philh

"That story was about the number of people that have been hurt or killed, not just about the number of people murdered. There's a difference. Plenty of people get shot with guns, but don't die. " agreed. but forgive me for thinking that homiicide is more important than injury.If you feel the Uks gun laws are such a failure how do you explain that gun homicides are so low and falling? perhaps all our criminlas are bad shots? A gun friednly culture is unlikely to make them worse.You can focus on the London numbers quoted in the Mirror if you want or you could focus on these quotes from the Home Office report: "Firearms (including air weapons) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes in England and Wales in 2005/06, a fall of six per cent or 1,375 crimes compared to 2004/05. This is the second consecutive fall in firearm crimes following a five per cent fall in the previous year... Gun crime remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.4 per cent of all recorded crime: " Compare to the USA where gun were used roughly in 400,000 crimes per year.Even when you correct for population differences thats still a huge discrepancy. Not one Id be really proud of if I were an American.

Ok so lets add Applebys data in: The Inquiry investigated 249 cases of homicide by currentor recentpatients, occurring between April 1999 and December 2003,9% of all homicides occurring in England Wales during this period. This figure translates into 52 patienthomicides per year. Our data show no clear evidence for either a rise or a fall in the number of homicides by people with mental illness. " This hardly changes the cocnlusions.

Pardon me for actually bringing some data to the debate. Do you have any data other than "if I recall correctly, it was something along the lines that only crimes that they got a conviction for were counted." ? A source might be helpful.

Anyone that actaully lives in the UK knows the Sunday Mirror is a pathetic tabloiad known for its sensationalism. Its always better to go the official statistics and check them out for yourself: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf If you look at the number of homicide victims by shooting in 1995 it was 55 in 2006 it was 39. These are the stats for England and Wales, populaition 53 million. Now look at the figues for the USA which you can find on the CDC web site; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm There were 11,250 firearm homicdes in 2004. Lets adjust the numbers down for population. The USA has 6 times the population of the England and Wales that would give a number of 1875 comapred with 39. I think that doesnt really back up your thesis of a failing anti gun policy here.

it doesnt matter what their credentials are. Science isnt done this way. These guys have to publish research in peer reviewed journals that back up their position. Show us that and we can take you seriosuly, without it we cant. Sceince isnt ruled by opnions, but by evidence.

This letter is an opinion piece. But science doesn't work via opinion, it works via peer reviewed evidence and research. If one can show that the opinion in the letter is backed up by such a process then one might hhave a convincing argument, so far I haven't seen that in this letter.

we are planning to vacation in Orladno over newy Years and were wondering if there's any freefly coaches in the tunnel there, that use the in air radios comms? Any reccomendations would be v helpful.

"But why European, Asian and Canadian companies buying US stock at a record pace? In Reply To Whether it will continue to do so is anyones guess. True. But the fact that foreign companies are loading up at a record pace is indicative of their sentiment, don't you think? " This is what we call cherry picking data. Lets assume that your assuption is correct. Its one of many bits of data. Some people are buying US assets (for exaple the foreign companies you cite loading up at a record pace) but others are selling Us assets. What matters is not whether there are some who are motivated to buy and others to sell, but is the net selling pressure greater than the net buying pressure. If the net selling pressure is greater then the price will go down and that is exactly what it has done. You ability to find some buyers out of a wave of sellers is utterly irrelevant.

The value of theUS dollar is like any other asset. Of ocurse its ddetermined by an interaction of supplyand demand but what influences that process is very complex. Sometimes if Fed raises interest rates more than expected thhe USdollar will rise in value , but if people as a result of the hike sell bonds and stocks and repatriate them into other currnecies it can go down. Most asset prices follow whats called a Markov process ie they are unpredicatble . if you want read more about this I recomend "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel.

I think its you that doesnt understand. yes there are foreign companies buying US compnaies in the states. But thats just part of the overall asset picture . The net picture is simply the value of the Us dollar as described in the spot foriegn exchange markets and there no question the value fo the Us dollar has been going down and down and down. Whether it will continue to do so is anyones guess.

Using past statistics to compute future threats is a very questionbale activity. If one had done that in 2000 one could have said the number of Americans killed on Us soil by Al Queda is close to 0 therefore the chances of it happening are close to o. The past is not necessarily a predictor of the future. In assessing the threat form AQ and similar organisation we need to know their intent and their capability. Their intent is a major threat ,they intend to destroy Western society and replace it with a world wide Caliphate. Their capbility to carry out their goals is something rather unknown. They may be able to kill no more than a few hundred poeple over the next few years and that would make them a minor threat compared to lets say the normal crime or accident rate; or they may be able to get hold of WMD'sand kill countlesspoeple. We just dont know. So the threat of terrosim is real but rather hard to qauntify. That uncertaintiy makes people worried and thats not irrational. Assuming the past will replicate the future is simply wrong.

"Because one of the main reasons for the rejection of the concept a higher authority and a moral law, is that some people want to do as they please, when they please, without someone telling them that it's wrong. " Your views make specific prediction which can be tested. The implication of what you say is that people dont believe in god becuase they want to abandon morality. If thats true comparable socieities which hav a higher rate of atheism will see more crime. In fact the opposite is true , look at Scandinavia and compare it to the USA . Both are wealthy western nations but Scandinavia has a mjority of non believers and the USa a majority of believers. gues what? the USa has enourmosly higher crime rate. Your ideas are not consistent with the evidence. personally i dont believe in god becuase there is no evidence of god , simple as that. Most atheists I have ever spoken to think the same.

> For that matter, as long as there are starving children in the world, >why are we wasting money on city parks, bike trails, play grounds, etc? Because we care more about ourselves (and our loved ones) than other people far away. Exactly what you would expect with natural selection. In evolutionary theory altruism arises at least partly by individuals wanting to protect their genes. As their close relatives may have their genes they are more likely to be altruistic to those closer to them. If on the other hand altruism comes from a universal loving god we would not expect this relationship. Yet that is exactly what we see.

well one explanation of that is that the authors of the OT, with all its innacuracies about our history ( for whatever reason) had divine inspiration or some more simple explanation that dont require invisble beings: 1. The Nt auhtors retrofitted their story for the OT 2. Chisitians interpret texts in ways that suits them , much in the same way people have a tendency to see patters when there aren't any. I think Ocams Razor should apply here, the explanation with the least unproved assumption is the best one and the invisble being explanation isnt it.

"Where they trying to record a literal account? Some say yes, some say no. We cannot know for sure." Well thats something I think we can agree upon "If they were not trying to write a science book, but rather a story about man's relationship with God than I think they did real good." I doubt there was any notion of what a science book was at the time of its writing. I wonder what your criteria is for saying they did a good job. "That is simply not true in all cases. Many theologians change their ideas when science proves w/o a doubt something recorded as wrong." I didnt say theologians, I said theists. One can be a theologian and be an athiest, in fact I know of severla who are. My point is that theists dont seem to look at their texts objectivley. thy seem to me to start with the assumption that they are true. In science if a fact contradicts a theory one might assume the theory will either be modified or junked all together. It seems to me that theists will only consider the former and not the latter and thats why theism appears to me to be intellectually lacking.

"I really have no desire to spend the time to reduce an entire concept (JEDP) to a forum thread length. Google it -- it has tons of info on the web. " I presume you are reffing to the doucmentary hypothesis? Im reasonably familair with it and would reccomend Richard Elliot Friednman's "Who Wrote he BIble" as a very good summary, perhaps you might comment on this? But te documentary hypothesis does not give any indication as to whether the authors of the bible thought they Genesis was literal or not. "As I said, most scholars I know or have read believe the authors wrote what they understood. It would make little sense for them to be supernaturally gifted with divine knowledge that would escape their readers intellect for 2K years." Writing what they understood is not what I am debating , the issue is shoudl we treat what hey understood in any special way? "You can't have it both ways. You praise scientist when they discover a theory is wrong and change their hypothesis, but yet use that as evidence that the Bible is wrong. " If theists changed their minds in relation to evidence consitently I would praise them. Scientists do do this , theists do not. When scientists disocvered Kelvins method of dating the Earth was wrong they junked it and embraced Rutherfords . They didnt cling on to it and say Kelvin spoke the truth but only in a metaphorial way. Sciene takes an approach which is the degree of belief should be proportional to the degree of evidence , when theists take that line, I wil appluad them. But they dont they cling on old beliefs. Whats wrong with just saying that Genesis is worng, end of story, why do you cling on to it at all? "I never said I would categorically deny anything. I simply said I don't see how science can debunk the NT. " Well let me think og a hypothetical exmaple. the bible as i recall (correct me if Im wrong) claims that there were Earthquackes during the Easter peiod of Jesus death/resurection. Now if geologists could rpove there werent would you agree the NT was in error.?

"While I believe many took the account of creation in Genesis as science, I don't believe that was the "intent" " Perhpas you could give us some evidence as to what the intentions of the biblical authors are. As I understand at best, scholars have been able to conclude there were a few different authors, j, e etc but how one goes from that to knowing their intentions is beyond me. " I believe science may have proven false theories on Genesis wrong. " Science has proved the story of Genesis wrong from a literal point of view, I think we can all agree on that. But in order to salvage anything for the bible you have to provide good evidence that the authors meant it to be a matephor, so far Ive seen nothing other than ,I believe or todays scholars think, but no actual evidnce at all. What i find interesting is that the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis seemed to become more popular amongst theists after science showed it to be wrong. That sounds to me more like post hoc rationalisation rather than genuine scholarship. As far as you refusal to deny the NT if the evidence forced it, I think that is telling. I will happily junk any belief I have , if the evidence demands. But it seems you would not act so quickly on your beliefs. That sounds like dogma rather than reaosning to me. Whilst the Nt doesnt make scientific claims in any explicit manner, any document that is to be considered as reffering to historical events is open to investigation. Scientific enquiry can and and does enable us to verify or deny aspects of history.

Im cuious Steve, it appears you agree science has debunked the Genesis account of creation and so you are hapy to let that go. Supposing hypothetically science was able to debunk the NT would you also let that go? or would you hold on to it no mater what?

Im sorry but you havent answered the question. Ill repeat it. How do you know what the authors of the bible's intention was? when answering please provide evidence t back up your claim. Bold assertions will not cut it.

You are guilty of confirmation bias. You see life getting old and dying and so you see increased entropy. what about fully formed human beings originating from a bunch of cells? What about snow crystals forming? The laws of thermodynamics tell us complex life would be impossible on this planet if we didnt have an external energy source. But we do , its called the sun. The laws of entropy also state the sun will eventually succumb to entropy and fade and die but thats when it runs out of nuclear fuel and we have a few billion years to go before that happens. In the mean time theres no physcial reason why life cant evolve. did you seriously think all those eminent scientists havent got a clue about basic physics and only a few creationsist do? On your argument on inbreeding , you are assuming a whole new population is created with a few individuals. That is not how it would work. What would happen is a new genetic mutation arises within an existing population. If that mutation leads to improve fitness it will spread through the population and eventually transform it. Animals will change colour by a mutation in the gene that contols pigmentation. this has been observed in pepper moths. the soot of industrial England lent an advantage to darker moths, as industrialisation increased the moth population changed into darker colours. This is very well doumented.

How do you know what the bible authors intended?

"I agree with you if you are talking about religions. I am referring to discovering the spiritual side of our nature and the relationship with God that follows. " Sorry i really dont understand what this means, perhaps you could elaborate.

Coreece. Im not going to try and critique your defenses of the bible here. In stead Im gong to find encouregment that you are willing to read some books about evolution. May I suggest a few things: 1The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, this gives a very good overview of evolutionary theory. 2 Evolution by Carl Zimmer, this gives a good overview of the history of evolutionary science. The best web site on evolution is: http://www.talkorigins.org/ and I especially reccomend readng this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ last I would reccomend this dvd: http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Boxed-Liam-Neeson-narrator/dp/B00005RG6J I dont expect you to change your views on religion, but trust me an education is a wonderful things.

"Is it still not "The Theory of Evolution" How than is it fact." Evolution is fact, natural selection is a theory. perhaps if you studied a bit more of evolutionary biology you would know that. Evolution is fact because we an observe both directly and indirectly. Darwins theory of natural selection is a theory that explains evolution, this theory has survived numerous tests and so is considered the best explanation for the fact of evolution. "As I understand it, Scientists have said that the discoveries in regards to Habilis and Erectus suggest that they have lived at the same time. This is contrary to what was previously believed. Though this may not absolutely crush the theory, is it still not a theory? " Whether habilis and erectus lived at the same time affects our conclusion as to the path of our branching evolutionary tree, it does not affect our conclusion that there is a tree. Just as if you found your parents were not you genetic parents (if you were adopted) it wouldnt affect your conclusion that you had genetic parents, just change your view as to who they are.

"The examples you give are quite noble, however if a scientist studying evolution is not being true to science and passing off conjecture as fact, than perhaps it would be better for society if he or she spent their time on more practical things like "discovering a cure for Aids." Evolution is accepted by nearly all people in related fields as fact becuase the evidence for it is overwehleming. I notice how you doge our questions on your micro /macro evolution, perhaps you could answer them next time? As far as curing Aids goes, it appears to me you dont understand how scientific research progresses. One of the girls in my dance class has just finished her PHD, specialising in Aids research . One thing that makes her job so diffcult is that the virus evolves so quikly . An understanding of evolution is essential to understanding viruses. Moreover applied research usually grows as we make progress in pure research. Those that think we should end pure research in favour of only apllied research will be biting the hand that feeds them.