gc1765

I don't. No.

On which issues?

Where is it that you can observe that you have a subsequent generation of organisms that CAN NOT reproduce with the original parent colony? ? ? Answer: nowhere. By the very nature of your choice example (single cell organisms), you can not describe it as evolution. It is just mutation. As a "scientist" you should have caught that one before I did -- actually, before you even said it. I understand what you are saying, but evolution within a species is still evolution. To say that one species evolves into another does require faith, but to say that species evolve does not. Like I said before, for a lot of science I do take what I hear on faith. But for some issues, especially more philisophical & religious issues, I can decide for myself what to believe based on simple concepts that are "logical".

You extrapolated from that observation by incorporating prior knowledge of genetics -- an auxiliary field of study which you take for granted. I can observe a colony start from a very small size, and grow quite large. Assuming that the size of the cells are not increasing dramatically (something which I've never seen) then the number of cells must be increasing. That is using logic (something which I have faith in). I agree. As a scientist, my job requires that I depend on & have faith in the science done by others. However, there are certain things (like the evolution example & other examples I showed earlier) that I can confirm/decide for myself.

Your "something" could have just put the same organisms in a dormant state. Genetics or reproduction may have had nothing to do with what occurred. That is an other hypothesis. What is the different hypothesis? That the antibiotics are putting the bacteria into a dormant state rather than killing them? Fine, they still don't reproduce in that "state". If a bacteria (resistant to antibiotics) can still reproduce in the presence of antibiotics, that is still evolution. The theory of "survival of the fittest" should really be changed to "survival of the most likely to reproduce" anyhow. Sure you can. If not with a microscope, you can at least see the colony getting much, much larger.

I've alredy said that I have faith in the mechanisms of evolution, but to witness evolution without understanding the mechanism is possible (assuming that my eyes are not deceiving me). I can take a bunch of cells (which I believe to be bacteria cells from what I've been told) and they will multiply. This is easy to see. I can add "something" to some of them (antibiotics) and they will stop growing. I can then introduce "something" into them (a gene) and that "something" that I previously added (antibiotics) will no longer stop the bacteria from growing. I can then let them grow and take those offspring and add that "something" again (antibiotics) and they will continue to grow. I have just witnessed evolution in action. I can't explain how it is occuring without at least some faith in the work of other scientists. I can say though that I've seen very good evidence for the mechanism involved. Every bit of evidence I have seen is consistent with what I have been taught. In science, if your theory can stand up to any and all evidence you acquire then you have a pretty good theory (or you just need to think of more creative experiments to disprove it). So, in summary I can say that I believe evolution can occur with no more faith than believing what my eyes see. I can say that I believe in the mechanism of evolution (something derived by someone else) by having "faith" in the scientific process. All I have to know is that the offspring have the same characteristics (in other words they are also antibiotic resistant) as the parent. I might not realize that what I am witnessing is in fact evolution, and I might not have done the experiments in the first place if this process was not understood....but I can still confirm with my own eyes that it is true. I don't think it's bizarre, what I meant was that I have "faith" that Africa exists becuase I have never seen it with my own eyes. Evolution, on the other hand, I can see with my own eyes.

I suppose that's where we differ. I would put principles above politics.

Partisanship aside, which would you prefer a politician to say: what gets them elected or the truth? Pretend it was stephen harper, would you want him to tell the truth or would you want him to say what will get him elected?

Sure are. Would destabilizing Hitler have been worthwhile in 1934, given what happened? Yes. Hitler killed millions, and if he had not stopped he could have wiped out every jew, black etc... many millions more people would have died. How many people did saddam kill? How many more would he have killed? How does that compare to the number of lives lost in the iraq war? What is the maximum number of lives that 400 billion dollars can save?

How can he lead the Liberals if he isn't going to "just say what will help get him elected"? So, assuming that the liberals have a history of saying what gets them elected...do you think iggy should continue with this tradition or do you think he should tell the truth?

Should Iggy tell (his version of) the truth, or just say what will help get him elected?

Saddam was funding terror; Saddam was suppressing the Shi'ite and Kurd minorities; The invasion breaks up the geographical contiguity of the "ummah" (a desireable objective in itself); While democratization has not gone perfectly it's now in the Muslim vocabulary and debate stream; I suspect things are going a lot better than MSM portrays. A village developing a civic culture is not news; a roadside bomb is; and Most importantly, the West cannot allow the "mouse to roar" with impunity. Are all of these things worth somewhere between 30,000 and 600,000 lives (whichever number you believe to be correct), as well as somewhere around 400 billion dollars? How many lives were saved by removing saddam from power? How many lives were lost? How many additional lives could 400 billion dollars save?

Give him a break, this is what he said "It's hard to make any judgements, since it's a month old draft." There is nothing negative in that statement. Other than that, he's simply reporting an article about how environmentalists feel. If you want to criticize anyone, why not criticize the environmentalists who are saying negative things about the plan instead?

I will cut to the chase. All of that stuff, I "know" too but I never did the original research to rediscover it all from scratch. I take most of it for granted because it simply makes sense or it is just easier to do so. By the way, I have never seen DNA. Have you? Also, I have never seen tectonic plates, either. In fact, I have never even seen the other side of the Earth but I believe it is there. When you say "confirm" you are hiding your faith in science. You are actually accepting bodies of common scientific knowledge on a faith basis too. You must. Actually, I have "seen" evidence for DNA. Evidence that is consistent with everything I've ever learned in such a way as it would be highly unlikely that it's not true....but that's irrelevant, and very difficult to explain. The beauty is that you don't have to see DNA or believe in it to understand evolution. All you have to know is that if you do "something" (ie mutate DNA, if that's what you believe in) to an organism, that organism will have a better chance of survival. If you do this "something" to a bacteria, you can make it resistant to antibiotics (yes I've done this) and thereby give it a better chance of surviving. You can also notice that the offspring of this bacteria will also be resistant to antibiotics. That bacteria has therefore "evolved". I have "faith" in the mechanism of how this is occuring, but like I said the mechanism is irrelevant. I can still see evolution happening without faith. I like your example of "the other side of the earth". I have faith that Africa exists, even though I've never been there. I still wouldn't bet my life on it though, since I have never been there. The only comfort I have is that I have been to some places, and those places are consistent with what I have been told, so why would someone lie to me about africa but not lie to me about the places I have been to...especially when no one can predict where I will travel to next. EDIT: I suppose I have "faith" that what my eyes see and how my brain interprets it is actually more or less reality. I could be hallucinating...

Do you study everything in the universe yourself or do you take some "science & logic" for granted by trusting what the "scientists & logicians" have to say? I would never put my "faith" in something that I couldn't confirm myself. In terms of religion, for example, I can say that determinism (which is logical) means that it doesn't make much sense for God to judge us when we have no control over our actions. I can also say, using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (again very logical & intuitive), that God (if one exists) is not omnipotent. Using Olber's paradox, or similar paradoxes, I can say that the Universe is not infinite in age. While I can not prove that man evolved from apes without putting my faith in other scientists, I can prove using verifiable science, that evolution exists. I know that mutations occur (easily verifiable), that mutations can occasionally be beneficial (easily verifiable) and that those genetic traits are passed onto the next generation (easily verifiable).

I tolerate moderate muslims whether they live here in North America, or in the middle east. I have no tolerance for muslims who "cut off our heads" whether they live the middle east or here in North America. Not sure about the middle east, but I think the majority of muslims in North America are tolerant. Are you tolerant of North American muslims?

I put my faith in science & logic.

If the majority of muslims showed tolerance towards you, and some showed intolerance, would you be tolerant of muslims in general?

Aside from the fact that it would be 90-11-01, that's still a pretty neat coincidence.

I didn't realize the cues were regulated, thanks for clearing that up. P.S. I've never had a problem hailing a cab on the street here in Canada, not sure what it's like in the U.S.

I don't know much about the taxi business, so how would this work? Do you mean if there's a line-up of taxis waiting for passengers the taxi will have to go to the back of the line? Fair enough, but who's going to enforce it?

Betsy, please read my previous post to Argus (the one in the middle of page 4). I think it applies to this post as well. No-one (that I know of) is defending violent protest or vandalism. This debate is about taxi drivers refusing to carry people with alcohol, as far as I know none of these cab drivers are beating anyone up.

I agree with this second part of your post. They should be required to carry a passenger, even if that passenger has alcohol, and if not they should not be licensed. If they dont' like it, they can find another job. The only possible excuse would be if the item was dangerous, but since alcohol isn't that dangerous, I wouldn't accept that excuse. I just think that this is very similar to the case of pharmacists refusing to sell the morning after pill for religious reasons. A lot of Christians defended those people. I'm not sure how people on this forum feel about that, but I hope you and others keep this incident (muslim cab drivers) in mind next time something similar is in the news involving another religion. This part I disagree with. I don't care if the person refusing me a cab service is a "home-grown" person or an immigrant, it still does me a disservice. As an extreme example, if I get robbed, I don't care whether the family of the person robbing me has been here for generations, or whether that person is an immigrant. I also don't care if they are christian, muslim, atheist etc. I only care about the fact that I got robbed.

Update: According to CBC, the plane was flown by yankees pitcher Cory Lidle. There are two reported deaths, Lidle & the flight instructor. Link

I'm not sure if there is enough evidence to convict him, but if the U.S. can get a confession out of him (which shouldn't be too hard since he's confessed before) that should be enough to convict him.