Maggie’s "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

[shankster..]

"YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF..."

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you
can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at
least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

 

[Sumpter Steve]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

11. Your breath and your body smell exactly like shit.
12. You cant wait each week for man love Thursdays.

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......


4. "You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."


As I understand it this is an instruction from the Koran regarding cleanliness. You eat, and do evetything else with your right habd, wipe your ass with your legt.

If you consider their enviornmevt and the technology of that time its not unreasonable. Paper was expensine and rare. Cloth you could wash bu not much water in the desert, Being desert dwellers, there was lots of sand not much else, no oak trees with leaves. Danm dsure dint want to wipe your ass with sand...a bitch when you may have to ride a camel all day in 120% F.

Remids me of an old grade school rhyme.....
Hear I sit with all this vapor,
the guy before me used all the paper.
I hear the bell I must not linger,
look out asshole hear comes finger.

Thank god for Charm'in

 

[brandon33]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[rero360]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Ok, I can understand using the hand if you're a bedouin, but modern day city dweller? come on, this is 2009 not 9.

I remember using the private bathroom of the IP Captian at the station we were in charge of, a porcelin hole in the floor and a watering pot with a sink, and thats it.

Thankfully I never had to drop a duece in sector, but I remember getting back in the wire and as we're dropping gear and all that seeing guys with sleaveless tshirts or mid drifts lol.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rero360</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, I can understand using the hand if you're a bedouin, but modern day city dweller? come on, this is 2009 not 9. </div></div>

To expect rational thinking from religious nuts is a mistake. Many around the world see deviating even the slightest from strict adherence to their faith as a sign of personal weakness. To adjust one's beliefs to fit modern life while retaining enough of the traditions seems to be the generally accepted process, but no matter where you go you're guaranteed to find someone who completely ignores contradictory evidence in order to remain "true to the faith." I can understand being born and raised in a place like the Congo or Afghanistan and not getting it, but spending your whole life in the West? That's how you get Americans who're convinced the Earth is 6,000 years old and think Evolution is wrong, yet Facebook their cousins asking about where to get a flu shot.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but spending your whole life in the West? That's how you get Americans who're convinced the Earth is 6,000 years old and think Evolution is wrong, yet Facebook their cousins asking about where to get a flu shot.
</div></div>

As contrasted to mindlessly following idiotic trends such as wearing your pants below the curvature of your ass and wondering why no one will hire you and the cops always outrun you!

 

[cjaclwill]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Dogtown,

Find the missing link and I will pony right up to your Evolution theory.

There is a reason they call it a "theory" and not a law...

And there are reasons to doubt carbon dating as well. I get the whole religious nut thing but throwing bad science into the mix just muddies the waters.

Peace

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pistol Pete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dogtown,

Find the missing link and I will pony right up to your Evolution theory.

There is a reason they call it a "theory" and not a law...

And there are reasons to doubt carbon dating as well. I get the whole religious nut thing but throwing bad science into the mix just muddies the waters.

Peace

</div></div>

*facepalm.

Carbon dating makes no sense to you, assuming you haven't passed pre-calculus or biology 101.

The concept behind measuring carbon isotopes doesn't exactly take a genius, or for that matter much of an education. It's possible that samples can get mixed with surrounding materials, but everyone that does these types of measurements is well aware of that and goes to great lengths to avoid it happening. Also several other factors than simply measuring carbon 14s are used to date artifacts and fossils to confirm them. You don't just use one method alone.

I'm not in that field at all, but this is pretty basic stuff.

Also, the missing "link". What is the missing link exactly? Please elaborate.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

PistolPete - you are highly misinformed and you don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is, nor a law. They are different.

A Scientific Theory is a model that explains empirical data and can be used to make testable predictions. Most of science is based around scientific theories but you wouldn't doubt Germ Theory or Atomic Theory, would you? They're just theories too.

A Scientific Law is just an observed result that is always true. The Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Motion, etc - these are observed results that are always true - never observed to be different. Laws just explain the observation but a Theory is used to describe why it happens. This is why there is a Theory of Evolution and a Big Bang Theory, not laws. It's not a hierarchy - theories don't get "promoted" to laws.

And your comment about carbon dating is only true when scientists do poor carbon dating, which can be caught in peer review. To say there's doubts about it requires you to ignore the mountain of evidence that supports radiometric dating techniques.

I highly suggest you ask scientists about scientific questions instead of political pundits and pastors - they tend to know squat about science.

 

[bwilb]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

evolution is just a theory...

so is gravity

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

By the way, the point I was trying to make with my original post is that the mindset of the religious zealot is one in which rational, objective thinking cannot be expected. The mindset of an ideologue is one in which ideology trumps all, even in the face of superior, contradictory data. Bringing up science was just an easy example of how someone can say use a computer or cell phone, but deny Quantum Theory - a scientific theory that's essential to making those objects useful.

 

[GardDog]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Closest to the "Link" so far:

WASHINGTON — The story of humankind is reaching back another million years with the discovery of "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia.

The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.

This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.


"This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago, White said in a telephone interview.

But Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor.

A study of Ardi, under way since the first bones were discovered in 1994, indicates the species lived in the woodlands and could climb on all fours along tree branches, but the development of their arms and legs indicates they didn't spend much time in the trees. And they could walk upright, on two legs, when on the ground.

Formally dubbed Ardipithecus ramidus — which means root of the ground ape — the find is detailed in 11 research papers published Thursday by the journal Science.

"This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution," said David Pilbeam, curator of paleoanthropology at Harvard's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

"It is relatively complete in that it preserves head, hands, feet and some critical parts in between. It represents a genus plausibly ancestral to Australopithecus — itself ancestral to our genus Homo," said Pilbeam, who was not part of the research teams.

Scientists assembled the skeleton from 125 pieces.

Lucy, also found in Africa, thrived a million years after Ardi and was of the more human-like genus Australopithecus.

"In Ardipithecus we have an unspecialized form that hasn't evolved very far in the direction of Australopithecus. So when you go from head to toe, you're seeing a mosaic creature that is neither chimpanzee, nor is it human. It is Ardipithecus," said White.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

The problem is that "missing link" is a bad term to begin with. Every fossil is a transitional form from one to another so the only reasonable use of the term is to fill an specified important gap in a fossil lineage. Tiktaalik Rosae, for example, did exactly this by being a transitional form that fills in the gap between fish and tetrapods. It's not a perfect fit and there's still much work to be done, but it was specifically a evolutionary prediction that lead Neil Shubin and his team to look specifically for a transitional form in the correct time frame of strata and geological location.

If you really want your minds blown about Evolution, ask a biologist or zoologist about the evolution of whales and other cetaceans.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you really want your minds blown about Evolution, ask a biologist or zoologist about the evolution of whales and other cetaceans. </div></div>

Yes this blew my mind right up when I learned about it. Same as cellular respiration.

 

[Dolomite_Supafly]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

The biggest technological advancement they have made in the last 700 years is not shitting in their own wells.

Dolomite

 

[cavscout1983]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Actually, the process of the left hand wipe is done with water and the hands are washed after. To quote an Iraqi I asked about this they said "If you get shit on your skin, would you wipe it off or wash it? so why is your ass any different?"

They see toilet paper as worse because you are in effect- smearing shit all over your ass as much as you are removing the big pieces.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They see toilet paper as worse because you are in effect- smearing shit all over your ass as much as you are removing the big pieces.
</div></div>

How does one say "Either side if the crack, your doing it wrong", in Arabic?

Or, "Is mildly diluted feces really that much less disgusting?"

The mind races at the multitude of smart ass responses, but then my family are Armenians and Christian Arabs and the Taliban would probably disembowel me for that long before my incredulity became irritating!

 

[DaveV]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sumpter Steve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">11. Your breath and your body smell exactly like shit.
12. You cant wait each week for man love Thursdays. </div></div>

I understand the philosophy in A-stan is "women are for breeding; men are for pleasure"

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They see toilet paper as worse because you are in effect- smearing shit all over your ass as much as you are removing the big pieces.
</div></div>

How does one say "Either side if the crack, your doing it wrong", in Arabic?

Or, "Is mildly diluted feces really that much less disgusting?"

The mind races at the multitude of smart ass responses, but then my family are Armenians and Christian Arabs and the Taliban would probably disembowel me for that long before my incredulity became irritating! </div></div>

Q, the Talibozos would probrably disembowel either of us just for good luck the moment we opened our mouth. Actually that might be preferable to living under their foot. But then is it really much different than what we would have if the Jerry Falwells of the extreme christian right wing fundamentalism gained power. They are a sick bunch of animals just like the Talibozos, Or the purveyours of the Inquistion. "Better to die on my feet than live on my knees."

Idont need religon....God may or may not exist. Doesnt really concern me. All that matters is how I live my own life. Either in truth and respect of others or in fear and disrespect. Just give me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[cjaclwill]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Dogtown and CourageWolf,

Thanks for trying to protect me from myself. I like the way you both gently tried to protect bogus science under the cover of the, "Now little Johnny if you just would talk with a real scientist" comment. It generally helps to understand the background of the person you are scolding before you do so. That being said lets dig into the subject a little.

You can study precalculus and biology 101 but it's not going to help you much because the crux of the matter in this argument is related to the chemistry of the method.

Carbon dating is based on the theory of evolution and is propped up by the theory that the earth is billions of years old. It is a theoretical notion that is unproven except for a "I think this is what the answer is" type mentality in scientific circles.

Carbon-14 dating uses the amount of carbon that a living thing contained, the amount left once that said thing is dead and the half life of the radioactive isotopes to construct a date. Because we don't know the amount of carbon-14, say for example that a certain dinosaur had before he died, we can't really make a sound judgement. We try to use a judgement between the carbon-14 left and the carbon-12 of the species in question. A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

The problem with Darwin's Theory of Evolution is that the key component to prove the theory has been missing for the last 250 years. The missing link. The link between ape and man.

Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation has held as a truth in our lives since the late 1600's and it is not a theory. (Newton is mentioned here because he would be considered the father of the pre-calculus previously mentioned.) We can all run around saying Newton was off his rocker and if you don't want to believe in his Universal Law of Gravitation that's awesome! Go jump off a roof though and you will feel the consequences.

Now we can sit here and talk about whale tails, crustaceans, cellular respiration and a bunch of other horse shit that's off topic but don't think I'm some two pump chump who is going to sit in the corner and stand down because a few neo-scientists tried to one up the intelligence quotient by throwing a few high school textbook definitions of "theory" and "law" around.

Theories are great but laws are undeniable truths. And truth is absolute.

 

[rwleonard]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Now this thread is fun!

Rick

 

[Mag 300]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

This was GREAT
Thanks !!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shankster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF..."

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you
can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at
least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat. </div></div>

 

[Queequeg]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem with Darwin's Theory of Evolution is that the key component to prove the theory has been missing for the last 250 years. The missing link. The link between ape and man. </div></div>

Mrs. Q claims to have photos of the link you seek, but also wishes to keep her burden a mystery. Not sure what she means there. Excuse me, I have to comb my face.

I have it on good authority that in another 6000 years, the Colorado river will have cleaved the earth in half, thus making trips to the Grand Canyon both more spectacular and difficult.

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I have it on good authority that in another 6000 years, the Colorado river will have cleaved the earth in half, thus making trips to the Grand Canyon both more spectacular and difficult. </div></div>

Sorry, Q, I thought everyone knew by now that time will end in 2012. Thats shoots your theory in the kiester. Perssonally, Im buying gold in preparation for the big event. Got to have some to coin blow on the 72 virgins when I reach Valhala. Ummmmmmmvirgins

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

13. your shoes all have fuses sticking out of 'em.
14. you expect to find 72 virgins anywhere.
15. you have a kevlar riding blanket on your camel.
16. you think the frankincense container the wise man in the nativity scene is just the right size for an IED.

 

[Patrick_S]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Evolution, so easy a caveman can do it.

 

[Dark Horse]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Wait...won't the continents have merged back together in 6000 years?

 

[H2O Cop]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

How can there be 72 virgins ANYWHERE when the streets are guarded by Marines??? I mean seriously?????

 

[Queequeg]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O Cop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can there be 72 virgins ANYWHERE when the streets are guarded by Marines??? I mean seriously????? </div></div>

Pretty cruel Irony for the jihad assholes to first be killed by Marines and then find the gates of heaven are guarded by them too!

 

[Ratbert]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pistol Pete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The problem with Darwin's Theory of Evolution is that the key component to prove the theory has been missing for the last 250 years. The missing link. The link between ape and man.

Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation has held as a truth in our lives since the late 1600's and it is not a theory. (Newton is mentioned here because he would be considered the father of the pre-calculus previously mentioned.) We can all run around saying Newton was off his rocker and if you don't want to believe in his Universal Law of Gravitation that's awesome! Go jump off a roof though and you will feel the consequences.

Now we can sit here and talk about whale tails, crustaceans, cellular respiration and a bunch of other horse shit that's off topic but don't think I'm some two pump chump who is going to sit in the corner and stand down because a few neo-scientists tried to one up the intelligence quotient by throwing a few high school textbook definitions of "theory" and "law" around.

Theories are great but laws are undeniable truths. And truth is absolute. </div></div>

Darwin's origin of species did not speak to the origins of man or any "link" between man and ape. People focus on some sort of link between man and ape under the misguided assumption that somehow evolution's end goal was the creation of our species. We are, on the whole, a fairly insignificant branch within the overall tree of life. Evolution occurs, it can and has been observed. It is the theory of natural selection which attempts to explain this observation. However I imagine it is the theory's inferential impact on explanations regarding the origins of man that most get you and your pastor in such an uproar that you bring in motivational speakers from the creation science institute to assure your congregation that this is all just the devil's lie and their quasi-literal interpretations of 300 yr old politically motivated translations of 1900yr old religious texts initially compiled to allow the consolidation of power within a failing republic are, in fact, much more reliably based on the truth.

For someone so bent on establishing the truth, I find it rather ironic the disdain you have for those attempting to establish the meaning of words such as "theory" and "law." For someone so dismissive of those who would bandy about "high school textbook definitions," you certainly seem to have missed the fucking point.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

PistolPete - you should seriously ask a scientist about your claims on evolution and carbon dating because I think you've been getting some really bad info. My point being that you don't have to take my word for it, ask the folks who study this stuff for a living. Just be intellectually honest with yourself if you really want to seek the truth vs just confirm ideological biases.

In short, there is no "missing link" because every fossil is a transitional form. That claim is mostly used to just shift the goal posts in a debate, one in which no amount of evidence can convince the arguer. There is plenty of fossil and genetic evidence that points to humans sharing a common ancestor with other primates. On a side note, my avatar is of Archeopteryx, a transitional "link" between dinosaurs and modern birds.

The whole "assumption" argument is bad too because no one assumes anything in science. When you publish your findings you have to back them up with evidence and show how you came to those conclusions. If you use a particular method of dating, for example, you reference the author and paper where that method was published and accepted. Radiometric dating isn't the only method either and often research requires varied techniques to be used. Why? Because it's when multiple independent measurements converge in the same direction that we're most likely pointing towards the truth. And when it comes to the age of the Earth and the Universe, there are a great many different bits of evidence that all point to the same thing.

Lastly, if any of your claims were true and could be substantiated, I guarantee someone would be making major headlines and talk of a Nobel Prize would be in order. Scientists don't become famous because they just go with the flow - no, they only become famous when they discover something that turns current thinking on its head. Darwin did that in 1859 and Einstein did it too in 1905. So then the argument becomes "evidence refuting evolution is being suppressed by the scientific community!" So basically it all devloves (no pun intended) into a conspiracy theory. This is the hallmark of ideological opposition to science.

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

When I hear "Theories and Laws", Im reminded of Aristotle's use of "Always, or for the most part". A law is only a law until some one finds the exception. It seems that change is the only thinngthat doesnt change, and as soon as we think we've found some immutable truth of science, the Universe throws us a curve. Humbleing but useful.

Excerpted from "The Universe Accordinlg to Goldie"

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Laws don't have a habit of being overturned by the very nature that they become laws in the first place because the observation's result is always true. A scientific theory is a different story in that it's a testable model to describe how and why something happens in nature. Still, this should never give one the impression that science should be ignored because theories can be overturned and change. Science as a tool for understanding has a very impressive track record and a scientific theory has far more merit than any hypothesis or opinion for the simple fact that it's based on empirical evidence, is testable, falsifiable and makes predictions. Few opinions that attempt to challenge a scientific theory or present themselves as an alternative can say the same.

 

[Mike]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Only on the Hide can a funny joke turn into this rhetoric.

 

[H2O Cop]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only on the Hide can a funny joke turn into this rhetoric. </div></div>

No shit... talk about Hijacking someone's thread!!!

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Actually I think it can happen anywhere when people put ideology before reason. It's ironic that people will often poke fun at Muslim sensitivity while showing an equally thin skin to their own religious beliefs. My original post was a comment on the Dark Ages mindset of religious extremists in the modern world, benefiting from the advances of science, for example, while denying it at the same time. Then the thread tends to devolve into generally misinformed criticisms of science from a Biblical point of view, in which case people like myself feel obliged to correct the record. That simple.

 

[JustPlinking]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

This was still amazingly entertaining. Got some jokes, education. A little banter between generally like minded thinkers. Thank you all who added to this epic thread..

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Laws don't have a habit of being overturned by the very nature that they become laws in the first place because the observation's result is always true. A scientific theory is a different story in that it's a testable model to describe how and why something happens in nature. Still, this should never give one the impression that science should be ignored because theories can be overturned and change. Science as a tool for understanding has a very impressive track record and a scientific theory has far more merit than any hypothesis or opinion for the simple fact that it's based on empirical evidence, is testable, falsifiable and makes predictions. Few opinions that attempt to challenge a scientific theory or present themselves as an alternative can say the same. </div></div>

I wasnt suggesting science should be ignored...just taken somewhat tounge in cheek like religon and politics.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Goldie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I wasnt suggesting science should be ignored...just taken somewhat tounge in cheek like religon and politics.
</div></div>

I can appreciate that, but the danger is elevating something subjective that has no global true or false to it, merely opinion, to the same level as something empirical like science. "Truth" is completely subjective, up to the individual not equal from person to person, in the realm of art, politics and religion. Science is empirical, so "truth" is global, not up for personal opinion and its validity doesn't vary from one to another. For example, the Laws of Physics apply to each one of us the same, from atoms to people, to planets to galaxies.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

While I have tried to be ironic and contribute to the humor, (and yes, participating somewhat in the hi-jacking), it is important to point out that science can also be Shang Hai'd in the interest of politics. Dr. Mengele for example!
Margaret Sanger's eugenics advocacy, to limit the population growth of "undesirables", for another.

The heavy handed, and now amply proven, deception by the principle leaders of the Global Warming / Climate Change movement have used the "universal truth of science" as a bludgeon. That they fabricated, withheld data from peer review, and destroyed inconvenient or contrary findings to create their "science", damningly demonstrates that above all, scientists should be most angry when science is corrupted to serve political agendae. Alas, it's all about who's ox is gored when it comes to what is, or is not, apostasy. Inciting mobs of pop science consumers to condemn "Deniers" is more in keeping with mob rule than reason.

Just as the universal mantra of people critical of "Bible thumpers" and "Simplistic Christians" is to trot out the crusades, inquisitions, anti semitic pogroms and which trials; the laziness in equating these to jihadist terror is in not pointing out the many centuries that seperate these horrors, committed with the sanction of the Christian church, versus the current trend of the Islamists. Not to mention the glossing over of historical context, lost in the fog of fuzzy memory, or too detailed to discuss in the modern lexicon of three word sentences.

It's just plain simplistic to flog centuries, or decades old, "Christian" wrongs as equivalent to present Islamic encouragement, tolerance or ambivalence to jihadism. Timothy Mcveigh was not a systemic product, nor emblematic, of Christianity.

Martin Luther King was, among many others, and yet he still has no peer in modern Islam.

So to sum up,

You know you may be a Taliban if... you only go to strip clubs because you'd rather blow something up rather than blow your load...

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Goldie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I wasnt suggesting science should be ignored...just taken somewhat tounge in cheek like religon and politics.
</div></div>

I can appreciate that, but the danger is elevating something subjective that has no global true or false to it, merely opinion, to the same level as something empirical like science. "Truth" is completely subjective, up to the individual not equal from person to person, in the realm of art, politics and religion. Science is empirical, so "truth" is global, not up for personal opinion and its validity doesn't vary from one to another. For example, the Laws of Physics apply to each one of us the same, from atoms to people, to planets to galaxies.
</div></div>

to continue the hijack:

Your statement would seem to be accurate and I have no probrlem with "empirically based science". Where, however, do your theories and laws go if we discover (and we may) alternative universes or dimensions in which the "laws" of this one do not hold true. Lets say, rather than gravity causing things to attract, ripulsion causes them to push from each other. Science fiction?...so was flight to the moon 2 centuries ago.

Try to think outside the box...even the box of science.

As far as I have been able to discern it, all things but one are relative. ie: There is only one thing, one truth, that you can state with absolute certainty, and that is "I am". Though as Descartes suggested, I may be only the figment of an evil genius' imagination, I can unequivocally state with certainty "I am" (at least that imagination). Beyond that all seems to be evolving and changing.

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Damn, I wish some one would teach me the "science" of getting more than one quote into a reply.....

It's just plain simplistic to flog centuries, or decades old, "Christian" wrongs as equivalent to present Islamic encouragement, tolerance or ambivalence to jihadism.

Why"

QQ, the reference to christianity's crusades and inquistitions was only "trotted out" to show that anything, even the most pure, such as the teachings of a nazarene carpenter, can be peverted. the time frame is unimportant. Personally I hold all religons in equal contempt. If you extract the kernels of wisdom from any of them the founders, Christ, Buddah, Lao Tzu, all say pretty much the same thing. (Muhammed seems to have been the unique exception to this.)Unfortunately lesser men who came after them and were basically incompetent to accept their wisdom, catagorized and perverted their teachings. Read the history of Martin Luther and the breaking away from the Catholic church.

I better stop now as this is becoming dangerously close to a religous post and I dont want to get the BAN BUTTON.

One final thout=ght however. re: Margret Sangers undesireable list...where do you think either of us would rank..probrably 1&2, with CKA, shankster, and Shaggy in hot pursuit.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Goldie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As far as I have been able to discern it, all things but one are relative. ie: There is only one thing, one truth, that you can state with absolute certainty, and that is "I am". </div></div>

Actually, the Buddhists would argue that. They say that your entire sense of self is just an illusion.

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Goldie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As far as I have been able to discern it, all things but one are relative. ie: There is only one thing, one truth, that you can state with absolute certainty, and that is "I am". </div></div>

Actually, the Buddhists would argue that. They say that your entire sense of self is just an illusion. </div></div>

Thats no arguement to my statement...for even if Iam nothing but an illusion at least "Iam" that. Undeniable.....

 

[rwleonard]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Here is something I don't get about evolution: If biological change is the result of natural selection operating on genetic mutations, why do stable species exist in the first place? It would seem that we should see a broad continu, continui, however the hell you spell it, of organisms that defy classification.

Rick

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here is something I don't get about evolution: If biological change is the result of natural selection operating on genetic mutations, why do stable species exist in the first place? It would seem that we should see a broad continu, continui, however the hell you spell it, of organisms that defy classification.

Rick </div></div>

I'm not quite sure what you mean by stable species, but in an ecosystem these changes occur very slowly for the most part. In humans we are really not a party to the process anymore. We artificially interrupt it with our knowledge. The stupid and physically incapable are usually spared and can breed just the same as everyone else atleast in modern times. So if that's what you mean by stable that's why.

You can witness evolution in bacteria that double population size rapidly just by introducing penicillin repeatedly.

A few survive and continue doubling and eventually slowly but surely you'll kill less and less of them each time.

Galapagos portrayed this pretty obviously and despite several people coming to the same conclusions at the time Charlie happened to get the word out first.

The Amazon river has proven recently to show the same properties of wildly quickly changing adaptations in fish to succeed in their smaller environments.

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here is something I don't get about evolution: If biological change is the result of natural selection operating on genetic mutations, why do stable species exist in the first place? It would seem that we should see a broad continu, continui, however the hell you spell it, of organisms that defy classification.

Rick </div></div>

A current and verifiable example can be found in the hieght of the average american male. Check what it was in 1776, WWI, WWII and now. You,ll find we average a great deal taller now than we did in the past Why? the NBA pays more for taller centers

 

[Ratbert]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Goldie</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here is something I don't get about evolution: If biological change is the result of natural selection operating on genetic mutations, why do stable species exist in the first place? It would seem that we should see a broad continu, continui, however the hell you spell it, of organisms that defy classification.

Rick </div></div>

A current and verifiable example can be found in the hieght of the average american male. Check what it was in 1776, WWI, WWII and now. You,ll find we average a great deal taller now than we did in the past Why? the NBA pays more for taller centers

</div></div>

A lot of that can be explained by diet. A better example would be to look at the size of your little toe now and compare that to your grandfather 750,000 years ago. We ARE a transitional species. These changes take time and, as creatures who exist in the span of not much more than 100 years at most, it is hard for us to think in those terms.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here is something I don't get about evolution: If biological change is the result of natural selection operating on genetic mutations, why do stable species exist in the first place? It would seem that we should see a broad continu, continui, however the hell you spell it, of organisms that defy classification.</div></div>

There are several factors at play with the evolution of a species. First, it needs variation which comes from random mutation. This is really simple and a completely natural part of the process of merging DNA from both parents. Some mutations are insignificant and others are really bad. Let's use the case of field mice for example. We have temperate climate with lots of dry grass in the summer and a population of light brown field mice. Every now and then one is born with a mutation that gives it white fur or black fur. No biggie.

The next thing is the environment the species lives in. Environmental pressures are a key factor that drives evolution and this can be as simple as a change in the food source, the introduction of a new predator, changes in climate or even something as simple as a change in local fauna. So in the mice example, let's say the field burns in a fire. When the mice crawl out of their holes, all of the sudden the ones with black fur have an evolutionary advantage: they are harder for predators to spot because now they don't stand out as much as the others. In fact, at this point the white fur mice are easy pickings (until it snows).

An evolutionary advantage is one that makes it easier for a certain variation in the population to survive and successfully breed, thereby passing on the mutation to offspring. Eventually, if the environment doesn't change, the population as a whole will inherit the advantage. That's natural selection in a nutshell.

But suppose you have a species that's VERY well adapted to its environment AND it lives in a very stable environment with few if any of the changes listed above. Then you will find evolution of that species slows down significantly. There are, however other factors that can lead the species to evolve, but they don't have the same impact as natural selection and are still the least understood (Genetic drift being one of them) at this point.

I should add, this is why the term "survival of the fittest" is often misunderstood and quoted. It has nothing to do with strength or physical fitness but has everything to do with adaptability to a changing environment. Most species can't handle rapid changes in their environment which is probably why 99% of all species that we know of that have ever existed on Earth have become extinct.