New Mars Forums

Cindy:-

I guess the emphasis here could fairly be placed on the "at least" part of that sentence (?). I believe even the Catholic Church, not renowned for its progressive tendencies, has accepted biological evolution, more or less. And I'm pretty sure most of the protestant groups have too.

I happen to believe in God, myself, but there's no doubt in my mind that species evolve into other species and have been doing so for a very long time. I see no reason to draw the line with human beings, just because humans are us and we have to be somehow separate and special in the way we came to be. But I can understand why so many people draw comfort from thinking that way.

I look at Christian fundamentalism, which is synonymous with creationism and 'intelligent design' as far as I can tell, and I see a devious use of this debate we're having here. The creationists like to insinuate that you either believe in God (as they see God) or you 'believe' in biological evolution.
-- This artificial dichotomy is wrong in two ways:
-- Firstly, you can't compare creationism with evolution because, while you can believe in creationism, you can only say of evolution that it's the best summary of all the information we have available at the present time and is subject to modification as new data are gathered. The two entities are 'apples and oranges' in the sense that the former, creationism, starts with the incontestable conclusion that God created everything, more or less as is, in 6 days about 6000 years ago, and then starts looking for evidence to support the idea. (Incidentally, whatever evidence creationists gather will make no difference to their conclusion, which was decided upon, nay decreed, at the outset!). With evolution, large amounts of data about the natural world were gathered first and the notion of evolution was later devised as a hypothesis to explain those data. Evolution became a stronger and stronger hypothesis until it attained the status of a theory. And now, it's as close to a fact as any achievement of the scientific method can get .. though it is still subject to modification, or even complete falsification, if new observations demand it. So you cannot treat creationism and evolution as though they can be legitimately compared - because they can't!
-- Secondly, it's perfectly possible to acknowledge evolution and accept its validity as an extraordinarily successful and well established scientific explanation of the world around us, without relinquishing the reasonableness of believing in God. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, however much the creationists try to make it seem so for their own purposes. 

While accepting that religion and science can co-exist perfectly well, what's important is that we don't muddle them up!  Science is the sharpest tool we have for dissecting the mysteries of this incredible universe we inhabit; religion is what comforts us in the cold vastness and loneliness of that universe.
-- If, some day, science accumulates enough knowledge to cast light on the existence or otherwise of a Supreme Being, and perhaps the reason for our own existence, that will be a wonderful thing - to know the mind of God or to know there is no God. But that confluence of science and religion, if it ever does occur, must of necessity be accidental. Science doesn't exist to look for God.
-- But neither does it deny God's existence .. at least not yet! 

CC:-

This is a very good point and I agree we should never lose sight of the yawning gap between human timescales and geological timescales. It may indeed be all that'skeeping us from mimicking nature - maybe we just haven't been at it long enough!

-- Having said that, there are some scientists, especially Dr. Paul Davies (incidentally, born in Britain, now Australian), who have studied the various proposed pathways which might describe the transition stages from non-life to life. Dr. Davies seems to be coming to the conclusion that it's going to be fundamentally very difficult to explain how something as innately complex as even the very simplest life, can arise from inanimate matter. [Note the italics.]
-- He isn't suggesting that we just need more time. He's suggesting, from a mathematical and information-science-based analysis, that there's something 'odd' about that non-life/life transition. We may need to re-evaluate the laws of the universe, or at least supplement the ones we know with new ones, before we'll be able to comprehend it.
I believe he is suggesting that we'll have to totally revise how we think about the universe and that this may lead us to some very interesting conclusions. 

Stormrage:-

This assumption has all the hallmarks of "What If ..?" discussions about past history we've been engaged in elsewhere at New Mars lately, except this stuff is in the future and theoretically we may be in a position to do something about it (?).

It's not possible to be sure exactly what would happen in a European country, like Holland or France, in the event that Muslims became the electoral majority. You "think" it would "just stay the same".
My opinion is that it wouldn't.

Are we prepared to take that risk, given the situation in nearly every Islamic state in the world - feudalistic oligarchy,  subjugation of women's rights, and consequent economic difficulties (you can't deprive a country of the creative input of half the population, females, and expect it to prosper)?

We've already dealt with these 'solutions' and found them wanting:-
1. You can stop immigration but that doesn't have any effect on the demographic timebomb ticking away in the Muslim populace already residing in a country.
2. Forcing out Muslims is not practicable without resorting to the kind of draconian totalitarianism we're trying to avoid.
3. You can't force people to "breed like rabbits". And, even if you could persuade people to do that, where does it stop? When we're all cheek-by-jowl in a Western version of China .. standing room only?  That is its own disaster in many different ways - both socially and environmentally.

No. It seems apparent to me that European countries may well find themselves part of an experiment in politics in the not too distant future; an experiment in which the fate of the country lies in the goodwill, or otherwise, of an erstwhile ethnic minority which has now become the majority. (Somewhat like Fiji.)
However, that ethnic group, in this case, is known to combine church and state, routinely.
Everything we Westerners know about the combination of church and state rings very serious alarm bells because we know where that leads.

I think we could be in for a very tumultuous mid-term future .. and/or an Islamic long-term one!  :?

Cindy:-

Interesting thoughts. 
I happen to know for a fact that the average citizen in Britain in the closing days of Empire didn't see much of the splendour and wealth of that empire either. I don't think the average person ever does.

But then I don't see America as an 'empire' in the traditional sense anyhow. Countries like Britain walked into numerous countries all over the world, with varying degrees of military force, and declared those countries provinces ..  possessions of the Crown.
-- The U.S.A has rarely done things in that way. She probably didn't have to. America's claim to 'Empire' is, in my view, very largely economic; her influence being much more commercial than military.

Of course, there are those who will say that a country throwing its financial weight around is just as dangerous and overbearing as a country unashamedly annexing other countries by military force. And perhaps that's correct.
-- But I can think of several historical empires I'd happily flee from, into the arms of today's American 'Empire' - if that's what you want to call it.

I don't have trouble seeing how apes and humans evolved from the same ancestor. The resemblances are sobering!
But the transition from non-living material to living organisms, capable of reproducing, metabolizing, and evolving, is still a major stumbling block for science. There are various clever ideas for how that transition came about but, when it comes down to the details, and any prospect of duplicating the process in a laboratory, the fact is we're hopelessly lost. We still don't have a clue.

I find this current impasse in science to be perplexing. There is evidence that life arose on Earth very quickly after the surface temperatures settled down sufficiently to allow carbon compounds to maintain their integrity and persist. It's even thought probable that life could have been extinguished by asteroid bombardment on more than one occasion, yet it reappeared with astonishing rapidity.
-- On the face of it, it looks like life should just pop into existence at the drop of a hat! We should surely be able to duplicate Earth's early conditions in a laboratory and have life emerge from non-life before our very eyes. And, from that, we should know perfectly well how life originates by now, and be able to repeat the process ourselves any time we like. I think it's odd that life seems so irrepressible in Earth's earliest history, yet so elusive today.

[Maybe this isn't actually biological evolution I'm talking about here (?), since I'm dealing with the origin of biology, rather than its development. But I suppose you'll allow me the benefit of the doubt - after all, non-living material changing into living material could be thought of as a kind of evolution, I guess.
-- If not, then my apologies for getting off-topic.] 

Cindy:-

Yes, indeed, Cindy!
I, for one, am always pleased to see Australian scientists doing their bit - especially with 'green' projects like this one.

CM :-

Thanks, CM.
Not too shabby for a "piss ant" country full of "f*cking idiots", as I once heard Australia described quite recently.

And yes, I agree that putting this kind of research together with other suggestions discussed here at New Mars in the past opens up many possibilities for construction work on Mars. I'm sure we could achieve speedy progress in colonizing the Red Planet if only we would just get on with it!!

Cindy:-

Yeah, maybe I'm being a bit paranoid but the disappointments of the Polar Lander and Climate Orbiter still haunt me.  :?
You're right about the confused terminology in the article, which is something I didn't pick up on a first reading. But whether the problem was with the software or the hardware, to my mind it still smacks of inattention to detail. I know there was a lightning strike involved but shouldn't these technicians be aware of stuff like that and look for the potential problems it might cause?
-- It was inattention to detail that caused the inexcusable confusion over imperial and metric units with the Climate Orbiter. I still can't believe that happened. Early in high school, in our science classes, we had it hammered into us: "Watch your units!" We were constantly reminded not to calculate in both apples and oranges at the same time, and then to give the answer in ... Well, which is it .. apples or oranges?!  :!:   It became like religious cant to us - you didn't start writing down figures until you knew what those figures meant - you just didn't!

-- And then NASA screws it up?!!  :shock:

O.K., O.K. I'll leave it at that. Sorry to rain on the parade. It's just that I do so much want this MRO to work and I don't want it screwed up by stupid mistakes.
-- Underneath all the angst, I really am delighted we're on our way to Mars again! 

Clark:-

I think you've said it all, Clark. A fascinating and illuminating glimpse into your unusual psyche.
Thank you.

Hmmm.
Thanks for the "lesson", Clark. The abusive language certainly helped to clarify your position .. or at the very least it shone a clear light into the very unpleasant workings of the 'superior mind' we're dealing with when we converse with you.
-- My apologies for our mental midget status, by the way, which someone of your intellect must find so frustrating to deal with.

Another point we've seen clarified by your foul-mouthed outburst is where your convoluted moral relativism has led you. It is now patently clear you cannot grasp the enormity of a religious totalitarian state. I strongly suspect this failure on your part stems not only from a minimal acquaintance with history and the horrors of 20th century totalitarianism, but also from a lack of imagination and from the self-inflicted chaos of your favoured brand of moral sophistry.

-- So, since you "haven't shut [my] little brain down with talking down to [me] yet", let me try to rise above the handicap of my inferior mind, Clark, and point out something pertaining to the latter part of your following statement:-

-- Brand new totalitarian states have a habit of dispensing with the previous regime's framework of citizens' rights. This may be a novel concept to you, Clark, but let me assure you it is the case. If you don't believe me, look it up in a history book.
-- You see, people who run totalitarian states can't be reasoned with by the likes of you, Clark, however persuasive you imagine your shouted profanities to be. They'll just shoot you .. because they're bad people.

That's the gist of my argument, you see? Once power is democratically handed over to totalitarianism, democratic rights cease - for good - unless reclaimed by force.
-- Now. That wasn't so hard to understand, was it?
-- Even being the cretin you recognize me to be, I seem to be able to comprehend it all right. I'm surprised your higher consciousness is having so much trouble with it??? :shock:

Cindy:-

This is an interesting conundrum. We are pro-democracy because we recognize there's no fairer system available. But Muslims, or any other immigrating minority group for that matter, arriving in a Western country, have only to reproduce faster than the indigenes and, given time, the majority of the populace will be Muslim and elect a Muslim controlled government.
-- If that government passes legislation banning women appearing in public without a male escort or without head-to-toe clothing, and banning them from voting or attending tertiary education institutions, and all the various other restrictions associated with strict Islamic governance, what then?

I read somewhere the other day that France will be an Islamic nation in about 20-25 years, judging by the current relative reproduction rates. Can anyone confirm this statistic?  :?:  And I think Holland will get to this point before France, if I'm not mistaken.
-- Presumably, the election which sees the first Muslim majority in the French parliament will be the last free election in that country. I suppose Sharia law or something similar will become the standard and the only choice left to the all-male electorate will be which cleric to choose as a representative. i.e. No choice at all, in effect (and certainly no choice if you're female! ). 

-- A similar situation occurred in Fiji, when the Indian portion of the population (originally brought in to work on the land) took over much of the commerce and then took over the government. The indigenous Fijians, feeling marginalized, abandoned democracy and took back their country by force.

Of course, with Muslims imposing Sharia Law, it's a more serious situation than the one which came to pass in Fiji. At least in Fiji, democratic institutions were intact and personal freedoms were maintained.
-- A Muslim majority in parliament presumably means theocracy rather than democracy, does it not? And the end of civilized rights for the female half of the population, who are then little more than breeding cattle.

How far does one take democracy? Is the democratic process to be defended right up to the point where its very implementation is instrumental in its own destruction?!  :?   Do you allow an election to proceed, knowing the result will bring about the cessation of democracy in your country and the imposition of a theocracy?
-- I'm glad I don't live in Holland or France - this Islamic thing is becoming a nightmare.

Hmmm.
Lucky escape, Josh. I'm pleased your subconscious was on the ball!

Hi Cindy!
You're so right about English pronunciation. It's a dog's breakfast, and no mistake!
Some might say it's a crock of schit. (Groan!    )

-- By the way, what are yams exactly? I've never tried them.

This is one more thread I've only just got to after a lengthy absence!
    Going back to the 'German Bomb' question, I have to say I think CC, as usual, has hit the nail on the head. Hitler regarded the Russians as 'untermensch', or subhumans. While he would have hesitated (even if only momentarily) to drop nuclear bombs on Western Europe, he would have absolutely delighted in incinerating Russian towns and personnel. If he'd known Stalin was in Moscow, for example, .. well .. ! :shock:
    Having witnessed the devastation in the Soviet Union, I think it highly likely the Allies would have withdrawn from the fight in the west, even if Hitler's Bomb hadn't arrive on the scene until late 1944 when American and British troops were at the German border.

    As for Hitler's attitude to nuclear bombs in general, it's true to say he was essentially a 19th century man in his way of thinking - dragged only partially into the 20th century by the realities of WWI. For example, he was offered jet bombers by German engineers in the mid-thirties but sent the delegation away, preferring to stick with proven piston-engine technology. (What if he'd said yes?! )
-- And nuclear capability was undoubtedly delayed for the Nazis by the condemnation of nuclear research as "Jewish science" (just as a great deal of artwork was decried as 'degenerate Jewish art') in the pogroms leading up to the war. And, of course, the fact that half the Reich's nuclear scientists were Jewish and fled to Britain or the U.S. didn't help them either.
-- It was only later, especially when the invasion of the Soviet Union got unexpectedly bogged down, that Hitler became more amenable to the prospect of 'superweapons'. The development of the immensely-impressive-for-the-time V2 rocket was one of the results. In fact, tests were purportedly under way in 1944/45 of a missile which could be launched from a submerged submarine. Thus, by the end of the war, Nazi Germany had invented the cruise missile (V1), the ballistic missile (V2), and was close to developing a primitive kind of non-nuclear Polaris or Trident submarine-launched missile! (It never ceases to amaze me just how much stuff the Nazis were working on, which was years ahead of the rest of the world.)
-- Some experts estimate that, if D-Day had been delayed for only another 6-12 months, the Nazis would probably have had weapons in their hands which could have turned the tide of the war in their favour.

-- Sorry. Started to ramble a bit there!