Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Pat]

Next you'll tell us that such characteristics as lactose tolerance may simply be in part a factor of environment rather than pure evolution with even such disparate peoples as tropical asians able to gain it in a matter of generations when living in milk drinking societies. Dream on, evolutionotard!

  Exactly.  The use of lactose tolerance/intolerance (which is seldom genetic) as evidence for evolution (especially evolution between one generation and the next) is teh funnay.

"Roman authors recorded that the people of northern Europe, particularly Britain and Germany, drank unprocessed milk (as opposed to the Romans who made cheese).[citation needed] This corresponds very closely with modern European distributions of lactose intolerance, where the people of Britain, Germany and Scandinavia have a good tolerance, and those of southern Europe, especially Italy, have a poorer tolerance.[37]

In east Asia, historical sources also attest that the Chinese did not consume milk, whereas the nomads that lived on the borders did. Again, this reflects modern distributions of intolerance. China is particularly notable as a place of poor tolerance, whereas in Mongolia and the Asian steppes horse milk is drunk regularly. This tolerance is thought to be advantageous, as the nomads do not settle down long enough to process mature cheese. Given that their prime source of income is generated through horses, to ignore their milk as a source of calories would be greatly detrimental. The nomads also make an alcoholic beverage, called Kumis, from horse milk, although the fermentation process reduces the amount of lactose present.

The African Fulani have a nomadic origin and their culture once completely revolved around cow, goat, and sheep herding. Dairy products were once a large source of nutrition for them. As might be expected if lactase persistence evolved in response to dairy product consumption, they are particularly tolerant to lactose (about 77% of the population). Many Fulani live in Guinea-Conakry, Burkina Faso, Mali, Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon, and Chad.

There is some debate on exactly where and when genetic mutation(s) occurred, although a recent study[38] suggests that the genetic change that enabled early Europeans to drink milk without getting sick has appeared in dairying farmers who lived around 7,500 years ago in a region between the central Balkans and central Europe. Some have argued earlier for separate mutation events in Sweden (which has one of the lowest levels of lactose intolerance in the world) and the Arabian Peninsula around 4000 BC. However, others argue for a single mutation event in the Middle East at about 4500 BC, which then subsequently radiated. Some sources suggest a third and more recent mutation in the East African Tutsi. Whatever the precise origin in time and place, most modern Northern Europeans and people of India, as well as people of European or Indian ancestry, show the effects of this mutation (that is, they are able to safely consume milk products all their lives), while most modern East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans and native peoples of America and the Pacific Islands do not (making them lactose intolerant as adults).[39] The Maasai ability to consume dairy without exhibiting symptoms may be due to a different genetic mutation[40], or it may be due to the fact that they curdle their milk before they consume it, removing the lactose."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_tolerance#History_of_genetic_prevalence

[Viking]

Viking, I agree.

My simple point is it is not insane to believe in something not yet evidenced.  Indeed that is where a lot of good science comes from.  Pursuing an idea that is not yet proven or evidenced.

A lot of science is simply the best theory at the moment - take for example the non out of Africa folks.  They had some evidence but not prove one way or the other.  They could have been right.  But DNA proved them wrong.

I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.

[Berkut]

A lot of science is simply the best theory at the moment

I would say that the body of knowledge that we consider to be "correct" in science is in fact whatever happesn to be the "best theory at the moment". Obviously, this is a process however, so what is the "best" theory is often up for debate.

But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.

[crazy canuck]

Science has nothing to do with beliefs that are not evidenced, and the very basis of science precludes it dealing with things for which there is no evidence. Data is its bread and butter.

Scientist says: I think there may be other planets out there and creates a crude telescope to prove it.

Christian says: Jesus is God and was resurrected and believes that on faith alone.

In both instances both started out not being able to prove their believe.  The scientist has the tools to do so.  The Christian never will.

But both at one point believed in something which had not yet been established by oberverable proof.

[crazy canuck]

But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.

Getting a bit tenous there because BB would say there is a least some evidence that God exists.

[crazy canuck]

I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.

It may be unwise.  But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories.  Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.

[Barrister]

But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.

Getting a bit tenous there because BB would say there is a least some evidence that God exists.

There is lots of evidence that God exists.  The problem is that it is far from conclusive proof.

[Viking]

Viking, your chart on religion isn't true.  Or it is true for only a certain amount of religious persons.

Christianity once accepted as a matter of faith that the sun revolved around the earth, and the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for saying otherwise.  Once science demonstrated that was false, religion came to accept and embrace that fact.

While some religious people may deny evolution based on pure faith, many do not.

I haven't come to the bit about evolution yet. I'm happy to stay with the bible claiming the sun moved across the sky (and stopping on gods command). That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. My chart is not untrue. That is the case because rather than taking the consequences of being found a lie they just pretend that they were never wrong and that the book never really meant what was written.

[Viking]

I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.

It may be unwise.  But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories.  Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.

As I said, the Ideas don't mean anything and don't have any consequences for anybody until they are tested and proven either falsified or not yet falsified.

[Barrister]

Viking, your chart on religion isn't true.  Or it is true for only a certain amount of religious persons.

Christianity once accepted as a matter of faith that the sun revolved around the earth, and the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for saying otherwise.  Once science demonstrated that was false, religion came to accept and embrace that fact.

While some religious people may deny evolution based on pure faith, many do not.

I haven't come to the bit about evolution yet. I'm happy to stay with the bible claiming the sun moved across the sky (and stopping on gods command). That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. My chart is not untrue. That is the case because rather than taking the consequences of being found a lie they just pretend that they were never wrong and that the book never really meant what was written.

Let's stick with Galileo then.  Christianity never claimed it was never wrong.  I think the Pope even issued an apology recently saying they were indeed wrong.

You seem to be arguing against some crude stereotype of religion, and not religion as it actually is.

[Berkut]

Science has nothing to do with beliefs that are not evidenced, and the very basis of science precludes it dealing with things for which there is no evidence. Data is its bread and butter.

Scientist says: I think there may be other planets out there and creates a crude telescope to prove it.

No - a scientist says "Hey, there are these funny lights in teh sky that looks like stars, yet move very differently - I wonder what they might be???"

Then he forms a hypothesis - maybe they are planets! Which are these things different from stars! If that is the case, then....

and off he goes.

At no point did he form a hypothesis based on "no evidence".

Christian says: Jesus is God and was resurrected and believes that on faith alone.

In both instances both started out not being able to prove their believe.  The scientist has the tools to do so.  The Christian never will.

It has nothing to do with being able to "prove their believe". The scientists did not start with the belief, and then set out to prove it - he starts with some data that the current theory does not explain well, and comes up with a new idea, then tries to test it.

But both at one point believed in something which had not yet been established by oberverable proof.

I don't think it is fair to say that a scientist "believes" in his hypothesis in the fashion that a religious person has faith in their dogma. And certainly the scientist is not driven by his beliefs (at least in theory), but by data and observable evidence.

And really, quit talking about "proofs" or "proving" things in science. The only application the words have is in math when it comes to science, and in that context it means something very different than how we are using it here.

Again, a scientist does not "believe" in their hypothesis in the same manner that a religious person believes in their dogma. It isn't at all the same.

[crazy canuck]

I haven't come to the bit about evolution yet. I'm happy to stay with the bible claiming the sun moved across the sky (and stopping on gods command). That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. My chart is not untrue. That is the case because rather than taking the consequences of being found a lie they just pretend that they were never wrong and that the book never really meant what was written.

This is a bit misleading since only fundies would say that any religious book is literally true.  Religion is about faith.  The real problem is that too many religious folks miss the distinction.  An error you appear to be making as well.

[Barrister]

I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.

It may be unwise.  But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories.  Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.

As I said, the Ideas don't mean anything and don't have any consequences for anybody until they are tested and proven either falsified or not yet falsified.

Global warming is not proven.  Evolution is not proven.  Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not proven.  Those ideas however have had enormous consequences.

[Viking]

But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.

Getting a bit tenous there because BB would say there is a least some evidence that God exists.

There is lots of evidence that God exists.  The problem is that it is far from conclusive proof.

Can you then deal with the issue that EVERY SINGLE RELIGION has equally large ammounts of highly tenuous evidence all of which contradicts the other religions.

[Berkut]

But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.

Getting a bit tenous there because BB would say there is a least some evidence that God exists.

Of course he would, but he cannot test his claim, reproduce the "evidence", and it doesn't survive any kind of rigour. His "evidence" amounts to "lots of people believe he exists".

But that is a very separate discussion.