Do you believe in evolution?

[Seol]

so how do you explain that the second law of thermodynamics means evolution is impossible unless there's some huge energy source out there pumping energy into earth

hehehe

Any creationist who considers the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics an objection to the theory of evolution either does not understand thermodynamics, or is cynically trying to appeal to those who do not understand thermodynamics.

The laws of thermodynamics aren't even laws, not in the true sense of the word. They're results.

[Seol]

It appears the same, but just isn't.
change of slight variations over generations is repeatable and observable. changing of one species has not. I haven't heard any credible evidence of half-specifies (If the evolution mistakes died off, wouldn't we find all kinds of half-specie fossils?)

There's no such thing as a half-species. Biology isn't simply divided into discrete units with vague areas between them. As for "evolutionary mistakes" dying off, that's what happened to the dinosaurs - in terms of, say, cats with six legs (if that's what you mean), then they're very rare and generally die without reproducing or are infertile and as such there are very, very few of them, so the chances of seeing a fossil of that specific organism are obviously very low.

[Seol]

The odds are I believe 10 to the 100th power.

A Googol? Really? Seems awfully round. Seems like a guesstimate to me, if not outright bollocks.

Especially when he's factoring in things like our planet can have solar eclipses. Yes, it is very rare to have planets with satellites of exactly the right size and relative distance

and

which shares the plane of rotation exactly to lead to such a phenomenon, but to say that life wouldn't exist without solar eclipses is nonsense.

We need - the right chemical makeup, which is reasonably likely, the right size of planet (to retain an appropriate atmosphere), and the right temperature. That's about it.

[Seol]

The Fermi Paradox (basically, "considering how common life should be, why haven't they found us yet?") is an interesting point, but it dosn't say really anything about the frequency of life in the universe. At most, it might say something about the frequency of intellegent life that dosn't destory itself or otherwise die off before leaving it's own solar system, and even that is subject to debate. Again, we can't know how common life is until we have a bigger sample size.

It may also be that interstellar transport is simply impractical, and every star has intelligent life around it that just hasn't chosen to brave the void of space.

Or maybe they did, but the dark matter ate them. It's 90% of the mass of the universe, and it's

still

hungry.

Or maybe did, and they came here, and now they're wondering why we didn't return the call they left 2,000 years ago.

[Seol]

The Fermi Paradox (basically, "considering how common life should be, why haven't they found us yet?") is an interesting point, but it dosn't say really anything about the frequency of life in the universe. At most, it might say something about the frequency of intellegent life that dosn't destory itself or otherwise die off before leaving it's own solar system, and even that is subject to debate. Again, we can't know how common life is until we have a bigger sample size.

It may also be that interstellar transport is simply impractical, and every star has intelligent life around it that just hasn't chosen to brave the void of space.

Or maybe they did, but the dark matter ate them. It's 90% of the mass of the universe, and it's

still

hungry.

Or maybe did, and they came here, and now they're wondering why we didn't return the call they left 2,000 years ago.

oh, that was me, sorry. I

meant

to, but then Buffy was on, and I forgot.

what, you ate 90% of the universe? o_O

[Seol]

Also, I always thought 496 was made-up. It just seemed too good to be true.

heh

[Seol]

I stopped reading this discussion some time ago, but I saw an article I thought which really made me laugh and ponder some things. I hope you all appreciate it as much as I do, and thought it would be worthwhile here.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html

God bless.

Very good article!

...although I do object to his assertations that the absence of religion would mean no concept of morality or social order, but that's a very minor point which doesn't take away from the importance of his argument.

[Seol]

"Religious" conflict is very rarely about religion. It's about tribal instinct - maintaining territory for "your tribe", whether that be your clan or your religion or your country or your political views. In any case, it's about furthering your interests and those you associate and identify with over people who you don't associate and identify with. Perfectly natural human behaviour. "Religious" war doesn't happen when there are philosophical differences between groups, it happens when there is extreme social inequity and/or the potential to exploit and subjugate others - and then religion gets cited.

If you need justification for a conflict, religion is always a good cite because it's pretty much inarguable. It's opinion and interpretation of the words of an absolute moral arbiter who cannot be directly consulted.

Voltaire once said "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." This is true on many fronts and applies to the evils perpetuated in the name of religion as well as the good (primarily imposition of moral systems such as "no sex before marriage" and tribal wisdom such as "in this sweltering heat prior to the invention of the refrigerator it would be smart not to eat pork").

[Seol]

Seol, you're basically correct about religious conflict usually having other important factors, such as tribalism and inequity, but it's important to note that religion is one of the things that causes tribalism and inequity. It's easy to say, for example, that the religious conflict in Nothern Ireland is really a class issue, but that would ignore the fact that the whole reason the class issue exists is discrimination against Catholics.

Yes, but

why

is there discrimination against Catholics? Why do the Northern Irish divide themselves into two communities, one of which defines itself by Catholocism and Republicanism and one by Protestantism and Unionism (and the two are inextricably linked)? And of those two, inextricably linked concepts, the one that actually seems to

matter

to people (as a basis for conflict, anyway) is which country Northern Ireland should be part of.

Northern Ireland isn't even a religious conflict. It's a political one.

I agree with Sarc entirely. Religious disputes, in the sense of pure philosophical clashes, are rarely ever a cause of actual conflict (except, of course, for purges of heretics). However, religion provides a tribal label and a higher cause for what is usually politically-oriented issues, enflaming and "mutating" the problem.

I agree with this entirely. In fact,

this was my point

. The only thing that I would emphasise is that just because religion is used in this way does not mean religion is at fault, but rather the people who are (ab?)using religious labels and concepts to further their agendas are at fault.