They want to charge you for using the sun now

timselectric said:

Better here, than in a useful thread. lol

Click to expand...

Yeah, and the OP deleted their account. At this point, the thread is fair game, lol.

I enjoy these conversations with people who know what they're talking about, and don't resort to name calling.

A.Justice said:

You're right. I should have said able to reproduce, and gather its own energy. The things that would take to "sustain" the species into another generation, is I guess closer to what I'm trying to say.

That does raise the question what the first organism fed off of. Even if they were sulfer, or other weird compound eating, why would they have suddenly switched to what would basically be cannibalism of its own species?

Click to expand...

Evolutionary changes have a number of causes. With simple organisms, environment is probably the biggest reason, then random mutations from radiation.
With higher forms of life, environment is still at the top, but probably very closely followed by the predator/prey relationship. Radiation doesn't play as big of a roll because higher forms of life evolve repair mechanisms.

Did you know that oak trees communicate with each other? Ever notice that acorns only fall heavily every so many years and when they do, all the trees do it together? It's an evolutionary adaptation of the oak tree that takes advantage of the squirrels, and does it in such a way that the acorns are spread further from each other. I was stunned when I read that little bit of information.

Intelligent design? Nope.. if intelligent design was true, I don't think evolution would be required.

MurphyGuy said:

Evolutionary changes have a number of causes. With simple organisms, environment is probably the biggest reason, then random mutations from radiation.
With higher forms of life, environment is still at the top, but probably very closely followed by the predator/prey relationship. Radiation doesn't play as big of a roll because higher forms of life evolve repair mechanisms.

Did you know that oak trees communicate with each other? Ever notice that acorns only fall heavily every so many years and when they do, all the trees do it together? It's an evolutionary adaptation of the oak tree that takes advantage of the squirrels, and does it in such a way that the acorns are spread further from each other. I was stunned when I read that little bit of information.

Click to expand...

I hadn't heard of that specifically, but I knew there was different ways that plants could communicate. There really are some incredible things going on in nature. Like I said before, I don't disagree with evolution at some level, I just don't think the initial "spark" was random chance.

MurphyGuy said:

Intelligent design? Nope.. if intelligent design was true, I don't think evolution would be required.

Click to expand...

I just see that in a different way I guess. I look at it like a computer engineer designing AI. He puts the software together, and has to let it learn on its own, but will step in at crucial points and make "administrative" changes to make sure the system keeps functioning, and then let it return to it's "natural" path.

It almost fits the simulation theory perfectly as well. We're all in a simulation, "God" is the software designer. Unknowable, all-powerful, omnipotent, and exists outside of and before our time. It actually fits pretty well if you think about it.

A.Justice said:

I hadn't heard of that specifically, but I knew there was different ways that plants could communicate. There really are some incredible things going on in nature. Like I said before, I don't disagree with evolution at some level, I just don't think the initial "spark" was random chance.

I just see that in a different way I guess. I look at it like a computer engineer designing AI. He puts the software together, and has to let it learn on its own, but will step in at crucial points and make "administrative" changes to make sure the system keeps functioning, and then let it return to it's "natural" path.

It almost fits the simulation theory perfectly as well. We're all in a simulation, "God" is the software designer. Unknowable, all-powerful, omnipotent, and exists outside of and before our time. It actually fits pretty well if you think about it.

Click to expand...

If you think there is a "god", or an intelligent designer, because you refuse to believe complex life could arise through natural chance, then I have to ask: Where did the "god" or intelligent designer come from? Who created the intelligent designer?

Logical analysis is basically mathematics, and we learned in algebra 101 that whatever we do to one side of an equation to solve it, we must do to the other side as well. The same exact thing is true for any logical reasoning when solving a problem.

So if you can't reconcile the random occurrence of life happening on its own, how do you reconcile a god or intelligent designer existing?

The only possible answer is "the intelligent designer has always existed", which makes absolutely no sense, and is the irrational part of religion I mentioned.

MurphyGuy said:

If you think there is a "god", or an intelligent designer, because you refuse to believe complex life could arise through natural chance, then I have to ask: Where did the "god" or intelligent designer come from? Who created the intelligent designer?

Logical analysis is basically mathematics, and we learned in algebra 101 that whatever we do to one side of an equation to solve it, we must do to the other side as well. The same exact thing is true for any logical reasoning when solving a problem.

So if you can't reconcile the random occurrence of life happening on its own, how do you reconcile a god or intelligent designer existing?

The only possible answer is "the intelligent designer has always existed", which makes absolutely no sense, and is the irrational part of religion I mentioned.

Click to expand...

I would say that the intelligent designer has always existed, inside of this "reality" or whatever you want to call it. Anything outside of this reality is, by nature, not comprehendable by things within it.

The cause of the universe had to have happened outside of time, space and material, because it created time, space, and material. Therefore the cause of the universe is timeless and immaterial.

If there's something operating outside of quantum laws, quantum laws and physics can't be used to describe it either. I mean, the entire universe was "created" from nothing right? There had to have been some sort of catalyst, and because that catalyst created time and space, it can't be within time and space.

I would check out some books by William Lane Craig, IIRC it's "Theism, Atheism and Big bang Cosmology" that go into this topic in depth. There's quite literally volumes written on this subject, you seem genuinely interested, it might be worth checking out.

There's also a book called "Case For a Creator" that goes over a lot of interesting stuff like this, I don't necessarily believe everything in the book holds water, but definitely raises a lot of questions. I'm pretty sure the past few things we've been talking about are covered in there, and those guys are professionals, and do a much better job at describing it than I do.

So many books banned....

A.Justice said:

I would say that the intelligent designer has always existed, inside of this "reality" or whatever you want to call it. Anything outside of this reality is, by nature, not comprehendable by things within it.

The cause of the universe had to have happened outside of time, space and material, because it created time, space, and material. Therefore the cause of the universe is timeless and immaterial.

If there's something operating outside of quantum laws, quantum laws and physics can't be used to describe it either. I mean, the entire universe was "created" from nothing right? There had to have been some sort of catalyst, and because that catalyst created time and space, it can't be within time and space.

I would check out some books by William Lane Craig, IIRC it's "Theism, Atheism and Big bang Cosmology" that go into this topic in depth. There's quite literally volumes written on this subject, you seem genuinely interested, it might be worth checking out.

There's also a book called "Case For a Creator" that goes over a lot of interesting stuff like this, I don't necessarily believe everything in the book holds water, but definitely raises a lot of questions. I'm pretty sure the past few things we've been talking about are covered in there, and those guys are professionals, and do a much better job at describing it than I do.

Click to expand...

Postulating on unknown answers to the questions we have is all fine and dandy, but the problem I have with the whole creation path is that it leads to a god, which leads to religion, which leads to the many flavors of human subjugation and other evils.

And that's the crux of it. You postulate a creator, the next guy is telling women to be submissive and trying to baptize everyone.

As I said, we humans are wired to seek answers, but when we can't get good answers, we're gullible enough to accept bad ones.

LeoThomson said:

So many books banned....

Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Ban Books - PEN America

PEN America's report on school book bans offers the most comprehensive look at banned books in the 2021–22 school year, with counting more than 2,500 bans.

pen.org

https://lithub.com/banned-books-teacher-fired-oklahoma/

Click to expand...

Is a book really "banned" when it's just removed from a few school libraries? You can probably order them on Amazon, or find them in the public library without an issue.

In no way do I support the banning of books, but I agree that a line has to be drawn as to what content is available for children in schools. I have two kids, but quite frankly I'm not worried about them reading garbage, because I'd like to think that I've taught them not to believe everything they read, are told, or see on a screen.

MurphyGuy said:

Postulating on unknown answers to the questions we have is all fine and dandy, but the problem I have with the whole creation path is that it leads to a god, which leads to religion, which leads to the many flavors of human subjugation and other evils.

And that's the crux of it. You postulate a creator, the next guy is telling women to be submissive and trying to baptize everyone.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with that 100%. People have a hard time separating things like this, and traditional religion.

I think in some ways, "science" (or pseudoscience, really) is the new religion. People are now using "science for the good of the people" to squash rights and exert control over the populace.

MurphyGuy said:

As I said, we humans are wired to seek answers, but when we can't get good answers, we're gullible enough to accept bad ones.

Click to expand...

I really suggest checking out "Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. It's a set of "brief" interviews with experts on a bunch of different theories for the existence of a creator. It's laid out scientifically, and analytically. It's not a super long book, but there's lots of references to longer texts if you want to go down the rabbit hole like I did.

A.Justice said:

I really suggest checking out "Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. It's a set of "brief" interviews with experts on a bunch of different theories for the existence of a creator. It's laid out scientifically, and analytically. It's not a super long book, but there's lots of references to longer texts if you want to go down the rabbit hole like I did.

Click to expand...

I've probably read a dozen or more of these types of books over the past 15 years and, as I'm sure you know, its all speculation. The authors were all raised with, and indoctrinated into, religious mentalities. Once a young brain is pushed into that, it's damn near impossible to break free of it, and the more they are indoctrinated, the harder it is.

I don't have any problems with speculation, that's were a lot of hard science has to start. But I'm not going to make decisions based on it until something is proved.

Maybe in another decade or so, I might pick up the latest book on the subject to see if anything has changed. For now, I just got done melting my brain with a book called "Something Deeply Hidden Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime by Sean Carroll". If you decide to read it, make sure you have a bottle of aspirin nearby. I basically had to read each chapter 3 times.

A.Justice said:

Is a book really "banned" when it's just removed from a few school libraries?

Click to expand...

Yes. it is banned from the school library.

A.Justice said:

You can probably order them on Amazon, or find them in the public library without an issue.

Click to expand...

And if a teacher posts a link to a library, they get fired.

A.Justice said:

In no way do I support the banning of books, but I agree that a line has to be drawn as to what content is available for children in schools.

Click to expand...

Both can't be true.

A.Justice said:

I have two kids, but quite frankly I'm not worried about them reading garbage, because I'd like to think that I've taught them not to believe everything they read, are told, or see on a screen.

Click to expand...

I applaud you for teaching kids to be critical, I can recommend "God is not great", worthwhile for those willing to question the premise that "God is great", it won't stop kids from believing in god(s), but it might reduce some of the crazy claims we see in religious extremists everywhere.


And we should be careful how we teach, if we want to teach heterosexual relationships in the classroom, we should also be teaching all the other possible relationships as being "normal". I have a friend who tried (but luckily failed) to commit suicide as a teenager because she was being bullied for her sexuality. But things like gender change surgery might be better decided upon at the age of consent.

A.Justice said:

I think in some ways, "science" (or pseudoscience, really) is the new religion. People are now using "science for the good of the people" to squash rights and exert control over the populace.

Click to expand...

I agree on pseudo science, but not every one agrees what that means. For example we have known since the late 1800's that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yet many religious conservatives, especially in the US, call that pseudo science. And we urgently do need to make rules on the where we dump the waste products from the burning of fossil fuels. Religion on the other hand has a history of squashing rights, the reason the Pilgrims fled England was because of religious persecution, we see religious nonsense in Iran, Israel and even in India.

A.Justice said:

I really suggest checking out "Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. It's a set of "brief" interviews with experts on a bunch of different theories for the existence of a creator. It's laid out scientifically, and analytically. It's not a super long book, but there's lots of references to longer texts if you want to go down the rabbit hole like I did.

Click to expand...

There is no testable theory that proves or disproves the existence of any of the creator gods or any of the gods for that matter, so the correct term would be "hypothesis". Having said that, there might well be a "creator", after all technology like CRISPR and it's successors, will lead to the creation of "improved humans". And if it is taken far enough, possibly no longer even recognisable as humans we know today. The same could become true for Artificial Intelligence. Imagine we took this to perfection without destroying ourselves in the process, what will the world look like?

LeoThomson said:

Yes. it is banned from the school library.

Click to expand...

By that definition, an item would be "banned" if they didn't sell it on Amazon. If you can still legally obtain it, it's not banned. I think some of these articles are using the term "banned books" as a hot button word to get people fired up.

LeoThomson said:

And if a teacher posts a link to a library, they get fired.

Click to expand...

That sounds pretty shitty, I don't know anything about that.

LeoThomson said:

Both can't be true.

Click to expand...

I would prefer that the school library doesn't stock adult fiction "smut" novels for kids under 18. It's the same reason I don't keep erotica in my living room.

You don't think there should be ANY restriction on what they stock in children's libraries at public school, none at all? I'd like to see the original anarchist cookbook, as well as the CIAs declassified kitchen bomb making materials at every elementary school if that's the case, maybe we could even throw in some violent religious propaganda as well.

Like I said, I don't support the banning of any books, or the censorship of speech in any way. What I'm saying is that there's a difference between what reading material should be available to young children, more or less without parental consent, and what a consenting adult should be able to find at a library or online.

I think the discrepancy here is over the definition of the word "ban", I guess I see a difference between taking a book out of a school, and having it completely removed from circulation and print everywhere.

A.Justice said:

By that definition, an item would be "banned" if they didn't sell it on Amazon.

Click to expand...

Indeed, if amazon banned sellers from selling it, it would be banned on Amazon.

A.Justice said:

If you can still legally obtain it, it's not banned.

Click to expand...

The Marshall University Libraries, which conduct research on banned books in the United States, have defined a banned book as one that has been "removed from a library, classroom, etc."

A.Justice said:

I think some of these articles are using the term "banned books" as a hot button word to get people fired up.

Click to expand...

A.Justice said:

That sounds pretty shitty, I don't know anything about that.

Click to expand...

It is, on top of that librarians have been threatened with violence as well.

A.Justice said:

I would prefer that the school library doesn't stock adult fiction "smut" novels for kids under 18. It's the same reason I don't keep erotica in my living room.

Click to expand...

"Smut" is in the eye of the beholder, in Iran a woman was beaten to death by the morality police because she did not wear a head scarf.

A.Justice said:

You don't think there should be ANY restriction on what they stock in children's libraries at public school, none at all?

Click to expand...

If kids are curious, we should encourage them to learn about it, under adult supervision.

A.Justice said:

I'd like to see the original anarchist cookbook, as well as the CIAs declassified kitchen bomb making materials at every elementary school if that's the case, maybe we could even throw in some violent religious propaganda as well.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge since it came out 50 years ago, the recipes used from the "anarchist cookbook" killed fewer people than (people with) guns killed in a single month and nothing is done about guns. If you want to ban extreme violence and rape, there are a lot of books to ban and you could start with the bible.

A.Justice said:

Like I said, I don't support the banning of any books, or the censorship of speech in any way.

Click to expand...

But you do, you keep porn away from your kids (I don't have any in the house), but our kids will see it in school. I remember I saw my first playboy in grade 4 and found it quite boring. The only exiting thing at the time was that it was "not allowed"

A.Justice said:

What I'm saying is that there's a difference between what reading material should be available to young children, more or less without parental consent, and what a consenting adult should be able to find at a library or online.

Click to expand...

Kids will find those books if they want to, if you normalize heterosexual relationships, you also have to normalize all the other relationships as you don't want kids to pick on others because they have two daddies. Want to keep heterosexual relationships out of the classroom as well?

A.Justice said:

I think the discrepancy here is over the definition of the word "ban", I guess I see a difference between taking a book out of a school, and having it completely removed from circulation and print everywhere.

Click to expand...

Yes, we see it differently. I am looking for a world where it is ok for people to be different, I think we can agree we both want kids to be curious and encourage them to think for themselves and become curious and responsible adults. How can we do that if we do not encourage them to ask questions about life and the universe, even the uncomfortable ones?

Maybe I am more comfortable in my sexuality (heterosexual male) and that makes it easier for me to answer my kids questions truthfully in an age appropriate way as my parents did with me.

A.Justice said:

I think the discrepancy here is over the definition of the word "ban", I guess I see a difference between taking a book out of a school, and having it completely removed from circulation and print everywhere.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge and understanding, the US Government does not have the authority to ban a book from being printed and distributed. That would kind of violate the 1st amendment in a big way.

MurphyGuy said:

To my knowledge and understanding, the US Government does not have the authority to ban a book from being printed and distributed. That would kind of violate the 1st amendment in a big way.

Click to expand...

What would happen if Trump had included the secret documents in a book, would the government have been able to prevent the publication?

LeoThomson said:

What would happen if Trump had included the secret documents in a book, would the government have been able to prevent the publication?

Click to expand...

I don't think freedom of speech extends to national security secrets.