Don't u just hate when religious folks try to block science?
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: This is a choice I have made. If you choose to believe it or not does not make any difference to my beliefs or to (hopefully) our desire to continue to learn and work with each other. I respect your beliefs even though i oppose them. Another belief of mine is that there can never be one-side to anything philosophical, some people must believe in order for it to be opposed. I also think it will be a sad day when we know everything. Wheres the fun in knowing everything? Wake up CPians..... Follow the Green Alien.... :bob:"Bob, a real Alien in a virtual world" Get your free CP wallpaper here or [Paul]
Jonny Newman wrote: I respect your beliefs even though i oppose them. Thank you, I also respect yours and am not intending on forcing mine on you. I also believe that in understanding each others beliefs we can eliminate most of the stupid conflicts between people and learn to live together better than mankind has done so in the past. Jonny Newman wrote: I also think it will be a sad day when we know everything. Wheres the fun in knowing everything? Well we agree on this:) To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Jonny Newman wrote: I respect your beliefs even though i oppose them. Thank you, I also respect yours and am not intending on forcing mine on you. I also believe that in understanding each others beliefs we can eliminate most of the stupid conflicts between people and learn to live together better than mankind has done so in the past. Jonny Newman wrote: I also think it will be a sad day when we know everything. Wheres the fun in knowing everything? Well we agree on this:) To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I also believe that in understanding each others beliefs we can eliminate most of the stupid conflicts between people and learn to live together better than mankind has done so in the past. Yes i agree. However i like a good argument over philosophical topics ;P Jonny Newman wrote: I also think it will be a sad day when we know everything. Doesnt stop us learning though. I dont think we can know everything there is to know. There will always be something new on the horizon (.NET for example :-D ) Wake up CPians..... Follow the Green Alien.... :bob:"Bob, a real Alien in a virtual world" Get your free CP wallpaper here or [Paul]
-
David Wulff wrote: Using probabilities as any sort of proof I never said it was proof. David Wulff wrote: or foundation for any reason I find understanding the probability of not winning the lottery as a very good foundation on my choice to not purchase tickets. Many factors may be involved when one makes a choice. I mearly listed one. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I never said it was proof. I didn't say you had. My input was a general remark for the people who do. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I find understanding the probability of not winning the lottery as a very good foundation on my choice to not purchase tickets. And that is what statistics are all about - good foundations. I don't buy lottery tickets because I can't be bothered with the hassle (to be perfectly honest, winning the lottery would only mess up my carefully planned budget anyway). However, my father playes the lottery and to date has won back about five times what he has paid in since '97. He averages about ten pounds a week in winings on the same five lines, twice a week (that is ten pounds in cost with our system), but around every month or so he will get four numbers, or even as the case has been more than once in the past, five numbers - out of a possible six' - and that is not including the three in a row he frequently gets on multiple lines. I asked him the first time he got five numbers if he was annoyed that he was so close to the £13 million or whatever it was at the time, and he said "no, not at all". ____________________ David Wulff Neil says: The following message could not be delivered to all recipients: dave i am a homosexual and i am in love with your father
-
I am not sure what DDT is, but i think if u just take the time to get yourself informed u'll see that what i suggested is true. Genetics is not some misterious science (like cold fussion). It is very clear what it potentials are. It's experimental applications have already proven that. Get yourself informed, it's better that way, instead of dwelling on past broken dreams.
DDT is a pesticide that was used extensively in the 1950's. People thought that it would eradicate most insect pests and was completely harmless to humans, so much so that they indiscriminately sprayed it over everything and everyone. Another product that people thought was a brilliant thing. Dp you remember Thalidomide? They were wrong. I agree that the potentials of genetics are vast, but a lot of people who are not religous are opposed to GM foods. Maybe they're worried about a repeat of the DDT days. Now I have no problems with science (I love it!) But there is still a thing called ethics. Its these that must be observed. And its these that I am most concerned about.
-
Yup it's like those states in the US where teachers are not allowed to teach Darwin's ideas. :wtf: I mean wtf is wrong with them?? Why hide what is commonly known as the truth.. and the US claims to be a country with freedom of religion.. bah.. imo, lobbies are no good for society... they try to influence laws that should be neutral. :mad:
Cheers,
Marc:beer: Click to see my *real* signature :beer:
Marc Richarme wrote: Yup it's like those states in the US where teachers are not allowed to teach Darwin's ideas. Yep, just like those states that prevent prayers in school. WTF is wrong with them? Why hide what a lot of people believe as the truth?... and the US claims to be a country with freedom of religion.... hmmm.... now does this freedom thing work both ways I wonder?
-
I am not sure what DDT is, but i think if u just take the time to get yourself informed u'll see that what i suggested is true. Genetics is not some misterious science (like cold fussion). It is very clear what it potentials are. It's experimental applications have already proven that. Get yourself informed, it's better that way, instead of dwelling on past broken dreams.
Edd wrote: Genetics is not some misterious (sic) science Yes, it is. It is an incredibly important field of study that is currently in its infancy. We have made wonderful strides in our exploration of its potential, but have only just begun to understand it. Edd wrote: Get yourself informed, it's better that way, instead of dwelling on past broken dreams. I am quite adequately informed, thanks, and daily add to my store of knowledge on this and many other topics. Let's Put The Fun Back In Dysfunctional! - My Darts Team T-shirt
-
Very good point. Obviously science should be able to conjure up whatever creations they like without regard for the moral sentiments of the society those creations will be unleashed into. I agree that we should all set back like mindless, soulless puppets waiting for the next great scientific advance. Science can only do good. I think you need to read Frankenstein again... "Humans: The final chapter in the evolution of rats"
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I think you need to read Frankenstein again... I agree with you post, but remember... Frankenstein was fiction.
Mike Mullikin - We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (~550 BC)
Mike Mullikin wrote: but remember... Frankenstein was fiction. Only because you never saw the proof... ;) Mike Mullikin wrote: We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office Better to have a master bungler in office than a beginner... :rolleyes: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I think you need to read Frankenstein again... I agree with you post, but remember... Frankenstein was fiction.
Mike Mullikin - We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (~550 BC)
-
Onkar Singh wrote: Relegious people are always ignorant about facts Do not confuse ignorance with moral beliefs. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Beliefs (even moral ones) must be based on some actual facts. Otherwise, they are blind beliefs. And for me, those beliefs result in ignorance towards actual facts. If you cannot put in a fact (let alone justify), I won't be interested. Onkar