Things you hate because they're pointless and stupid -.-

[Stevinator]

Entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system!


OMG!

Fascinating. Thank you for posting this.

that's the part you remember?

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Yeah, cos he done used sooo many woooords, dood.

[Sergeant]

Anything electronic that doesn't either have a power supply and power cord, or doesn't come with rechargeable batteries.

A game console with no hard drive and only 4 Gb flash memory standard. I'm looking at you Xbox 360.

[kestegs]

Not to beat the dead horse, but for the Science v. Religion thing, here is a good video that makes my point:



It's a snippet out of a longer, more detailed, and much better, 40 minute speech:



If you've got the time or the interest, I suggest just watching the second video to get the full thing without having to re-watch 10 minutes of it.

Watched this. A bit late, but it's been on my list and I finally got to it

Interesting for sure.

The first part kinda made me think that he was on my side, despite the title.

He talks a lot but doesn't actually use a lot of science in his reasoning, which I thought was odd. It's more about how scientists think about stuff.

In the end I think he more proves my point than his, stating that no intelligent designer would create the human body or world that is illogical (like by being able to choke on food, or having so many deadly elements around) If anything this points to the fact that evolution didn't work the way they say it does. Shouldn't we have evolved into something more logical if we really did evolve?

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

kegs, evolution doesn't make species the best that it could possibly be. It makes species the best that it needs to be to survive and procreate.
And for that matter, it doesn't "make" the species at all, in an active or additive fashion. For instance. it doesn't add wings to a bird or insect - mutation (and millennia of time) does that. Evolution simply weeds out the examples of a species that fail to breed or fail to produce young that are capable of breeding. Birds such as swallows or eagles born without wings won't fly and so won't breed - of course, some birds (ostriches for example) have evolved alternate strategies, or an even smaller populations survive in isolated locations where there is no significant predation (dodos, until recently). You can see then how evolution resulting in birds that fly, which can be a survival strategy and also how in resulted in birds that can no longer fly (where it isn't). If flying doesn't give a survival advantage, it is no longer important in terms of the gene pool. In fact, maintaining unnecessary flight capability may be counter-survival, in that the energy cost of maintaining flight muscles, etc may become prohibitive.

The human race was able to survive the perils of choking and other such things. As long as you don't choke to death before you breed, the "choking gene" runs through the species quite happily. The acid test: Is the breed strong enough to procreate?
Nothing that happens (biologically speaking) after procreation is important to the species, unless it works to ensure further procreation (parental care) or unless it works against it (cannibalism, over-population, etc). Thus when people say that cancer, Alzheimer's, etc, is a counter-survival trait that confounds "the theory of evolution", they are missing the point. The species has already passed on the genes of cancer, etc to the next generation. Too late for evolutionary pressures to take effect.

[Technomancer]

+1 to Loz. I think one of the most important ideas to take away from that video is that science is science, but when religion gets involved, science stops. It's not even so much about "Oh, religion is teh stoopid!" or that it's wrong even, that's not really the point. When scientists start attributing something to god, they mentally retire and give up. Now, what happens when someone who is an aspiring scientist does that from day one? They'll likely not even bother pursuing serious science, cause why bother when god is already the answer?

Also, the part about the ancient Muslim world is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. When I see people demonizing and disregarding science based on religious beliefs or "worldviews", I have visions of the dark ages happening all over again.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Yes, and for the benefit of Steve, I agree with Techno as to what the central theme of the lecture was.
It is a call to arms against the idea that scientists (also the general populace, but mainly scientists) are saying, "We just don't know, it is because God made it so". It's not so different from that old cliché in a fairy story or fantasy, "A wizard did it". That is sloppy story/scriptwriting; and throwing up your hands in defeat saying "It's the God factor" is just sloppy science (or no science at all).

I don't espouse any religion nor do I consider myself an atheist. I just believe that whether you believe in God or not, you shouldn't stop looking for answers just because you think he might exist.

Also, "Entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage works". Still funny.

+1 on a fear of a new Dark Ages returning. *shudder*

[kestegs]

kegs, evolution doesn't make species the best that it could possibly be. It makes species the best that it needs to be to survive and procreate.
And for that matter, it doesn't "make" the species at all, in an active or additive fashion. For instance. it doesn't add wings to a bird or insect - mutation (and millennia of time) does that. Evolution simply weeds out the examples of a species that fail to breed or fail to produce young that are capable of breeding. Birds such as swallows or eagles born without wings won't fly and so won't breed - of course, some birds (ostriches for example) have evolved alternate strategies, or an even smaller populations survive in isolated locations where there is no significant predation (dodos, until recently). You can see then how evolution resulting in birds that fly, which can be a survival strategy and also how in resulted in birds that can no longer fly (where it isn't). If flying doesn't give a survival advantage, it is no longer important in terms of the gene pool. In fact, maintaining unnecessary flight capability may be counter-survival, in that the energy cost of maintaining flight muscles, etc may become prohibitive.

The human race was able to survive the perils of choking and other such things. As long as you don't choke to death before you breed, the "choking gene" runs through the species quite happily. The acid test: Is the breed strong enough to procreate?
Nothing that happens (biologically speaking) after procreation is important to the species, unless it works to ensure further procreation (parental care) or unless it works against it (cannibalism, over-population, etc). Thus when people say that cancer, Alzheimer's, etc, is a counter-survival trait that confounds "the theory of evolution", they are missing the point. The species has already passed on the genes of cancer, etc to the next generation. Too late for evolutionary pressures to take effect.

I think you've got a lot if evolutionary theory wrong there. Or maybe that's the way people actually see it, I don't know. I'm no expert on it. I would further explain what I disagree, but I don't really see that leading to any productive discussion.

+1 to Loz. I think one of the most important ideas to take away from that video is that science is science, but when religion gets involved, science stops. It's not even so much about "Oh, religion is teh stoopid!" or that it's wrong even, that's not really the point. When scientists start attributing something to god, they mentally retire and give up. Now, what happens when someone who is an aspiring scientist does that from day one? They'll likely not even bother pursuing serious science, cause why bother when god is already the answer?

Also, the part about the ancient Muslim world is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. When I see people demonizing and disregarding science based on religious beliefs or "worldviews", I have visions of the dark ages happening all over again.

This I can mostly agree with. I'm not one to say we should stop encouraging scientists or testing of things by any means. I'm not one to say we should just say God is the answer and turn the research off. I honestly think that the more we learn the more that the evidence will point to intelligent design.

Yes, and for the benefit of Steve, I agree with Techno as to what the central theme of the lecture was.
It is a call to arms against the idea that scientists (also the general populace, but mainly scientists) are saying, "We just don't know, it is because God made it so". It's not so different from that old cliché in a fairy story or fantasy, "A wizard did it". That is sloppy story/scriptwriting; and throwing up your hands in defeat saying "It's the God factor" is just sloppy science (or no science at all).

I don't espouse any religion nor do I consider myself an atheist. I just believe that whether you believe in God or not, you shouldn't stop looking for answers just because you think he might exist.

Also, "Entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage works". Still funny.

+1 on a fear of a new Dark Ages returning. *shudder*

I don't know why I quoted this, I've got nothing to say here

+1 to the sewage reference though, that was funny.

[Dredd]

I honestly think that the more we learn the more that the evidence will point to intelligent design.

Are you a young earth or old earth creationist?

[boogyman19946]

I think you've got a lot if evolutionary theory wrong there. Or maybe that's the way people actually see it, I don't know. I'm no expert on it. I would further explain what I disagree, but I don't really see that leading to any productive discussion.

I believe he might have mistaken evolution with natural selection, which seems to me people often consider to be the same thing. Evolution is what changes the inherited characters over time (mutations) while natural selection determines which traits get to be passed down the line. Talking about evolution and evolution by natural selection are two different ideas