pirana

The 2nd law of thermo states that the entropy of the UNIVERSE is always constant are increasing. It's ok to have localized decreases in entropy. You'll need to confirm so I know precisely what you are saying here. Did you mean "or increasing"? If so, then yes, I understand that. Overall, the level of entropy is constantly increasing, with pockets of decreasing entropy. (With of course all energy being conserved). Because of the expansion of the Universe, I would also contend that the level of order and level of entropy can not be stable, or remain the same. We are constantly expanding, cooling, loosing order, and experiencing the spreading out of all energy over an ever increasing amount of space. New term: Universal Cooling. Al Gore won't like that. My assertion is that life always represents one of those pockets, and that without life, the pockets will eventually disappear as the Universe ends in an inevitable heat death. Because Life is the Universe's only means of self-recognition, it's Universal Mind, once order and energy are so spread out that entropy is nearly complete, there will be no recognition of the Universe, followed by it outright going out of existence when the temperature hits absolute zero. I've read this might be imposible, that in a finite but ever-expanding unbounded Universe, the temperature would constantly be decreasing but never actually reach absolutre zero. In that scenario the Universe never ends; but just keeps getting bigger, thinner, colder, and less ordered (like it matters once the average distance between elementary particles reaches a billion light years or so). Yes, it is a slow day. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You're alluding to that axiom that given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen, will happen. Put in that corner, I'd probably go back to saying impossible; only because I think the dynamic nature of nature will not allow for life forms that can not unconciously adapt. Those equations for determining the likelihood of life are pretty meaningless, nothing short of mental masturbation since some of the variables have such a huge range and are essentially unknown. The entire Universe is looking to be very dynamic (over the long haul anyway) and no matter where life were to form, without something like DNA or a similar means to effect change that supercedes the death of individuals, it will not survive. There is no place in the Universe (based on current knowledge) that is so static that an entity could survive forever without being equipped for adaptation. Life IS about change and the creation of pockets of order. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That's a straw man you have created. Most ID guys belief's are not that simple. While I "believe" in ID, I prefer not to debate it as I'm not adequately equipped to do so. Oh yeah. The I-don't-understand-it-so-it-must-be-God arguement. ID is creationism in a very thin disguise. Even the authors of the books that have fed the movement had to admit so in court when they had to turn over draft copies in which they had scratched out creationism and inserted ID. It was a major blow to their claim that they were not inserting their religious beliefs into the classroom. Funny comment I read about that: They do not claim that it was necessarily God who was behind creation, just someone with the skill set to create and put in motion the entire Universe. I imagine that to be a pretty short stack of resumes. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I dunno, does fire qualify? It grows, reproduces, has activity, metabolizes fuel and oxygen . . . So, clearly, just that alone isn't "life" as we know it and nothing we'd recognize as "life". A virus? How about that? Asexual reproduction via single or double strand DNA or RNA? I really don't like the idea of new life forms proving or disproving creationism or God when it's unclear what is or isn't "life". Another requirement: Creating or facilitating order from disorder. Life is entropy in reverse. The Universe is basically entropic, except for the influence of Life. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Those are the exceptions, and they must be cared for, the extent to which would need to depend on some sort of reasonable critieria. That's where I'm sure a lot of the disagreement would occur - or as they say, the devil is in the details. I'm not unsympathetic to those truly in need and incapable. I have a cousin with mental health problems who got thrown in the street (literally) when Reagan decided that most crazy people should have a go of it on their own. I also have a brother with cerebral palsy who lives partially on the dole. Then again, even in my own little world, at least half the people I've met who are getting some form of assistance don't really NEED it and have turned it into a permanent lifestyle. I know of 3 families personally that brought new lives into this world just for the sake of increasing their dole. Despicable. I concede that there are people truly not capable; the rest need to: 1 - Get off their asses. 2 - Suffer the consequences of their action (or inaction). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Please post what the official take on social welfare is then. Feel free to post a citation. So you think if we cut all social spending, unemployment, medicare, medicaide, social security, disability, and any and all social programs and somehow privatize them we would be a better nation. [nighingale gets in a paralizing car wreck tomorrow and has a 180 degree paradigm shift fatser than Chris Reeves]. Well this is the theme of my thread, which everyone seems to ignore. Hoover thought like a Libertarian. So what is your answer to the elderly, the sick, the disabled? Do we have trucks that go around and scoop up the bodies? Then your kids see this and it ... let's say, "alters them." Actually it depraves them as the word, "humanity" takes on a whole new meaning. Libertarians mean well, they just don;t think things thru. PROBLEM: Too much spending on social programs SOLUTION: Cut all spending and wear blinders and respirators AGREED, on to the next problem. It is pure avoidance to ignore social problems and they would turn into violent confrontations in many cases when people get sick / hungry enoughm so crime would be huge. It's really a ridiculous approach. The Libertarians are considered very obscure for their take on social welfare, IMO, and might be taken more seriously if they remedied that. As in foreign forces? It's also to ensure minimal economic stability, protect the children, care for the elderly, etc.... I don't recall anyone calling to cut ALL spending. But it needs to be reasonable, we need to be cool and objective on the criteria, we need to seriously go after the abusers. Like I said, being on the dole should be uncomfortable enough to motivate anyone who can get off to get off. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Really! Next thing you know they'll be calling us humanitarians. That's what we're talking about here, so why the conflict with your logic? Did I ever write that Hoover was a SOB becuase he didn't buy everyone Cadillacs? I can't understand why you contrast here, unless you don't knwo a lot about the Great Depression. You understand there was no unemployment, no social services anywhere - people were litterally, litterally dying in the streets. It's kind of moot for any of us to comment on that era since I don't think any of us can even fathom what it was like, just what we read. These weren't lazy people, these were you and me. I don't think you can fathom the gravity of the Great Depression. I wouldn't disagree with you so much on the situation back then. I didn't live thru it, but heard lots of 1st hand stories from Grandma. There were lots of scammers back then though too. They were just scamming other citizens directly versus taking it from them via taxation. Our government just made it easier by institutionalizing welfare to the degree that they have. In that sense, I think the solution to a tough situation ended up becoming a much worse situation than the problem it intended to solve. By taking charity public, they made it very eay for the public to abuse charity. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well, COMPLETE socialism will solve all problems. It would look something like a zoo with all the people cared for like pets (or maybe livestock). All you'd have to do was eat and poop, some keeper takes care of all your other needs. The only drawback is that they also will be deciding your needs for you. I don't like the thought of that kind of arrangement, and I don't know where we'd get keepers. Aliens maybe? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That's some good stuff, but the hard-core fundamentalists (is there any other type of fundamentalist) have a pat answer for that kind of logic. They claim that God set things up to look that way as a test of our faith. This approach that any evidence you can cite was planted via supernatural powers makes logic and critical thinking useless in the debate. There was a time when anyone taking this approach was summarily and automatically reclassified by me as wacko. Then a friend of mine who was involved in a very serious accident (23 days in a coma, permanent but not too severe brain injury, reduced cognitive ability) went from being a card carrying skeptic to the Lord being his savior. I now understand how life events, be they traumatic ones or the building of little tiny increments of belief, can cause a person to go down certain paths. Now when I see this approach, I just watch to see to what extent the person has suspended their ability to think analytically and use logic. If it appears to pervade all aspects of their life, I stay away. (Who knows what kind of crazy shit they might do). If it is something they disengage just for the sake of accomodating their religious beliefs, then it doesn't bother me, . . . much. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I don't like this one Bill. Say, for instance, that we find a totally unique lifeform on Mars that doesn't use DNA as we know it; would that prove God exists? I would think rather the opposite. What about microbes on meteorites found in Antarctica? If i recall correctly, We as "carbon based" life forms on earth, can only expect to find either coarbon or silicone based life forms elsewhere. At least according to our limited understanding of the table of elements. So a silicone based life form wi'll not doubt have a differning DNA type molocule A life form without DNA, or something that works very much like DNA, is extremely unlikely. (Being a good scientist - I will not say impossible). That kind of biological rigidity, without the ability for significant change over generations would be doomed. Unless it lived in a place where nothing changes. There is no such place - the Universe is a very dynamic thing. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

actually, you will see a bell curve, a normative distribution for intelligence for the 100 CEs and 100 bricklayers you spoke of. again, intelligence, like heighth, is naturally distributed that way, even among homogenious groups such as in your example. Now, the group of 100 CEs or 100 bricklayers will not be as widely dispersed (i.e. the standard deviation will be smaller), but you'll still get a bell shaped curve. Both will yield a bell-shaped curve, but they will not share the same horizontal location on your graph. i wasn't claiming they would. re-read my post... w/i their homogeneous group, intelligence will be, as you've acknowledged, distributed normatively. if you want to use compare the intelligence of such disperate careers, you're essentially comparing apples to oranges. Agreed. My error. But what is the point of pointing out that within a homogenous group there will be a bell curve. That's not interesting at all. What's interesting is the distinctions between groups, and most importantly finding out the reasons for the difference. Don't ask me why it is important, it is too late in the day for that. Must go now. Good thread. Thanx. don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth, and tasteless topics, are not suppressed. x I think I made the same mistake responding to rehmwa. I thought he was alluding to all homogenous groups falling on the SAME curve. I now take it that he meant any homogenous group will take the shape of A curve. Nevermind. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

actually, you will see a bell curve, a normative distribution for intelligence for the 100 CEs and 100 bricklayers you spoke of. again, intelligence, like heighth, is naturally distributed that way, even among homogenious groups such as in your example. Now, the group of 100 CEs or 100 bricklayers will not be as widely dispersed (i.e. the standard deviation will be smaller), but you'll still get a bell shaped curve. Both will yield a bell-shaped curve, but they will not share the same horizontal location on your graph. i wasn't claiming they would. re-read my post... w/i their homogeneous group, intelligence will be, as you've acknowledged, distributed normatively. if you want to use compare the intelligence of such disperate careers, you're essentially comparing apples to oranges. Agreed. My error. But what is the point of pointing out that within a homogenous group there will be a bell curve. That's not interesting at all. What's interesting is the distinctions between groups, and most importantly finding out the reasons for the difference. Don't ask me why it is important, it is too late in the day for that. Must go now. Good thread. Thanx. don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth, and tasteless topics, are not suppressed. x " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Last time I looked you do not need a license to slew venomous garbage in Speakers Corner. In fact, to complain about lack of decorum here is humorous in itself. For Christ's sake, it seems in some threads half the posts start out with "What the fuck?" I would think all the sensitive people have already gone elsewhere. Well pardon me for thinking it a worthy cause to expect people to actually at human. I'll try to remember to not waste any energy encouraging people like yourself to make this place any less rancorous. I do not believe myself to be rancorous. I'm just very direct and honest. I usually keep it very objective and almost never call people bad names. I'm just saying that my experience here is that to expect whatever it is you expect is probably not realistic. I've never been called rancorous before. THAT'S BEER! " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

actually, you will see a bell curve, a normative distribution for intelligence for the 100 CEs and 100 bricklayers you spoke of. again, intelligence, like heighth, is naturally distributed that way, even among homogenious groups such as in your example. Now, the group of 100 CEs or 100 bricklayers will not be as widely dispersed (i.e. the standard deviation will be smaller), but you'll still get a bell shaped curve. Both will yield a bell-shaped curve, but they will not share the same horizontal location on your graph. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

ahh - the achilles heel of polling statistics. How do you tell if the sample is biased from the start? It usually is. And when it's not, the pollster is and he hides the interactions (such as he only polled low income families on the religious side while collecting all the 'non-religious' data from the college debate team, etc) collinearity is a bitch - But NGale's post said 'religious' not just Christian, so easier to just reference that as well. (I agree with you, there likely no statistical difference int he IQ disties from an unbiased sampling of christians vs a similarly collected sample of non-religious types - all other things like income, education, location, etc tracked and correctly accounted for in the analysis.) Wrong. These studies have been going on for decades, and with very good controls in place. The results are very credible. None of the things you mentioned (income, education, location, religion) are evenly distributed on a curve of IQ. Again, speaking strictly of correlation, not causation. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

There you go again with hope and desire meaning more than facts and evidence. So all the studies are flawed because you don't like the results? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'd like to know where you're getting your data, as mine indicates that this isn't the case. Burnham P. Beckwit, in his article "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith" (1986) summarized the major studies done on religiousity and IQ. All but four of the forty-three polls listed support the conclusion that native intelligence varies inversely with degree of religious faith; i.e., that, other factors being equal, the more intelligent a person is, the less religious he/she is. His summary: Sixteen studies of the correlation between individual measures of student intelligence and religiosity, all but three of which reported an inverse correlation. Five studies reporting that student bodies with high average IQ and/or SAT scores are far less religious than lower-scoring student bodies. Three studies reporting that geniuses (IQ 3+ standard deviations above average) are much less religious than the general public. Seven studies reporting that highly successful persons are much less religious in belief than are others; and eight old and four new Gallup polls revealing that college alumni (average IQ about one standard deviation above average) are much less religious in belief than are grade-school pollees. Other studies: A 1959 study of a group with IQs over 140 found that of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent (Terman). Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important." A 1968 study (Southern and Plant) of Mensa members found that they had fewer religious beliefs than the typical American college alumnus or adult. A survey (Larson and Witham, 1998) of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief". I was going to post a much stronger opinion of Micros claim, but didn't feel like digging up the numbers. Thanks for digging and posting. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

QuoteWell, if the last one was the R, no wonder you tested so high... you were tested on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for CHILDREN (Revised) And another thing, Einstein, the mean for most intelligence assessments is 100, w/ a standard deviation of either 10, 15 or 16 ( as in the case of the locus classicus, the Stanford Benet). Two standard deviations above the mean would never be more than 132, which would place you above 95% of the population in terms of intelligence (highly unlikely, IMO). If you scored a 150 in any of true intelligence tests, you've either cheated or you're smarter than Einstein himself. Either that or the test you took was an IQ test out of Cosmo. Quote As that one kid on the Simpson's would say: "HA HA!" Also, I'm pretty certain 132 puts a person right at the bottom edge of the 98th percentile, as it is precisely the score a person must achieve to qualify for Mensa. Anything 132 or above puts you in the top 2%. I think a 150 makes you a 1 in 10,000 or so. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Oh, now that gives me a great idea. The world's Greatest Black Velvet Painting (that will be it's official title): Jesus, Elvis, and a bunch of dogs playing poker, . . and Jesus is cheating! " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Most religions, and certainly all the big organized ones, do not allow for critical thinking about their beliefs. They used to burn people for it, or at least jail them for life. They do not do that anymore, but it still pisses them off that a disciplined approach to discovering the true nature of the Universe came along after they had already posted all the answers; and has largely relegated them to matters of faith (which is where they should have stayed to begin with). Quite the coincidence you mention one of my favorites of all time. I was just reading about Bogey this morning. Is that a Miracle? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Pity the religious man who can't cope with reality. Pity the non-religious who don't realize that God IS reality. Pity the uh, . . . the uh, . . . . Rats! Can't come up with anything cutesy at the moment. So I'll just ask why anyone would think a grateful atheist doesn't have anyone to thank. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Then why keep reading it? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Last time I looked you do not need a license to slew venomous garbage in Speakers Corner. In fact, to complain about lack of decorum here is humorous in itself. For Christ's sake, it seems in some threads half the posts start out with "What the fuck?" I would think all the sensitive people have already gone elsewhere. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

There are direct correlations between IQ and many character traits. Don't want to argue about it, but don't fool yourself into thinking that all people from all of the possible categories you could create (such as religious fundamentalists) are all perfectly distributed on the IQ curve. NOTE: This is a statement of correlation, not causality. But yes, even highly intelligent people believe some pretty absurd stuff. A good read on this is Shermer's Why People Believe Wierd Things, or something like that. In fact, the last chapter is titled Why Intelligent People Believe Wierd Things. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

My thoughts exactly. If they thought their mothers would buy that tripe, every single pregnant teenager would be using that line. Of note is that it worked for her. Her mom must have been a real dufus. If that is blasphemy and I am evil, then God strike me down right here, right now. Still waiting. How about now? Still here. (Humming while waiting for lightning bolt). Gotta go, work to do. Strike me down later. Not during rush hour though, don't want to take out any innocents. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley