Slashdot Mirror

IS WHAT I DO!

Well, actually MEANT LCD. Ala http://www.phys.uwosh.edu/mike/calcs/hp-35.html

Unfortunatly I was wrong, and they are still LED. I classified them as LCD due to the ability o create numbers like a digital watch. Apparently the fact that they EMIT LIGHT wasn't enough to convience me that they were made from LED. Add that to the fact I thought LED's were very rare back then.

Stupid me.

Is there really a well-defined line between living and non-living things?

Not really. Viruses are borderline, but to those who study them, that distinction is rather academic. Anyway, I guess it depends on whether you consider a molecule that catalyzes the formation of other molecules like it to be alive.

Evolution also explains the creation of "life" from "non-life".

No, it doesn't. Abiogenesis seeks to explain the emergence of life from non-life and is still largely hypothetical in its details, though experiments are forthcoming to test these hypotheses.

even evolutionists kind of hold back when they argue with creationists because they know that getting the general public to go with the idea of there being no "soul" is impossible.

Only an ignorant asshole would say that science "proves" that there is no such thing as a soul. The concept of a soul is as much outside the purview of science as economics is outside the scope of evolution. In fact, creationists try to make this same link in order to scare Christians into believing that evolution contradicts God. I think the people who wrote this letter and the 10,000 undersigned clergy would agree with me.

Nothing but FUD and I'm getting sick of it.

All of them are flamin' libruls, eh? Going to the Clergy Letter Website lists quite a wide variety of endorsements from all sorts of Christian churches, and the list of participating churches, while smaller, seems still to be quite a variety. Or is this a self-fulfilling thing on your part, where only liberal churches could do this so therefore all the churches listed are liberal churches?

All of them are flamin' libruls, eh? Going to the Clergy Letter Website lists quite a wide variety of endorsements from all sorts of Christian churches, and the list of participating churches, while smaller, seems still to be quite a variety. Or is this a self-fulfilling thing on your part, where only liberal churches could do this so therefore all the churches listed are liberal churches?

For as much as I like to harp on the religious right (all religions, not just christianity), it is refreshing to see people who understand that science is science and religion is religion and there is no problem with the two co-existing so long as neither tries to intrude onto the others territory. Though it is interesting to note that religion has asked science to help solve at least one of its mysteries, the shroud of Turin.

Every time I hear someone say, "But it's only a theory, not a fact" I cringe and then immediately ask them if they have a problem with the Theory of Electromagnetism or the Theory of General Relativity since they too are "just theories" and not facts. The usual response is a blank stare as their mind tries to not assplode from having to defend such a ridiculous statement.

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

I skimmed the list of resources provided and found one that cuts to the core of the matter. Written by Harry T. Cook, it is titled, Don't Fall For It (.pdf file). The next to last paragraph lays it all on the table:

This is a plea for people of reason (religious or not) to refrain from being drawn into the argument that proponents of intelligent design are wont to make, viz, that their "theory" deserves equal time with Darwin & Co.'s. It does not. Intelligent design is the product of a slick theology masquerading as science. Evolution is the product of painstaking, step-by-step, trial-and-error science. Therefore, evolution and intelligent design do not belong at opposing poles of the same argument.

There were other writings that I read which state similar ideas but his was the most memorable and the most correct.

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

I skimmed the list of resources provided and found one that cuts to the core of the matter. Written by Harry T. Cook, it is titled, Don't Fall For It (.pdf file). The next to last paragraph lays it all on the table:

This is a plea for people of reason (religious or not) to refrain from being drawn into the argument that proponents of intelligent design are wont to make, viz, that their "theory" deserves equal time with Darwin & Co.'s. It does not. Intelligent design is the product of a slick theology masquerading as science. Evolution is the product of painstaking, step-by-step, trial-and-error science. Therefore, evolution and intelligent design do not belong at opposing poles of the same argument.

There were other writings that I read which state similar ideas but his was the most memorable and the most correct.

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

I skimmed the list of resources provided and found one that cuts to the core of the matter. Written by Harry T. Cook, it is titled, Don't Fall For It (.pdf file). The next to last paragraph lays it all on the table:

This is a plea for people of reason (religious or not) to refrain from being drawn into the argument that proponents of intelligent design are wont to make, viz, that their "theory" deserves equal time with Darwin & Co.'s. It does not. Intelligent design is the product of a slick theology masquerading as science. Evolution is the product of painstaking, step-by-step, trial-and-error science. Therefore, evolution and intelligent design do not belong at opposing poles of the same argument.

There were other writings that I read which state similar ideas but his was the most memorable and the most correct.

Ahem

Here is the definite web repository on Evolution. Feel free to look around and refute any of the evidence for evolution they present.

Here's another.

And another.

Not quack pages. Real, serious pages.

Oh, and thousands of Christian clergy also support the truth of evolution.

Now, nobody can take YOU seriously when all you do is claim there is no evidence for evolution (which there is, see above for but a small sampling), talk about the multitudes of evidence for ID, yet fail to show any such evidence?

So let me ask:

What is the process of speciation that ID endorses?
What observed or experimental evidence is there for this?
Where is the evidence for this from other fields, such as physics, chemistry or archeology\anthropology?

Let me know when you can present this.

I am more than willing to change my view of ID if the evidence is presented and can be verified and can hold up to scrutiny. Are you willing to do the same in regard to evolution? Are you prepared to admit that evolution is correct if the evidence is shown? Even if that means the Bible is wrong or it opens the possiblility that God doesn't exist or isn't needed?

i guess you have to buy one of these

10. Mayor Daley the First

9. An effective WinXP security patch CD

8. 11,000 Bush vote ballots brought home early in 2001 by Bill "Lex Luthor" Daley and hidden in a landfill.

7. My car keys!

6. (still missing)

5. The Beagle

4. 8,700 ballots from 1960 election marked as votes for Nixon.

3. WMD's

2. Meigs Field

1. Jimmy Hoffa

Oh, I see you're immune to behavior modification. Not going to get into your head, no siree!

Science has known what makes you twitch for a hundred years.

And has been working on it ever since.

Human behavior is predicatable, modifiable, and plastic. You're a fool if you let them have their way with your mind under the flimsy assumption you're somehow superior and are unneffected.

Don't you guys have some student governing bodies?

My university (UW-Oshkosh) has tons of them and they were spending money (most of which is tuition money) in such wasteful manner like this, there would be outrage in the student governing bodies. The chancellor, dean of students, etc. would probably not hold their positions for a very long time.

Remember who holds most of the school's money: the students and students should be outraged at such a waste of money.