Om

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qymoktf0wY

See the link. If this was the opening lines to the bible, would you be a believer? Religious folks always ask what would it take to make me believe, well here is an answer.

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution... Doh!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evol...

I am a scientist living in Cambridge, UK. Often I get asked by people (namely street preachers) to give me a single piece of evidence for evolution (and they fervently claim that no evidence for evolution exists). I frequently offer to give them a tour of the university library (a copy-write library, containing most books/ articles ever published) to view for themselves the 20,000+ pier reviewed articles on evolutionary theory, but my offer is never accepted. Why not?

betray a greater ignorance of thermodynamics, or evolution?

Every time I quiz further I get a babbled answer about chaos and disorder etc. which has nothing to do with thermodynamics whatsoever.

I would like to know (preferably with a mathematical explanation demonstrating how the net entropy is decreased without being accounted for by a decrease in the integral dQ/T) how the second law is violated.

For the record, the second law is stated below:

"It is impossible to construct a heat engine which will operate continuously and convert all the heat it draws from a reservoir into work".

I was told by a Christian friend of mine that the name Lucifer was mentioned in the bible as the devil, but I don't understand how this is possible as it is clearly a Latin word whereas the bible was written in Hebrew/Greek. Where is it written?

Kelvin-Plank:

It is impossible to construct an engine which, operating in a cycle, will produce no other effect than the extraction of heat from a reservoir and the performance of an equivalent amount of work.

Clausius:

It is impossible to construct a refrigerator which, operating in a cycle, will produce no other effect than the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one.

I know they are equivalent (obviously), but I can't remember the proof.

1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Surely the phrase "under God" clearly violates this clause. I'm a brit and I'm wondering how is it possible that in the 50 or so years its been in the pledge, no one has successfully challenged this?

I'm an OCdt in the British Territorial Army and this summer I'm doing an exchange with the US army on the ROTC Leader Development and Assessment Course at Fort Lewis, WA.

As of yet I don't actually know anything about the course, could anyone enlighten me as to what its like, how difficult/fun it is etc.

Thanks.

Agree or disagree? Why.

If you believe that Jesus walked on water, I want you to think a bit more about it. How did it happen? Don't just say god did it. I want to know specifically on a molecular/physical level how you think it could have come about. Did every single molecule in his body suddenly become extremely hydrophobic, or did a mysterious upwards force balance his weight over the water, or another reason altogether.

What is your opinion?

An amusing video by UK comedian Robin Ince

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM

The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God.

If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency.

Can you explain to me how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim any more ridiculous? (taken from a quote by Sam Harris)

The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God.

If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency.

Can you explain to me how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim any more ridiculous? (taken from a quote by Sam Harris)

Have you read this poem by James Kirkup?

Here is a copy of the text:

http://torturebyroses.gydja.com/tbrkirku...

The question is, do you find this offensive? Is it blasphemy? Should it be illegal to read it in public (as it still technically is in England) or should freedom of speech override outdated blasphemy laws? i.e what is more important, free speech or blasphemy?

These are the words of a respected islamic scholar, Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani, not an extremist, he sat as a judge in Pakistan's supreme court for 20 years and is well respected for his knowledge of the qu'ran. He is also an advisor to several global financial institutions. In his own words:

"The question is whether aggressive battle [against a country that freely permits the preaching of Islam e.g the UK / the USA] is by itself commendable or not. If it is, why should the muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?"

He answers his own question thus: "Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah."

Does this scare you?

Have you read this poem by James Kirkup?

Here is a copy of the text:

http://torturebyroses.gydja.com/tbrkirkup.html

The question is, do you find this offensive? Is it blasphemy? Should it be illegal to read it in public (as it still technically is in England) or should freedom of speech override outdated blasphemy laws?

I've heard this alot in the last few days, people saying that Darwin thought the evolution of the eye was impossible:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

I'm sure everyone who posts something like this knows that it is a misquote, the remainder being as follows:

Someone asked the question "Is the Bible perfect?" To which one answer was "Yes, because God said so."

Where did he say so? In the Bible? Allah said (in the Qu'ran) that the Qu'ran was perfect, by the same logic, is it not perfect then? Same goes for Brahma in the vedas.

If Harry Potter said in his book, that it (his book) was perfect, would that make it so?

You believe that humans have a soul, but animals don't right (as far as I'm aware, the official church position is that animals are automata without a soul and incapable of anything other than instinct)?

So Homo sapiens has a soul. Did Homo neanderthalensis (which was known to bury and respect its dead) have a soul? How about Homo erectus? Homo habilis?

What about before the Homo genus, did Australopithecus have a soul? If so then what about different genuses evolving in tandem with Homo (Paranthropus etc.) from the Australopithecus genus, did they have souls?

Basically, I want to know at what point in hominid evolution did souls appear? Also how did they appear, did the soul slowly evolve, or was their a first creature with a soul whose parents didn't?

Note: As an atheist I personally don't believe in souls, but would be interested to here if anyone has thought about this issue. Also, please no creationist answers, this is for those of us who live in the real world.