I almost had an small adult circumcision for medical reasons (simply TOO BIG for the foreskin), but me a doctorman decided that we didn't have to cut too much, and just did a little snip thing. YOU HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED FEAR UNTIL BLOOD RUNS FROM YOUR PENIS!

Anyways, that was an example of an actual good reason for getting it. Mutilating children with this is just barbaric. We don't cut off parts of the ear, just because we get earwax, or because we have to "hear the word of God" - but we do if our earlobe gets skin cancer.


Reason, people. Germany has it. Well, they do now.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. Though I guess by the way you've framed your questions you think I'm insane. The success rate of the balloon method is not bad. And getting two rovers down from a single launch is also something that's been successful. I don't think it's that unreasonable to consider that two rovers like Spirit and Opportunity could carry complementary gear, meet up and connect.

You're right that we don't send landers to Mars very often - that's why it's important to build on successful technologies with a proven track record of success to maximise our chances.

Thanks for the link - I've reviewed a lot of this stuff too though I appreciate more information even if it is delivered with a heavy dose of condescension.

Egos and personalities involved in science? Why would I ever think that - everything we do or say or write comes from a completely rational base right?

>> ^Fletch:

@dag

Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

Are humans supposed to bounce across the surface in a balloon when/if we ever send a manned mission? Do you think that success or failure of this landing precludes learning anything from it? We don't get to send landers to Mars very often, so the opportunity for testing new procedures and techniques has to be taken when it can. Every little thing is done for a reason. If you think it's the result of "personalities and nerd egos", there are hundreds of books, TV specials, and documentaries out there that detail just about everything NASA has ever done, from inception to success or failure, as well as the people and personalities involved, that I think will change your mind. Here's a good place to start. Great book.

I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?

Assuming you are serious...
The success rate of Mars missions is not good. On top of that are budget and launch window considerations. Are you really suggesting that TWO separate pieces be launched, have them both fly 150 million miles to Mars, enter orbit, BOTH successfully land (and land close enough they can find each other), find each other, and then connect somehow to make one rover just so they can use ballons? Really? Talk about complicated... It would take an incredibly huge nerd ego to even ATTEMPT to sell that idea. Even a single launch with two pieces on board would rely on the success of two completely separate and complicated landings and a meet-up before the rover mission could even begin. This also means the weight of each half of the rover would have to be reduced so two separate landing systems can be included. Less room for instruments. Less science. Anyhoo, this system is not so different from the previous rovers. They weren't just dropped from a parachute. The atmosphere is too thin for a parachute alone. RAD (rocket assisted descent) motors brought the rovers to a near dead stop about 50 feet above the surface and they were released. This landing also calls for more precision, as the landing zone is much more specific.

@dag

Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

Are humans supposed to bounce across the surface in a balloon when/if we ever send a manned mission? Do you think that success or failure of this landing precludes learning anything from it? We don't get to send landers to Mars very often, so the opportunity for testing new procedures and techniques has to be taken when it can. Every little thing is done for a reason. If you think it's the result of "personalities and nerd egos", there are hundreds of books, TV specials, and documentaries out there that detail just about everything NASA has ever done, from inception to success or failure, as well as the people and personalities involved, that I think will change your mind. Here's a good place to start. Great book.

I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?

Assuming you are serious...

The success rate of Mars missions is not good. On top of that are budget and launch window considerations. Are you really suggesting that TWO separate pieces be launched, have them both fly 150 million miles to Mars, enter orbit, BOTH successfully land (and land close enough they can find each other), find each other, and then connect somehow to make one rover just so they can use ballons? Really? Talk about complicated... It would take an incredibly huge nerd ego to even ATTEMPT to sell that idea. Even a single launch with two pieces on board would rely on the success of two completely separate and complicated landings and a meet-up before the rover mission could even begin. This also means the weight of each half of the rover would have to be reduced so two separate landing systems can be included. Less room for instruments. Less science. Anyhoo, this system is not so different from the previous rovers. They weren't just dropped from a parachute. The atmosphere is too thin for a parachute alone. RAD (rocket assisted descent) motors brought the rovers to a near dead stop about 50 feet above the surface and they were released. This landing also calls for more precision, as the landing zone is much more specific.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I've been following this for a while - and I'm seriously rooting for this mission, but count me as one of the people who thinks this is crazy, hubristic and over-engineered with too many points of failure.

Mars is a graveyard of failed missions. The most successful method of getting a rover on Mars to date has been the bouncing cushion balls method. Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?

If this mission succeeds, I promise to post a Sift Talk post saying sorry for being a dick about this mission and lacking faith in our scientists. *promote.

Thank you for the promote Dag!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

If the mission is a success, I will submit willingly. >> ^deathcow:

>> ^dag:
I've been following this for a while - and I'm seriously rooting for this mission, but count me as one of the people who thinks this is crazy, hubristic and over-engineered with too many points of failure.
Mars is a graveyard of failed missions. The most successful method of getting a rover on Mars to date has been the bouncing cushion balls method. Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.
I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?
If this mission succeeds, I promise to post a Sift Talk post saying sorry for being a dick about this mission and lacking faith in our scientists. promote.


I hope they send two JPL scientists over to kick your ass for this little morale building exercise. They do it too.. I've heard Sagan was actually killed while kicking ass. For planetary science.

>> ^dag:

I've been following this for a while - and I'm seriously rooting for this mission, but count me as one of the people who thinks this is crazy, hubristic and over-engineered with too many points of failure.
Mars is a graveyard of failed missions. The most successful method of getting a rover on Mars to date has been the bouncing cushion balls method. Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.
I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?
If this mission succeeds, I promise to post a Sift Talk post saying sorry for being a dick about this mission and lacking faith in our scientists. promote.



I hope they send two JPL scientists over to kick your ass for this little morale building exercise. They do it too.. I've heard Sagan was actually killed while kicking ass. For planetary science. I'll assume you know that Hawking is a gangster.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've been following this for a while - and I'm seriously rooting for this mission, but count me as one of the people who thinks this is crazy, hubristic and over-engineered with too many points of failure.

Mars is a graveyard of failed missions. The most successful method of getting a rover on Mars to date has been the bouncing cushion balls method. Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?

If this mission succeeds, I promise to post a Sift Talk post saying sorry for being a dick about this mission and lacking faith in our scientists. *promote.

It is credible to believe that the Universe was designed and created by God.


This is something I should have clarified before - my use of the word "universe" includes any sort of God (who would, then, have created the rest of it - presumably). This term gets used a lot of different ways in different contexts, and I don't think the way I'm using it is, in any way, more correct and my use of the term over different conversations is likely inconsistent. Anyways, how we're using the term certainly has a huge impact on the discussion. So, to be clear, when I say universe I mean absolutely everything: God (or Gods or whatever), laws, matter, and anything else that can be said to be. So it makes no sense for me to say "God created the Universe", but it certainly makes sense to say "God created everything else in the Universe" or (if you see things a different way) "Everything in the Universe is part of God" (or some variation). Hopefully that clarifies my position.

Anyways, if you have a universe that includes a God with certain properties, that God goes ahead and designs and creates a bunch of other stuff and you end up "here". The minimum we need for this kind of universe to proceed is one being, with certain properties.

The minimum we need for a Godless universe to get to "here" is a certain set of arbitrary physical laws, and possibly some matter (matter may be optional - but, to be clear, "nothing" is not an option - the universe at very least would need physical laws to get going.. and that is very much something, and it's something that's unavoidably arbitrary).

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't know isn't a theory. What most atheists mean when they say "I don't know" is "I know it isn't the Christian God, but otherwise I don't know". The next thing they say is, you believe in God because you're afraid. That I "chose" God because I am scared of death, or because the Universe is too big and scary for my mind to handle the uncertainty of not knowing.


Well.. I, for one, don't know it isn't the Christian God. I just don't have any real reason to believe that right now. And I didn't mean to suggest YOU accepted an idea because you're "scared" - rather, what I meant to say (and didn't say clearly) is that it wouldn't be a good idea to accept something just because "something" is better than "I don't know". I prefer no explanation to accepting one that I don't have reasons to accept (and, again, I'm not saying you don't have reasons - I'm saying I don't have them).

And to be clear: I wasn't saying Devil's Tower is a current mystery (one of sufficient import) or that it wasn't caused by water action (I was making a little crack at old timey semi-scientists that explained lots of stuff away by referencing the Biblical flood).

Rather, I was suggesting a hypothetical wherein I had discovered Devil's Tower and didn't have any ideas about it's cause (which is not incomparable with where we're at with abiogenesis). In both cases, my point is that even without a real candidate theory it's not crazy to assume the explanation will be similar to other explanations we've accepted, and to guess that the explanation will not introduce large new assumptions.

For a geologic feature, you'd expect to be able to explain the feature through known mechanisms - erosion, glaciation, deposition, tectonic activity, geothermal weirdness, etc.. and you'd try to find an explanation using those sorts of things before you'd look further afield. You certainly couldn't guarantee the explanation isn't something more extraordinary, but your incoming bias against that possibility is not irrational - it's just following a reasonable search pattern.

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

The difference between chance and design is the most important distinction there is. If you don't like the word chance, I will use the word "unplanned", or "mindless". An unplanned Universe has no actual purpose; it is just happenstance. Meaning, your life is just a product of mindless processes, and concepts like morality, justice, and truth have no essential meaning. It means you are just some blip on a grid and there is no rhyme or reason to anything. It also means you will never find out what happened or why it happened because no one knows what is going on or ever will. This will *always* lead you to nihilism.

A designed Universe, on the other hand, does have a purpose. A purposeful Universe means that life was created for a reason. It means that there is a truth, a truth that only the Creator knows. Which means that all lines of inquiry will lead to the Creators doorstep, and that trying to understand the Universe without the Creator is completely futile. It is like looking at a painting with three marks on it..you could endlessly speculate on what the painter was thinking when he painted it. However, no matter how clever you were, you don't have enough information to be sure about anything. To refuse to seek the Creator would be to stare at that painting your whole life trying to figure it out when you have the painters business card with his phone number on it in your pocket.

I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

The whole thing is arbitrary to begin with. Naturalistic explanations are assumed apriori, and then the evidence is interpreted through the conclusion. That isn't how science works. You come to the conclusion because of the evidence, not the other way around. I would also note that you would never accept this kind of reasoning from a creationist. Neither does a mountain of circumstantial evidence prove anything.

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

Anything sounds plausible, apparently, when you have billions of years to play with. As the earlier quote said, time itself performs the miracles for you. How do you know that the mechanism hasn't already been identified but you have rejected it?

http://creation.com/devils-tower-explained

No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't know isn't a theory. What most atheists mean when they say "I don't know" is "I know it isn't the Christian God, but otherwise I don't know". The next thing they say is, you believe in God because you're afraid. That I "chose" God because I am scared of death, or because the Universe is too big and scary for my mind to handle the uncertainty of not knowing.

I have to say that this idea of a bunch of hokey. The Christians I know believe in God because they have a personal relationship with Him. It has nothing to do with making a choice..God chose us. He would chose you too, if you were open to Him.

Neither was I afraid of death when I was an agnostic, and I wasn't afraid of saying I don't know (that's why I was an agnostic, because I didn't know). I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me, and that is the only reason. If He hadn't, I would still be an agnostic.

It is credible to believe that the Universe was designed and created by God. We can see that whomever made the Universe is unimaginably powerful, intelligent, exists outside of space and time, etc. Scientology isn't credible and explains nothing. God can explain everything.

Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

Most of the new translations butcher the scriptures. They remove entire verses, words, water down meanings, or just flat out mislead. I can't stand them either. The KJV is the best word for word translation that we have, and although the language is archaic, it is comprehensible with a little research.

>> ^jmzero

"My spoon is too big!"

They know when you are talking about them!

>> ^UsesProzac:

It's like this talk about blue jays cursed me! Today the jays are out in force and they've commandeered all three feeding areas. When I first noticed the unusual activity, I thought I saw a new blue woodpecker because it was hopping around the tree and pecking like one, but when it came around, it was a blue jay, eating all the woodpecker suet I'd shoved into knotholes around the tree.
They are currently dive bombing the cardinals on the feeders they are too big to perch on. I put out special feed just for the jays and they've been decent all through winter until now!!

It's like this talk about blue jays cursed me! Today the jays are out in force and they've commandeered all three feeding areas. When I first noticed the unusual activity, I thought I saw a new blue woodpecker because it was hopping around the tree and pecking like one, but when it came around, it was a blue jay, eating all the woodpecker suet I'd shoved into knotholes around the tree.

They are currently dive bombing the cardinals on the feeders they are too big to perch on. I put out special feed just for the jays and they've been decent all through winter until now!!

First off, Romney does not equal Obama. This kind of thinking is truly what frightens me, and it's not because of the reasons you probably think.

Some 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population were ignorant of politics and apathetic. Political games were played, cheap shots were utilized, but in the end, in the big scheme of things, on the truly big issues, both sides would compromise and do the right thing. Clinton and the GOP Congress balancing the budget, Bush Sr. raising taxes, etc. etc. Stuff got done. And the majority of people were wholly ignorant on things like federal budgets, that kind of thing. There was also some kind of understanding on basic principles where regardless of your ideology, you couldn't do catastrophic things just because it suited your ideology.

Now, that's gone. Extremists in both parties are labelled fascists or communists, or whatever, but now moderates are being labelled as either part of the same extremist groups, or they're called sell-outs, part of a completely corrupt system, and perpetrators of that system, not as agents trying to work within a system that was built long before they got there, who could change the system while they work within it. When they do the right thing that violates ideology, it's not because it was the bipartisan right thing to do; it's because they're extensions of the corrupt system. The bailouts are an absolutely perfect example. I hate to break it to people here, and I know most won't agree with me, but the bailouts were the right thing to do, even if you're against too big to fail, etc. The banking system was already in place when the economy collapsed. It's like being in a boat as its sinking. You can critique the design of the boat all you want, but the boat sinking kills you all. It's ridiculous to talk about actions that will blow up the boat. Plug the holes, do what you need to do to get the boat to land. THEN figure out how to fix the design, or build a new boat. But what happened? The bipartisan policy by both a Democrat and Republican president was tarred and feathered as government being in the pocket of big business. Those same people don't seem to realize the boat didn't sink. We didn't face another depression. Be critical the banking system wasn't significantly reformed after that was done, I have no issues with that.

To the person who said Obama's policies haven't worked in three years? Again, are we in a depression? No. Those policies worked. And how can you expect a macro-economic shift within a year or two of his other policies? Go back and look at economic history. Things don't change on a dime just from macro-economic policies instituted by the government. It takes several years before the effect can be measured. Again, sheer ignorance. The difference today is the ignorant are far more willing to participate in the political debate even though they don't have a clue what they're talking about. This is a problem on both sides.

Both sides are stoking the ignorant to get involved in the public debates, and not encouraging a very very basic understanding of crucial facts about history. Like... WWII was a Keynesian economic exercise effectively, which in the end was a gigantic gov't deficit that did end the Great Depression. This is a very straight forward basic economical historical fact. But there's 30% of the population that will not believe it because it blows apart what they politically favor today. It's ridiculous.

I disagree with Romney, and I probably won't vote for him. But he's not a fascist. There's a significant difference between him and Santorum. And there's a significant difference between him and Obama. Is there a choice as clearly different as say Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader? No. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book.

My fear is in our political ecosystem, the moderates, the good ones who truly aren't compromising for the wrong reasons, but do it to get things done, and have a willingness to ignore ideology for practical solutions that help the country are getting drowned out, and characterized as corrupt when they're not. I disagree with Romney, but he's not corrupt. I disagree with Obama, but he's not corrupt. We don't need a revolution to fix our current political system, but an increasing number of people think we do. And the last decade we're seeing a rise in the extremists on both sides enough to drown out the political moderates we desperately need. This just can't continue indefinitely.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

Tits are WAY too big on that Lori.