The Campaign Builder's Guild

[blockquote=Nomadic]Christianity is faith in that which cannot be tested. Science, while it could be argued as the same, is belief based on testing in a sense which our senses can comprehend. [/blockquote]I totally agree with this - what Gould would call "different magisteria."  What this does mean, however, is that if you can test it, it no longer belongs under the purview of religion, but to science.  Of course, as some have pointed out, our senses are potentially fallible; but there's no way at all to test religion in the way that our senses can be tested - no equivalent "spiritual senses" by which to ascertain even the semblances of truth.

This is why I'd define myself as a skeptical agnostic - around 6 or so on Dawkins scale, if I remember the scale correctly - which is subtly different than outright atheism: I don't want to substitute a fairy tale of my own, because I don't understand the mechanism by which to create that construction and hold to it with conviction.  In other words, I can summon a certain amount of belief in science because it can be tested, and while I recognize that there's a place for religion, so long as questions remain that are untestable (and these questions may very well always be untestable, forever), I also cannot choose between hypothoses for these untestable questions.  I cannot pick a faith because they all seem equally probable or improbable: I don't understand how the Christian cosmos or the Jewish cosmos or even, say, the Classical Greek cosmos or the Sumerian cosmos can be said to be more or less likely than one another, precisely because there are no mechanisms to test these religious hypothoses.  Thus any choice on my part would be utterly and completely arbitrary, and since I wasn't instilled with a "default" choice because of parental religious choices I'm left at a spiritual dead end, or perhaps more accurately a bewildering and infinite crossroads with no way to differentiate the branching paths.  Each resonates equally with me: I cannot detect more or less genuine faith in any of them.  I do, however, enjoy a lot of elements of religion from a voyeuristic perspective, but I see them as equal - that is to say, I read the Bible in the same way that I read Greek myths.

of course, all of this is missing the True point.

Plantain, ergo Deity.

You know, somehow I doubt this was the OP's intent.

mmmhmmm, peanut butter.

Quote from: limetomI'll just leave these here.

various[/i] beliefs nightmares. I'm just saying.

Quote from: limetomI'll just leave these here.

various[/i] beliefs nightmares. I'm just saying.[/quote]I try my best to be an equal opportunity offender... ;)

Quote from: Gnomish CheetosThat depends on what you consider a species. some people believe that every mutation of an animal is a seperate specie. AKA a rotweiler and a huskey are two different species. and a huskey-rotweiler mix is a third species. Even though they are similar, they are different species.

I don't know, all dogs can interbreed as long as their sizes aren't so different that they physically can't (no great dane/chiwawas). Dogs have so much variety because mutations in their DNA easily replicate (apparently the bull terrier's nose is getting more and more downward pointing as the generations progress since the mutation keeps replicating). And I'm aware of mutations in bacteria, and I've had this discussion with my biology teachers. I think the term "species" is applied too widely, with groups that we would call "ethnicities" amongst humans being called species amongst animals (they found a mass grave of Iguanadons and named something like 16 species based on differences in sizes and the shapes of a couple of bones; I'm sure my 6'1" broad shouldered skeleton would look like a different species to aliens than my 5'3" small framed girlfriend).

Granted, we've only been observing animals like this for a few hundred years. We've observed new mutations, and we've seen evidence in the fossil record for evolution. I'll read over those examples linked.

It seems like mutations would need to progress very far before two individuals couldn't breed anymore, which is a definition of a species. And again, we're talking about millions of years here, so anything can happen.

Then again, I'm using projected evolution to populate my setting.  :question:

Quote from: Gnomish CheetosThat depends on what you consider a species. some people believe that every mutation of an animal is a seperate specie. AKA a rotweiler and a huskey are two different species. and a huskey-rotweiler mix is a third species. Even though they are similar, they are different species.

All dogs are of the same species, Canis familiaris.  Similarly, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, kale, and collard greens are all the same species, Brassica oleracea.  Other members of the Brassica genus produce mustard (various species for various kinds), turnips and bok choi (same species, B. rapa), and rapeseed and canola (same species, B. napus).  The lines between species can sometimes be arbitrary and confusing, and there really isn't any one definition.  This article goes into much more detail than I care to.

As a linguist, and this is no coincidence, there are similar difficulties on how to define languages and dialects.  Both evolutionary biology and historical linguistics have borrowed heavily from one another throughout their history.  One of them borrowed the taxonomic tree from the other; I forget which way.

The fact that you can breed domestic dogs, wolves, and coyotes together and produce fertile offspring shows that they're all the same species in my eye. But then again I prescribe to a very narrow definition of "species".

Oh, and Limetom, I just watched the atheists nightmare debunked video. Good stuff. It's really amazing what we've been able to create through domestication. The plant corn came from is completely different, though now we're having to cross breed domestic corn with wild corn to protect it from viruses.

Good video though. I dislike when people use flat out wrong information as if it's fact.

Quote from: Kapn XeviatOh, and Limetom, I just watched the atheists nightmare debunked video. Good stuff. It's really amazing what we've been able to create through domestication. The plant corn came from is completely different, though now we're having to cross breed domestic corn with wild corn to protect it from viruses.

Actually, we're breeding it with other varieties of domesticated corn.  If I remember correctly, true "wild" corn doesn't exist anymore.  The problem lies in the fact that in the "developed" world, we grow only a few types of corn.  In rural Mexico, there's a different type of corn in every field; hundreds and thousands of kinds of corn, each specialized to their environment.

For the same reason, the potato, native to South America, was hit so hard during the Great Potato Famine.  In Ireland (and most of the rest of the world), only one or two types of potatoes were grown.  These types were affected by the blight and simply died off.  In Uruguay, where several hundred types of potatoes were grown, only the one or two species affected by the blight died out.  The rest were fine.

Yeah, corn don't grow wild dude. :)

The last I read, we had trouble identifying what corn's natural ancestor was. There were a couple of contenders. They did not look like corn. :)

Ah, then I must have misunderstood the show I was watching. They were testing different grasses in south america, searching for a candidate for corn crossbreeding. I was under the assumption that the grasses were related to corn.

It had to have grown wild at some time. It's not like we invented a plant.

QuoteHilarious video Salacious Angel

Thanks, though it's worrying me (and correct me if you think I'm wrong in this impression) that folks seemed to have interpreted my post as a comment in any way shape or form on the validity of a creationist perspective, or otherwise anything other than me jesting at some folks who either: couldn't recognise logic if it beat them over the head, or are incredibly dishonest.

Of course, this turn of conversation probably has nothing whatsoever to do with an interpretation of the opening post, in which case, whatever.

I'm just gonna hijack this thread to talk about corn, and by corn I mean maize in case some unamerican is confused here.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeosinteTeosinte[/url], which looks a LOT more like monkey grass than corn. This sounds a like what you were talking about?

Quote from: S_AThanks, though it's worrying me (and correct me if you think I'm wrong in this impression) that folks seemed to have interpreted my post as a comment in any way shape or form on the validity of a creationist perspective, or otherwise anything other than me jesting at some folks who either: couldn't recognise logic if it beat them over the head, or are incredibly dishonest.

Anybody who has had even brief interaction with you must surely realize that you are an intelligent person.

Anybody who has had even brief interaction with that video must surely realize that it cannot be taken seriously by intelligent people.

If I were you I shouldn't worry any more about it. As you say, bad logic is bad logic, no matter what you, I, and everyone else may happen to believe.