by AFL
CATEGORIES

 Military  
 Current events  
 Religion 
 Technology 
 Countries 
 Politics 
 Society 
 Other 



Website intro. Please login or register (it's very fast and free).



#1 Re: Society - Room 1 » Religion in America. » 2013-06-13 05:18:20

calibur
Replies: 3

Protestantism, of course has a greater legacy in America. Most of the 'original' Americans were protestant, as were most of the mid-1800's immigrants. However, the influx of Italian, Irish, and, now, Hispanic immigrants is raising the legacy of Catholicism.

#2 Re: Other - Room 1 » Are we alone ? » 2013-04-27 20:39:38

calibur
Replies: 64

@madd693 

Fine then. You do bring up some fair points-our knowledge is limited. But that is an argument just as much for as against any subject.  I guess there's really no use arguing this topic EITHER WAY because of how little we know. It is mathematically likely, be there are too many variables to be sure. It just seems odd that all the variables would seriously reduce the odds to 20-100 septillion to one.

#3 Re: Society - Room 1 » Should abortion be legal? » 2013-04-27 20:01:01

calibur
Replies: 255

@madd693 

Oxford seems to be at war with itself about the definition of a baby- for, in the definition of baby it seems that it has been born is a key component, yet it includes baby in the definition of fetus.

You seem to be referring to third trimester babies. I am against third trimester abortions. You've had plenty of time to abort by that point... I thought it was against the law, but in my research I found it was only nominally so. At what time are you arguing against abortion? All times? or merely the third trimester?

there are no laws to protect unborn babies under any circumstances.

that is not true. they may be weak... but there are such laws. A 24-hour waiting period, requiring the doctor to inform the patient of alternatives... TECHNICALLY, though not effectively, abortions are banned in the third trimester unless they threaten the health of the mother.

#4 Re: Other - Room 1 » Are we alone ? » 2013-04-27 02:53:18

calibur
Replies: 64

@madd693 

@calibur
With a complete lack of evidence that something exists, or even can exist, the assumption has to be that it does not until proven otherwise. You can postulate about the 'possibility' from now until the end of time but that is not evidence of anything.
The only thing laughable is to try and attach a percentage number to the likelihood of something that NOBODY has a firm understanding of in the first place.

Fair enough. However, something that is a mathematical likelihood can be tentatively assumed true.

Your ignorance is shown clearly when you say you don't think the moons relation to the earth has any effect on life. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail, you can research if for yourself, but the relationship between the moon and the earth causes a gravitational pull that causes Ocean tides...quite necessary. If you believe in evolution, it never would have occurred without tides, which never would have occurred without the moons relation to the earth. The position of the moon in relation to earth is critical.
Of course I know about the tides! But I did not know they had any bearing on the origin of life... and, in my research, I have found that that is still true. However, the moon is important to the origin for a different reason- it removed much of the crust matter of the earth after the insides were all formed.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html


It wasn't until very recently that science discovered that "hole in the ozone" they believed to be man made is actually SUPPOSED TO BE THERE and acts as a sort of natural thermostat opening and closing as needed. For a couple of decades they tried to find solutions to 'close' it as man was destroying the earth....if they had succeeded in closing it, THAT would have destroyed the earth. (this is another of many reasons to discount the whole 'global warming' nonsense, but that's another debate)
We aren't talking about other galaxies, or even our own, here, we are talking about something as "simple" as our own atmosphere and science can't explain it in full. You want to extrapolate on what little is know elsewhere? Have at it. Just understand that you do so with absolutely nothing to back your statements and even the little bit that is thought to be know is very possibly/probably inaccurate.

You're right; we should just toss out all physics textbooks and melt down the telescopes, because it's useless to explore one science when we don't fully understand every related subject!

There are SO MANY things that inexplicably come together to form the basis for life on earth that believing it would happen by chance is a stretch, at the very least. To think it would happen by chance multiple times? There is a better chance that the Easter Bunny will show up at your house. Especially when it is hypothesized that it took 4 billion years for even Earth to meet the conditions to sustain life.

And, now, wikipedia on the modern estimation for three relevant values of the Drake equation- fraction of stars with planets, average number of terrestrial (earth-like, in the habitable zone) planets per star, and likelihood that any terrestrial planet will support life. I will multiply this by the number of stars in our galaxy. Anything outside the galaxy is not pragmatically relevant, so I will multiply the number of galaxies separately

[spoiler]fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
Recent analysis of Microlensing surveys has found that fp may approach 1 -- that is, stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather than the exception; and that there are one or more bound planets per Milky Way star[31][25]
ne = the average number of planets (satellites may perhaps sometimes be just as good candidates) that can potentially support life per star that has planets
Marcy et al.[32] note that most of the observed planets have very eccentric orbits, or orbit very close to their star where the temperature is too high for Earth-like life. However, several planetary systems that look more Solar System-like are known, such as HD 70642, HD 154345, Gliese 849 or Gliese 581. There may well be other, as yet unseen, Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones of these stars. Also, the variety of star systems that might have habitable zones is not just limited to solar-type stars and Earth-sized planets; it is now estimated that even tidally locked planets close to red dwarfs might have habitable zones.[33]
In early 2008, two different research groups concluded that Gliese 581 d may possibly be habitable.[26][27] In 2010, researchers announced the discovery of Gliese 581 g, a 3.1 Earth-mass planet near the middle of the habitable zone of Gliese 581, and a strong candidate for being the first known Earth-like habitable planet.[34] Given the closeness of Gliese 581, and the number of stars examined to the level of detail needed to find such planets, they estimated εEarth, or the fraction of stars with Earth-like planets, as 10-20%. However, other research has put this estimate into question.
Using different criteria, Brad Gibson, Yeshe Fenner, and Charley Lineweaver also determined that about 10% of star systems in the Milky Way galaxy are hospitable to life, by having heavy elements, being far from supernovae and being stable for a sufficient time.[35]
NASA's Kepler mission was launched on 6 March 2009. Unlike previous searches, it has the sensitivity to detect planets as small as Earth, and with orbital periods as long as a year. Since it looks at a large sample, about 150,000 stars, the ongoing Kepler mission should eventually provide a fairly reliable estimate of the number of planets per star that are found in the habitable zone. Estimates from partial data suggest that 34% ± 14% of FGK stars are predicted to have at least one terrestrial, habitable-zone planet,[36] and that at least 5.4% of all stars may host a terrestrial planet.[37]
Even if planets are in the habitable zone, however, the number of planets with the right proportion of elements is difficult to estimate.[38] Also, the Rare Earth hypothesis, which posits that conditions for intelligent life are quite rare, has advanced a set of arguments based on the Drake equation that the number of planets or satellites that could support life is small, and quite possibly limited to Earth alone; in this case, the estimate of ne would be infinitesimally small.
The discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the formation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays, a property not conducive to life as we know it. Simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmosphere. The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.
fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
Geological evidence from the Earth suggests that fl may be high; life on Earth appears to have begun around the same time as favorable conditions arose, suggesting that abiogenesis may be relatively common once conditions are right. However, this evidence only looks at the Earth (a single model planet), and contains anthropic bias, as the planet of study was not chosen randomly, but by the living organisms that already inhabit it (ourselves). From a classical hypothesis testing standpoint, there are zero degrees of freedom, permitting no valid estimates to be made. If life were to be found on Mars that developed independently from life on Earth it would imply a value for fl close to one. While this would improve the degrees of freedom from zero to one, there would remain a great deal of uncertainty on any estimate due to the small sample size, and the chance they are not really independent.
Countering this argument is that there is no evidence for abiogenesis occurring more than once on the Earth —that is, all terrestrial life stems from a common origin. If abiogenesis were more common it would be speculated to have occurred more than once on the Earth. Scientists have searched for this by looking for bacteria that are unrelated to other life on Earth, but none have been found yet.[39] It is also possible that life arose more than once, but that other branches were out-competed, or died in mass extinctions, or were lost in other ways. Biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel laid special emphasis on this uncertainty: "At the moment we have no means at all of knowing" whether we are "likely to be alone in the galaxy (Universe)" or whether "the galaxy may be pullulating with life of many different forms."[40] As an alternative to abiogenesis on Earth, they proposed the hypothesis of directed panspermia, which states that Earth life began with "microorganisms sent here deliberately by a technological society on another planet, by means of a special long-range unmanned spaceship" (Crick and Orgel, op.cit.).
In 2002, using a statistical argument based on the length of time life took to evolve on Earth, Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis (at the University of New South Wales and the Australian Centre for Astrobiology) estimated fl as > 0.13 on planets that have existed for at least one billion years.[28][/spoiler]

Planetary x Terrestrial x Life (since there is only the one, weak value here, I will multiply is by .001) x stars(low estimate)
1 x .054 x  .0013 x 200 billion=14,040,000
x number of galaxies(low estimate 100 billion)=1,404,000,000,000,000,000
Sure, there are a lot of variables factored in that would reduce that value further; but these factors do not have to be quite so perfect a s you think they do. These factors could reduce it hundreds, thousands, millions of times; but do you really think they would reduce it 1.4 sextillion times?

#5 Re: Society - Room 1 » Should abortion be legal? » 2013-04-27 01:37:03

calibur
Replies: 255

I thought I posted this already, but please elaborate on the in-womb intelligence being proven.

Human beings, without their intelligence, are animals. Animals get killed out of inconvenience- billions of bees, ants, and termites are genocidally exterminated every year.

#6 Re: Other - Room 1 » Are we alone ? » 2013-04-25 04:07:46

calibur
Replies: 64

@madd693 

You've made many posts here in the past few days, most of them pretty intelligent even if I disagree with them. But this post was laughable to me. Sure, there were a lot of conditions met for earth to bear life. But those conditions don't have to be precisely the same. There are substances other than water that could be a basis for life- Ammonia for example. The distance to the moon, I would think is irrelevant, though I'm unsure about that. Distance from the sun, it is not a perfect distance required, but a range. A fairly large one too, even if it is a bit small by planetary standards. But, most importantly, you vastly underestimate the size of the universe. In 1000 solar systems with suns vaguely similar to our own, there is maybe a 1% chance of life, probably a lot more. However, Even if the universe is not infinite, of which we are not sure, there are trillions (a million million, for comparison) of galaxies out there, each containing millions or billions of stars. Sure, a lot of suns are quite dissimilar to our own, but most still have some distance from them at which life could form. To think that we are the only life takes quite a bit of audacity.

#7 Re: Society - Room 1 » Should abortion be legal? » 2013-04-25 02:07:24

calibur
Replies: 255

@maddI'm 693 

I'm sure there are plenty of cows killed out of inconvenience.
Your surprise is a religious perspective. From a scientific perspective, homo sapiens are animals. Before they gain the capacity for intelligence... they are not people.

#8 Re: Religion - Room 1 » Religious Exclusion Act » 2013-04-25 01:59:13

calibur
Replies: 35

@madd693 

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. " Matthew 19-23-24

#9 Re: Other - Room 1 » Are all men Equal? » 2013-04-25 01:27:01

calibur
Replies: 42

@madd693 

You are debating a different point than me, a point neither in line with nor opposing mine. My point is, if all countries in the world were to engage in total war, India would be a good ally to have. Not USA or China good, but good. India is powerful. As a country, their economic capacity is high. This is the point I was trying to make.

#10 Re: Society - Room 1 » Should abortion be legal? » 2013-04-25 01:22:15

calibur
Replies: 255

@madd693 

The child is alive inside the womb so why is killing it there any better than outside the womb?

The cow is alive in the farm so why kill it but not a child in the womb?

#11 Re: Religion - Room 1 » Why People Believe » 2013-04-24 05:18:09

calibur
Replies: 169

@madd693 

I never said or implied religion was the cause of human suffering. I said the inverse. Suffering is the cause of religion. Which is basically what you were saying. Hence my agreement with you.
I will adress your arguments FOR religion tomorrow.
I ask that you please cease double-posting.

#12 Re: Other - Room 1 » Are all men Equal? » 2013-04-24 05:15:02

calibur
Replies: 42

@madd693 

Yes, i'm sure rich Qatar would fare quite well in a war against oh-so-poor India. Of course Qatar and Luxemborg could beat the US in a war if they committed their resources, because per-capita-GDP is the best thing to look at when determining a country's power.
*exit sarcastic reductio ad absurdum mode*

#13 Re: Other - Room 1 » Are all men Equal? » 2013-04-24 03:35:47

calibur
Replies: 42

@madd693 

I was arguing against the fact that the nation-state of India is not and has never been especially powerful. As a state/nation/country, a single undivided entity, it has the 9th-11th largest GDP.
I don't think the ancient empires, which were relevant in that discussion, cared about per-capita GDP even if they had measured GDP (which they didn't)

#14 Re: Other - Room 1 » Are all men Equal? » 2013-04-24 03:01:50

calibur
Replies: 42

@madd693 

That was too long ago, I can't remember what I was thinking when I said that. I do not believe any race is intrinsically superior.

#15 Re: Society - Room 1 » Overpopulation » 2013-04-24 02:59:02

calibur
Replies: 75

@madd693 

ULTRA-nationalist. Including, though not limited to, Hitler.

#16 Re: Religion - Room 1 » Why People Believe » 2013-04-24 02:55:11

calibur
Replies: 169

@TAHolt-US 

Hence why human suffering and religion are directly proportional.

#17 Re: Military - Room 1 » Nuclear weapons-disarm? » 2013-04-24 02:54:09

calibur
Replies: 91

@TAHolt-US 

Rogue states are the wild card. Were it only superpowers and EU-like super-states, MAD would surely prevail.

#18 Re: Religion - Room 1 » Religious Exclusion Act » 2013-04-24 02:51:32

calibur
Replies: 35

@madd693 

What religion are you talking about? Lots of religion de-emphasizes self, and scorns the rich man. this is in line with communism.

#19 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2013-04-24 02:09:14

calibur
Replies: 386

@madd693 

very well, in your responses to me.

As for govt investment in companies, is that not similar to government-provided research grants for universities and weapons companies? Subsidizing farms? etc?
After all, they are hoping to improve technology and lower costs for those industries. They are going to legislate ecological laws anyways, this is just another route for that.

#20 Re: Religion - Room 1 » Islam a terrorist religion ? » 2013-04-24 02:03:12

calibur
Replies: 498

@Himalayan 

Nothing is showing up. I cannot see your words.

Board footer

Created by AFL, powered by FluxBB
© 2011 theworlddebating.com