| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
It's the way the fish in a barrel can't see that they're fish in a barrel.
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do the work of showing the lurkers that the "fish in the barrel" are NOT representative of FR's membership.
Besides, somebody has to put them out of their misery. It would be insensitive to let them flop around like that.
;-)
Flu is a generic term for different pathogens. Not everything called "flu" has the same source, that is why you need new flu shots each year.
How about the strain of TB that is now resistant to antibiotics?
Some say that such bacteria have mutated due to antibiotics. Whether that is true or not, they are still TB bacteria, they have not changed in kind, they have just adapted within the same basic genotype. You have to realize that most medicines have high specificity. The reason for that is that one does not want to destroy good cells with medicine only bad cells, so medicines used against an infection are very specific against that particular infection in order to minimize side effects. Therefore a change that renders a particular medicine useless is a very small change and not an evolutionary one or a transformational one.
Because you say so I guess. You clearly have absolutely no concept of morality, which exactly verifies what I said was the case with atheists. To say that Christianity = Communism is a total misuse of language. To say that an atheistic ideology = a theistic religon is totally ridiculous. To say that an ideology which encourages mass murder = a religion which teaches respect human for life is an abomination.
Glad you asked! :-)
If you go back and look at the table, the Earth is not the most circular (its e = 0.0167) Venus with an e = 0.0068 is the most circular. The 1.0 you are reading is the AU distance from the Earth to the sun. Astronomical distances are measured in EUs. 1 EU is the distance from the earth to the Sun. So that is the 1.0 you saw. As for the perfect circle, There never will be a perfect circle with the orbital elements. Remember the other planets are also "tugging" on each other. I brought up the perfect circle to show that a circle is a very special type of ellipse. The reason for that was that when we see ellipses in our mind, we see really elongated structures. Also when you look at a "map" of the solar system, they usually put it in a somewhat side perspective which exaggerates the appearance of the ellipse.
Most of the planets are so close to circles that on a piece of paper they would look just that. Again, the only two that would be even readily noticeable would be Mercury and Pluto.
For satellites orbiting the Earth, we have an added component of not only the atmospheric drag but the solar wind as well. To even further the complication our Earth is not a perfect sphere and has natural gravity wells due to the distribution of the landmasses and that it is an oblate spheroid instead of a perfect sphere (the difference is only about 15 miles between the equator and the poles). One more rub is that with long term measurements taken using a satellite in orbit (the LAGEOS), the Earth is very very slowly re-rounding itself out over time.
The other thing that is not readily apparent from most solar system maps is just how far apart the planets really are and also how tiny they are with reference to the solar system.
When you think of how far we are from the sun (93,000,000 miles) and the diameter of the Earth (7000 miles) the distance between the Sun and the Earth is over 13,000 times the diameter of the Earth. Now think of Mars. Its only 1/3rd the size of the Earth and it is 1/2 again further out.
Usually when we say we are approaching Mars, it means we are on the same side of the Sun as Mars. Not the orbits are getting closer. Oh they do, but by a very small amount.
Sorry for the confusion earlier.
Just goes to show, you ask Patrick a really simple question and he asks the questioner to prove his point. Pretty lame Patrick, asking your opponents to prove your points for you. The question is quite simple: what do you consider moral in Ayn Rand's philosophy. Being such an expert on it, it should be an easy question for you to answer. That you avoid answering it directly shows quite well that your position is untenable.
Charity for blind fish in a barrel. Now nobody can accuse you of being an insensitive guy!
Well that simply follows from the fact that an atheist has no religion.
He can kill, lie and steal without fear of anything except getting caught. A Christian is restrained by his belief in the Ten Commandments and the absolute knowledge that such actions are evil.
That's true, an atheist doesn't fear being punished by a deity but I don't believe that most atheists only refrain from killing, stealing, raping and lying because they fear getting caught as well as I don't believe that most theists don't do that only because they fear devine punishment. The truth is we are social animals and as such we form societies because it offers us more benefit than living allone. Since no individual wants to be harmed every member of a society has to accept that otherwise that society wouldn't last long. So a society by default doesn't tolerate asocial behaviour. (Call that an absolute if you want)
A religion that instills the fear in people that Big Brother in the Sky is permantently watching them can be useful in this sense but as you acknowledged it doesn't make it true. Claiming otherwise would be an appeal to consequences.
An atheist has loosened his restraints with both religion and society (since the societies I speak of are overwhelmingly religious) so an atheist has set himself apart from the two main sources of objective morality - society and religion. Therefore, whatever morality he decides to abide by is purely personal, and being purely personal, it does not exercise any restraints upon him.
No, only from religion. Since we live in societies and interact with others we learn what is acceptable and what is not through the feedback we receive. So the morality an atheist choses to abide by is not purely personal (i.e. I do whatever I want and I don't care for anyone) if he wants to coexist peacefully with others.
In addition one must wonder the reason why some reject religion.
Maybe it's because religion doesn't make sense to them. It may surprise you that there are people who cannot believe something only because not believing it may have negative consequences (-> appeal to consequences).
My suspicion is that their own evil deeds turns them to atheism (but of course such a thing can never be proven, but it seems pretty logical to me). I do not think that too many turn to atheism because of some deep philosophical or scientific reasoning. I think they just want to be bad. So, yes, I think for all the above reasons, atheism does lead to immorality.
Well, then your suspicion is in most cases wrong but it doesn't surprise me that it seems logical to you since you seem to consider everyone evil (or at least potentially evil) who doesn't share your beliefs.
If you want to be bad and do evil deeds you don't have to become an atheist you can as well turn to a god who fits your purpose (e.g. Satan) or you can think that you are going to Hell anyway so it doesn't matter what you do for the rest of your life. So it isn't necessary to convince yourself that a god who doesn't approve of your lifestyle does not exist. Besides I don't know how this could be accomplished either, except through appeal to consequences (I am a bad person that commits evil deeds so it would be better if God doesn't exist. So because of this he must not exist).
BTW most atheists (at least those who I know) are considered to be moral persons. It's true that many don't arrive at their view through deep philosophical or scientific reasoning (they are simply indifferent concerning the supernatural) but that doesn't make them in any way evil.
ROTFLMAO
--- no further comment ---
For all that, there's some reason that their orbits are still wildly elliptical. I don't yet know what it is, but I expect it will be posted later by someone else.
I must strongly disagree with that. It is the supposed 'scientists' - the evolutionists - who refuse to engage in a scientific discussion of evolution. I and others have posted some quite serious objections to the interpretation of descent presented by evolutionists which have gone completely unanswered. Perhaps the greatest example of such refusal to engage in scientific discussion on this thread is the total disregard of the article that started this thread by evolutionists. The article clearly refutes the use of Darwin's finches as a proof of evolution. It is a scientific refutation using well researched observations, there is nothing 'delusional' in it. Are you willing to take up the challenge or are you like other evolutionists going to just repeat the mantra 'anyone who disagrees with evolution is a nut case' like you do above?
Reply 713 deleted by the moderator. (Why wait?)
I think its because most solar system maps show then that way due to the artistic view of showing them on edgewise. :-)
That's not too goofy a straw to be grasped at. But I don't see gore apologizing to Junior over the following just because it's long overdue:
Where did you go to school? The orbits of the planets are wildly elliptical. Some of the planets that we think of as nearer to the sun are at times further out than those we consider farther from the sun. You clearly do not know beans about astronomy.
Not quite. I have plenty of evidence in support of my beliefs - some 100 million people deliberately murdered by atheists just in the 20th century. In addition you agree with me that religion does exercise some restraint on people. So my statement that atheism leads to immoral behavior is partially agreed to by you. In addition your statement that people become atheists because of deep examination of the two sides is total nonsense. Your statement that people are mostly influenced by their society in respect to morals is certainly true, and I have said so several times. However, atheists are partially rejecting the views of society by becoming atheists so they clearly do not accept all the moral constraints of society. In fact they often try to hide their atheism as gnosticism or deism in order to appear to be in conformance with society.
To bring all this back to the discussion of evolution, it is pretty clear to me that Darwin and Darwinism are immoral. Darwin's own statements regarding eugenics clearly show his total lack of regard for human life which any moral person must have.
Don't be so hard on yourself! You contribute a considerable amount of valuable information. Besides all the good cheer that you emanate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.