope we have some fairy stringent laws in place to prevent stuff like genetically creating a slave sub-race who enjoy doing all our manual labor simply because it is easier for us than building non-sentient robot drones.
-
Nice. One step closer to Homo Superior. :D :yes:
What? Is it wrong to want mankind to be all it can be, rather than what evolution has left us (appendix, joint issues, congenital defects like dwarfism, Tay-Sachs, muscular dystrophy, phenalketonuria, cystic fibrosis)?
I do hope we have some fairy stringent laws in place to prevent stuff like genetically creating a slave sub-race who enjoy doing all our manual labor simply because it is easier for us than building non-sentient robot drones.
There are some real nasty side effects to creating a genetically superior race.
Just saiyajin.
-
Well, what if its our race that gets made superhuman?
-
There are some races that are never meant to be won ;)
-
Let me just repost my shopping list!
1. Move retinal arteries behind the retina instead of in front to prevent many causes of blindness.
2. Remove wisdom teeth to prevent brain abscesses, empyema, and meningitis.
3. Slightly lower the position of the larynx. Helps with choking.
4. Alter the odontoid process in the spine; a simple ball-and-socket joint instead of a peg here would prevent a lot of paralysis injuries in whiplash.
5. Strengthen hip joints, which are still optimized for quadripedal locomotion - that's why the hip joint so frequently degenerates with age. You'd need to do some canny designing to pull this off.
6. Intelligently re-engineer the knee joint while you're at it. It's also still optimized for quadripedal life, and it's way too weak.
7. Redesign the foot so we're no longer walking on our wrists. I'll leave the specifics to the structural bioengineers!
8. Weave the plantar nerves in the foot into the bone structure so they're not crippled by arch collapse.
9. Redesign the median nerve in the wrist so it's no longer damaged by each wrist flexion. Improve ligamental shielding.
10. Move the ulnar nerve to the inside of the elbow; we're not horses, so why is it still built like a horse's ulnar nerve?
11. Reengineer the brachial plexus and add protection to prevent the destruction of the nerves there by certain forms of pressure.
12. This might be a contentious one, but the placement of the rectum, urinary tract, and vagina in females is poor and prone to infection. Needs a bugfix!
13. Remove the appendix.
14. Prevent progressive dilation of veins in the legs during posture change to reduce the risk of death by blood clot.
15. For god's sake, move the vital cranial nerves and carotid artery structure farther from the nose, or protect it somehow! We shouldn't be dying of sinus infections that get into our vital nerve and blood pathways. Similarly, move other cranial sinuses away from the middle ear!
16. Prevent chordoma and gill-type birth defects; they're a product of old evolutionary structures that grow and then vanish during fetal development, for no real reason.
-
Control, Control, Control.... what if we loose control?
That's what makes people freak out when they see stuff like this.
Remember the atom bomb?
Remember the computers?
Remember the WEEL?
We don't die because of new "stuff" included in our worlds, we tend to.... adapt.
I for one think this is great news.
-
The Atom Bomb (or rather, Nuclear theory) bought us Nuclear Power, it also bought us Hiroshima, the Cold War, the current problems with Iran and North Korea etc, the fear of 'dirty bomb' terrorism etc.
That doesn't make Nuclear theory a 'bad' thing to have, I'd be the first to agree, theories are neither good nor bad, what makes them good or bad is the people whose hands that knowledge gets into. After all, one day, an innocent scientist may find a way to detect and erase the possibility of homosexuality in unborn humans, there are those who would leap on that opportunity, claiming it is a 'cure' for it, but that could be like knocking over the first domino in a terrible chain, we don't know the outcomes of all our actions.
I'm not, in any stretch of the word, saying that this is a 'bad' idea, and I fully support it continuing, but we have to bear in mind the fact that the science may be infallible, but the people using it cannot be gauranteed to be so.
Edit: Physical alterations, such as Battuta recommended are actually less of a problem in my eyes, but even those would, obviously, have to be approached with great care.
-
Then we agree, new stuff is not bad :yes:
And for the record, control is impossible.
-
Well, even if we do **** things up, as long as mankind isn't completely extinct it will adapt and survive and rebuild, since adaptation and survival are quite possibly the two things we do best.
-
I think distance running is actually the thing we do best.
-
Well, even if we do **** things up, as long as mankind isn't completely extinct it will adapt and survive and rebuild, since adaptation and survival are quite possibly the two things we do best.
Actually, if we screw things up and decimate ourselves, the chances are that'll be it, we are, after all, living on a time-bomb, the only chance humanity really has is to get into Space and diversify (which may require that we use this kind of knowledge, so it's a two-edged sword), setting ourselves back a few thousand years means that we have an extra few thousand years trapped on a single planet.
And Rodo, It's not really a question of 'control' as you put it, it's a question of responsiblity, which is something different. One step towards that may be getting the rules sorted out before we start, but the problem is, who defines those rules and who enforces them?
It's not really anything to do with what you are defining, which appears to be along the lines of 'just deal with it', that's an attitude that has landed us in so much trouble in the past, we could get away with it before, even with Nuclear theory, but the fact of the matter is, this isn't a question of 'morals' or 'Right/Wrong', it's a question of good old fashioned common sense, I'll agree that whether we are ready as a race for this or not, it's coming, so maybe we should start thinking 'what are we going to do about it?' before it explodes in our faces this time?
Growth is good, change is good, knowledge is good, idiots trying to turn it to their own agenda is bad, with things like genetics, this is so vital to be aware of. Mistakes, at least, can be safeguarded against, political expediency is far harder.
-
governing tech like this needs an international body to have the jurisdiction to apply it consistently but you then wander into the minefield of who controls it.
the best solution i can come up for now with is a UN funded agency that is run like a police force with one guy at the top
-
and then does nothing when someone makes a race of frogmen supersolders.
-
I think distance running is actually the thing we do best.
Yes. (http://www.physorg.com/news95954919.html)
-
k, so how do we use this technology to decimate the human race?
-
engineer a new type of bacteria that has biochemistry totally different from all other life on the planet and have it derive it's energy from splitting water molecules into free hydrogen but fixing the oxygen to carbon. basically it would eat the ocean, and the water in all living things, and nothing would have any defense against it, the immune system wouldn't even recognize it as alive.
-
engineer a new type of bacteria that has biochemistry totally different from all other life on the planet and have it derive it's energy from splitting water molecules into free hydrogen but fixing the oxygen to carbon. basically it would eat the ocean, and the water in all living things, and nothing would have any defense against it, the immune system wouldn't even recognize it as alive.
i like the way this man thinks
-
i would have gone with super aids but i guess that works
-
And Rodo, It's not really a question of 'control' as you put it, it's a question of responsiblity.
Then we think alike, I was just replying like that to avoid unnecessary chatter about a subject for which I have a pretty much made up opinion.
About the "deal with it" thing... you got my point, truth be told:
I think like that every now and then...
The world seems too big and thinking about setting rules for everyone/everything just to make it acceptable for me (and maybe others) doesn't seem right... I just try to set a good example and live the way I consider correct (which might be mostly influenced by my parents teaching and some good old cartoons :P).
-
engineer a new type of bacteria that has biochemistry totally different from all other life on the planet and have it derive it's energy from splitting water molecules into free hydrogen but fixing the oxygen to carbon. basically it would eat the ocean, and the water in all living things, and nothing would have any defense against it, the immune system wouldn't even recognize it as alive.
I wouldn't discount the possibility of the immune system simply getting rid of it. It is, after all, notoriously aggressive, just check the amount of allergies available.
-
engineer a new type of bacteria that has biochemistry totally different from all other life on the planet and have it derive it's energy from splitting water molecules into free hydrogen but fixing the oxygen to carbon. basically it would eat the ocean, and the water in all living things, and nothing would have any defense against it, the immune system wouldn't even recognize it as alive.
I wouldn't discount the possibility of the immune system simply getting rid of it. It is, after all, notoriously aggressive, just check the amount of allergies available.
aggressive but stupid, allegens and the number of things it misses such as viruses using protein "disguises" are proof of that
-
The Atom Bomb (or rather, Nuclear theory) bought us Nuclear Power, it also bought us Hiroshima, the Cold War, the current problems with Iran and North Korea etc, the fear of 'dirty bomb' terrorism etc.
That doesn't make Nuclear theory a 'bad' thing to have, I'd be the first to agree, theories are neither good nor bad, what makes them good or bad is the people whose hands that knowledge gets into. After all, one day, an innocent scientist may find a way to detect and erase the possibility of homosexuality in unborn humans, there are those who would leap on that opportunity, claiming it is a 'cure' for it, but that could be like knocking over the first domino in a terrible chain, we don't know the outcomes of all our actions.
I'm not, in any stretch of the word, saying that this is a 'bad' idea, and I fully support it continuing, but we have to bear in mind the fact that the science may be infallible, but the people using it cannot be gauranteed to be so.
Edit: Physical alterations, such as Battuta recommended are actually less of a problem in my eyes, but even those would, obviously, have to be approached with great care.
The Cold War would have happened regardless of The Bomb, and it was nuclear weapons that is largely credited with staving off world war 3.
-
The Atom Bomb (or rather, Nuclear theory) bought us Nuclear Power, it also bought us Hiroshima, the Cold War, the current problems with Iran and North Korea etc, the fear of 'dirty bomb' terrorism etc.
That doesn't make Nuclear theory a 'bad' thing to have, I'd be the first to agree, theories are neither good nor bad, what makes them good or bad is the people whose hands that knowledge gets into. After all, one day, an innocent scientist may find a way to detect and erase the possibility of homosexuality in unborn humans, there are those who would leap on that opportunity, claiming it is a 'cure' for it, but that could be like knocking over the first domino in a terrible chain, we don't know the outcomes of all our actions.
I'm not, in any stretch of the word, saying that this is a 'bad' idea, and I fully support it continuing, but we have to bear in mind the fact that the science may be infallible, but the people using it cannot be gauranteed to be so.
Edit: Physical alterations, such as Battuta recommended are actually less of a problem in my eyes, but even those would, obviously, have to be approached with great care.
The Cold War would have happened regardless of The Bomb, and it was nuclear weapons that is largely credited with staving off world war 3.
[Citation Needed]
The Bomb and its unveiling led directly to Soviet attempts to replicate the weapon. The resulting pissing contest commonly called the Cold War came about because both had The Bomb. If we'd never unveiled it as a weapon, there's a very real possibility the Cold War wouldn't have happened to near the extent that it did. Nevermind that Soviet and American troops would have met again on the Japanese islands at some point, which (granted, not certain by a long shot) might have resulted in closer relations between the USSR and America.
-
Stalin had long wanted to conquer Europe, that alone ensured it was inevitable, perhaps not with a bombs but with all the other conventional weapons.
-
Indeed, most of the discoveries from the forefronts of physics and chemistry imply that there is more than random convergence going on in the universe.
Like what?
Yes, examples, please. :)
-
There aren't any. Liberator is not aware of the forefront of either physics or chemistry in anything but the crudest sense.
Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.
-
**** you im a dinosaur
-
I thought you were a Zack?
-
who said she couldn't be both
-
Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.
The poster of this reply is creationist.
The person being quoted is, in my eyes, the most correct.
Besides, all they did was create synthetic DNA and put it in a host cell. They didn't actually *create* the life, in that sense--however, in the sense that the resulting product wasn't natural, they did create life.
-
Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.
The poster of this reply is creationist.
The person being quoted is, in my eyes, the most correct.
Besides, all they did was create synthetic DNA and put it in a host cell. They didn't actually *create* the life, in that sense--however, in the sense that the resulting product wasn't natural, they did create life.
Are you a Young Earth creationist?
Because science does explicitly contradict that viewpoint.
Life was created by abiogenesis. If you believe in a tooth fairy or other magical being, it could have helped catalyze this abiogenesis, but the process occurred in a manner agnostic to outside interference.
-
There aren't any. Liberator is not aware of the forefront of either physics or chemistry in anything but the crudest sense.
Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.
While some may see it that way, the problem historically is that religion often has had an imperialist streak in it that has made it lash out and want to constrain science. What happened with Galileo was a good example, and what's happening today in the US with the whole creationism in biology classroms thing, as well as the near total lack of scientific participation in the islamic world are two more recent examples of it.
-
There aren't any. Liberator is not aware of the forefront of either physics or chemistry in anything but the crudest sense.
Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.
While some may see it that way, the problem historically is that religion often has had an imperialist streak in it that has made it lash out and want to constrain science. What happened with Galileo was a good example, and what's happening today in the US with the whole creationism in biology classroms thing, as well as the near total lack of scientific participation in the islamic world are two more recent examples of it.
I'd argue that this is not religion shunning scientific advancement/whathaveyou, but political movements that use the power of a religious basis to try and more effectively carry out their means. The Church in Galileo's time was certainly more of a political body than a religious organization at many points. The same thing happens with your latter two examples. Political bodies use religion as a tool to reach more voters/supporters.
Religion has no imperialist streak, because it's a concept, not a person. People who use religion for their own ends do have imperialist streaks, empirically proven.
-
There aren't any. Liberator is not aware of the forefront of either physics or chemistry in anything but the crudest sense.
Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.
While some may see it that way, the problem historically is that religion often has had an imperialist streak in it that has made it lash out and want to constrain science. What happened with Galileo was a good example, and what's happening today in the US with the whole creationism in biology classroms thing, as well as the near total lack of scientific participation in the islamic world are two more recent examples of it.
This has nothing to do with anything I said.
I made a statement about the compatibility of science with religion, and what science says about religious matters. I said nothing about the compatibility of religion with science, neither ideological nor historical.
Taking the time to read posts and figure out what they're actually saying will save you the embarrassment of going off like a virgin on his first ****. :lol:
-
Taking the time to read posts and figure out what they're actually saying will save you the embarrassment of going off like a virgin on his first ****. :lol:
Quoted for posterity.
-
Isn't compatibility symmetric?
-
Isn't compatibility symmetric?
A good question! But, in this case, no. We're not talking about mutual compatibility here.
The reason is that science is totally agnostic on the broad topics of religion, namely the existence of omnipotent beings or beings. While it may specifically contradict some tenets of a given faith, science will never claim to provide evidence about non-testable, non-empirical phenomena like the existence or nonexistence of God. It's compatible with religions because it says nothing about their core beliefs.
A religion, however, might turn around and simply dictate that empirical investigation of some phenomenon (human cloning) is wrong and evil, by dictate of the Creator. And science will shrug and say 'okay, whatever, you could be right' - because if an omnipotent being did exist and did speak to the members of a certain faith with this message, science has nothing to say about it. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to test the existence of an omnipotent being or to measure its interference in the world.
With luck, however, the scientists in question would ignore the religious people delivering this message, since they have no particular evidence for their hypothesis and never will.
Think of it as matchmaking. If you have one guy who's incredibly open and tolerant to anyone else, and, in his heartbreaking wisdom, sees the inner beauty in everyone, he's compatible with almost any partner, including a mean-spirited, bitter, ornery one. But said partner may not be reciprocally compatible with him because this second partner is jealous, controlling and vile - so mutual compatibility can't be established.
It's a fair semantic point, though, and it may come down to the question of interpretation. I'm more interested, however, in kicking Kosh out of his 'believer' mindset. He's a religious guy, but his religion happens to be atheism - he believes in it the same way Liberator believes in God. Hopefully he can be taught to practice what he preaches by backing up his beliefs with data and self-criticism.
And on that note:
as well as the near total lack of scientific participation in the islamic world are two more recent examples of it.
Kosh, if you want to use this as an example of religion interfering with science, you need to think about it harder.
Take a Google search or two to figure out why Islam can't be the primary factor here. As a hint, start with a review of Islamic history.
When you're done I have a paper for you to read that will help you develop your views on this topic. It's not that you're absolutely wrong, but your thesis that 'religion always impairs science' is insensitive to the actual factors at work. You need to introduce additional variables to control the relationship.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm
Very interesting stuff indeed, the opportunities are incredible, as are the risks, particularly in medical applications, but all in all, I consider it a positive step.
This is likely to be quite a divisive topic, so I'll say at the start, let's keep it polite ;)
Well, we know how this movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/) ends.
Or is it this one? (http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=Jurassic+Park)
Either way, it may be time to invest in a good shotgun and/or cricket bat. That and some pain meds... pills here!
:p
I think it's amusing how many different apocalyptic scenarios begin just like this. Otherwise, good luck to the scientists working on this, and try not to let the media coverage kill your work with hyperbole.
-
This has nothing to do with anything I said.
I made a statement about the compatibility of science with religion, and what science says about religious matters. I said nothing about the compatibility of religion with science, neither ideological nor historical.
Taking the time to read posts and figure out what they're actually saying will save you the embarrassment of going off like a virgin on his first ****.
Learn how to ****ing read. What I said was related to your post in that historically religion has often tried to suppress scientific achievement.
And BTW, since you have a history of not understanding even basic things that I've said, I'd suggest you take up some lessons (http://www.hookedonphonics.com/) on the subject.
When you're done I have a paper for you to read that will help you develop your views on this topic. It's not that you're absolutely wrong, but your thesis that 'religion always impairs science' is insensitive to the actual factors at work. You need to introduce additional variables to control the relationship.
I don't recall saying "always".
And I am very much aware of the history of Islam, I know full well that for a while at the beginning it was very open to science, but then it was decided by some imams (I don't recall the faction off hand) that pursuit of scientific knowledge was no longer important, and ultimately it fell to the same sort of fundementalism that plagued the christian nations during the dark age with very similair results.
I'll tell you what, I found a paper written by the chairman of the physics department of a university in pakistan (so he's pretty much at the center of the ****storm) about this subject. Care to trade?
-
This has nothing to do with anything I said.
I made a statement about the compatibility of science with religion, and what science says about religious matters. I said nothing about the compatibility of religion with science, neither ideological nor historical.
Taking the time to read posts and figure out what they're actually saying will save you the embarrassment of going off like a virgin on his first ****.
Learn how to ****ing read. What I said was related to your post in that historically religion has often tried to suppress scientific achievement.
And BTW, since you have a history of not understanding even basic things that I've said, I'd suggest you take up some lessons (http://www.hookedonphonics.com/) on the subject.
It was not related. Take a moment to calm down, then please review my last post for an explanation.
I said nothing about the actions of religion upon science. My statement was entirely about the statements science makes about the existence of an omnipotent being.
You made a directionality error. Understandable, but still wrong.
-
When you're done I have a paper for you to read that will help you develop your views on this topic. It's not that you're absolutely wrong, but your thesis that 'religion always impairs science' is insensitive to the actual factors at work. You need to introduce additional variables to control the relationship.
I don't recall saying "always".
And I am very much aware of the history of Islam, I know full well that for a while at the beginning it was very open to science, but then it was decided by some imams (I don't recall the faction off hand) that pursuit of scientific knowledge was no longer important, and ultimately it fell to the same sort of fundementalism that plagued the christian nations during the dark age with very similair results.
I'll tell you what, I found a paper written by the chairman of the physics department of a university in pakistan (so he's pretty much at the center of the ****storm) about this subject. Care to trade?
Good, that's an improvement. I would be happy to read it.
-
Take a moment to calm down,
If you weren't such an ass in that post I quoted, I wouldn't have flamed you.
I said nothing about the actions of religion upon science. My statement was entirely about the statements science makes about the existence of an omnipotent being.
You made a directionality error. Understandable, but still wrong.
That maybe so, but isn't religion ultimately about people's interpretations of it? If people interpret holy scriptures as being the literal truth, in that situation how could science and religion be compatible?
-
When you're done I have a paper for you to read that will help you develop your views on this topic. It's not that you're absolutely wrong, but your thesis that 'religion always impairs science' is insensitive to the actual factors at work. You need to introduce additional variables to control the relationship.
I don't recall saying "always".
And I am very much aware of the history of Islam, I know full well that for a while at the beginning it was very open to science, but then it was decided by some imams (I don't recall the faction off hand) that pursuit of scientific knowledge was no longer important, and ultimately it fell to the same sort of fundementalism that plagued the christian nations during the dark age with very similair results.
I'll tell you what, I found a paper written by the chairman of the physics department of a university in pakistan (so he's pretty much at the center of the ****storm) about this subject. Care to trade?
Good, that's an improvement. I would be happy to read it.
Here it is (http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1)
Your turn.
-
Pretty good read (http://www.meforum.org/306/why-does-the-muslim-world-lag-in-science). You're not going to find it differing much from your analysis.
You made a directionality error. Understandable, but still wrong.
That maybe so, but isn't religion ultimately about people's interpretations of it? If people interpret holy scriptures as being the literal truth, in that situation how could science and religion be compatible?
Again, directionality. We're not talking about mutual compatibility here, we're talking about science's compatibility with religion.
I refer you to my earlier post discussing the topic.
To summarize: there is nothing in my statement related to the bidirectional relationship between science and religion, historically or ideologically.
All I am saying is that nothing in science ever has, or ever will, made a statement about the existence of, or possibility of, omnipotent beings.
-
So, Kosh, did you just completely ignore my post earlier about how it isn't religion, but rather political organizations that use religion to their own ends that have that bad habit of not liking science too much? Cuz if you didn't, I must have missed the refutation when you kept arguing.
That aside, flaming is never a good solution. Ever. If you can't keep ad hominems or the like out of it, it's not worth posting.
-
I keep forgetting the implications of this breakthrough, and when I do, I can't help but think of 9.
-
Okay. Time to cut out the flaming guys. I'm enjoying the sunshine out here so anyone who makes me have to head inside to ban you is getting more than a day off. :p
-
It'll be interesting to see if anything significant comes out of this. "Significant" in the sense of perhaps re-creating extinct animals, if that's possible. :nervous:
-
So, Kosh, did you just completely ignore my post earlier about how it isn't religion, but rather political organizations that use religion to their own ends that have that bad habit of not liking science too much? Cuz if you didn't, I must have missed the refutation when you kept arguing.
That aside, flaming is never a good solution. Ever. If you can't keep ad hominems or the like out of it, it's not worth posting.
Sorry I forgot about it. To reply, while that certain is true to some extent, the real root of the problem is when science contradicts a literally interpreted religious text. This happened with Galileo and it happened again with Darwin (though the church had lost most of its political power by that time so he wasn't burned at the stake). As long as religious fundementalists are allowed to hold the ear of whatever masses follow said faith, science can never progress.
And as for the flaming, frankly if he didn't say what I quoted in such an obnoxious and rude way it would never have happened.
Again, directionality. We're not talking about mutual compatibility here, we're talking about science's compatibility with religion.
I refer you to my earlier post discussing the topic.
To summarize: there is nothing in my statement related to the bidirectional relationship between science and religion, historically or ideologically.
All I am saying is that nothing in science ever has, or ever will, made a statement about the existence of, or possibility of, omnipotent beings.
Ok, I see what you're saying. But the problem is there is more to religion that just belief in dieties, there's also the accompanying text, and ultimately that is where science and religion have problems, particularly when that text is literally interpreted and scientific fact contradicts it.
-
It'll be interesting to see if anything significant comes out of this. "Significant" in the sense of perhaps re-creating extinct animals, if that's possible. :nervous:
Extinct animals are extinct for a reason. They couldn't adapt rapidly enough to meet a revised set of survival conditions. Using our science to bring back a wooly mammoth is going to accomplish what exactly?
-
What do improvements in breast augmentation surgery accomplish?
**** doesn't have to be useful. People just have to want it.
-
Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.
-
So, Kosh, did you just completely ignore my post earlier about how it isn't religion, but rather political organizations that use religion to their own ends that have that bad habit of not liking science too much? Cuz if you didn't, I must have missed the refutation when you kept arguing.
That aside, flaming is never a good solution. Ever. If you can't keep ad hominems or the like out of it, it's not worth posting.
Sorry I forgot about it. To reply, while that certain is true to some extent, the real root of the problem is when science contradicts a literally interpreted religious text. This happened with Galileo and it happened again with Darwin (though the church had lost most of its political power by that time so he wasn't burned at the stake). As long as religious fundementalists are allowed to hold the ear of whatever masses follow said faith, science can never progress.
And as for the flaming, frankly if he didn't say what I quoted in such an obnoxious and rude way it would never have happened.
In your own argument you bring up that it's the religious fundamentalists, acting as a political force or organization, that are a stumbling block, not religion itself. There is nothing to your argument that indicates that religion is incompatible with science, only that stupid people will twist it to their own ends.
I don't care what the cause is, flaming is never an acceptable response. Ever. Be the better person.
-
Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.
Nah.
-
What do improvements in breast augmentation surgery accomplish?
**** doesn't have to be useful. People just have to want it.
But who wants to bring back a wooly mammoth?
-
Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.
That ultimate cause is actually divorced from the proximate cause. You'd need to present data suggesting that people who have breast augmentation have more kids.
-
What do improvements in breast augmentation surgery accomplish?
**** doesn't have to be useful. People just have to want it.
But who wants to bring back a wooly mammoth?
I'd like to see a woolly mammoth. That would be ****ing awesome.
-
Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.
That ultimate cause is actually divorced from the proximate cause. You'd need to present data suggesting that people who have breast augmentation have more kids.
:wtf:
I make a semi-serious statement about why women would choose to get breast implants (the first part about attracting males was serious, second part about kids wasn't), and you go and pull something like this? Seriously, what the hell is up with you?
-
Iamzack speaks the truth. Managing the environment isn't the only reason to bring back animals.
I want to see a dinosaur.
-
Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.
That ultimate cause is actually divorced from the proximate cause. You'd need to present data suggesting that people who have breast augmentation have more kids.
:wtf:
I make a semi-serious statement about why women would choose to get breast implants (the first part about attracting males was serious, second part about kids wasn't), and you go and pull something like this? Seriously, what the hell is up with you?
Making a girl have bigger tits is less useful than bringing a woolly mammoth back from the dead.
-
No it isn't. If my gender derives sensual pleasure from handling woolly mammoths something is wrong. I suppose we could always go and hunt them, but why bring a species back from the dead just so it can be hunted down as a means for men to prove their dominance? No wait, we actually do need to bring them back so we can hunt them down and make trophies of their tusks to prove our dominance.
-
Are you saying men can't get it up unless they see a chick with huge tits? Because that's the only thing that would make huge tits more useful than a woolly mammoth.
-
I'm saying a nice-looking pair of tits can help men get it up, but they aren't always necessary.
-
They're only -necessary- in a small number of dysfunctional men who we don't need reproducing anyway. Therefore, breast augmentation = less useful than woolly mammoths.
-
Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.
That ultimate cause is actually divorced from the proximate cause. You'd need to present data suggesting that people who have breast augmentation have more kids.
:wtf:
I make a semi-serious statement about why women would choose to get breast implants (the first part about attracting males was serious, second part about kids wasn't), and you go and pull something like this? Seriously, what the hell is up with you?
Because this is an actual topic in evolutionary psychology, and one that's commonly misunderstood.
I'm correcting the common misunderstanding.
In any case, women's assessment of their own bodies is badly divorced from men's, largely due to the interference of cultural messages. Women generally believe that men want larger breasts and thinner waists than they actually do.
You should be careful about ascribing ultimate cause motivations to traits that are explained by proximate causes. The original reason breasts became attractive is because they signaled reproductive fitness, but that is only an ultimate cause; it generated proximate causes which are now sufficient on their own.
-
No it isn't. If my gender derives sensual pleasure from handling woolly mammoths something is wrong. I suppose we could always go and hunt them, but why bring a species back from the dead just so it can be hunted down as a means for men to prove their dominance? No wait, we actually do need to bring them back so we can hunt them down and make trophies of their tusks to prove our dominance.
A bunch of people including iamzack will pay money to see a real live woolly mammoth. That in itself makes them useful. Then there's biodiversity. Maybe what Liberator said is right and conditions are still unfavorable for woolly mammoths, but it would be nice to have that option.
-
Obviously, the best solution is to bring back woolly mammoths...then augment their breasts. (Udders? Teats? Not sure what it would be for a mammoth).
-
What do improvements in breast augmentation surgery accomplish?
**** doesn't have to be useful. People just have to want it.
But who wants to bring back a wooly mammoth?
I'd like to see a woolly mammoth. That would be ****ing awesome.
Screw that, I want dinosaurs damnit! :p
-
Didn't a certain movie teach you anything? :p
-
raptors don't need us to bring them back from the dead. they are in charge of north korea already.
-
Didn't a certain movie teach you anything? :p
Nope, not at all.
-
I'm reconsidering my previous opposition towards bringing back woolly mammoths. No mammoths means no Mammoth Tanks (http://portal.commandandconquer.com/SiteAssets/factions/images/units/RA3_MammothTank1.jpg).
-
Topic: Creation of synthetic cells, and their applications.
Discusser's Points:
- Benefits of the tech.
- Dangers of the tech.
Results of discussion:
- Trolling at religion/discussion of relation.
- Dangers of a different tech.
- Time travel in a fictional(?) work.
- Possibility for living computer.
- Humans rape nature. (note: was a joke, it seems)
- Smartass comment about plantlife.
- Role of plantlife / complaints about finger-pointing.
- DNA compiler.
Creating Aryans Bettering humans with tech.- Dangers of tech.
- Atomic weapons.
- Morality in science.
- Need for police force on tech.
- Turning tech into a weapon.
- Atomic weapons.
- In/compatibility of science with religion.
- What compatibility is.
- Obligatory zombie movie reference.
- More stuff about religion and science that I'm not actually going to read.
- Kosh calling Battman an ass. (was retaliatory? I kind of stopped paying attention around the zombies)
- More stuff about compatibility.
- Someone referencing an abysmal movie that should never have been made.
- Call for flame-culling.
Playing God Jurassic Park bringing dead stuff to life.- Breast augmentation.
I can't tell if this is telling of human nature, or not.
-
Considering how that list seems to say humans can't ever agree about anything, I would say it is quite indicative of human nature.
-
I'm reconsidering my previous opposition towards bringing back woolly mammoths. No mammoths means no Mammoth Tanks (http://portal.commandandconquer.com/SiteAssets/factions/images/units/RA3_MammothTank1.jpg).
Picture wasn't what I expected. Thanks for the :lol:
-
I'm reconsidering my previous opposition towards bringing back woolly mammoths. No mammoths means no Mammoth Tanks (http://portal.commandandconquer.com/SiteAssets/factions/images/units/RA3_MammothTank1.jpg).
Picture wasn't what I expected. Thanks for the :lol:
It was exactly what I expected before you said it was unexpected and made me change my expectations.
-
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/05/25/synthetic-life-form-accuses-god-of-playing-science/
-
zack: lol
Topic: Creation of synthetic cells, and their applications.
Discusser's Points:
- Benefits of the tech.
- Dangers of the tech.
Results of discussion:
- Trolling at religion/discussion of relation.
- Dangers of a different tech.
- Time travel in a fictional(?) work.
- Possibility for living computer.
- Humans rape nature. (note: was a joke, it seems)
- Smartass comment about plantlife.
- Role of plantlife / complaints about finger-pointing.
- DNA compiler.
Creating Aryans Bettering humans with tech.- Dangers of tech.
- Atomic weapons.
- Morality in science.
- Need for police force on tech.
- Turning tech into a weapon.
- Atomic weapons.
- In/compatibility of science with religion.
- What compatibility is.
- Obligatory zombie movie reference.
- More stuff about religion and science that I'm not actually going to read.
- Kosh calling Battman an ass. (was retaliatory? I kind of stopped paying attention around the zombies)
- More stuff about compatibility.
- Someone referencing an abysmal movie that should never have been made.
- Call for flame-culling.
Playing God Jurassic Park bringing dead stuff to life.- Breast augmentation.
I can't tell if this is telling of human nature, or not.
This list reminds me of one thing. Which seems to be how most HLP discussions go. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/LogisticMap_BifurcationDiagram.png)
-
Hee, I actually know what that is. Or I did, at any rate.
-
There aren't any. Liberator is not aware of the forefront of either physics or chemistry in anything but the crudest sense.
Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.
The reasoning of creatonism is (in my eyes) closely related to that of a survivor of an airplane crash....
If everyone in an airplane crash dies... there is naturally no one to wonder why they survived.
Similarily... there are no creatonists on the hundreds of planets that do not bear life. :)
The problem is likely also closely related to a lack of undestanding of statistics.
-
Topic: Creation of synthetic cells, and their applications.
Discusser's Points:
- Benefits of the tech.
- Dangers of the tech.
Results of discussion:
- Trolling at religion/discussion of relation.
- Dangers of a different tech.
- Time travel in a fictional(?) work.
- Possibility for living computer.
- Humans rape nature. (note: was a joke, it seems)
- Smartass comment about plantlife.
- Role of plantlife / complaints about finger-pointing.
- DNA compiler.
Creating Aryans Bettering humans with tech.- Dangers of tech.
- Atomic weapons.
- Morality in science.
- Need for police force on tech.
- Turning tech into a weapon.
- Atomic weapons.
- In/compatibility of science with religion.
- What compatibility is.
- Obligatory zombie movie reference.
- More stuff about religion and science that I'm not actually going to read.
- Kosh calling Battman an ass. (was retaliatory? I kind of stopped paying attention around the zombies)
- More stuff about compatibility.
- Someone referencing an abysmal movie that should never have been made.
- Call for flame-culling.
Playing God Jurassic Park bringing dead stuff to life.- Breast augmentation.
I can't tell if this is telling of human nature, or not.
you left out super aids :D
-
We're toying with powerful forces here. (http://xkcd.com/419/)
-
I'v seen that one before but its still funny.