What do you think of the Global Financial Crisis and the magnitude of its impact?

Anup Shah, Global Financial Crisis 2008, GlobalIssues.org, Last updated: Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Intelligent Design Strikes Back from the Shadows - Join the Debate?

This is Of Pandas and People, the 2nd edition. This is the first known textbook that was widespread and taught Intelligent Design. It has its roots in Creationism. In recent years, Intelligent Design movement has been gaining popularity in the Bible belt and some have even started claiming it as a legitimate science. In certain states, it is a legal part of the curriculum and children can be home schooled in the ethics and teachings of Intelligent Design. My friend posted on my Facebook page about how bad the Intelligent Design "theory" has been "getting treated" from people who claim to be rationally critical of it. I can't blame him; a lot of people who don't know a lot about either Science or Intelligent Design have anything constructive at all to say about it. These are the same lot who would attack George W. Bush's character or Al Gore's personality without a thorough understanding of either their ideas or policies: their disapproval reflects contemporary feelings manifest in media, or their friends' or family's extended networks - and to some that's proof enough. In Science, that's not good enough. My main problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not a Science a) by definition or b) in practice. Neither is it teaching anyone how to apply the principles of Natural Philosophy to further technology, research, and applications in medicine and the world; no, it would rather expouse the philosophies of Creationism. This also has ramifications on the education system, as Intelligent Design expouses the possibility that Creationism is possible. The possibility. At least it's honest, eh? Science usually expouses the same traits but in high schools or lower level education it is taught as fact, not as theory. It has not been thoroughly studied, proved in any appreciable measure, and is not an accepted science. However, this is where things get muddy. In science, consensus doesn't mean squat. My friend Albert, disagrees. He believes that Intelligent Design is not only justified but rather it is more probable than the accepted scientific account of creation. He has some good key points. Consensus itself is not good enough to determine good sciences: remember that at one time people laughed in the faces of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Galileo when they insisted the world went around the Sun and that the Earth was round. I've italicized Albert's key conjectures in the conversation below. I've also italicized my main points in the conversation below. However, this is not comparable with Galileo's situation: this is a situation when a teaching is neither a science - or a religion. It is trying to bridge the gap between the pseudo-Arts and convert the undecided. And it's main target - America's children. Whether or not you agree with Intelligent Design, you must agree that unless contended, our secular Canadian education is put at risk. So that is why I advocate contention. The modern age is not a time to dwell in the cowardice of the ignorant and the sit in the shadow of the fools. It is a time to really stand up and prove the beliefs you hold so deeply - and not to take for granted that some things are more than they seem. What do you think? Do you agree with Albert - or me? Do you disagree with both? Read on and COMMENT!! Another Facebook Conversation Albert Nguyen wrote at 5:50pm yesterday Slightly offtopic - Expelled, Intelligence Not Allowed, while it doesn't discuss what can be considered life or not, debates on whether Intelligent Design is a viable theory or not. Before you dismiss it as a buncha crockpots thumping bibles, you've got to remember that most of the big proponents of it are scientists as well as atheists, who feel stifled by the communism-like expelling of any idea other than raw darwinianism.

Antony Ta wrote at 6:28pm yesterday Intelligent Design COULD be a viable theory if it employed the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is, after all, the predecessor to Science itself. Without going through the steps, it can't be considered science. Anybody can have a "theory." Intelligent Design, actually, is very similar to the Theory of Evolution. In Evolution, those with traits favorable to the present clime and conditions pass on those traits - plain and simple. The main criticism of I.D. towards Evolutionary Science is that it is based on an accumulation of "accidents." I would rather call them advantageous adaptations; logical and simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#What_do_people_know.3F

Albert Nguyen wrote at 6:32pm yesterday lulz bold tag fail. Just watch the documentary, because true ID and raw darwinianism share a lot of basic concepts such as...gasp.. evolution! Anyways, time to go biking. Maybe I'll ponder on this subject more later.

Antony Ta wrote at 10:36pm yesterday Unless there are different schools of thought within Intelligent Design, my understanding is that I.D. explains things as having evolved away from God's perfect design, aka. why Adam and Eve were able to sleep with their children, however this ignores simple biology established by modern science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_eve

Albert Nguyen wrote at 12:50am ID is basically the acknowledgment of the possibility that the first cell was not a product of organic matter bonded to crystals, or random formations of amino acids brought on by energy sources, put rather AS a possibility, seeded life on earth by beings elsewhere, deity or not. Most scientists agree that the whole inorganic -> organic transfer origin did not happen randomly, since the chances of this happening are about 10^250. That being said, your wiki'ed idea of intelligent design seems more religious centered, and mine is devoid of religion. That being said, I don't know enough about either school of thought, whether it be random chance or seeded life to take a side, but to the general public, they hear intelligent design and people think oh shit GOD/BIBLE THUMPERRRRRRRR. What the real proponents of ID feel that evolution did occur, and the theory generally works, but have big problems believing the current ideas behind genesis. Nothing to do with Adam, Eve, God, or any other religion. Do you have an opinion on this? JOIN THE DEBATE!

World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden

ScienceDaily (2008-04-16) -- The world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the Dalarna province of Sweden. The spruce tree has shown to be a tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time.

Link here or here.

What constitutes "life" for the living? Are we all mortal or immortal?

A Facebook Conversation

2:55pm Antony
seeing as no cell can arise spontaneously (that Science, at least, has been able to replicate) then is every cell immortal? I know they all die eventually, but are we not technically a living continuation of the first successful replicating cell?

2:55pm Jaskaran
no, only henrietta lacks cells are immortal

2:55pm Antony
henrietta what

2:55pm Jaskaran
most human cells stop replicating rapidly after a certain amount of time (usually after pberty) so neurons and and braincells very rarely replicate

the problem is cells have problems removing wastes

so as we get older our cells accumulate with wastes to the point where it exceeds cell regeneration

thats why we age

2:56pm Antony
but how about our reproductive cells, they continue on to produce living beings as we are the outcomes of their success, are we not?

haploid, or not, they were successful

2:57pm Jaskaran
reproductive cells age too, which is why as people get older there is a greater chance of siring a child with downsyndrome or other congenital conditions

2:57pm Antony
what im trying to pose is a philosophical question

im not talking about the mortality of the individual cell and its functions

im talking about the continuity of living organic material

as the passing on of DNA, mtDNA, and etc.

or in plants, such as the transfusion of living cytoplasm between cells that ends up in the reproductive cells and then eventually in the new plant... a continuation of living organic matter

is that not some form of immortality?

3:00pm Jaskaran
i suppose, but most cells have a self-life

henrietta lacks cells were cells removed from a womans cervical tumor, these cells are special because they can grow forever as long as they are supplied nutrients. They are used for alot of research, except they are refered to as HeLa cells

3:03pm Antony
is it really true that answers raise more questions?

1) are haploid cells considered "alive"
2) are our individual cells considered "alive" in their singularity or only contributing the "whole" of the organism?
3) are cancerous cells considered "alive"
4) if so, what constitutes "life" for the living? for cannot a cancer continue living while the host has already died?

3:07pm Jaskaran
BALLS

Over the Counter Culture

Over the counter culture,
Well that's right where you belong,
You try to sever your ties with the London skies,
But you've got the whole thing wrong.

You try to be so different,
As does everybody else,
Create your own distinctions,
And flaunt them for yourself.

Over the counter culture,
With your cards and catalogues,
The mainstream wipes the river bed clean,
You're just wrong, you're just... wrong.

You think you followed your heart again,
Now it's in to be out,
Destroy the plans and just start again,
Don't pretend to not pretend at all.

Over the counter culture,
Well you live your life in waves,
Last year's dream was a terrible scheme,
This new fad will fade.

Let's see... what can we be now?
That hasn't been done before?
Shut your eyes,
Look inside.

You think you followed your heart again,
Now it's in to be out,
Destroy the plans and just start again,
Don't pretend to not pretend at all.

Don't pretend to not pretend at all.
Don't pretend to not pretend at all!

The Ordinary Boys

Motivational Poster Rip-Offs

Motivational Poster Rip-Offs have taken off and are now arguably more popular than their predecessor, the Motivational Poster. Many of them are slapstick comedy, most of them politically incorrect, and some of them will actually leave you speechless.

Some have even given it a new name, the Demotivational Poster, another gem of a counter-counter-culture item.

Here are some of the mock Motivational Posters I've pulled off of Google.

The best ones are near the bottom of this post. --->

External Links:
http://www.demotivateus.com/
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/category/Motorvators/






































Then they get pretty ridiculous...

My favorites: