Saturday, May 28, 2011

FactOfEvolution



Evolution

Variation

#1 - Variation exists in all populations.
#2 - Some of that variation is heritable
#3 - Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
#4 - Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "Crossing Over" during meiosis, which alters the sequences of base pairs on a chromosome.
#5 - Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replicating process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations to alleles in a gene pool.
#6 - The recombinations and errors produce a tenancy for successively increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population


Selection

#7 - Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
#8 - Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
#9 - Unrepresentative sampling which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles can occur in populations for reasons other then survival/reproduction advantages, a process known as "genetic drift".
#10 - Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes i the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population


Speciation

#11 - Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favour" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
#12 - A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion to variations thereafter.


Sufficiency

#13 - The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time
#14 - Over the time frame from the late Hadean (3.8Bya) to present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on Earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct forms indirectly observed in the fossil record.


The above is what Evolution IS
If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen observations/facts.

Which one is it?
Provide evidence that any of the above are incorrect.



The Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origins.

Just like,
The Theory of Gravity predicts the amount of force as a result of universal gravitational constant x of mass of the object, divided by the radius squared.

Yet, it doesn't explain where the mass comes from.

While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologists and frequently studied in conjuction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry, ogranic chemistry and bio-mechanics, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knewledge about the origins of life on earth.

It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things - although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish "living" from "non-living" (In regards to Organics compounds/molecules)


Source: Image From Reddit

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Naturalism


Naturalism

Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it.

Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us.

Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself.

So we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility.

By understanding consciousness, choice, and even our highest capacities as materially based, naturalism re-enchants the physical world, allowing us to be at home in the universe.

Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust.

You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time.

They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode.

Stars died so that you could be here today.


Lawrence Krauss
Naturalism shows our full connection to the world and others, it leads to an ethics of compassion, and it gives us far greater control over our circumstances.

Everything we are and do is completely connected to the rest of the world. Our bodies and minds are shaped in their entirety by conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding, natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself.

We are therefore entirely at home in the physical universe.

Some might conclude from this that naturalism reduces human beings to mere mechanisms, mere automatons, but this doesn’t follow. What follows is that the physical universe has produced, in us, marvelously complex and adaptive organisms, with the capacity for self-reflection, wonder, suffering, and joy.

"we are a way for the universe to know itself"

Carl Sagan
Far from mechanizing humanity, naturalism re-enchants the physical world by showing how consciousness and choice don’t involve supernatural processes. They are natural processes, understandable by science. Amazingly enough, physical existence produces all these intricate phenomena quite nicely on its own.

Naturalism is premised on taking science as our way of knowing about the world, not tradition, intuition, sacred texts or pronouncements.

By illuminating the causal connections between phenomena, science inevitably unifies what it discovers into a single, natural, multifaceted whole.

If we take science seriously with regard to ourselves and our behavior, we are led to the conclusion that human beings are fully included in the natural world, and that we are completely physical creatures. More and more, biology and neuroscience show that the brain and body do everything that the soul was supposed to do. Even consciousness and our higher level capacities for rationality and choice are fully embodied, causal processes.



Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Dragon


The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you.
Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself.

There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!"

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on.

I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.

Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head.

You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage.

You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you.

No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic.

We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist.

We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling.

Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

UltimateGuide


Ultimate Internet Science Guide

Science News:

Full Ultimate Guide
Science Website Directory
Science News
PhysOrg
AAAS
NASA News
Terry Tao Blog
Futurism/Science News

Tools:

Equation Solver
Gravity Simulator
3D View of Solar System
WIP Infographic Search
Latex Code Generator
Statistics About Common Letters
Internet Archive
Fluid Simulator
Circuit Simulator [Downloadable]
Math/Physics Simulator

Learning:

Languages
Math, Physics, Chemistry and Biology
Math, Physics, Electronics
Programming, Computers, Math and Biology
Anthropology, Paleontology, Zoology, Astrophysics and Astronomy
NASA Astrophysics
Extrasolar Planets
Physics/Astronomy Resource
Astronomy Databases
Astronomy Databases
History of Biology and Paleontology
Anatomy
Logic
Electronics
Soldering
Basic Robotics
Web Languages
Basic Chemistry
More Chemistry
Element Information
Fluid Mechanics
Theoretical Physics
How Not To Do Theoretical Physics
Engineering Info
How To Act Productive
Berkely Speaker Videos
Oxford Podcasts
Physics Videos
Wide Variety of Subjects
Wide Variety of Subjects
Wide Variety of Subjects
Wide Variety of Subjects


Science Documentaries:

Pop Sci
Scientific America
New Scientist
Hulu: Cosmos (US only)

Monday, May 23, 2011

Wind


The Wind Analogy..


I think it is fair to say that we've all heard this before..

But, for those who haven't..
Here is the gist.

You can't see the wind, but it's there
Its effectively saying,
"Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
I am going to provide reasons why this is a false analogy.

You cannot see the wind, They got that part correct.
But,

•You can confirm from inference that it exists.

•It effects Trees, Pollutants and other light materials are released caught by it.
(Similar to a boat stuck in a current)

•You can quantify the force of it.
(Make calculations)

•You can test its presence.
(Wind Gauge)

•You can make predictions on what will occur when something is channeling it.
(Aerodynamics)

•You can predict both the speed & direction based on high/low pressure systems in the vicinity
(Meteorology)

•Hell, we can even harness it, to produce electricity.
(which once again, is testable)

Given these, i would like to see how God can be analogously comparable or interpreted to be wind.


Saturday, May 21, 2011

Importance


The Universe.. 
..Is Made For Us

We need Oxygen to breath
Oxygen is 1 of 118 Natural and Artificial elements.

We are situated on a planet that is ~70% covered in water.
Water is 1 Part Oxygen, yet we cannot survive more then 4 minutes under it.

On land, we cannot inhabit the poles due to the extreme temperatures.
And even vast spaces on the lithosphere are to inhospitable to support even the most resilient of life.

We are held above a mantle of fire, and below a billowing endless vacuum.
One vaporizes us instantly with temperatures soaring above 1,000°C,
The other freezes us with temperatures of -270°C, and crushing pressure differences.

Earth orbits a lower class Yellow Dwarf Star.

One among hundreds of billions in our Milky way galaxy.

This galaxy is so wide, it takes light 100,000 years to travel from side to side.

The Milky way is a constituent of a local cluster of galaxies dubbed the "Local Group".

The Local Group contains 30 Galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars

It takes light approx 10,000,000 years to reach from one side to another.

The Virgo Supercluster contains our Local Group, as well as 100 other galaxy groups and clusters

Each of those groups and cluster contains between 15-100 Galaxies, and each galaxy contains up to 100,000,000,000 Star systems.

The Virgo super cluster is 33Mpc (110,000,000 Light years) wide.

The Local Supercluster Group contains the Virgo Supercluster
This Local Supercluster is 100 Mpc wide.

The known universe contains hundreds of thousands of Superclusters.

Inside all of this, there are stars exploding, gamma ray bursts, rogue black holes, anti-matter, Asteroids..

Unaided; We cannot survive in this vacuum for more then 5 seconds without loss of consciousness.

Do you really still think this was made for Humans?



Given all of the above..
The atoms, the humans, the planets, the stars, the galaxies, the superclusters..
All of that constitutes 0.4% of the known universe.




Skepticism


Skepticism


The main use of modern Skepticism is "one who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry; one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement."

There is an air of positiveness in all scepticism, an unreserved confidence in the strength of those arguments that are alleged to overthrow all the knowledge of mankind.

Skepticism is itself a positive assertion about knowledge, and thus turned on itself cannot be held. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying sub-atomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.

Nor does skepticism produce progress. It is not enough simply to reject the irrational. Skepticism must be followed with something rational, or something that does produce progress.



The Rational Skeptic
The notion that skeptics are closed-minded to certain beliefs comes from a misunderstanding of skepticism and science. Skeptics and scientists are not necessarily “closed-minded” (though they may be since they are human). They may once have been open-minded to a belief, but when the evidence came up short they rejected it.

There are already enough legitimate mysteries in the universe for which evidence provides scientists fodder for their research. To take the time to consider “unseen” or “unknown” mysteries is not always practical.

When the non-skeptic says, “you’re just closed-minded to the unknown forces of the universe,” the skeptic responds: “We’re still trying to understand the known forces of the universe.”

It is for these reasons that it might be useful to modify the word skeptic with “rational.”

Rational:
“Based on or in accordance with reason or logic.”
Reason:
“A statement of some fact employed as an argument to justify or condemn some act, prove or disprove some assertion, idea, or belief.”
Logic:
“Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.”
One who questions the validity of particular claims of knowledge by employing or calling for statements of fact to prove or disprove claims, as a tool for understanding causality.


Agnostic?


Agnosticism

By: Shane Jones

Gnosticism is not a position for or against belief in God it is a position on knowing god.

People can be Agnostic Theists and Agnostic Atheists, but it is not an exclusive concept on its own.

Theism/Atheism is a position on the belief of gods existence
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a position on knowing of gods existence
Most if not all Atheists are Agnostic Atheists (Myself included), And most if not all Theists are Gnostic Theists.

People who claim Agnosticism, often don't actually know what Agnosticism is. They think it is that they are positively open to religion, when what it really is, is the position that they don't know and that there is no way to know without evidence.

This sounds strangely like Atheism.


If someone tells you that they are Agnostic just say the following sentence:
"Okay, and what is your position on the belief in god?"
If they respond with:
"I already told you I am an Agnostic"
This means that they have no clue what they are, let alone what they are talking about.

Either you believe or you don't, either you know or you don't. There is no logical fence sitting position for one or the other. Either you believe and you say you know, or you believe and you say you don't know. (the latter is a false faith in religion by their own definition)

Either you do not believe and you know that there is no god, or you do not believe and you don't know if there is a god. (both are atheistic, but one is logically honest and the other really isn't) absence of any evidence means you can't know for certain.

So to contend that you don't believe in god and that you know for certain that god does not exist is an illogical assertion that cannot be proven.

Agnostics who define themselves separate from Theism/Atheism don't actually understand that the concepts are not mutally exclusive.

Just because they feel there is some possibility that Thor could exist if given evidence does not mean that they believe in Thor, and since agnostics can't actually be both agnostic and Monotheists or Polytheists due to the need to give possibility to all deities, and Theistic grouping are exclusive ideologies, logically all Agnostics are Atheists.

And all Theists are exclusively Gnostic's. Because they contend that only their god has a valid belief system. Agnostics are open to all deities, So it would be ignorant to claim to be an Agnostic Theist. Just as it is logically dishonest to claim to be a Gnostic Atheist.

To say that you are just an Agnostic/Gnostic on the question of belief in god is a completely ignorant postion based on a misconception or misunderstanding of the definiton of Agnosticism and its etymology.

(Note: Please do not take an illogical offence to being called ignorant. The connotation is not implicitly negative, it simply means without education/research/knowledge. Do not mistake ignorance for idiocy or stupidity, these are not synonymous with each other.)


Gnosticism deals with epistemological questions
Theism deals with theological questions


You may not know if God(s) exist(s),
But you can say whether you believe they do or not.


See Also:

Atheism
Humanism


Written By: Shane Jones -- Original

Freedoms


Problem With Freedoms

In this scenarion, both Person 1 and Person 2 have equal rights in all regards, and in no way supercede each other.

Given they are granted both:

•Freedom of Speech
•Freedom of Expression
The scenario goes as follows:

Person 1: Please do task X.
Person 2: Don't tell me what to do.

Person 2 has every right to refuse to do Task X from Person 1, But do they hold a right to 'Tell' Person 1 not to ask them?

Whose power supersedes?



Comment Section:





Friday, May 20, 2011

WhyHumanism



Humanism

What Is Humanism?
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This statement is to present in clear and positive terms the principles Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. There is no dogmatic approach to humanism, nor is there a cookie cutter perfect example, but the philosophy outlined below is the expressed guidelines to being considered a "Humanist"

It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

Paraphrased From: American Humanist: Humanist Manifesto III
Source



Muhammad


Draw Muhammad Day, 2011



Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Fishing


Access Ministries
Fishing For Kids.


All copyrights to their respective owners.




Sunday, May 15, 2011

Why Don't Bees Go to Heaven?



Why Don't Bees Go to Heaven?
By Ronnie Williams



Lyrics

It seems to me the species Homo sapiens,
carries the chutzpah gene.
To think they are the purpose of the universe
when they only just arrived on the scene.

What's even worse, they bear a curse
of believing they're the only form of life.
To never die, and go on living
somewhere high up in the sky.

So why don't bees go to heaven?
and trees go to heaven?
amoeba, krill and fleas go to heaven?
It's not surprisin' that they're not arisin'
'cause man created god.

this grain of sand upon an infinite beach
had been supporting life for trillions of spins
then along came humans, who started assumin'
that this was where it begins
so profoundly naïve, they began to believe
these primates were the only ones
to never die, and go on living
somewhere high up in the sky

so why don't worms go to heaven?
and germs go to heaven?
spiders, snakes and sperms go to heaven?
its quite expected that they're not resurrected
'cause man created god


if man created Zeus, and the god of The Sun
if man created Shiva, and the god of Abraham
from all of life, why should the only one saved
be the species worst behaved?

well, that's because
that same species, Homo sapiens
carries the chutzpah gene
to think they are the purpose of the universe
when they only just arrived on the scene

what's even worse, they bear a curse
of believing they're the only form of life
to never die, and go on living
somewhere high up in the sky

so why don't whales go to heaven?
and snails go to heaven?
orang-utans and quail go to heaven?
they don't think twice about paradise
because man created god

so why don't bees go to heaven? (etc.)


© 2008 Ronnie Williams (all rights reserved)


Saturday, May 14, 2011

Access Ministries Mission(ary) Statement


Access Ministries
Mission(ary) Statment

Here is the Mission Statement from the Access Ministries website.

Mission

ACCESS ministries leads the Church in its mission to reach students and school communities in Victoria and beyond with the transforming love of God and His Son Jesus Christ.


ACCESS ministries fulfills this mission by resourcing and serving people and programs that:
•Provide quality, dynamic and relevant Christian religious education, chaplaincy and other appropriate activities
•Equip CRE teachers, chaplains and others to teach and nurture students
•Are student-focused, educationally sound, biblically faithful, theologically clear and contextually appropriate
•Model Christ’s love, authentically, without discrimination
•Engage in key relationships



Statement of Belief
ACCESS ministries is an ecumenical body committed to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith drawn from the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

It is committed to the three ecumenical creeds (Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed) and takes into account the faith statements and traditions of its nominating churches.



ACCESS ministries affirms:
•its faith in God, as One-in-Three-Persons, whose redemptive purpose for the world is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.
•that the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed in word and deed the presence of the Kingdom of God through mission and evangelism—a calling of people to repentance and a declaration of God's love in practical ministry to others by enabling reconciliation, peace, wholeness and justice.
•God's concern for the whole person in context of his or her being in relation with others and the world, and that God is concerned that justice and mercy form the hallmarks of society.
•the redemptive presence of God in the world, and ACCESS ministries personnel, along with other Christians, form part of God's presence in the school.
•that the Christian tradition recognises the educative and pastoral needs of people and that these needs are to be respectfully and educationally addressed.



Playing by the rules..?
I Call Bullshit.



I am not sure how this is even ascertainable in a public education system, our constitution clearly outlines:
Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act
Chapter V. The States.
Section 116:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Source
I would rather see federal money go into employing those with educational qualifications to help students.

If a student needs to seek spiritual advice, they should seek such from a religious institution.

My point is presented more eloquently by Sarrah Le Marquand:

Under no circumstances should taxpayers’ money be used to further the agenda of any faith in the public education system.

Students grappling with personal problems, including mental health issues, would be far better served by an impartial and accredited expert than someone attempting to administer care solely on the grounds of their faith.


Sarrah Le Marquand

Another Stunt They've Pulled
"Divine intervention stops bullies"




Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Pale Blue Dot - Animated


Pale Blue Dot - Animation
By: PerogiFace





Monday, May 9, 2011

Curve Ball #12 - Directions


Directions

One of the key differences between science and religion is how they operate.

Science is convergent.
Convergent:

•Coming closer together, esp. in characteristics or ideas.
•Relating to convergence.
•Tending to come together; merging.

It uses a method of investigated which has been found to be the most successful in understanding the universe, and our place in it.

In science to prove something is true, you have to provide reasons why it is true, independent of the thing itself. You do not need any prior acceptance or invested interest in the belief.

Science doesn't require faith, it requires evidence, if you don't have any, then you do not have a justified reason to hold a belief.

Emotional plea's are a last resort, and if you pulled such a move in the science area, you'd lose all credibility.
"Waterworks do not explain how water works."

The truth of your claims speak for themselves through evidence, and a theory that best describes that evidence.



Where-as..

Religion is divergent.
Divergent:

• To move, lie, or extend in different directions from a common point; branch off.
• To differ in opinion, character, form, etc.; deviate.

When it comes to a justified belief that is not based on evidence, you have the freedom to posit anything, and a strong inner conviction and a convincing tone of voice can go a long way..

Lets for the sake of argument, take Christianity.

38,000 denominations.
This is 1 Religion, with 38,000 different truths, most of which are mutually exclusive.

Eg. Mormons and Catholics.
Both, are Christian religions.. But, are mutually exclusive to the point that you cannot reconcile them.

Lets go up a tier:
Lets compare two relgiions Hinduism and Christianity:
Once again, they are mutually exclusive to the point that you cannot reconcile them.

How does a Christian with strong inner-convictions prove to a Hindi with strong inner-convictions that their position is true?

Arguments from personal experience and holy texts are moot

Also, The use of evidence removes the faith card from their decks.

If, when providing evidence it were to fail, what would they do next?

Would they have the intellectual honesty to give up their beliefs?


Science works together to find truth,
Religion separates to make Its own.



More Christian Curve Ball

Friday, May 6, 2011

Curve Ball #11 - Faithful


Faithful

Faith:

• Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
• Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Anyone can make up any number of things that come to their imagination.

But, when they are posited as true in a public forum, it is incumbent upon that individual or group to produce a reason why others should believe that it is true, and justify why they hold it.


Faith, is an assertion of absolute conviction, that is assumed independent of evidence.

And which must be defended against all evidence to the contrary.


AronRa

So, i ask.. If you have faith, why do you have it?
What other areas in your life need faith to justify/rationalize a belief?


Ask yourself:
► What do i believe?
► Why do i believe it?
► How did i come to believe it?
► Do i believe it because it makes me feel good?
► Do i believe it out of fear of punishment?


Talk about this stuff with people, and not just those who share your view.

If you believe that you have evidence to support your claim, then present it.

Always.
Ask.
Questions.


"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Gautama Buddha


More Christian Curve Ball

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Particle Physics



Explaining Particle Physics.
Approx Runtime: 12 hours



Particle physics is a branch of physics that studies the elementary constituents of matter and radiation, and the interactions between them.

It is also called "high energy physics", because many elementary particles do not occur under normal circumstances in nature, but can be created and detected during energetic collisions of other particles, as is done in particle accelerators.