You may think that, I think in most instances it's neither only stupidity nor solely delusion, but it can be just complete ignorance. I point to miracle surgeons in South America that convince uneducated people that they can reach inside their body and pull out organs. They believe it because they don't know better and they're delusional usually. If they knew basic physiology, it would be much harder for them to delude themselves.
As to 'Another language, I can speak that.', I point to Peggy Hill (and those real people like her). With her, it's ignorance of the subject paired with ignorance of her own ability, at least as I see it.
I have actually known people who said things like 'calculus, probably something I can just do.' that quickly dropped AP calculus when they learned differently. They were completely ignorant of what it was, or the base math knowledge needed to learn it and maybe deluded about their own skills. When the ignorance was cleared up, the delusion evaporated.
My point is, delusion is far more difficult if not impossible without ignorance.
EDIT: please see above for how I see dumb and stupid as different.

Couldn't agree more. But (there's always a 'but')... if a person convinces themself that they feel better without gluten, then the most passionate and data filled argument presented to tell them that what they feel is not justifiable scientifically, they're still going to be silly and tell the informed individual to screw off. The point is, some people have a reason that is good enough for them, and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. Are we really that dialed in to what's healthy and what nutrients we need for a healthy lifestyle? (whatever that means...). By example, consider the history of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - in the early 90's, people were feeling shitty and weak, in pain and suffering. They were labeled as fakers or diagnosed as having a psychological disorder, but certainly not a verifiable medical condition related to any consistent physiological disorder. Thousands then and now millions of people have been diagnosed with the disease that is finally recognized as a true medical ailment. The point: we know a lot but we don't know it all when it comes to physiology, nutrition and "sensitivities", and there is no one size fits all solution to guarantee we will be healthy. It's understandable that some are dismissive of this gluten thing as completely irrational based on current science, but parallel that with the irrational and mocked CFS sufferers from 30 years ago who now carry a disease that is has a clear diagnostic methodology and is to varying degrees treatable. Sometimes we don't even know what we don't even know, and for some if it makes them feel better, they're going to do it. Harmful? To each their own.

"If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion"

"That doesn't make much sense as all nerves start as large bundles and get smaller as they subdivide."

Correct. My point was only that a shorter route might not be beneficial, even though the right inferior laryngeal nerve goes directly to the larynx. After rethinking that statement, I retract [or redact] it. Either way would work.

Stress relief, however, is in place due to nerve bundling. I haven't done any dissections myself [yet], but from the video, it is apparent that the RLN in the giraffe's neck was well secured in its pathway to the larynx, requiring scalpel separation, rather than hanging loose, and thus well protected from damage due to shock.

I have read where descending aortal repairs in the upper section [arch] can cause damage to the RLN, resulting in subsequent hoarseness to the patient, and I can see why. This is just something that surgeons have to deal with.

But the argument that "no designer would ever make a mistake like that" makes an unfounded assumption, that IF there was a designer involved, that it could/would have been done differently. Dawkins' view of design implementation assumes a bottom up, de novo approach, which is not what ID proposes, at least from my perspective. I view ID as incremental gene tweaking to modify existent physiologies, at least subsequent to the Cambrian era.

"Imperfection is the norm but a lot of it won't cause disease. The idea that you can pick and choose which part of biology a designer intervenes baffles me."

Complex integrated designs like mammalian anatomy will always be subject to imperfections, failures, and can be improved upon. As far as how designs were implemented, the evidence is that they were incremental, and may have varied as to the source, and the methodologies.

Earlier complex designs may have been 'de novo', compound eyes for example, but in later eras, modifications appear to be modifications of what's there. Thus, it's entirely possible that design implementations may have been from various sources, and using various techniques.

But back to the question of 'bad design' as a refutation of design, I do not see the RLN as an indication of that, just a progression from earlier mammalian forms, as well as a necessary result of the descent of a functional heart as the embryo develops. Same for the male vas deferens.

I think it's mostly about adrenaline & dopamine highs . It's the same reason some people still manage to "enjoy" rollercoasters or skydiving and the like despite basically being frightened shitless by them.

All depends where your threshold for fear lies. Up to a point your physiology rewards you for what it interprets as taking a worthwhile risk, past that point it punishes you with an unpleasant response. e.g. you might get a good feeling from driving fairly fast, but if you push too far that good feeling turns to blood chilling terror.

The key is that everyone is tuned differently, some people get stressed out walking to the shops, others have to jump off buildings to get any sort of buzz. And naturally further to that we all interpret the level of risk differently in different situations. There appears to be quite the split between how people react to intense physical and cerebral stimuli.

Personally I don't really like being shit up by films like in the above, but then when I feel the back end sliding on a motorbike or drop a light aircraft into a stall I usually end up giggling like a little girl. (within reason)

As I understand it It's an evolutionary thing, we need some people who thrive on risk and go exploring and others to stay alive and raise the kids & naturally all of this is taken wildly out of context by our modern life styles. End result: some people watch scary films to feel alive and others have to race powerboats.

I'm sure there are other more emotional/metaphysical reasons too like our inherent fascinations with mortality, cruelty, paranormal etc. (and anything else we don't relate to in everyday life). But the fear "high" is definitely a big factor I think.

I never did and still don't understand why they say "her form matches that of Greg" even while overlaying together video both of their throws where she is obviously throwing vertical-stance-and-hips-square and the guy throws horizontal-stance-and-hips-twisted.

Yes, of course females can throw with great power and accuracy, and there's no disputing that, but aside from what happens to the ball after it's released, physiologically it does seem they will always tend to throw with different form than males.

Laughtrack sounds like an X-Force character. One can only imagine the physiological monstrosities Rob Liefeld would have conjured for it page to page.

That there is what you call a 1%'er folks.

Mythbusters recently did a scientific analysis on the difference in throwing posture between boys and girls. It's always been obvious that females tend to look much different than boys when throwing, but I never realized until seeing that episode that the specific reason is girls stay almost vertical throughout the throw and boys tend to go almost horizontal. Part of the reason for that seems to be the physiology of the pelvis.

I found that to be rather fascinating. Call me maybe.

Yup, it's a motion after effect. I doubt it "evolved" for a specific purpose however. Adaptation effects of this sort are thought to result from neural "fatigue." That is, the tendency for a neuron not to fire after a prolonged period of high activation. The idea that short term neural adaptation exists for some purpose other than straightforward biological constraints is appealing on the surface, but unlikely imo. You have to remember that it only works if stimuli are held perfectly still with respect to the retina for periods that are much longer than natural. In fact, there are some that argue there are special eye-movements to ensure that exactly that doesn't happen (look up Troxler fading for a similar phenomenon).

However, it's an extremely useful phenomenon empirically. The effect can be used to probe the stimuli that a distinct subpopulation of neurons (the adapted subpopulation) is responsive to. This ability to make inferences about neural mechanisms from strictly behavioral evidence rather than direct neural recordings makes it an important psychophysical tool. Behavioral arguments of this sort, where it is shown a population of neurons specifically responsive to X must exist, often precede physiological confirmation obtained later either with functional imaging studies or electrophysiological recordings in animal models.

Hmm... now you've made me curious too. I have found a few interesting pages, but nothing specifically about frog vision apart from mentions that it's sensitive.

• How Stuff Works has a How frogs work article.
  
• The Whole Frog Project provides a virtual frog for high school biology students, based on MRI data, mechanical sectioning, and some software to allow visualising of the anatomical structures of the intact animal.
  
• The UW Sea grant site has a frogs page with resources for kids + teachers that has an origami frog (among other things).
  

I'm not quite as sure about the single photon claim. I found a Physicsworld.com article from September 2012 talking about using a single rod cell from a frog eye being used as an extremely sensitive detector which is able to detect a single photon, but according to the original Usenet Physics FAQ (I cite an updated version hosted at math.ucr.edu) human retinas can also respond to a single photon, but have a neural filter to block the signal unless 5 to 9 photons arrive within less than 100 ms.

References

Julie Schnapf, "How Photoreceptors Respond to Light", Scientific American, April 1987

S. Hecht, S. Schlaer and M.H. Pirenne, "Energy, Quanta and vision." Journal of the Optical Society of America, 38, 196-208 (1942)

D.A. Baylor, T.D. Lamb, K.W. Yau, "Response of retinal rods to single photons." Journal of Physiology, Lond. 288, 613-634 (1979)

Yes I saw what people refer to as THEM. I knew of entities entering what some call the afterlife or the breakthrough reality by fission reaction in head experience. But, I thought I was going to see angels or something of that nature.

My breakthrough was terrifying because I had thought I had gotten to know the nature of this drug. And if anyone attempts to play around with it, it can seem like magic, or an alien computer program that shows you the most beautiful landscapes, sacred geometry, infinite electrical grids, the universe. It is as though something is coaxing us into this experience. And what I mean by this is that on my first breakthrough it began normal. I hit it with my EYES closed. Two seconds in there was a huge blue/white pure energy tunnel that appeared and I was excited, oh shit this is going to be huge.

The next thing that happened was instead of going forward like I usually had into the mandala, sacred geometry grid or whatever it is to begin with, it fell to the ground, like a painting in a black room. And I was instantly freaked out. WTF is going on? The place where a beautiful pure light grid existed in an infinite way had just fallen to the floor. Then blackness. My eyes were closed. That blackness began to unfold. That blackness slipped off the wall and unfolded a box that revealed the actual room around me that I was sitting in. Again, my eyes were closed. Then the box unfolded around me. And room went by by as the box trapped me in it and the floor of this dimension was removed. It seemed like a conspiracy,a GOTCHA moment and instantly I thought, why am I doing this again? TOO LATE. I was thinking what the hell is going on, like some alien had coaxed me into this and was capturing my entirety on purpose.

The floor had been removed traveling at lightspeed, like I was a quantum magnet reaching its destination somewhere in the middle of the universe, dissolving through unknown dimensions, I could never have believed this possible and kept thinking, HOLY SHIT, ITS REAL. The box came undone as everything around me was destroyed like all nuclear bombs had gone off on Earth. Then the frequencies began, like a jet engine taking off. There was no way I was going to survive this. From a low drone to the most high pitch sound I had ever heard it blasted me apart. I died. I died materially and consciously. I splattered the instant that frequency reached its unbearably powerful threshold. SPLAT. Up until this point, from my room to this point. I had been literally screaming for dear life in my head. Like I never had before, not like a rollercoaster but holy shit, I am going to die. My subconscious melted completely whilst I saw the quantum physiology of the space around me. Something there was physically turning off my consciousness. And then it went dark.

And then I woke up. And they were there. And at the time even in another life, in another dimension I was still freaking out and they told me like they do everyone, to calm down it is OK. They are the paradox. They are either the root of who you are or they are aliens that make one sound crazy. They are the ones that give you deep lessons on how to live life and yet, you see, we are here talking about them and that makes us sound absolutely batshit crazy but anyone who has seen them will say. THEY WERE FOR REAL with all of their being. And then you ask, so who are they? My main concern has been forgetting them and concentrate on what they taught me. Nothing could have ever prepared me. And actually do not wish for any atheist to do this.

But, if they must go around acting like they know something for fact that cannot be proven, that there is a God or not, well they are just about as good as someone like me taking a drug and coming back saying something is real when there is no way to prove it is real. The main diffierence being I SAW it, I FELT it, I HEARD it. And no Christian in my own personal knowledge has seen, heard, or felt something on this level, and to me certainly means atheists are flat out wrong, like I said I was agnostic. And I have been atheist for long stretches of life. But, like I am saying. It could be aliens out there trying to guide us into its vortex and steal our souls because we venture into a new frequency we normally do not. It could be just a psychedelic and all those percentages of brain activity we do not use creates an infinite experience, a huge puzzle that the brain likes playing with itself and it plays it out with you and you just have to go along for the ride, no turning back. It could be the program that we receive upon birth and death. I have no idea of what this shit is. Except, that it has been used for thousands of years in the Amazon with expert shamans and that it challenges the very seat of atheism and challenges the participant on the grandest scale. It is one whacked out puzzle. But, so is the universe and consciousness.

Look up for yourself the data,videos, and testimonies from the experts and victims. The myriad accounts, and devastating injuries, i can assure you, are NOT anecdotal. But by your reasoning that "all is conjecture" you will not take the danger of fighting dogs seriously until one bites you in the ass.
I am well aware of the physiological effects of exercise my friend. Exercise promotes strength, staying power, and fitness, that is its prime function. The muscle breaks down and builds up again stronger. You seem to be saying that putting the dog on the treadmill on a daily basis will result in it getting weaker, slimmer, and having less energy. I'm afraid it is you who shows "shocking ignorance."

Interesting that A10anis keeps citing "the data and statistics", and yet hasn't cited a single datum or statistic. Although completely unrelated to knowledge of dog attacks, his shocking ignorance of exercise physiology (the relationship between long duration aerobic exercise and muscle catabolism is pretty well established -- exhaust your Glucose stores, and your body starts breaking down muscle and fat to keep your body moving) doesn't help his case much.

I haven't studied the "inherent violence" of the American Pit Bull Terrier to any great extent, so without any actual data, who knows whether or not they truly are "inherently violent". What I can say is that there are a number of breeds that are commonly mistaken for the Pit Bull, and dog attacks by any breed that vaguely looks like a Pit Bull often get called a "Pit Bull Attack" in the media. I have never owned a Pit, but my interactions with the breed suggest that they are very mellow and gentle: the polar opposite of, say, the highly strung, yappy, and territorial Chihuahua. The difference however is that if you piss a Chihuahua off it's not going to be able to do much to hurt you, whereas an angry Pit Bull can kill you. Of course, this is all just conjecture from anecdote, but until someone actually posts some data, that's all we have to go on.

I think it's more about either physiological conditioning or genetically-gifted elasticity than being skilled, but that's just me.

So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

The topic of the video is what academics think about God. And when they're talking about God, they are really talking about the Christian God, so it is relevant to the conversation.

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.

I don't have any problem with science. I think the exploration of the creation reveals the glory of the Creator, which is something I highly esteem. I only take issue with the hubris of men who exalt mans position in the Universe over God. It's kins of like that joke..

"God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other
words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and
form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and
starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.""

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

What's different in the world? 30 thousand people starving to death every day in a world that has a 70 trillion dollar GDP. The inequity in the world today is greater than at any other time. Most people aren't aware, and don't really care about anything which is happening outside their limited sphere of interest. There is no actual difference between the man of yesterday and the man of today. If anything, he is even more corrupt than ever.

As far as infant morality rates, God didn't create the world like this. It became this way because of sin.

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

It doesn't really matter if you hate religion, it's whether you love Jesus that is important. Did you?

Newton gave the credit to God, and said all of his inspiration came from Him. The value of his faith in God was very tangible to him, and the fruit it bore benefited all humankind.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions.

What scientific inquiry will answer them?

There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The vast majority of Christians have agreement on all of the core teachings of the bible, going back to the early church.

I don't expect you to agree with me that they are important; you of course have your own ideas about what is important. However, God did put you here for a reason, and you can only find that reason out from Him. If there is no God, there is no purpose, truth or meaning for anything. Did you catch this video?:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism

I notice that you put the word truth in quotation marks. Do you know what truth is? Without truth, you are living in a world of uncertainty. You are staring down a hall of mirrors, not knowing which is the true reflection.

There are only two routes to know what truth is. One is that you're omnipotent. Two, is that you are given revelation of the truth by an omnipotent being. I am claiming the second option; that's the only way I know what the truth is. What is your route to the truth?

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

These are rational beliefs until you are given revelation by God, and then you throw these theories out the window and start over. That's where I was at before I was saved, because I didn't grow up in a Christian home like you did. I grew up in a secular home without religion, and I thought along these same lines, and I was equally skeptical about all supernatural claims. It's only because God had mercy on me and showed me He is there that I know that He is.

The way it works is, God gives you enough information/revelation to know that He is, and then He puts the onus on you to seek Him out. You probably believe you are rejecting God for intellectual reasons, but you're really not when it comes down to it. You are rejecting God because of the sin in your life, because sin is what separates us from God. Sin corrupts your intellect and twists your logic just enough to keep you from seeing reality. If you honestly want to know the truth, and are willing to give up everything in your life to have it, then you will find it:

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the truth. Those who are seeking the truth end up on his doorstep. The way you know God is true is when God reveals Himself to you through personal revelation. Would you give up everything in your life to know the truth?

A Christian is someone who has surrendered their life to Christ. It sounds like you, like many others I've spoken to, grew up in a Christian home and were never taught how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You had your parents faith and didn't really understand why you believed. When you encountered the skepticism of the world, you found you couldn't justify your belief to yourself and fell away. Does that sound about right?

You don't become a Christian through osmosis from your parents; you need to be born again. Without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, you won't have any reason to believe. You have nothing to stand on if your entire experience of Christianity is is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. Why would you do any of it if you didn't experience the tangible presence of God? To know God is to know Him personally, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Now this is interesting, what you're saying here, when you mention "incorruptible knowledge". I'd like to explore this, but before we do, could you answer two simple questions?:

Tell me one thing you know for certain, and how you know it.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible?

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions. There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?