Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Retroaction, Breakeven, Kansas
Pardon me sir, are you going to finish that Apple? Marco van de Voort writes: "MkLinux now has official support for these much sold first Nubus based PowerMac generation, that is rotting away in basements. These machines make excellent X-Terms." And the same models can naturally run NetBSD, too. [Updated 6:26GMT by timothy] Reader vkulkarn corrects me here. Mea culpa, you're right -- only some of the old Nubus PowerMac models actually run NetBSD. But I bet someone, somewhere is plotting to change that.
Garage sales can now support Linux.GigsVT writes "Coollogic has released a new set-top box, this one with Linux already installed. Sounds like ripe hacking material to me. Blurb: The Internet Ready 7200 uses a National Semiconductor MediaGX processor, 16MB of flash memory instead of a hard disk, 32MB of RAM and has the ability to connect to the Internet via DSL, Ethernet or a modem. It uses a TV instead of a monitor and comes with Netscape's Web browser." And MrRobahtsu writes "Want a 64MB diskless 200MHz Linux box cheap? Try egghead. With IDE, USB, 10/100 ethernet, and Linux and Netscape in flash ram, it looks pretty cool. Even says "can be upgraded to a pc." Not bad for $129."
Toto, I don't think we're in the Pleistocene anymore! Claudius writes: "This cnn.com article reports that Kansas voters now support the teaching of evolution in their public schools, as evidenced by recent election results. They have voted to remove two incumbents to the Kansas Board of Education who have supported standards diminishing the importance of evolution, and a third, anti-evolution candidate was unable to defeat an opponent who opposes the current standards. The issue is still far from settled, however, since five of the ten seats on the board remain to be filled in November." For a refresher on the sticky state of evolution in Kansas education, see Hemos' story on it from a while ago.
Ha ha fooled ya good. TeacherReviews.com writes "Gervase just got voted off the Survivor island, meaning that RealWorldBlows discussed in a past story produced a false result and the actual winner of Survivor is still unknown." True enough. What was going through the collective CBS head when they failed to follow the directive of their own Web site?!
Still horrifying after all these days. chaidawg writes: "According to this article in the New York Times (free registration req.), author Stephen King's experiment with payment for e-publishing seems to be working. After the first of three promised chapters he has made back all but $10,000 of the more than $100,000 he spent on advertising." This still doesn't mean Jamie is wrong -- yet.
Your point is well taken. Nevertheless, evolution essentially states that all species on earth came from something, but it doesn't explicitly state what the something is (very well). That "something" is broken into theories like the Big bang theory, which attempt to explain to us that the universe "just happened". I did not explicitly use the "Big Bang" theory, rather, I was refferring to the fact that evolution assumes that we "just are".
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Unfortunately, the constitution is already meaningless and using it to take prayer out of schools is more proof of it. If you think anything of the constitution, then you ought to have some sort of respect for the folks that wrote it: they thought God ruled. :P
It's time that all this talk of "school prayer" and "equal time" gets taken out of the picture.
I really have to agree with you here.
Evolution is a confirmed, Objective fact. Religion, and creation "science" is pure fantasy.
Evolution is not only not confirmed, it's disproven. Evolution has been repeatedly disproven since it's founding. Evolution's hold on the majority is becoming as embarrassing as the e-mail hoaxes that float around, continually exposing our friends and colleagues as e-mail newbies.
Personally, I'd like to see someone shut down these religious hoaxsters for good. Take these fundies out of the school system and out of our government. Religion, the crutch that it is, has no place in public life, mine or anyone elses.
I realize I'm about to crucified for this (blatant pun), and it's always an amazing experience, but people are so electrified by the discussion of evolution "versus" creation that they can't be bothered to think that macro evolution is totally bonkers regardless of what you think about creation.
In fact, the only thing that seems to keep driving the myth of macro evolution is the short-sighted fear that, if macro evolution is admitted to be wrong, we must all get baptized and follow Jerry Falwell.
If somebody would kindly escort the Bible Thumpers out of the room for a moment, the rest of us can have a quiet moment and realize that macro evolution is not only completely unscientific, it's also an embarrassing hoax to believe in.
It would only take a few hours of effort to see that this is the case.
If you just want to annoy Christians, you can go around pretending to believe in evolution. That's fine. They're supposed to be long-suffering and patient. But belief in evolution is just another long-term version of that classic kiddy book: The Emporer's New Clothes.
Schnucki
A very good summary of different types of mutations, but how does that relate to the argument at hand? Some mutations are beneficial, and some are deleterious. No evolutionary biologist denies that. How does that affect DG's argument? It makes little difference if there are many more deleterious mutations than beneficial ones, since the beneficial ones will tend to be propagated, while the deleterious ones will tend to die out.
Also, remember that just because you have a particular mutation does NOT mean that your offspring will have that mutation.
Fair enough, but again, how does that affect DG's argument? No one ever said that every beneficial mutation was guaranteed to be passed on to future generations. DG wrote:
Note: "more likely to", not "guaranteed to".Then there's the whole eukaryotic-prokaryotic debate: which came first? My intro biochemistry book, Stryer, which btw is used at Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, the top bio schools in teh country, stated that prokaryotes are probably derived from eukaryotes... exactly the opposite of what the A.P. curriculum stated.
Now that's very interesting, because I was under the impression that it was pretty well established that prokaryotes preceded eukaryotes. I have a copy of Stryer myself (not with me at the moment, unfortunately--it's at home, and I'm not) and I'd be interested to know where in it he says that.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Piltdown man was always pretty sketchy, there weren't a whole lot of opportunities to study the specimen, and once it became accessible it was revealed as a hoax. By a bunch of evolutionists, no less.
why do evolutionists have to revise their theories so much???
Because scientists, unlike creationists, are quite willing to admit they are wrong when the evidence warrants it.
Granted, there are sheep on the creation side too, but it goes both ways.
Yeah, this is true. Most of the Christians I know are sophisticated enough not to take the Bible as word-for-word literal truth, and I can respect that. It's dogma, not religion, that I hate.
Ah, by "the same thing" you meant mutations, not bacteria! For some reason, I thought you meant bacteria by "the same thing" the first several times I read that, which I hope explains my earlier post. I just now realized what you meant. My apologies.
Anyway, why not? You pretty much acknowledge in one of your other posts in this thread (I'm assuming all the AC posts in this thread are by the same AC) that some mutations are beneficial, while others are deleterious. So the fact that some mutations improve a species, while others cause cancer hardly seems to be a problem.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
The closest match I found at Egghead is: "Fujitsu/Siemens Scovery 211 Multifunctional Terminal, LINUX Workstation (New)". One search gave a price of $129, another $104, but neither yielded a working link. This appears to be an auction, and may already be ended. At the home page for the machine, it appears the Scovery 110 is 200 MHz diskless Windows CE 8MB flash, while the Scovery xS is a reg'lar PC with Celeron or P3, optional disk, 32MB flash, Linux. Would Timothy care to elaborate? -0
I can finally make use out of my fathers performa which has been sitting unused due to a myriad of wacky problems dealing with software!
_joshua_
I live here in Kansas, and I have to start by saying just how pissed off I am about the way the media (including Slashdot) has managed to mangle this issue from the time it first came up almost a year ago.
Anyway, on to what I was intending to post...
A couple weeks back, I had the opportunity to hear Linda Holloway speak about the Kansas BOE decision, and how the world has reacted to it since then. Now, some of the highlights of her speech:
First off, contrary to popular belief, Kansas has not outlawed evolution. It can still be freely taught. Nor did the board touch microevolution - a phenomena which is well observed and documented. At the same time, the board did not force creationism into the schools. the idea that it has done so is purly fictional and concocted by those who wanted to make an incindiary story of the issue.
What the board's decision did do was remove macroevolution from the SCIENCE standards. The justification behind this decision is that macroevolution is not natural science, but is instead natural PHILOSOPHY.
Secondly, this is not a matter of religion vs. government. Linda stated that pretty much everyone on the (then) board would describe themselves as christain, regardless of how they voted on the standards decision. This was a decision which was made in the best interest of education. (see above)
Finally, one of the other things she talked about was the fact that the BOE spent more time debating math standards than they did science standards... primarily, the use of calculators in elementary schools. I know this seems a bit odd and off topic at first, but if you take a moment to think rationally, the BOE decision on math is just as important and socially impacting as the decision on science. Ask yourself, would you like to live in a society where people are unable (or more so than they are today) to perform simple everyday arithmetic claculations without the aid of a machine? at the same time, would you like to have people who can only regurgitate information which has been fed to them, without any processing going on from the brain? Of course not!
(and now back to my thoughts on this)
Those kids should be educated, and that's exactly what the board was trying to in both subjects. By putting evolution in it's proper place (the area of natural philosophy) the Kansas BOE opened the door for true science education, one where students are allowed to look at ALL the facts and make their own conclusions without being forced into one viewpoint or another.
Sometimes I really wish I could turn a clue into a good solid object and smack people upside the head with it. This issue has been blown waaaay out of proportion (stupid election years!) and the vast majority of those who express their opinions on it are trying to force their dogmatic viewpoints on others. All I know is that I've heard it from the source now, and I encourage others to find the facts as well.
You're right, my bad. But the bible that was printed upon it was dubbed the Gutenburg bible and I failed to make that connection. I stand corrected.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
The is a difference. Check this article for a explanation:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm
Personally, I think that the names micro-evolution and macro-evolution are pretty poor choices anyway. It really should stay natural selection and evolution, which are not equivalent.
Regards,
Steve
I'm wondering if Fujitsu is violating the GPL by using Linux in a "read-only" format(as seen here)?
Yeah, and RedHat's violating the GPL by distributing Linux on read-only CDs... Seriously, how does this relate to the GPL at all?
The theory of Evolution is not fact. That is why we say theory of evolution. It's a theory.
Many years ago my college zoology teacher (a Jesuit priest) carefully distinguished between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution by natural selection as proposed by Darwin and Wallace.
Was he wrong? I don't think so.
Calling electricity a theory is a fallacy. A theory (sorry, I don't have websters on me, had to use dictionary.com) is "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-b in/dict.pl?term=theory
Yeah, it's easy to prove your point if you use the wrong definition. Dictionary.com provided 4 definitions, and you picked the fourth. The first definition, the one used in the context of scientific theories, is:
A theory is a conjecture. Electricity may once have been a theory (back in Ben Franklin's day) but it can't be considered that any longer.
Plenty of well-established physics is referred to as theory, such as the Special and General Theories of Relativity.
The problem with that amazingly bad logic and anology is that I can produce contradictory evidence. Nine is an "uneven" as you put it, number, and it is not a prime. Show me a piece of matter not behaving as the theory of gravity dictates.
So much for seperation of church and state. It's nice to see my fellow Kansans realizing the importance of this issue and voting out some of the people who felt it nececcary to force religion onto our kids education.
I am a democract, and years ago it was always joked that us democrats here in Kansas would all register as republican, to vote out the radical right, and the other crazies. Now it's not really a joke, I'm finding more and more democrats who are starting this now.
Now for our next stop.. scrap the silly law that says our liquor stores can't be open on Sundays and Hollidays, and only 3.2% Beer in the grocery store. Sheesh.
Fuck Ajit Pai
Do I get equal time on the pulpit at a xitian church to teach evolution? Then why are they invading the minds of children to teach them religious rubbish?
Well, for one thing no one forces you to go listen to sermons in church. If your a child, you have 3 choices: private school, home school, or public school. If your a person who does not believe in evolution, and you have neither the time nor money to home or private school your children, then it would probably disturb you that such subjects are being taught.
Don't get me wrong, I belive in evolution, and think that it should be taught. Just don't be so quick to dismiss those who may not agree with that view.
Evolution is a confirmed, Objective fact
No, it's a theory. A convincing, widely accepted theory, but a theory none the less.
grappler, I thought you were dead... maybe a mining accident.
2 1337 4 u!
Apparently electronic readers are supposed to be pretty nice for reading. While I've never used one, I'm sure somebody could get modded up for providing a link to a review / preview of one.
I'm reading an MFC book right now that's fucking huge; it would be really nice to be able to read it from a lightweight screen rather than a bulky book.
---------------
I am having trouble deciding whether to be scared or to laugh at your ignorance or close mindedness. For those of us who have had a scientific background at the University level your claim that evolution is correct in every way is moronic. Evolution is far from confirmed, and has many, many flaws. 150 years ago, many things in physics were 'confirmed', now many of these ideas are looked at and laughed at. Even the theory of gravity is undergoing changes at this very time. You are welcome to have your own beliefs, however please think and do the research before you you defend them with ignorance.
btw, while I don't believe in a literal version of creationism, I am a Christian.(don't moderate me down because of my beliefs.From the irony dept. the Flat Earth Society announced in 1995 that their membership was global.
ha!
2 1337 4 u!
First off they didn't replace evolution with creationism, they gave school districts the right to choose to teach it or not and removed it from state testing standards. I believe they also pulled the terminology too. No, I don't think that's right, in fact I think its very wrong and there is a not-so hidden fundamentalist agenda here but lets not boil this down to the typical hackneyed science vs. religion rhetoric.
And giving people choice is wrong?? A person should not have to have creationism shoved down his or throat, just like a person should not have to the (the theory of) evolution shoved down his or her throat.
It deals with models of the world at various levels of confirmation.
The theory of evolution is not "proven fact", philosophers long ago proved that to be an unattainable goal. However an intelligent person today who is familiar with the facts can no more reasonably deny evolution than an educated scientist of the 1700's could deny that the Earth was round.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Last time I checked, it was still called a theory. Do you even know what that means? Yes it is being--and must be--taught as there is a great deal of evidence that shows it to be a fact considering what we do know. Nice speech impediment there too. Evolooshun...brilliant show of intelligence.
Noone has denied you this. Go crazy, spread the word. The masses don't agree because we choose to look at things logically. But here's a 2x4 for your "platform".
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if the apes felt the same about us. We murder, we rape, we lie... I know your God doesn't advocate it, but it does happen.
The Bible naturally omits this, but to give equal time and tie in your trollish comment about "horrid, disgusting things"... Adam and Eve were, by your theory, the first two humans beamed into existence. Did they sit around in formal attire and have tea in the Garden of Eden every day at noon? No. They were naked. They would have had to've had sex. Alot. Do you think they had Hollywood-style glamorous missionary style sex? Or even used toilets? Does the thought of that disturb you?
You wouldn't be on /. at all if crazed zealouts such as yourself still controlled education. This is pure trollbait here. At least before you had some crazy points... Your evolution puns do at least make sense, and now they're just cliched.
Never used in an evil fashion? Slavery, violence and hatred directed at homosexuals, Koresh leading his devotees to death... Sounds pretty "evil" to me, but define it as you will.
Question everything, I say. There are answers out there. If religion helps you keep yourself moral and humane, stick with it. But I myself choose to live morally without a restrictive religion because I also thirst for knowledge.
*gel
That's YOUR opinion. You're welcome to it, I disagree, and you are welcome to vote in whatever way that opinion leads you to.
---
check out www.prop22.org... Plenty of info there about this 'innocent' proposition... It just shocks me that California of all places would pass a bill like this...
Sorry to say that the gay guy doesn't win. I caught an article in one of those outdoors magazines on a plane trip (Outside or National Geographic Adventure). It seems he got arrested for allegedly abusing his adopted son soon after the show finished taping.
Would you care to state one disproof of evolution? Just one? (Preferably the one you consider strongest.)
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Or if your really lazy you can run it into a text to speach program.
-- James
-jeff
"The U.S. calls its gunship The Apache. Is this different than if the Germans named theirs the Jew or the Gypsy?" -- Ano
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I realize this. Many Christians realize this. Literal creationists do not realize this.
You're missing out on two very important pieces of the puzzle here, plus a drop of statistics.
Let's do the statistics first: "Any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, when given enough time, must eventually happen"
So to use your watch example, if one assumes that there is a process by which your analogue watch could be transformed into a digital watch, then, given enough time, that result MUST happen. That's not evolution, just math.
So it therefore follows that in order for your watch to transform, it must be proven that there is a process that would achieve the transformation with positive probibility.
In order for the transformation to occur within a reasonable amount of time, the process must have a sufficiently large probability, in order to escape fates with larger-order probabilities. For instance, if left alone for aeons, it is possible that your watch could be discovered by an analogue watch upgrader person, a man who wanders the earth looking for watches to transform. This is a positive-probability postulation, but the probability is a very, very small number, whereas the probability that the watch would simply corrode away is very high.
So much for math.
Now, here's the first bit of biology, broken into 4 pieces:
1) Our biological structure is controlled by bits of information-storing molecules called DNA
2) DNA is sometimes changed by random chance
3) Mutated DNA sometimes results in changes to the DNA_controlled physical structure of an organism
4) Some DNA-based mutations are inheritable
All four of these little bits of biology are well proven and well established facts. We know that DNA determines structure for a fact. We know that DNA can be made to mutate for a fact. (and, incidently, you don't need gamma rays to mutate DNA. Sex does a perfectly acceptable job sometimes) We know that sometimes mutated DNA changes physical structure for a fact, and we know that sometimes that mutated DNA is inheritable for a fact.
Taken together, this means that it is possible for a mutation to occur that breeds true - positive probability.
The second missing piece is "natural selection" which simply states that organisms that are well suited to their environment will be more likely to survive, and so more likely to breed. This is a positive feedback loop - the better you are at surviving, the more you breed, the more well-adapted offspring you have, who will in turn produce well-adapted offspring, and so on. Well proven, well established fact.
Now couple the two together, and you get "If a mutation that breeds true and produces a structural change provides the mutated organism with a survival advantage, then that organism is more likely to breed and produce similarly altered offspring" Bingo! We have our process! Not to get your watch from analogue to digital, but certainly how to go from single-celled life to Humanity.
All you need now to make the process a near-certainty is time, lots and lots of time - and guess what? We've had several BILLION years for this process to work.
There you go, can't get much more logical than that.
I'm afraid the only failing here is your failing to understand the level of rigour in the logic here - not to mention the physical evidence. Go back and look at your textbooks. Start with the single-celled organisms and work your way up. We all work the same way! We all burn sugar for energy, we all have the same molecule (DNA) that determines our structure, all our cellular biology is nearly identical, and as you progress up the ladder, we all have pretty much the same design in our organs, skeletal structure - even our senses! We all have sex, all our sex organs work pretty much the same, we all breathe, we all pump blood with a single pump.... The evidence is enormous!
Evolution, my friend, as as factual as it gets. All you have to do to see it is pay attention.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I've read books on my computer and it is not that bad, it can even be a bit more comfortable than reading a real books. If you're ok with programming or gaming for long stretch of times without break than reading should pose no problem.
Use comfortable colors and leave the lights on (make sure there is no glare), also choose your font well. Me I'm most confortable at the console with no GUI with a simple file viewer, be it in DOS or Linux.
English is not my first language, but feel free to criticize my spelling and grammar if that's your thing.
And that force is natural selection, which keeps the good luck and throws away the bad luck.
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I agree. I read over his site, then paid for it before I initiated the download.
.28dpi 17" monitor. Printing it out, double-sided, is a fine option too.
;)
I like King books- been reading them since middle school (10 years now- though not as much free time now), and I'll support him in this effort because:
1. The net will shakeout the middle-men who make the prices of everything twice as much as they should be (RIAA prime example). I support anything that provides direct-delivery.
2. King has given me years of imaginative enjoyment and I happily pay for those, and future, dreams.
My concerns:
1. That first dload was, what, 20 pages? I hope all his chapters aren't that short or the book wil end up costing way more than a standard paperback.
2. Jerks in the public who just don't have any sense of honesty, and who feed of the chartity of others, in any situation.
The format is fine- reads great on my basic
This also opens up the market for home book-binding kits: a selection of 10 covers to choose from, instructions, tools, and glue to bind that book you just dloaded. Goofy idea? Wait and see
Finally, I like the suggestion of all this going into an escrow- so we can be refunded if the book is never finished. I will be pissed if he gets into 20 chapters then stops cause of one bad 60% month!
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
Being religious does not mean throwing reason out the window. Looking at the world and its complexity, it is hard to believe that all of that appeared by chance. You see a car and think "someone designed that". This world is infinitely more complex than a car, and yet we insist on saying it everything happened by chance!
However, the main problem with evolution is that it goes against the Law of Entropy, which states, that left to itself, any system will become more degenerate -- it will get worse, not better. The probability is much greater that genetic mutations will be harmful than beneficial.
As far as the Kansas case, they just allowed the teaching of alternative viewpoints in addition to evolution. They did not outlaw the teaching of evolution; they just eliminated the educational monopoly.
Evolution is not an outrageous theory, however. Many parts of it make sense, however there are some parts that do not, and it is by no means an objective fact.
Creationism does have scientific support--there are archaeological digs that show evidence of a flood (not to mention a story of a worldwide flood in just about every culture across the world).
Finally, let me restate: the Kansas thing was about opening the classroom, NOT outlawing evolution! The public school should be just that: public. A church is a private institution and may set its own guidelines, but a public school should at least show both sides of an issue!
The problem with some people is that they claim to be "open-minded" and insist on forcing you to follow their belief while totally refusing to listen to yours. Check your facts before spewing flames.
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
When commenting on this topic, you must recognize that the immediate problem is in Kansas. Kansans have a long history of institutional stupidity. Back in the late 19th century, the Kansas State Legislature passed a law governing railroad engineers. The law said that, when an engineer on a moving train sees another train approaching on an adjacent track, that engineer must stop and remain stopped until the oncoming train has passed. I'd like to have been there the first time an engineer stopped, then saw that the oncoming train had also obeyed the law. Some of the ancestors of those Kansas legislators were apparently on the Kansas Board of Education. Given their limited analytical skills, they were unable to perceive the difference between science and superstition, between quarks and angels, and between empiricism and faith.
Sorry to shout, but some of us actually want the ending to BE A SURPRISE!!! So for god's sake, TELL US IT'S A SPOILER!
Walt
I mean come on, how can you prove to me that 2 + 2 is 4? What the hell is a 2? And what's a 4? Someone told him that 2+2 was 4 and he believed them. Talk about gullible. And if 2/2 = 1, and 0/2 = 0, why does 0/0 = undefined instead of 1? or 0? Math is just as much specious religious raving as any OTHER religion. It's all a matter of perspective.
In math, things are not proven in isolation, but only under the assumption that certain axioms are true. For example, one can use the Peano axioms to define natural numbers and addition on them. Roughly, 0 is a natural number, and it has an unlimited number of successors, also in the natural numbers (using the notation a' is a successor of a). So, 1=0', 2=1'=0'', and 4=0''''. Addition is defined in two cases: a+0=a, and a+b'=(a+b)'. So, 2+2=0''+0''=(0''+0')'=((0''+0)')'=((0'')')'=0''''= 4. Of course, no one is forcing you to use the Peano axioms, you can come up with your own system of arithmetic if you wish. Math doesn't claim that 2+2=4 is fundamentally true no matter what context you're in, only in the context that 2, 4, and addition are defined in a certain way. The same idea applies with division
Micro-Evolution can be demonstrated and is obviously factual. However Macro-Evolution has no such proof. No one has yet been able to change one species into another, no one has been able to demonstrate Macro-Evolution in any fashion, hence it's still bullshit.
Speciation has been observed. See the Observed Instances of Speciations FAQ and Some More Observed Speciation Events on talkorigins.org.
Ahh, OK. I know I've seen an Ethernet card installed in an all-in-one unit, but I'm not sure if it was one of these. There was one slot, and the NIC was L-shaped so it would fit inside the case, but I don't know whether it was NuBus or something else (PDS maybe).
Look on the bright side - it could have been a 601 instead of a 603.
Glad we have UMA now; even iMacs have a PCI bus.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You said: "The Theory of Evolution is not fact. That is why we say theory of evolution" When will people stop spouting this drivel ? The word theory does not mean something is unproven, for example, I spent 2 years at university studying "Number Theory", including large slabs of mathematical proofs that what we were studying was _known_to_be_true_, and you don't get anyone more finicky about 'proof' than a pure mathematician. In fact, when mathematicians want to make it clear that something is unproven, they usually call it a conjecture. In general, most things in science are called theories, including such well established and uncontroversial things as "the earth revolves around the sun" (Copernican Theory). I went to a debate between a Scientist and Creationist on Evolution, and when the Creationist said "evolution is only a theory" the scientist produced a car-battery and set of jumper leads and said "wanna test the theory of electricity ?"
Hrmmm, if you look at it in the proper light this guy is a religious nut.
I mean come on, how can you prove to me that 2 + 2 is 4? What the hell is a 2? And what's a 4? Someone told him that 2+2 was 4 and he believed them. Talk about gullible. And if 2/2 = 1, and 0/2 = 0, why does 0/0 = undefined instead of 1? or 0? Math is just as much specious religious raving as any OTHER religion. It's all a matter of perspective. Micro-Evolution can be demonstrated and is obviously factual. However Macro-Evolution has no such proof. No one has yet been able to change one species into another, no one has been able to demonstrate Macro-Evolution in any fashion, hence it's still bullshit.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
You said: "The Theory of Evolution is not fact. That is why we say theory of evolution" When will people stop spouting this drivel ? The word theory does not mean something is unproven, for example, I spent 2 years at university studying "Number Theory", including large slabs of mathematical proofs that what we were studying was _known_to_be_true_, and you don't get anyone more finicky about 'proof' than a pure mathematician. In fact, when mathematicians want to make it clear that something is unproven, they usually call it a conjecture. In general, most things in science are called theories, including such well established and uncontroversial things as "the earth revolves around the sun" (Copernican Theory). I went to a debate between a Scientist and Creationist on Evolution, and when the Creationist said "evolution is only a theory" the scientist produced a car-battery and set of jumper leads and said "wanna test the theory of electricity ?"
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
It was the Knight Initiative which defined the legal definition of marriage so as to excluded homosexual couples. The legal definition of marriage in California already precluded the recognition of homosexual couples, so the initiative was merely a spitefully superfluous act of homophobia.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I for one really hope that this works - I love kings writing and I'd like to get it in online form.
Big deal. It's also impossible to prove that a -1 dimensional bunny rabbit named Carl doesn't exist either. Word on the street is that he helps god out with some administrative duties every now and then.
Uh-oh, this doesn't have anything to do with that Sufficiently Reasonable Principle thing, does it? Damn, made a fool of myself :(
Ok, so normally, I'm not one to do this, but my Asbestos underwear is feeling particularly safe today.
First, As has been said, Evolution is simple theory; ie, it is the best explanation, to fit the facts we have. Does that mean its wrong? no. Does that mean its right? no. That simply means that it is science's best guess, at the moment. That being the case, it should be taught as theory, and nothing more. As someone else around here said, let people think for themselves.
Second, are you God? Do you know all things? Can YOU satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason (if you don't know what that is, then shut up before you make a fool out of yourself)? If you can answer yes to any of these questions, then I'll believe that religious people are "hoaxters"-but then if you can answer yes to the first question, then please accept my worship. To the second question, either you already make yourself a fool in your arrogance, or you are God (worshipping again).And if you can affirm the third, then you are still God-obviously you are not, for to be so, would mean you contradict yourself.
Third, Since you are not God, how can you know for any certianty that religion and creation science are purely fantasy? Granted, there is much error in creation science, both scientifically, and theologically (I don't put much stock in it personally -however, I don't fully doubt evolution either)
Now try some reasoning for a moment:
1. No one was there when the beginning happend
2. We only have scarce clues, on which to guess at what happened
3. The Principle of Sufficient reason must be answered
4. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist (Reference point 3)
Therefore, We don't really know what happened, but we know something happened. We know that something had to start it all (even if infinite regression of causality-Liebniz anyone?). So we can only Guess-But The PSR at least hints at something greater than we know-Big bang does too (which by the way is fully supported by the Bible0
Ok, flame away, I'm ready. -oh! Your parents, were they ever religious?
[This space unintentionally left blank]
Fish
I Predict that the next person to be voted off will be Colleen. The reasoning is very simple. If you look at the voting patern on the web site, the previous members of Tagi seem to be eliminating the previous members of Pagong, and Colleen is the only Pagong left. Ipso Facto.
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix
I chuckled when I read of the Gov. of Kansas (Democrat) and a Senator from Kansas (Conservative Republican) "on the side" of evolution and creationism, respectively. It scares me that the people leading us allow politics to control their debate on this issue. As my grandpa liked to say, this country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Funny how only the CBS affiliates in my area covered the story on TV though.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Easy there, it's just a TV show... I'm actually proud to say I've never actually seen the show yet.
---------------
Damn right! Lynx forever!
I don't know how it was in your school, but in mine (rural school district in the NW USA) we never entirely finished the assigned curriculum. Never.
In such a school, removing a topic from the state curriculum and removing it from the state testing standards guarantees that it will not be taught. Period. Any surplus time (which I never experienced) would be used for extra drilling on tested topics.
I believe that the proponents of this change in Kansas knew about this little tendency in the schools and counted on it to promote their religous agenda.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
WOW! first intelligent question I've seen since I started all this. and the answer is: I don't know. Never considered it. Thanks. Now I get to go think for a while.
Fish
Actually, I may have a partial answer myself. It's acceptable to claim incomplete knowledge, provided you don't make any claims to its completeness. And science doesn't make any claim to have all the answers - it just claims to be pretty sure about the answers it does have.
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Hell, next thing you know they will be trying to tell us that the earth is NOT the center of the universe with everything revolving around it!! I knew we should have never trusted that Copernicus guy.
Once I thought I was wrong...I was mistaken.
Here Here! Good job sir (or madam as the case my be)! Only let me say, that this is the approach I take with my religious studies. In short, I follow 2 axioms: 1. If the Bible (or any religious text) is true, then the historical record (meaning historical documents, artifacts, geology, archaeology, etc) must bear witness to that fact. 2.In general, Scientists have little reason to lie about their findings (none the less, I try to stick with data that has much corroboration). To date, I cannot say that I have found any area in which the Bible and the 'historical record of the earth' (ie science) contadict. -But let me qualify that in saying that I have never studied (nor really had the interest in studying (I'm a programmer, not a biologist, and for good reason))evolution in depth, so I still do not know if it and the Bible agree or no.
Further, I will say that I do believe the Bible to be the unerring word of God (I'm willing to be proven wrong on that point). Thus I see three possibilities for any apparent contradictions I find with the Bible and science: 1. I have my theology wrong (I'm only human) 2. Scientists have misinterpereted their data (they're only human) 3. I'm utterly wrong about God. I do not take any preference in these three, although the first two must be checked before the third.
Fish
No X! I was thinking of console Linux that somehow made use of the stuff in the ROM anyway- yes this would be a _totally_ different display subsystem than Linux would normally have, but that's kind of the idea- what could use as much built into the Plus as possible, and still act like the Linux command line with a good amount of available programs like rm, vi or whatever? (Maybe there'd only be room for ed ;) ) X is right out- no way would it fit in the typical Plus. I realise that I'm talking extreme Franken-hacking but I simply don't care because the notion of a Mac Plus cheerfully booting to a white-on-black console Linux prompt is too cool to miss. Three-button mouse? Who needs a mouse? *g* leave it unplugged! The keyboard will suffice! If you _reverse_ the leads on a telephone wire you get a Mac Plus keyboard wire, and can extend it much farther than the little stock wire. (If you don't reverse the wires, the Mac is shorted out into permanent death :) )
I'm not aware of a 6300 that used the PCI mobo,
either. Was that only in non-US markets or
something?
David
dgatwood@mklinux.org
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
Bethe's whole argument comes down to this:
"The basic micro-processes of cellular biology are so complex that there's no way I can believe they're the product of random chance"
At its very root, the argument depends on Bethe's belief of the suitability of evolution and natural selection to produce complex systems. There's no evidence there to support the position, just Bethe's stubborn refusal to accept what he sees before him.
Evolution is complexity-neutral - all you need is more time, and you develop more complexity.
What Bethe really misses is that, thanks to heredity, future organisms don't have to re-invent the wheel. Instead, they build upon the work of what has gone before them. It's a kind of code reuse.
The evidence is right there in front of you. You and Bethe may choose to deny it, but it doesn't change it being there.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, on machines of similar clock speed, the 603 is somewhat slower than a 601, IIRC. Even the 603e, used in some of the later PERFORMA family were slower, I think, but I'm not positive on that one. BTW, the word Frankenstein definitely applies. I love looking back at the marketing hype on these machines about how its "32 bit bus" was going to speed them up. Yeah... a 32 bit bus bridged to a 16 bit bus with a slow chip, no DMA, a hacked-up interrupt handling system that threw interrupt flag registers all over the address space (I counted five, not counting the regs on the actual IDE, SCSI, etc. cells. Absolutely disgusting.... David
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
Okay, but you have to trade me. I want one proof of evolution. Just one. ;)
Probably the largest black eye for macroevolution comes from the foundational idea of transition. Transition is this concept of an amoeba evolving to something that eventually evolved into you.
However, transition loses on every angle: historical evidence, science and logic. Moreover, each of these areas has a variety of serious, unanswerable problems for Darwin.
For example, on the historical evidence side, your local paleontologist is still waiting for Darwin to be proven right by some other means. This is because there are still no fossil examples of evolutionary transition. We're talking a LOT of fossil evidence here that is repeatedly showing species that suddenly appear and then become extinct. The lack of transitional evidence is universal, not just mammals.
Even Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record and his famous book plays that fun old game of twister (spin the wheel dial, put right leg on red circle, spin the wheel dial ...) trying to explain away this huge, ugly wart in his theory. That was even years before paleontologists evolved ;) their skills, expertise with the ever-increasing evidence that refuses to support Darwin's theory.
Scientifically, we can only determine evolutionary proof from repeatable observations. Even if Darwinists weren't busy running away from the fossil evidence that embarrasses them, they still eventually have to deal with the fact that there are no living examples of transition for us to observe. Nothing.
And what about genetics and mutations? The field of genetics was around for a while before Darwin, but it was mostly ignored until late in the game. When genetics finally acquired some of it's deserved standing, evolutionists were once again embarrassed and quickly decided that mutations had to be the "answer".
Unfortunately, scientific evidence shows that mutations are repeatedly proven to be a reduction of genetic information, not an improvement or addition to the information. What's worse is that to evolve, we would need thousands of these non-existent "positive" mutations to improve our ability to survive. Mutations speak more for entropy than for evolution, and I personally think that entropy speaks against evolution.
We don't have historical evidence of transition and we have no living, repeatable, observable evidence of transition. If there never has been evidence and no evidence exists yet that points to the conclusion that "the butler did it", we have to at least be honest with ourselves and admit that the possibility exists that he may not have actually done it. I mean, any theory arrived at by drinking a couple glasses of whiskey ought to be given the same weight as the macroevolution theory.
If you're not asleep yet and you want me to start quoting authoritative names and facts from the respective fields, just let me know. There are a lot paleontologists, scientists, mathmeticians and documented materials that can say this stuff better than I can.
Schnucki
It's been a while since I looked at Mere Christianity, so your memory is probably better than mine. Unfortunately, I've built my faith around a lot of books, articles, and arguments over the years, and it's hard to remember what came from where.
Perhaps a better resource for critical thinkers is Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. I haven't read the whole thing, and I don't agree with all his arguments or conclusions, but there's plenty of meat to chew on. You really have to know a lot about the cultural context to make sense of certain passages, and knowing Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic would help.
The best thing to do is get a Bible with a thorough set of footnotes and cross-references, then read it straight through. That gives you at least some sense of the historical context and the way everything ties together. It's a big undertaking, but well worth it.
When all is said and done, it comes down to how you evaluate the plausibility of the historical death and resurrection of Christ. You have to ask what else would have motivated his frightened disciples to boldly emerge from hiding and stick to their story to the point of martyrdom.
The heart has reasons that reason does not understand. - Jacques Bènigne Bossuet
You are right o quite a lot of things but you forget one thing: We haven't observed macro evolution (the kind that gives birth to new species) so it is still a theory (or rather a collection of theories given the number of schools in this theory). And to help you have another view on science, math and religion you should ponder this saying:
If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one.
-- John Barrow
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Well, actually, we have pre-compiled SMP kernels
available from our ftp site:
ftp://ftp.mklinux.org/pub/kernels/wip/
David
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
Actually, it's the PPC 601 that keeps NetBSD
from supporting the 7200. The 7500 isn't
supported, either, unless you swap processor
cards. Unfortunately, the 7200 can't be
upgraded at all (or at least nobody has been
successful at building an upgrade yet).
David
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
Only if the reader wants to. Seriously, if you thought, "I would pay $5 for that document, not $15," then buy a couple of $2.50 chapters and freeload the others.
Certainly we can't consider the evolutionary history of flagella or blood clotting to be settled. But it stands to reason that piecing together the evolution of a complex system, particularly one which does not fossilize, is going to take a little while, not so?
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
It should be noted that the performa support in MkLinux is close but not quite there yet, there's still some issues with slot interrupts that need to be resolved before it can be considered useable.
David Gatwood and I (Tony Mantler - no slash login) are working on getting it all fixed up, hopefully it should be done very soon. (David is doing all the real work, I'm just providing background and insight into how these oddball machines work - some of it is pretty weird)
When all is said and done, though, it's pretty damn cool watching the linux boot messages scroll by on my 5200, knowing that it's likely the first 5200 in the world to ever do so. 8)
Cheers - Tony :)
The poster I replied to doesn't seem to be a Christian though and the logic is flawed in any case. The first five books of the Old Testament include separate warnings not to mess with birds' nests and menstrating women and some people might still heed such moral law but most would consider it nonsense if someone accused them of enviromental destruction because they had sexual intercourse with their wife during her period.
Just as some movies are filmed with more than one ending, not only to fool the previewers but to see which ending gets the best reaction, I wonder if they filmed several different endings. I would offhand guess it unlikely, but by no means impossible.
--
Infuriate left and right
This feels like Bad Acid.
I prefer taking my Palm with me on planes or in class to taking a book along. It's smaller, lighter, and the pages never tear. I have no problems reading on my palm. As for the format that can be a pain but I just used adobe's converter to convert .pdf to text, then text to .doc(palm file format not MS). It's sort of a pain but it's not like I have to do more than a few mouse clicks.
Um, no...
There were several weeks between the "revelation" and the episode were Gervase gets kicked off. This would have been ample time to refilm the rest of the episodes.
No comment at this time
He would do all that just to foster debate on slashdot!? Seriously, are you creationist clowns not satisfied with rewriting the scientific literature that you must now rewrite the bible?
All ppl born on October 22 should form a club of some sort. You were initially born back in 4004 BC. You can then combine this with evolution, reincarnation and karma whoring. Like in, when I was born I was a dog, but then evolved to a computer programmer when I lost karma points.
To the guy that used the year'81, your comment is why we had Y2K problems.
I'm not arguing with you. All I'm saying is, let those who disagree have their vote. "God made it so" does a nice job of explaining all that and more, doesn't it? It answers the questions. not in a manner satisfactory to me, but for some unknown reason it is satisfactory to others. As I pointed out in a response above, and should have said in the original post, the best argument for science (and perhaps the only one that doesn't depend on science) is that it offers everyone, including those who disagree with it, substantial improvements in quality of life, by any measure. But let those who don't want that have their vote.
---
Wow. Never have I seen so many questions non-answered :) Disclaimer time! Yay. Yes, I believe in God, but I don't believe in religion. It's an interesting concept. Anyway, I have no trouble with evolution. Makes perfect sense to me. But then again, so does the idea of some supreme creator creating the universe and setting evolution in motion. WOAH! Beat that for sheer wackiness! (Or ignorance, depending on your point of view.)
:*( <-- Clown nose)
(Incidentally, I'm rather ecuministic: I don't believe any religion is "right", but instead have a shard of the truth within them.)
(Woah - lots of parentheses in this comment.)
And the earth didn't explode from a pumpkin. It's resting on the back of a giant ur-Grue. Everyone knows that.
(I completely forgot what I was going to say
Eric ze Kidder
I say religion simply because it is a belief system that attempts to explain the world. There are plenty of ther such; I happen to think science is the best such
Science is not a "belief system." At the very minimum, argue from credible definitions of the words you seek to expound upon. Belief is not subject to evidence, science is.
the elections must be held
Science isnt subject to elections. The hoi polloi cant vote for evidence. If you're going to teach science, teach science - you know, bugs and shit. If you're going to teach religion, fine, religion is extremely useful as a metaphor for the human condition. But dont confuse the two and dont give up an inch when someone falsely obfuscates the difference between the two.
First off. your conclusions are derived from an unsound basis. You cannot assume A, when A is not factual. You are basically saying that the bible is truth if God exists. Well, that's what we're trying to debate. This would be similar to me writing a document that was handed down to me by Margaret, Lowell, or Steve (read my above comments)...and telling you that, because Margaret, Lowell, and Steve DO exist, my document proves that they exist. Right about now you should be thinking the same thing i'm thinking about the Bible, "WHAT?!?!!?"
The Bible was written by committee, not by God.
The cannon (the books of the bible) was chosen by echumenical(sp?) council from a large collection of writings, most of which are still held in the Vatican, this was circa 1300s. (Both old/new testament : the torah notwithstanding). Different people who were commisioned to write the bible, most of whom were commanded by Alexander the Great, for the library in Alexandria. Search the history of Alex the Great and Alexandria for more nfo. (also: check Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John). Additionally, note the differences in the stories of Jesus's life between Mathew and Mark, and then Mathew and Luke.
As far as the bible being commanded by god, you referenced the KJNV. King James I (I of England, VI of Scotland) did his own editing. Check out how the KJNV is written mostly in iambic pentameter (the style of the day). The latin and greek versions from which this was translated were not written in this poetic style. Before the invention of the printing press the books of the bible were hand copied. Each hand copy was an eddition/editing - and each editing altered the bible's content slightly. Note that the bible has been translated an insane number of times. Hebrew to Greek, Greek to Latin, Latin to Latin, Latin to English and Greek to English (the original versions were written in greek by hebrew authors).
If this is the word of god...why has it been changed so much by the languages of men?
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
7200 was probably running a newer (read bigger) version of MacOS, unless the 5200 had been upgraded.
8.5.1 on the 7200 and 9.0 on the 5200.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You are basically saying that the bible is truth if God exists. Well, that's what we're trying to debate.
We could go at that all week. You say, "Prove to me that God exists." I say "Prove to me that he does not." Stalemate. If, however, someone has become convinced that God does exist (say, by evidence of an order in the universe that is is not adequately explained by science), then the Bible is a logical place to look for further information.
The cannon (the books of the bible) was chosen by echumenical(sp?) council
True enough, although "ecumenical" might not be the best term to use. Basically it was the early Catholic church, which clung far more tightly to scripture than it does today. (Whoops, guess I'm letting my bias show...)
Different people who were commisioned to write the bible, most of whom were commanded by Alexander the Great, for the library in Alexandria.
Not sure where your information comes from. Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C. He was not around. Maybe you are referring to the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek? Which is not really relevant, as Hebrew texts remained.
The currently accepted New Testament was written by the apostles, close associates of the apostles, and other disciples of Christ. Writings by (very) early church leaders give strong evidence supporting the identities of most N.T. authors. I will grant that a few books are in dispute. Some believe that Revelation, II Peter, II and III John are forgeries, Jude was not close enough to Christ to be a qualified biblical writer, and the authorship of Hebrews is somewhat uncertain. One would be justified in taking care when using those books.
Additionally, note the differences in the stories of Jesus's life between Mathew and Mark, and then Mathew and Luke.
Each of the gospel authors provides a different perspective on the life of Christ. Matthew was writing to the Jews, Mark to the Gentiles; Luke provides a physician's point of view. In particular, John overlaps relatively little on the other gospels--John wrote some time later, so it is believed that he was attempting to give some details that other authors had left out.
There are a few details that appear to conflict between the gospels. Generally these may be resolved by an informed consultation of a text in the original language.
you referenced the KJNV
Actually, the NKJV (New King James Version). It is a much more recent translation, which reads in pretty plain English.
I will freely admit that subtle nuances are lost in any translation. The important thing is that the general meaning is not lost, so that non-Greek/Hebrew speakers can learn as much as possible. On occasion, there is no choice but to consult an original language text to resolve some details--that is why we have theologians.
each editing altered the bible's content slightly.
The study of ancient biblical texts is certainly non-trivial. The O.T. texts are really not in dispute. However, the N.T. texts do have some subtle (and occasionally some not-so-subtle) differences. The guidelines used to choose the best (most accurate) texts include age, simplicity of language (it is believed that more florid texts were rewritten to suit the language of the day), majority of use (widely accepted texts are probably widely accepted because they originally came from reliable sources), and confirmation by other texts. I am not really qualified to comment beyond that.
If this is the word of god...why has it been changed so much by the languages of men?
I do not believe it has changed so much. In particular, the core doctrine of "salvation by faith in Christ alone" has not changed. (Unless you are Catholic, in which case the Pope somehow holds more weight than the Bible.)
The fact that it may have been translated from the original Greek/Hebrew/whatever doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that the original writers' meanings have most likely been lost in the translation process. I'm no expert on language, but I do know that you'll often find one word in language X that can have may meanings in language Y when translated, this can b overcome by the original writer explaining exactly what he/she meant, but in this case that's a little tricky. The bible isn't written like a textbook, full of exact facts, figures and dates, it's much more metaphorical, therefore open to interpretation.
Gev
So damn witty, they only let me use half.
We could go at that all week. You say, "Prove to me that God exists." I say "Prove to me that he does not." Stalemate.
ouch. i just want to point out that, while the rest of your arguments are very interesting and insightful, this one is REALLY poor. And what's more...i've heard it from just about every "believer" i've ever argued the point of god with.
what's wrong with it? The burden of proof lies solely on you "believers." - you can't say that something is fact and then tell people to try to disprove it. I'm sorry, but in a rational world, that's not the way things work.
but then again, that's the best part about the theory of God...it CAN'T be disproven. It's just not possible because of the catchall that "god is omnipotent and omnicient" and better yet, "the lord works in mysterious ways." - so it's really hip because you can't disprove it. If i were to come up with something that damn near disproved the existance of God....people get to use their catchall. how do you explain suffering in the world "the devil...and the lord works in mysterious ways" - how do you explain such and so? "the lord works in mysterious ways." It's great. you literally CAN'T say with %100 certainty that there is no god. But it's still up to the believers to PROVE that he exists. Why hasn't god done that yet? Just come down and smacked all non-believers upside the head? I never got that one.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
The burden of proof lies solely on you "believers." - you can't say that something is fact and then tell people to try to disprove it.
IMO, that argument is a little narrow-minded (just as it is narrow-minded to completely ignore the evidence in favor of atheism, evolution, etc.). Suppose we lived in Newtonian times, and I told you that matter has a wave-particle dual nature. There was no known evidence at that time, but does that make the statement false? There is little "solid" evidence in favor of the existence of God. Of course, I feel there is also little solid evidence supporting the Big Bang, for example. I can at least understand why most of the scientific community accepts evolution, but the Big Bang eludes me.
However, if you are interested in evidence supporting the existence of God, here are a few points:
But it's still up to the believers to PROVE that he exists. Why hasn't god done that yet?
You got me there. If God were a rational human being, he undoubtedly would make his existence known. But there is no reason to assume that God "thinks" like men do--it makes more sense to assume that any being capable of the act of creation would be "thinking" on some higher level beyond our comprehension.
who's the one using the wrong definition? I chose the 4th because I felt it was most applicable to the subject. You chose the first for the same reason.
"Teachers leave us kids alone
i think one of the thought processes that believers get snagged on is the idea that, since science doesn't have all the answers yet, God must be the only possible answer...
ironic being that it is widely theorized that god was invented by man to explain that which he could not. For the vast majority i can't tell you what the right answer is...but most rational people (read: Sagan) have ruled out God as an acceptable answer.
as for the inherent order in the universe, or, perhaps the "unmoved mover" theory suggested by most when the concept of the big bang is suggested, these arguments are sort of "can you explain them with your scientific method? no??? well then...it must be god!" - personally, i just think science isn't NEARLY that far yet. The answers to these questions, just like all others, will be answered in time.
one funny thing about the bible is how it doesn't mention dinosaurs, or, for that matter, any creatures that existed millions of years before humans walked the planet. Doesn't it strike you as weird that none of this is explained? What about the fact that, if you play by the bible's rules, the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Basically, according to the bible, if it didn't happen during the time the bible was written, it doesn't exist on the bible's terms. No airplanes, no cars, no dinosaurs. What about austrelophithicus? lucy? - we can say with an incredible amount of certainty that humans did evolve (not from apes) from a common ancestor of apes. Science can't explain the fundamental questions raised about life, etc....but it can sure as shit answer alot more questions than the bible can.
i'm sorry that you don't accept the creation of life from proteins and amino acids. But it's pretty much a fact. What about the gay gene? If humans were created, as they are today, by god about six thousand years ago...then the gene for homosexuality was most obviously placed in humans by god. Kinda weird when you think about the fact that a christian/jewish god tells us homosexuality is wrong. - they've already found a specific governing gene for homosexuality in fruit flies. God has to have created fruit flies...well...he created gay fruit flies too...not a choice. Genetics. - God seems to provide a really jacked up explanation in this instance.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
It's true that by current definitions of science, most religious teachings are pure and unadulterated bullshit. On the other hand, I don't think that taking science as the One True Source(tm) of knowledge about the world is such a good thing either.
Aside from all the tree-hugging and new-age philosophy, there are things that we will never understand, and things that we will always be in awe of.
Yet if you define science strictly, as a scientist defines it, then yes, religion must confine itself to being philosophy, and not science.
There was something like this in a B.C. cartoon, back in the late 60's or early 70's (I read it in one of the collections) where Wiley write a book and lined up the pages (of stone) along the ground and the other characters read along. (Serial port? :) when they got to the last pages he collected his due.
That in mind... consider writing a good suspense novel and let all but the whodunnit be free.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I am saying I don't think they are valid. period. Our society has made its judgement (I hope), and that will stand for some time at least. I agree with it. But I think that judgement should be made in a fairer way than those in power decreeing it so, whatever that judgement may be, whether or not it is what we want. If its not what we want, fight it. I think we'll win. But my point is, others WILL disagree with you, and its no more OK to shut them up than the other way round. What makes my post different than the post modern relativism you speak of, is that as I understand them such philosophies try very hard (and fail) to allow all views to be equal, which I think is a Bad Thing. I believe that it is not OK to treat intolerance, bigotry, religious fanaticism, and other views as equal. And the purpose of society (one of them) is to make those judgements: to say that bigotry is not OK, to say that evoltion is right, to enforce majority opinion to whatever degree it deems necessary. That's what it's always done, anyway. Or at least enforce the opinion of those in power. I just think that eelections are a better way to do it than blanket decrees by ANY group. Granted, their not perfect, and not even really the best, but their better than a lot of alternatives in use, and I happen to like them. So let them take their course, and fight for your side.
---
It's just the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. The theory of gravity will never be conclusively proved, because there is always the chance that the next time, the apple will levitate in the air.
Only problem is that King is counting 'official' downloads from his site in the percentage of people that have paid. How many have gotten the text from someone else and not actually downloaded it from King's site? Just something to think about.
ironic that the bible is infallible if it was written by man. If man is fallible...so are his creations.
;-)
i'm just eager to die so we can see which religion was right
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Can't one run something on a box older than a Mac like an Apple ][?
Sounds like a router waiting to happen...
--cr@ckwhore
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
If you can believe in an all-powerful deity, isn't it just as easy to believe that He/She/It created everything? -=Canar=- --Creationist Extraordinaire
Religion should not be in school!
Begin troll:
Religion sure as hell should be in school. They had better start teaching Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, Wiccan(ism)?, and Satanism equally!
And if they don't, sue them for discrimination against fair representation of your religion!
End of Troll.
I know this is hard for many people to understand but the confusion and ignorance bugs me:
Evolutionary theory and Big Bang Theory are not identical!!!
Everytime the subject of evolution comes up somebody brings up the big bang. Why? They refer to two separate ideas: The idea that the Universe was created about 15 billion years agoThey were were developed separately: Origin of the Species was published in 1859, Big Bang cosmology got started in the 1920's with Edwin Hubble's work but really didn't start to catch on until the 1950's. They are logically separate: One could accept a particular inflationary big bang model but still think that God created each species seperately, or one could think that the universe was divinely created (or partake of an alternate materialistic cosmological theory) but still believe that evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Thinking the Big bang Theory is incorrect is insufficient grounds for thinking that all extant and extinct species did not evolve from a common
ancestor. Talking about cosmology is superfluous when discussing evolution. It's like discussing fruit preference and being told that someone doesn't like plums because they think that Francis Bacon was the real author of Shakespeare's plays and poetry. Evolutionary biology and Big Bang Cosmology are two different areas of study,each with its own models, methods, and evidence that should command thoughtful study, not glibly dismissed when you can't even differentiate between the two.
Pull your head out of your ass and stop listening to the english department.
Tell me, the computer you are looking at: does it work by electricity, or by magic? Would this change if some idiot with a book and a PAC came along and said it worked by magic?
Evolution is correct in the same sense that the moon orbiting the earth is correct. The evidence absolutely, positively cannot be explained via any explaination other than evolution. Evolution has been observed. Speciation has not been observed, but it is in principle impossible to observe unless you are watching for geologic time scales.
Evolution is true in the same sense that if you are travelling faster, or if the ground is wet, it will take longer to stop. Should we fail to teach this in drivers' ed classes if some wacko with beads and an incense stick says, "believe in me, and the car will stop whenever you want it to"?
There is no debate as to the fact of evolution among those who are qualified to have an opinion (which does not include me -- I can only evaluate stuff second hand). There are no "significant disagreements" that prophets for profit like to latch on to. There are disagreements along the lines of "is it a shorted wire, or a warn fuel pump", but the creationists are claiming "they can't even agree whether the car is running".
There are objective facts. Evolution is one of them. The earth being round is one of them. There is better evidence for evolution than there is Julius Caesar being murdered. The latter is taught in schools, why not the former?
And no, we have no obligation to listen to those who say creationism should be taught. The constitution is a contract between me and the government. The government has an obligation to uphold it. If you don't like separation of church and state, you're always free to move to Iraq.
It's also been translated, over hundreds of years, by scores of different writers.
Not meaning to disrespect your beliefs, but have you ever seen a set of instructions that have been translated from, say, Japanese? The original text made sense and reported factual information, the translated text technically reports the same thing, but the translationm process tends to put the wrong spin on things, so you can't take the words at face value.
Same thing applies here (IMHO of course). But, as another poster said, it's all a matter of faith.
So damn witty, they only let me use half.
Before this debate goes any further, everyone read the
Charles Miller
--
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
In order for a physics model to be accepted it must predict something different from the standard model. If this difference is experimentally verified then the new model is adapter. That doesn't seem to be the way religion works.
Oh, really?
Ever tried mushrooms?
I too am thankful to have not seen survivor or any of those other crap shows. A *really* funny ending to survivor would be if at the end, the entire island exploded from an underground gas deposit and they all died...
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
The Theory of Gravity is quite provable every single time. Pick something up. Let it go. It falls to the ground. Every single time.
You call that proof? 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. Thus I have proven all uneven numbers are prime.
At last, a point on which we agree.
one funny thing about the bible is how it doesn't mention dinosaurs, or, for that matter, any creatures that existed millions of years before humans walked the planet. Doesn't it strike you as weird that none of this is explained? What about the fact that, if you play by the bible's rules, the earth is only 6,000 years old?
I do believe in a young earth. It is my belief that current radiometric dating methods are based on incorrect assumptions. In addition, there is an overwhelming tendency in the scientific community to report only the dates that support the hypothesized age of the material. Check the following links for more info:
The Bible does not specifically mention "dinosaurs," but it does mention "great beasts." Also, keep in mind that the Great Flood takes place already in Genesis 6. If you assume that most of the dinosaurs died off shortly after the flood, then there aren't many Bible pages dedicated to the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
we can say with an incredible amount of certainty that humans did evolve (not from apes) from a common ancestor of apes.
Careful with the hyperbole there. What is the ancestor? Is it in the fossil record? Is it more than just a jawbone and a big toe? If so, can you prove that it's not really just a homo sapien that lived under harsh environmental conditions and came from an isolated gene pool? There have been lots of supposed "transitional forms" found in the past that failed under further scrutiny.
If humans were created, as they are today, by god about six thousand years ago...then the gene for homosexuality was most obviously placed in humans by god.
First of all, I believe the jury is still out on the nature vs. nurture impact on homosexuality. But let's assume you are right, and homosexuality is simply one of the possible DNA permutations. According to the Bible, man's perfect form was corrupted by the fall into sin (ref. Romans 5, for example). So God did not necessarily introduce a homosexuality gene at creation, but mankind may have brought it upon itself. Of course, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to have the gene for homosexuality--it simply says that homosexual behavior is wrong. So if a Christian were to be in the unfortunate circumstance of having irreversible homosexual tendencies (which again is open to debate), he/she has the option to remain celibate.
And I know that is totally not PC, but too bad. I'm not about to reject the Bible on the basis of what is popularly accepted. Mankind is fallible, as you previously wrote.
they've already found a specific governing gene for homosexuality in fruit flies
I have heard that. My question is, what did the study actually find? Sexual behavior in fruit flies is a lot different from sexual behavior in humans. Was it just a tendency for, say, male flies to be attracted to the pheromones of other male flies? If it's something along those lines, I don't think it's even valid to extrapolate up to the complexity of human genetics.
btw, I love your sig.
You're right, I did miss your point.
But I still claim this isn't the problem you make it out to be. Context generally makes clear the intent of specific words, and Bible translators also study non-biblical texts for additional clues about the meaning of common phrasings, etc. There may be some subtle nuances that are lost in the translation, but the fundamental messages are not.
The bible isn't written like a textbook, full of exact facts, figures and dates, it's much more metaphorical, therefore open to interpretation.
Only in parts. Kings and Chronicles, for example, are historical records with lots of exact facts, figures and dates. The epistles of Paul offer quite straightforward reading. The Revelation, of course, is highly symbolic.
I do believe in a young earth.
holy shit. most people don't go NEARLY as far as you just went. i'll cede the argument on that point.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
KANSAS: Where Evolution Has Been Outlawed And the Monkeys are in Charge
The fact is, those who are willing to bend the truth of the Bible no longer have a leg to stand on from the point of view of defending creation. It's kind of an all-or-nothing argument as far as I'm concerned.
/. creation/evolution debate, which is probably due in about two months. :-)
Anyway, this has been an enjoyable thread. You've made me think more than I've had to for a while.
I look forward to your postings at the next
You evolutionists say Creation Science is untrue, but I can prove you are wrong. I am a native of Wichita, Kansas, and a graduate of Robinson Junion High School and East High School, so I can enlighten you on the legal underpinnings we Kansans bring to Creation Science. In 1940 our state legislature enacted a law declaring L.Frank Baum's "The Wizard of Oz" to be the Official State Allegory of Kansas and further declaring it to be an allegorical representation of three Biblical truths--creation, damnation, and salvation. The preamble to this law reads as follows: "Whereas (1) "THE WIZARD OF OZ" is an allegorical representation of the Bible, (2) L. FRANK BAUM, its author, therefore represents the Bible's author, God, (3) DOROTHY'S HOUSE'S LANDING in Oz, and the attendant appearance of Oz on the scene, depicts the Creation of the Universe, (4) the film's subsequent SWITCH FROM BLACK-AND-WHITE TO TECHNICOLOR when Dorothy arrives in Oz symbolizes God's command, "Let there be light!," on the first day of Creation, (5)KANSAS, where Dorothy yearns to go, is heaven, created by God on the second day of Creation, (6) the SCARECROW, protector of vegetation, symbolizes the vegetation created by God on the third day of Creation, (7)the EMERALD CITY is the sun, created by God on the fourth day of Creation, and the many sparkling EMERALDS there are the stars, also created on the fourth day, (8) the COWARDLY LION symbolizes the living creatures God created on the fifth day of Creation, (9) the TIN WOODSMAN, an image of man, is man, created by God in his own image on the sixth day of Creation, (10)the WICKED WITCH OF THE EAST, on whom the house lands, is an unrepentant sinner, condemned to eternal damnation, (11) the CYCLONE that drops the house on the witch is the Wrath of God, (12) the AREA UNDER THE HOUSE, where the witch's body lies, is hell, (13)the WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST is Satan, (14) the WINGED MONKEYS are Satan's demons, (15) Dorothy represents Jesus, the epitome of goodness and purity, (16) Toto symbolizes Jesus' disciples, who follow their Master wherever he goes, (17) GLINDA THE GOOD is the Holy Spirit, which guides Dorothy [Jesus]in her efforts to defeat the Wicked Witch of the West [Satan], (18) the WIZARD is the prophet Elijah, who is carried off to heaven [Kansas], (19) the Wizard's BALLOON is the chariot in which Elijah is carried off to heaven, (20) AUNT EM AND UNCLE HENRY, who are already in Kansas [heaven], are angels, (21) the YELLOW BRICK ROAD is the road to salvation, (22) Dorothy's act of THROWING WATER ON THE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST symbolizes baptism, which removes a major barrier to salvation, (23) the rosy RED SLIPPERS are a rosary, which enhances the power of Dorothy's prayer, and (24) Dorothy's famous words "THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME" symbolize prayer, which delivers her to heaven [still Kansas], now therefore be it resolved that "The Wizard of Oz" is ideally suited to be the official Kansas State Allegory. Three generations of Kansans have now been raised under our Official State Allegory. So every Kansan who is "officially" educated and pure of thought (that rules out a few atheists and Communists and Unitarians)knows that God did indeed create the universe (item 3), that he did so in six working days (items 4-9), and that all 24 things allegorically symbolized must be true because item 5 says Kansas is heaven, which is obviously true (an axiom of Kansas Creation Science),in which case everything else must be true too. Therefore, evolution is a whole bunch of malarkey, and Creation Science is indeed a science, and godless people like you should spend more time studying "The Wizard of Oz" and less time studying Darwin.
Hi JaredS,
As for your reply to my comment, I was refferring to the FACT that fujitsu-siemens' version of the Linux OS does not allow direct editing of the system files stored on the flash ROM. The only way I've found to change these settings is by re-writing the entire image. I wonder(ed) how this was affected by the GPL.
Redhat allows the source to be edited, but the Scovery does not come with the Linux OS on CD/floppy/any media, and there is nothing included explaining the procedure.
Regards.
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Since when has religion not been used for evil purposes? Approximately 99 percent of all wars have been fought over religion. This country was established on the basis of religious freedom. Also without theories, we would still be throwing our crap around just like the apes.
If WORLD Then CHAOS = True Else OBLIVION = True End If
yep, that's kinda my point. I don't think that's the case, but the creationists have their viewpoint. I disagree, and I am glad society does too. Or if you want, take it even further: Science is all bunk, but the world was created some instant ago, with everything in place (memories, computer files, everything); it's completely consistent with everything we have observed, and we can't disprove it. It's also not useful. The reason science rejects this is fairly simple: it can't be disproved. Science is a set of tools for looking at data and generating hypotheses. A hypothesis needs to be disprovable to be scientific. So, "god created the earth in 4004 BC exactly the way it would have looked if evolution had occured" is not a valid hypothesis. Nor is "there are UFOs out there." However, both evolution and the absence of alien life are valid hypotheses, because they can be disproven. That's our belief system. Others have different systems. I prefer ours.
---
i wouldn't say these shows are an entirely bogus waste of time.
most people that say they're not realistic enough have no insight. That's what is most interesting about them....shows like Survivor give us insight into human nature.
The only show i really watch, however, is the original...say it with me now...Real World. It's probably the most realistic you'll get. I just find it odd that no one is giving any credit to shows like the Real World and Road Rules (RW is now in something like it's 8th season). God forbid any baby-boomers actually watch it.
It's interesting, thought, too see what makes us all different and what makes us all the same. oh well...there are approximately 3 networks that aren't filled with mind numming crap. And CBS isn't one of 'em.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
The mechanism by which evolution takes place is subject to revision. Evolution itself is an incontrovertible scientific fact. Incontrovertible scientific facts is what makes computers work, airplanes fly, and rockets land. Now, you may have philosophical objections to what constitutes science (who doesnt), but they are just that - philosophical.
And please stop equating evolution with "fossil records" or "anthropologists." The level of scientific proof for evolution extends well beyond the macroscopic level.
No, now you see you are furthering the line of thought that the bible is to be interpreted as science. It isnt. Its metaphor. Its valid, but it isnt science. Try to take the moral high ground, as it were, and argue scientific claims using the language of science. There is no reason to deny christians their religion while remaining scientific. Religion serves an entirely different purpose - maybe one that is even more important than science. The ultimate irony is that creationists have done more to undermine religion than to undermine science.
Didn't I read that there would be 10 or 11 installments? I may have read it wrong, I wouldn't pay $10 for a book. I'll wait for the electronic used book version. :)
--
--
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
> It isn't accurate to characterise this theory
... ;-)
> as "confirmed, Objective fact". There is a lot
> of very good evidence to support Evolution.
> There is no rival theory that has any
> signficant evidence. Religious "explainations",
> especially those of creationists are so riddled
> with errors and run so counter to all the
> evidence that they do not deserve serious
> consideration. So certainly, the intelligent
> response is to accept Evolution as the best
> explaination out there, but it isn't proved
> fact.
Here we go again
When we call something a "fact" in casual conversation, we mean that it has been 100 percent established to be true with no room for error or doubt. If you applied that standard to science, we would have very few facts left. The only things that would be fact are those that are supported by direct observation. A lot of things are in some sense "remote" and cannot be supported by direct observations and we have to get indirect evidence for them. No one has seen an electron or a neutrino or a quark. No one has seen a black hole or a pulsar either. And yes, no one has seen any creature evolve into a radically different one. In such situations, we try and gather evidence by indirect means - and there is a mountain of such evidence available for evolution.
When a scientist tries to explain some phenomenon, he comes up with an explanation that fits the known facts. That is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis with all details filled-in that stands up to significant critical examination is elevated to the status of a theory. When there is an extremely large body of evidence in favor of a theory, none against and no credible rival theories, then it is called a fact. When a scientist is calling something a fact, all that he is doing it is giving it provisional acceptence. What he is saying, in effect, is that this is a sufficiently firm foundation on top of which other hypotheses and theories (and eventually facts) can be developed.
The paragraph quoted above concedes that evolution meets all the above criteria - so it is, as far as scientists are concerned, "confirmed, objective fact".
I've spent a long time pondering this whole creation/evolution thing. There is "proof" of evolution, there is "proof" of creation, but ultimately, they're both consequential, and distinguishable. Over 50% of the Earth's population believes in some form of Creationism. Bang. Right there, the validity of teaching Creation in schools is shown. If more than 50% of people feel this way, would it not be the AMERICAN, DEMOCRATIC way to do things? Perhaps these statistics aren't accurate for Kansas, and maybe they are. If they are, all for teaching it! Separation of church and state is, IMHO, essential for the government to be at all efficient and unbiased, so long as it's proper in the eyes of the majority.
I also believe in speciation to some degree. If animals have tendencies only to mate with others that look similar to themselves, eventually they'll segregate, and a "species", by definition of the term, will be born. However, this does not explain for the addition of entire chromosomes and these chromosomes actually making sense and so on. Not one mammal descended from the first mammalian species has lost any of the five fingers. Not one has been able to change that much over how long? Arthropods are still segmented. There are pros and cons to this. Why are there not some completely unsegmented insects? They've had plenty of time. There are an amazing number of extremely chance events that had to take place to result in evolution. Amazing chances against. Whether the existance of an all-powerful God is more or less likely is the debate.
Another point: Ever hear of Pascal's wager? It went something along the lines of:
"I'd prefer to spend a fraction of my life in devotion to a deity in the chance that there could be an eternal consequence for not doing so rather than spend ~80 years doing what I want and an infinite amount in hell." OK, so my interpretation is much more politically correct and verbiose, but the the ideology is the same.
Anyways, this has gone on too long and I'm feeling my RSI again.
-=Canar=-
You are totally wrong. The theory of evolution is not a fact, it is just very likely to be true. You are confusing the mathematical, deductive reasoning of Number 'theory' with the inductive reasoning of science. (Event A has always been observed to occur under these conditions, B. Therefore it will always continue to occur under those conditions, regardless when or where those conditions occur. This is the central assumption of science) Go and read Karl Popper. BTW, the Copernican theory is wrong - the Earth does not revolve around the Sun, they both revolve around their common centre of mass.
What I find odd about this post is why it is labeled insightful and not 'flamebait' or 'troll'. >of "school prayer" and "equal time" gets taken School prayer is already not allowed. >out of the picture. Do I get equal time on the >pulpit at a xitian church to teach evolution? You are not required by law to go to church. You are required to go to school. Shall I explain more? >Then why are they invading the minds of children >to teach them religious rubbish? Evolution is a They are not 'invading the minds' of our children. It's called "presenting another opinion". >confirmed, Objective fact. Religion, and Not confirmed, certainly not objective - professors who have been teaching it their whole life are NOT going to turn around and say they were wrong. ever heard of an ego? >creation "science" is pure fantasy. Neither evolution nor creation has been confirmed, although the one closest to fantasy would be evolution. If one examines evolution using probablility/statistics, one will note the overwhelming odds against it. Additionally, no evidence has been found to back it up (ie. fossil record) (while there have been findings of sea fossils on even the higest mountains [think: great flood/noah, etc.]). In short, your proclamations of opinion come off as arrogant and ignorant (a Bad combination...). --Ben. ps. want more argument?
Er...um...I hope you didn't get that out of my post. We can excuse him because he's a good guy that went out on a limb to make a point that remains interesting and valid, even though it appears King was successful. (If you can consider losing money to be successful.)
-Waldo
-------------------
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Why? Because you know you're wrong? I don't hate getting to arguments where I know I'm right.
I think you are the one that is confused. You are referring to micro-evolution, something which has been proven. I am referring to something quite different than that, something that has not been proven.
You mind enlightening me to the difference. You see I have nagging suspicion they're the same biological process.
While gravity will continue to pull masses together, the ideas of how it works like much or physics are undergoing fundamental changes. This would be similar to finding that pie as exactly equal to 4.
That's why my computer seems to be leviating. Seriously what are these changes? Perhaps what you've heard about is how gravity unifies with the other forces at high energies. Well anyways the energies are 10^15 what current particle accelerators can achieve, the point is gravity for all practicle pourposes around the earth has remained G*m1*m2/r^2.
Well looking at all the dumb responses to this post, i would have to assume that your point is invalid. The Catholic Church has done many things wrong in its history, mostly due to corruption, but to say that the religion is responsible for this is wrong, just like saying that you support the opinion of the 'you are an idiot even though i have no evidence' posts.
Well I thought very highly of those responses, but now that you've called them dumb, your infallable logic has convinced me of the errors of my way.
Dude, were it not for the fact that I'm not done trying, I would categorically state that I've tried everything. Reality has always bounced back before. If it didnt, mushrooms wouldnt be useful.
Is it just me, or was removing the middle-leech supposed to bring down the cost of things like novels?
Looking over the FAQ for this King story, I see that it's $1 a pop (a mere few thousand words each time) for the first three installments, and $2.50 an ep after that, up to seven or eight payments total. That's $13-15.50 US for an approximately 350 page novel (being generous with his wordcount estimates, since King has tended to try and make up for lack of creativity with verbosity in the past, much as I'm doing right now). Plus you have to read the thing in installments (knowing at any point the author might pull the plug), forgo the possession of a nice compact paperback to take on vacation with you, and either bear the costs of printing it yourself (figure $2-10 US more) or make it through an entire novel on Acrobat Reader (meaning you'll probably be buying new corrective lenses later ;).
I do like the concept of electronic distribution and micropayments, but what's "micro" about these? Seems like the reader is paying a lot, and King makes out like a bandit since he no longer has to pay a publisher. If the cost of advertising is the issue, then the experiment is already a failure, since only this precise sort of mediocre bestseller author could ever afford it (King is surely not hurting for cash), and ending the overpopularity of middle-of-the-road crap is supposed to be one of the main benefits ascribed to direct distribution.
Even if it were an author I liked and respected, I can't see why anyone would want to pay these rates. I think this one is just capitalising on the brief novelty most people see here.
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
While I agree, it won't happen. I used to think that if anyone were given the facts, clearly and simply, they'd 'get it'. I thought that these folks were just not too bright, or just hadn't spent any time thinking about what they actually do 'believe' or better yet what they know.
For a variety of reasons, I don't think that anymore.
The book that changed my mind was Why People Believe Weird Things By Michael Shermer. He talks about his early life as a not-so-skeptical person, and how that ties into some very whacked out points of view such as the anti-evolutionists. It's not a promising read on the likelyhood that these folks will all the sudden get a clue. It is a very good and entertaining read, though.
On that note, here's a good quote, I can't remember the source;
Don't expect to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themseves into.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
All that is required under the GPL with regard to this is that source code be provided in a machine-readable format. There is no reason why the hardware must allow you to do anything in particular. Otherwise, it would be illegal to run GPL'd software on many embeded devices, which would be a bad thing. If the device allowed no easy way for the user to read the GPL'd source code, it would have to come with a CD. From what you've said though, the Fujitsu device allows you to read the files on it, so it should be perfectly legal provided that the source code is stored on it somewhere.
Canar dun said:
To be honest, on reading this I'm smelling a furry critter with horns who lives under bridges and has a strange craving for Cuban cabra sandwiches :). If so, good job. You got me. :)
If this is NOT a troll, though...well, it seems someone has never been to a farm or a livestock show. :)
There is an entire class of mammals--the Arctiodactylia or "even-hooved" animals--that has lost one, and sometimes three, of the original five toes mammals had. Probably the most common member of the order in the US right now is the common cow; just to to a farm or a petting zoo, and count the number of toes on a cow. (Or deer, or any such critters. It's only the largest order of herbivorous animals on the planet; I'm sure you can find a member or two.)
For that matter, the second-largest order of herbivorous mammals has a large family that actually has lost two to four toes in its history. (I'm talking about the equines. In fact, we have one of the better fossil records that detail how they've lost toes throughout their evolution--they went from five to three to one toe. In fact, you occasionally have the rare "throwback" horse born with three toes; the loss of the last two toes occured fairly late in horse evolution. At least one "cousin" of the equines, the tapir, has three toes, and rhinos have five. If you want to see examples, just look at a zoo or at a horse-farm or go down to the track. Heck, watch the Kentucky Derby if you want. :)
For that matter, the entire "felid" branch of the Carnivora (which includes cats, "civet cats" and "genet cats", hyenas, and some older forms like Smilodon) has lost the fifth toe on its hind feet, and their front first toe is reduced to a dewclaw (which is the state of fifth toes in canids such as wolves, dogs and foxes, too; expect them to lose the hind dewclaws in a few million years). The main reason cats still have dewclaws on their front toes is that kitties can use them fairly well as thumbs, especially if not declawed (if you want them to demonstrate, get a can of cat-treats and let kitty fetch her own out). I will leave out the obvious joke about what will happen when cats evolve opposable thumbs and thus no longer need humans as their thralls for world dominance. :)
For that matter...we'll take it beyond mammals. The other major group besides the synapsids (one of the two great lineages of land animals besides amphibians; synapsids include mammals, theraspids or "proto-mammals", and "mammal-like reptiles" like Dimetrodon) happens to be the same group that reptiles and archosaurs belong to, including birds. They, too, have a fairly extensive history of digit-loss:
Last toe digit (our equivalent of our pinkies) lost sometime near when archosaurs first evolved; even modern crocs, which are the modern representatives of one of two branches of the archosaurs (the other being the bird/dino branch), only have four toes
Fourth toe (rough equivalent of ring finger turns non-functional in theropod dinosaurs during early evolution (about the time they separated from hererrasaurs, in the late Triassic)
Fourth finger lost in most theropod dinosaurs around evolution of the Maniraptora (the subclass of theropods that includes birds, as well as most of the meat-eating cast of the Jurassic Park movies besides dilophosaurs and compys), around early-mid Jurassic
Third finger (equivalent to the "flip the bird" finger) lost in tyrannosaurs
Fourth toe lost entirely in ornithomimosaurs
Sometime during development of powered flight (late Jurassic-early Cretaceous) finger claws lost and second and third fingers fuse while thumb develops as alula
In surviving theropod dinosaurs (aka birds) all have lost except thumb and first two fingers on front limbs and first two fingers were fused (there may have been a reversal in phorusracoid birds, which largely hunted as large land predators in the Americas until 2 million BC to 100,000 years ago); many, if not most, ground-running birds have lost the fourth toe entirely, in most birds it is a dewclaw, and only a very few birds (perching birds) use the fourth toe at all as a functional digit
I won't get into snakes. There is recent evidence they evolved from mosasaurs (a type of swimming reptile), and they not only lost digits but limbs altogether (the only snakes with limbs today are boids, which have claws used for mating attached to very tiny legs; early snakes have more substantial limbs, but nothing huge).
But perhaps, well, mere synapsid/reptilian split critters aren't enough. Let's throw amphibians in, too. :)
At least one sub-branch of amphibians has lost limbs as well (caecilans); there are several branches of frogs that have reduced digits to four per limb, too.
For that matter...the main reason most animals have five limbs is that five limbs is an incredibly ancient structure--literally coming about before land animals (we are now starting to find fossils of animals at around this time--we now know they evolved as swimmers first and evolved limbs to scoot about on bottom, and early "tetrapods" had varying numbers of digits per limb (some with five, some with seven or even eight digits per limb).
For more info on this, including some good lineages, you might want to go here or here.
As for Pascal's Wager...well, the wager relies on five very big assumptions:
that such a thing as God exists
that such a thing as Hell exists
that a God would be enough of a ratbastard as to throw someone into a place of eternal torment just because the poor sot hadn't ever heard of aforementioned God and/or disagreed with the "official" account based on empirical evidence
that what folks see as God might not be the processes of Nature, or that God may well have created stuff by evolution
that people are meant to blindly follow a leader instead of use the brains that God and/or evolution gave them in the first place so as to better understand the mysteries of life :)
Myself, well...if there is a God (which...if there is one, I think it might be Nature, but that's only my viewpoint) Sie either honestly doesn't give a damn one way or the other (in which case God is basically Nature, and the whole idea of appealing to a God is moot unless you mean something like apologising to cows before you eat them), or isn't enough of a ratbastard to chuck someone into a pit because the fossils pretty much show not only that horses evolved from tapir-like critters but that birds evolved from very close cousins of Deinonychus and we all came eventually from fishy-looking critters. If Sie is such a ratbastard, I'm not afraid to say that not only would I gladly burn in Hell in such a case, but such a ratbastard neither deserves my worship nor my respect. :) (And no, I don't buy the whole "Fossils were there to test us" crap, either...that makes God out not only to be a complete ratbastard, but a troll and a cruel ratbastard who gets his jollies off sending people to Hell for basically his idea of a practical joke. In which case, He can go straight to Hell, if you pardon the expression.)
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
It's also been translated, over hundreds of years, by scores of different writers.
I'm tired of hearing this flawed argument every time a creation/evolution debate comes up on Slashdot. Yes, the Bible has been translated into many different languages. However, in virtually every case, the translations are made from the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. If you are concerned that the meaning of the text has changed due to translation from Greek to Latin to German to English, stop worrying.
Jamie pointed out to me via private e-mail that the crux of his prediction is that King will never have to finish his novel under the terms of his agreement -- 75% of people have to pay for each section. The possible stopping point, as best as I can tell, was the 3rd section. But the site confuses me, to be honest.
Anyhow, I stand by my comment that that particular portion of Jamie's prediction was wrong. But I was viewing his comment too narrowly. Jamie meant that people simply won't continue to pay over all 10 sections. I agree, I don't think that they will. By that logic, as he produces each section, the average percentage of people paying will go down until, eventually, it may hover around Jamie's predicted 15%-30%. Making Jamie right.
-Waldo
-------------------
Comment removed based on user account deletion
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
I agree wholeheartedly! Then the real theological reflections can begin!
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
I guess he actually relies on honesty.
I think that Stephen King should have voted for the set-top PowerMac to stay on the island, despite its theological heresay.
> just like a person should not have to the (the theory of) evolution shoved down his or her throat.
Yeah, and science classes shouldn't be shoving that irreligious Atomic Theory down people's throats either.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
http://www.the age.com.au/entertainment/20000804/A48069-2000Aug3. html
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
ironic that the bible is infallible if it was written by man.
...no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (NIV text)
Most Christians believe that the Bible was written by God, through men. This is usually called "inspiration" by God. That idea comes from passages such as 2 Peter 1:20-21:
"BTW, the Copernican theory is wrong - the Earth does not revolve around the Sun, they both revolve around their common centre of mass."
That sounds neat, I've never thought about it that way. Any pages explaining this?
This is a strawman. Evolution does not deal at all with the beginnings of the universe. It deals with changes in populations over time. Look here: What is Evolution?
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
You mention scientific paradigms. You do make a good point that there have been past bogus scientific beliefs. But scientists recognize that there are no absolutes. Other ppl don't. Ask Galileo who opposed the premise that the Earth was not the center of the solar system. Additionally, the notion that comets were the harbringers of doom was primarily a religious belief, not a scientific belief.
I'm a scientist. I been trained to question past theories, hypotheses, and beliefs. This is a far different philosophy than a lot or religions that push for an absolute view. Additionally, I've been taught the preachings of both the Protestants and Buddhists. I'm still trying to figure out which one is the absolute way towards forgiveness.
Allright, he says he is getting 76% of people who download his book to say they will pay. Assuming they all do, this is still not likely 76% of the people who downloaded his work in the real world. I'm not even going to get into people who downloaded it and then deciding it wasn't worth the money - let's assume those people are insignificant.
Without into details, I once worked on a reasonably popular website. I had a variety of ways to track what you seemed to go to, and how long you were there. But whenever my superiors pressed, I refused to give them an exact number of people who visited the site, nor any particular page, URL, or file. Why? Web servers do not count users. They simply count hits to a file.
Whenever you access a URL, your web browser may make one or two requests (depending on the version or edition) to access a file and determine its type. In addition, someone may start a download, stop it, resume it later, download it again (either from the same or another computer), etc. In addition, you may have one user behind a proxy or a hundred. The proxy may or may not make itself known.
Now you could create a complex system which noted if a particular IP address supported cookies, if a request seemed to go through a proxy, etc., to try and gain a more accurate count. Still, you are never going to come up with an exact figure. The different between counts of cookies, IP addresses, and hits in terms of bytes downloaded divided by bytes for the page(s) in question can vary by orders of magnitude.
So can Steven King say that exactly 76% of people have paid for his book? He can not. The actual number may be higher or lower (depending on how many illegal "mirrors" sprung up, and their access rates). If he really wanted to get his work online inexpensively, he should have just donated it to Project Gutenburg.
You should read my electronics textbook. On the first couple pages they make a prediction on what will be in the rest of the book - AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM CAME TRUE!
Great - a Slashback that's gonna need another Slashback to correct the mistakes...
MkLinux has run on the first-generation Power Macs (6100, 7100, 8100) from Day 1. NetBSD, on the other hand, has never run on these; indeed, a quick check of the NetBSD site will show you that they are looking for someone to do the port.
On top of that, the MkLinux announcement was about the Performa series (6200, 6300, etc.), which came out well after the first generation. What were you guys smoking?!?
> The earth was created on 22nd October, 4004 BC at 6 p.m. (James Ussher, Archibishop of Armagh).
Which time zone?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This it wonderful, now i can put a terminal in the kitchen, and use a network drive to store recipies an stuff. then once i get dsl i can run an eggdrop on it, ang setup a totaly 1337 channel!
The SCovery looks nice, but it's not $129.
There's a minimum shipping of $19.95 from Egghead, for UPS ground, so it's $148.95.
I didn't see the disk option priced.
I, for one am glad to see that the Constitution means something. It's time that all this talk of "school prayer" and "equal time" gets taken out of the picture. Do I get equal time on the pulpit at a xitian church to teach evolution? Then why are they invading the minds of children to teach them religious rubbish? Evolution is a confirmed, Objective fact. Religion, and creation "science" is pure fantasy.
Personally, I'd like to see someone shut down these religious hoaxsters for good. Take these fundies out of the school system and out of our government. Religion, the crutch that it is, has no place in public life, mine or anyone elses.
-- Floyd
-- Floyd
Maybe /. could add Region coding to its content ;).
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
cuz look, its on fire see the flames - Oh NO!! Slashdot is catching fire too--its going up!!!-- what are we going to do?????? Maybe if I click my ruby slippers three times timothy will post no more kansas stories --
Science is the one true source of knowledge about the *measureable* universe. Nothing more, nothing less. If it can be experienced and measured through our senses or through the tools we construct to augment our senses, its science.
Yet if you define science strictly
If we didnt define it strictly we'd end up talking about it more than actually doing it.
> From the irony dept. the Flat Earth Society announced in 1995 that their membership was global.
I.e., everyone from here to the horizon?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
My question is, was it false information (which would be mondo-cool, and evidence of a really perversely cool webmaster) or did they change the ending (which would be the 3vi1 corporate CYA)? I hope for the first, but wouldn't be surprised at the second. Anyone have inside info?
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Yes, of course. I agree with this totally, you can't enforce the rational point of view, because in doing so, you would become as intolerant as those you oppose.The thing I find annoying about the creationists though, is that they don't fight their corner honestly. I saw an interesting interview in New Scientist a while ago with an American biologist who has been opposing the events in Kansas. He had been teaching scientists 'PR' skills to help them cope with the creationists they had to oppose in the studios. He said the problem was that the creationists would very often argue without reference to logic, but were very good at political-style debating and scoring of cheap points. An example he gave was when he appeared on a program in Kansas, in a two minute slot, to debate with one of the leading creationists. The creationist, towards the end of the debate, said that evolution was in doubt even in scientific circles, by bringing up the argument about punctured equilibrium.Unfortunately, this caught the scientist off-guard, & he only had ten seconds to reply. The result was that the viewers of that program got the impression that Evolution is in doubt even amongst scientists, when all he needed to say was that the debate was about the rate at which evolution occurs, not about whether it does occur.The thing is, the creationist knew this perfectly well, but then it just shows that they are not interested in getting the truth at all, only in promoting their fundamentalist religion.I think scientist have a hard time arguing with creationists for this reason, they have wildly different aims and even morals, it seems sometimes. Thats why I got angry when I read your original post, it seemed to be advocating that relativist attitude of "theres no such thing as right or wrong (only appropriate or inappropriate:-))". I suppose I should have read it more closely.
God I hate this post-modern relativism. There is only one type of knowledge : scientific knowledge. Knowledge is about certainty, & science is the best & only way to get it, because it is the only one that is self critical, shuns assumption, and is rational. If you disagree with this, you are saying that there are valid irrational methods of attaining knowledge, which is bunkum.
National Semiconductor MediaGX
I used to have a Cyrix MediaGX processor. I hope they haven't done a die shrink, I'd like to get 2 of these set top boxes and make a waffle iron.
Damn those things put out a lot of heat.
--Shoeboy
You mean windows wouldn't fit in 16MB? Or maybe they didn't think people would enjoy rebooting their set-top box every few hours...
pt
Will the real Richard Stallman please stand up?
> How can I feel good about myself if I am reminded that I share common ancestry with ape-brutes? I've been to the zoo, and I decline to write of the horrid, disgusting things I have seen the creatures do.
Yeah. We get a lot of chimps and gorillas complaining about their supposed relation to humans, too.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
MkLinux now has official support for these much sold first Nubus based PowerMac generation, that is rotting away in basements. These machines make excellent X-Terms." And the same models can naturally run NetBSD, too.
Really? The MkLinux announcement refers to "5200/5300/6200/6300 family of computers, and their Performa equivalents". I don't see those on the list of NetBSD supported hardware. The PowerMac models, anyway -- even Gil Amelio probably couldn't tell you offhand what the "Performa equivalent" of a 5300 is. Maybe somebody more knowledgable can comment on this?
x86'ers, this is why Apple has now shifted to using such a short list of product names. Which is why we now have to mention that we're using a "beige G3" or a "blue & white". No, it's not because the only thing we know about our hardware is what color it is.
I demand the right to a solid platform upon which I can support my dignity. How can I feel good about myself if I am reminded that I share common ancestry with ape-brutes? I've been to the zoo, and I decline to write of the horrid, disgusting things I have seen the creatures do.
With our sense of self-worth at stake, supporters of science will talk of 'empirical evidence', 'facts', and 'logic'. Take a moment and reflect on the innocence lost the day our world left it's prominent spot at the center of the universe. And now they would have us force feed this, their evil-ution, to our kids.
Does a man who is doing his utmost to get into heaven benefit from filling his head with theories? Do we want our teachers questioning all that is good and decent, twisting things around with their fancy words? We must shift our focus back to something which is never used in an evil fashion: religion.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Question: What if God had actually made the choices on which animals lived and died, instead of natural selection, but he made them in such a way that it looked like natural selection was occuring(or maybe, when he created the Earth, 4,000 years ago, he put fake fossils in the ground(which were exactly like what they would've been if they had existed there for the real amount of time))? I don't believe it would be called evolution(because that needs natural selection), but it could explain what we se in the fossil records. Therefore, there is another explanation which could explain it, and wouldn't clash with anything we have observed.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
Oh yeah... Well what time zone? Seriously, though doesn't recorded human history go back further? They've had cities of a few thousand people in Babylon for 10,000 years. Until the US bombed them that is.
The talk of cozying up in bed to read, well, you could do this with a simple printer. That's where publication costs come from anyways. You could pay the $1 for the story, then do the work of printing it out in a nice format. Or you could pay $7.95 for a book that's been pre-printed and formatted nicely. :)
More economical and fun to try it yourself though
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"
Vidi, Vici, Veni
The number of people cheating like that is probably no more than the number of teens without credit cards who dowloaded it but were unable to pay.
actually, Christianity is definetely real
It is a religion based on the teachings of a man who many believed was the fulfillment of Jewish scripture.
What you may argue is whether or not that scripture was a myth
----
and I'm leaning toward the latter. They didn't just let everyone get misled by their website (which they went as far as to take down for a few days after the story broke), they also intentionally mislead the public in at least two other ways. Someone leaked that Gervase would win to MSNBC even before the website thing. Furthurmore, a scene in the introduction shows four people sitting at the tribal council, Gervase among them. CBS now claims that was intentional. So either CBS lucked out and had a number of coincidences fall perfectly into place, or they are master con-artists. They fooled us, didn't they?
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." -Richard Feynman
> not every author can do this, since they need > the financial security that a publisher can > offer them. Are you so sure that Steven King can do it? Remember when he was hit by the car about a year back? He almost died. Spooky.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
As for the Kansas Board of Education, we had a similar situation in Northern Virginia when a bunch of ppl ran on a creationist platform for my County BoE. They loss big-time. Pleistocene? That's too old. The earth was created on 22nd October, 4004 BC at 6 p.m. (James Ussher, Archibishop of Armagh).
I'm wondering if Fujitsu is violating the GPL by using Linux in a "read-only" format(as seen here)?
This may be my poor understanding of the GPL, but it may be interesting to check into for those of you more inclined...
regards.
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Why would anybody really bother hunting for the book on gnutella when you can just download it off his web site, or amazon, and without paying if you want.
The concept of illegal plants and animals is obnoxious and ridiculous.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
And what if God actually created the world five minutes ago, instilling in us the belief that we had lived lives prior to that. What if this hasn't happened yet, but is about to?
Actually, I have fundie relatives who believe God put the fossils in the ground. Why would he do that? It's not ours to question why.
I read the link on your post. Whoever taught you your probability theory must have gone to a vo-tech school
Read past the first page. Quotes from evolutionists.
Can you provide even an inkling of physical evidence indicating that the first man was named "Adam" and not "Doug?" Evolutionism is kicking creationist ass in the evidence dept.
Does it matter what the first person's name was?How about where Eden was?
Give me some evolutionary evidence. now.
and if dinos and humans existed together? (more)
Here's a good article discussing the big bang.
you know, creation v. evolution is is a lot like windows v. linux.... Evolution theory is bloated and 'buggy', but has a good PR dept. (edu. institutions), while creationism just works.
Don't reply to that, instead, read more. Also read the articles from creationism.org.
Imagine that... judging an operating system by the number of Usenet posts!
What about documentation? I suppose Novell would be the best operating system in the world, then...
Where do these people come from?
It uses a TV instead of a monitor ./ seems to have been running lately (the one about dejavu.org and the recent one on old video games come to mind) but for some reason this reminded me of something...
Well, this may just be me, or it may be because of the 'nostalgia' stories that
So then, who all remembers the days when computers with TV's instead of monitors were the standard instead of something special (Of course you do...)
Now... who still has their old computer like that somewhere? Come on, come on, admit it...
There, that's better, I knew I wasn't the only one...
-GreenHell
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
"If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" --- Bertrand Russel
Also, to quote from a proof that Hell is exothermic (don't ask):
"Many religions have a belief that if you do not belong to that religion, you will go to hell. The number of these religions is greater than one, and, as someone cannot belong to more than one religion, all souls go to hell."
Until systems like the Rocket eBook come down in price, and until a wide base of content is available cheaply in a format that can be read by any eBook AND any computer with the correct software, this method of distribution will NOT catch on.
Sorry Mr. King, but you're moving too fast.
In fact, in the main, The Origin Of Species describes how new species come about, through speciation. In short, random mutations and variation (which Darwin didn't know the source of) were selected from by "natural selection" meaning differential reproductive success. A new variation somehow has more babies/offspring by dealing with the local environment better, and so on. Is evolution "random"? No, but the initial variations are (and are undirected -- evolution doesn't mean "heading for more complexity", necessarily).
And the T. Rex wasn't around in the Jurassic Period. He ruled during the late Cretaceous. Michael Crichton was dismayed when Stephen Jay Gould pointed that out to him. Mike should have done more homework!
I always equivocate. Well, almost always.
Definitely agree evolution is not a known fact but I disagree with what your distinction between a hypothesis and a theory. A theory does not have to imply any "experiment" but it requires facts. These facts are by definition independent of the analysis performed by the individual scientist. Unfortunately facts used in analysis are ultimately observations.
Now a set of facts such as the analysis of C-14 isotopes is reproducible given access to the same skeletons. Many valid theories for the reason for the C-14 dating could be stated as long as they are consitent with the universe of facts relating to the theory. A theory simply has to be an analysis that has no contradictions with known facts and is also supported by facts.
A hypothesis can be stated as merely an educated assumption of a particular subject. A hypothesis implies the ability to find facts that can support or reject the hypothesis. Only when facts are found to support a hypothesis can it be restated as a theory.
I was not aware of any scientific laws... could you name a few? In other words, I don't know of any part of science that cannot be rejected if contradicting evidence is found (thus leading to a superceding theory).
How about this:
When you get a bacterial infection and treat it with antibiotics, there is a chance that a few of these bacteria (the one with greatest resistance to the antibiotic) survive. Those bacteria that have survived reproduce, and their progeny (if you can say that about life forms that reproduce asexually) will also be resistant to the same antibiotics. That bacteria goes on to infect someone else. They take the same antibiotic that was given to you, but it has no effect, so a different class of antibiotics has to be used. Eventually a strain of bacteria remains that is resistant to all known antibiotics, and people infected with it die.
This has happened in our lifetimes. Its not a theory, it can be demonstrated. This is natural selection.
This is what Darwin theorized, based significantly on the variety of species of finches found on the Galapagos islands, all aparently 'evolved' from a common ancestor. Darwin didn't know about DNA, and even today we can only work with an incomplete fossil record, but applying the proven fact of natural selection to what we do know from the fossil record and the similarity of DNA from one species to another that seems to correlate with that record, the most reasonable explanation is over hundreds of millions of years the variety of species on earth today evolved from simpler organisms.
Help
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Somebody hit the nail on the head when they said that :)
Didn't use NuBus??? What did they use for expansion then?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
That's not flamebait, that's humor through the use of irony...
Besides, I don't think anyone on slashdot (except maybe the trolls) would be inclined to argue the creationism side anyhow...
Intolerant people should be shot.
No, that'd be VMS. Can't beat that good old big grey wall of DEC documentation...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
So, say you have two objects A and B. A can be a battleship, a person, an 1KG lead weight, a planet, etc. The center of mass is the point where all forces can be (simplisticly) be judged to act. So, if you're a person (object A), your CoM is in the lower-mid torso. If you put on a heavy backpack (object B), the CoM moves toward your back (the system of objects now has a common center of mass C), out of alignment with the vector of gravity force (perpendiclar to the ground) so the set of objects, you AND the backpack is like to fall over.
Now, jump into space, and substitute two equal-massed objects for A and B. In a closed system, A and B will share a common center of mass, point C, around which they will orbit.
Now, if B has a larger mass than A, the center of mass will be closer to B, and A AND B will orbit the center of mass (C).
Now, make B MUCH more massive than A... say A is the mass of the Earth and B is the mass of the Sun. C is now MUCH closer to B than A. But A and B STILL ORBIT C.
Now, cease treating A and B as point masses... they now have diameters. C, the center of mass is still a point. In the case of the Earth(A) and the sun(B), C, being much closer to B than A, is WITHIN the diameter of the sun. Therefore A (Earth) appears to be orbiting B (the sun), but in reality, both are orbiting C (the center of mass of the set of objects that contain the Earth and the sun). C just happens to be within the diameter of the sun.
The same can be said of the Earth and the mood. Only Luna is MUCH more massive compared to Earth than Earth is compared to the Sun. In this case, point C is approximately 1000km beneath the surface of the Earth.
Now, heep in mind that this is a VERY simplistic explination written by an exhausted person about to crash for the night. I am, of course, neglecting objects D..*, instead pretending that the universe consists of only two masses. I'm also neclecting every OTHER force acting on the objects, and prolly a handful of other things as well.
But that IS the general gist of what I think the previous poster meant.
(here's to hoping the infinity symbol up there shows up correctly)
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
>> The Bible says the Earth is round,
Actually, it says that the Earth is a circle with four corners.
Yeah, real infallible.
>> and it said that before people believed it.
Ever heard of the Greeks? They figured out the Earth is a sphere by observation and experimentation.
never mind. I didn't notice the score 0 comment you were actually replying to.
nested mode needs to show the "x replies below your current threshold" in the space where they would be if they were showing.
Intolerant people should be shot.
Kansas voters now support the teaching of evolution in their public schools, as evidenced by recent election results.
FUCK! i figured if one state, out of all our glorious fifty, could hold on their illusions about life on this planet...it was going to be Kansas!
damn this rationality! That state is going to burn in hell with all their new fangled scientific idears! Next they'll probably remove all board members who belong to the flat earth society! (yeah right...like the earth is ROUND?!?!) that's when the whores and the crack move in!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
We were happy if we could get through one damn taping without Jeff 'Anal' Probst dragging it on for 3 damn hours. At least we had that buffet^h^h^h^h^h^h rice to chow down on while he was flappin his lips about alliances and votes and suspense and what not.
----------
Gervase... the Survivor
But there is only one true God.. RMS, we bow down to thee.
MOO
You're Cool. Left yourself so wide open, I had to think twice about this... (checking Asbestos undies)
First, The reason the religious is explanation has been ditched is not that it can be proven wrong. Instead, the scientific community has refused to believe that anything could happen as a result of miraculous interpositon, and therefore do not consider God (whom they have not ruled out) as a possibility. Let me put that more simply. Science is supposed to look at the facts, consider all the possible explanations, and choose the one that best fits -only these days, we consider every possibility EXCEPT the divine.
"Error: variable 'god' not found"? perhaps he's hiding? I'll merely refer you to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
"Do you? How can you know if I'm right or wrong? You're caught in your own epistimolgical nihilism. "
No I don't know all things, but I know more than most. Aristotle said that the beginning of Knowledge is to know that you know nothing. This I know. And who cares if you're right, you don't know everything. That I know, because if you did, you'd be God, meaning you contradicted yourself in saying that "variable god not found".
"Wow! So is mass slaughter, infanticide, rape, cruelty to animals, etc"
Apparently, you've never read the Bible. So shut up and go read it, before you criticize what you know nothing about.
Just for reference, the PSR says that every question must be answered, before an explanation can be considered acceptable. IE Where did the universe come from? Why are we here (what caused everythign to be)? Keep asking yourself questions like that, and you'll find that somewhere there had to be a first cause, and creator. Evolution or no, Christianity or no.
Fish
Hey, one of the local radio stations here (Boston area) broadcast an interview with the survivor of Survivor around the time that the show started being aired. I didn't pay much attention, and soon switched stations, but now I wish I at least memorized the name! I don't watch the show, but I'm surprised that no-one seems to know who it is, given this broadcast. Was anybody else listening to this interview?
Thinking that the process of small changes cannot add up to big ones is a classic mistake of creationists. Sorry, there isn't a line in the sand. You don't want to believe that small changes from population to population cannot add up to a change in species? Well keep your head in the sand if you want, but you are wrong.
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The distinction between micro and macro evolution is a line in the sand invented by creationists who realized that micro-evolution was absolutely provably.
However nobody has ever come up with any decent reason why gradual changes cannot add up to big ones. In fact we have excellent documentation that they can and do. And to top it off, the predicted rates of small changes combined with the independently measured timescales are in agreement with the large scale changes predicted.
In short claiming that there is a distinction is an intellectually dishonest attempt to redefine the debate in terms where people can be left with the impression that you proved something.
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The 78+% figure includes people who "promise" to pay.
We don't know how many already paid nor how many people will go back to the site to pay for what they have already downloaded.
Evolution is the process of ongoing modification in existing life. We know a fair amount about it.
Abiogenesis is how the ball got rolling in the first place, and we have large areas of ignorance about that.
In short I would say that we have good reason for believing that we know the basic cause of the the changes believed to have occurred over the last few hundred million years. Before that we have a lot of basic open questions.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The whole thing has been over for months now.
There is no way they could have shipped everyone back, set the whole thing up again, made everybody look as malnourished as they were on the island, re-shot the ending, edited it, etc. in those "several weeks". Sure, if it were on a stage set somewhere or if this were an ordinary sitcom/drama. But this is ON LOCATION HALFWAY ACROSS THE WORLD. Granted, it's not impossible, but highly, highly, highly unlikely.
Somewhat more likely but still almost impossible: they shot a couple of endings. I doubt this is what happened (I mean, what's the point?), but it's still more likely than re-filming the ending in a few weeks months after the show ended.
Most likely: the thing is set in stone. CBS just has better secrecy on this issue than people thought.
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
I have noticed alot lately that people who we always thought of as being in ignorant closed minded areas are surprising us all... The voters of Kansas deciding to try and keep evolution as being taught in schools... Vermont voting to accept Gay Marrages... While California, the state which is supposed to be the standard bearer of open-mindedness, passes the homophobic Prop 22... What's happening here? Any thoughts?
Glad to be getting an iMac. Supposed to arrive today. Sage. I'm happy.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Two of the things I think the evolutionary model has going for it is its ability to predict future events, and the manner in which seperate pieces of evidence are all highly consistent with each other and with the theory. Depth-based dating is pretty consistent with radiocarbon dating. The theory predicts that no fossils of type A will be found less than X million years ago, and this prediction has never been refuted. You get my drift....
I believe dear brother (organ music softly playing C Minor 7th chord in the background)
Oh bless me Margaret, Steve and Lowell for I have sinned....
Which fucking idiot doesn't believe in this Holy of Holiest Trinities. They must be out of their fucking minds or under direct control of Richard the Furry Mouse bane of all in Creation
I have the faith my brother, I am prosletysing it where ever I go!!!!
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
Now that was definately Divinely Inspired.
All praise the Holy Sphincter creator of all things knowable and unknowable!!!
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
I reckoin it should be +3 Insanely Funny.
I nearly fell out of my seat
By the way who sits at the Right Hand Side (when I read this I was doing some Calculus work I immediately thought about a theorem)guess who it is it is me. Well if you combine the first three pages of Genesis divide them by an equal amount of bullshit and a smidgeon of absolute poppycock you get my name and surname and street address even!!!
This is the truth by the way as the Bible is infallible
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
Most of the American Indian versions were translated from English. Most of the very rare lanage editions where also translated from English or a closly related langauge.
The last bozo I meet that did translations didn't have much of a clue about Greek or Hewbrew and he was working for one of the largest bible pushers in Lynchburg VA.
That's microevolution. That "micro" prefix is important: small changes within a species. It is well documented and has not been seriously refuted. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is different. It is an assumption that small changes across a long period of time could create huge changes eventually. This has not been proven or disproven, as it requires large periods of time to work. However, in general, the trend appears to be to more simplicity (specifically in the case of vestigual organs) than more compelxity. If anyone has evidence to counter this, I would be interested to see it.
Junkyard Wars is known by the name "Scrapheap Challenge" in the rest of the world.
10. You don't have to eat rats. You don't even have to catch rats. Rats fear you. So does everyone and everything else.
9. Your torch isn't from Pier 1 Imports. It's made by Airco and it can slice a railroad rail in half quicker than you can say "Mind The Gap."
8. You drive cool 4-wheel ATVs as fast as you dare. Sometimes a camera person is riding on the front rack to make it more of a challenge.
7. Forget the bathing suit. You get issued flame-resistant flight suits, two-way radios, safety goggles, hard hats and a Leatherman.
6. After 10 hours of unbelievably intense physical and mental effort, you get cold beer, hot showers, and rooms with real beds. The beer is not insipid either.
5. Which would _you_ rather play with: a fish-hook made from a rusty paper clip, or a 50-ton Caterpillar excavator/dredge?
4. Somebody else cleans up whatever mess you make. Even the holes in the steel floor.
3.The only sunblock you need is a flip-up welding helmet.
2. A camera worthy event is not your sharing the fish you caught. A camera worthy event is cutting a Land Rover in half (its not only encouraged, but considered educational.)
1. You don't get voted out by failing to backstab the right person. You get voted out by having your creation explode on-camera in a hail of flesh-rending shrapnel and fireballs of burning gasoline.
Original list from Crash (a fellow NERD), with some changes mine.
Organizer:New England Rubbish Deconstruction Society;The NERDS,first US team in the UK Scrapheap Challenge/Junkyard Wars
I was not trying to make an argument. Clearly, I have no scientific proof that the copies of the original manuscripts are valid--just as you have no proof of the opposite. And I am, unfortunately, somewhat underqualified to talk about how books were chosen to go into the Bible; I believe that is related to comparison of earlier prophecies to later recorded events, among other things. My point, if you follow the thread, was simply that many Christians believe the Bible is infallible because it was inspired by God. Hence, the comment I was responding to, "ironic that the bible is infallible if it was written by man" holds little weight for many people.
So how do we know if the manuscripts which were used for translation were even valid? What verse in scripture will address this question?
I'll do my best. Try Matthew 24:35:
The Bible was written by committee, not by God.
A natural conclusion to make if you do not believe that God exists. If the Bible took the form of a direct divine revelation rather than a historical document, you would undoubtedly still be saying it was created by men.
By the way, if you are making arguments like these, I hope you have at least read the Bible.
There's also the entertaining possibility that the Bible is "there to test us", and God wants us to exercise our free will by rejecting it and believing in the evidence of our senses. :)
smarty man survivor is good
Still reeling from the absence of the Ten Commandments in public schools,
How would the posting of the Ten Commandments in government schools not be a state endorsement of Christianity?
Well, could be a state endorsement of judaism... The Ten Commandments being in the OLD Testament an' all.
"Information wants to be paid"
i'm just eager to die so we can see which religion was right ;-)
Well, if Southpark is any indication of the Eternal truth, it's the Mormons. The Mormons had it right. (and I can attest that spending an eternity with them would be hell, or at least as boring as it.)
--
+&x
Good for you for actually bothering to read and attempt to understand the opposing viewpoint. (That's more than I can say for others who post around here.) But I question your arguments. You mention specifically molecular evolution and the evolution of irreducibly complex systems. Can you cite specific evidence to counter those examples?
That other fellow who replied to you saying that evolution is an incontrovertable fact is full of shit. But then those who purport creation to be the same are more so full of shit.
This is simple scientific method stuff, folks!!!
You ARE correct in that evolution should be called a hypothesis and not a theory. But you seem to have no idea what a theory *IS*.
>Calling it theory implies proven fact,
Which is absurdly false.
What a theory implies is that you have a conducted a repeatable (that's VERY important) experiment whose results support your hypothesis.
Now, what be "proven facts" would be things like:
"This skeleton (A) I dug out of the ground has X amount of Carbon 14 isotopes in it"
"This other skeleton (B) I dug out of the ground has a similar bone structure, but a larger braincase and has Y carbon 14 isotopes in it, making it Z million years more recent than the first skeleton"
Now, a hypothesis is a logical premise that fits all the known facts: "Well, it appears that, given A and B are closely related, B is more advanced than A, and B is Z million years younger than A, A evolved over time to become B"
For evolution to be a THEORY, someone would have to have conducted an (REPEATABLE!!!) experiment, subject to peer review, that offers support to the hypothesis. This has, to my knowledge, not happened for evolution (tho I COULD be wrong).
Now, for evolution to be a "proven fact", or a law, there's an entire array of headache inducing proofs, where you'd have to demonstrate mathmetically that there is NO other POSSIBLE explination for the known facts. There are very few scientific LAWS compared to the number of theories.
Unfortunately for the bible thumping crowd, creationism doesn't even have enough going for it to be considered a hypothesis, much less a theory.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
Your right about it not much seperating it from the Egyptians.
Some of my favorites:
For example the Holy Trinity. The Egyptians had 4 gods as one (one of them would be the devil side of thigns).
About "Eating the body of Christ". 5000 yrs ago the rulers of Egypt were doing that. They had the Catholic alter down at least 2000 years before Christ.
Virgin Birth? Other than the fact that there are hundreds of documented cases of "virgin birth", it too has a place in acient Egypt. (for thouse who are going to flame this, yes teenagers have been known to play around without sex and make babies). The story of creation in Egypt is a bit more interesting. It could happen again if the gods ever get a good stash of pr0n. The romans went to great lenghts to hide the stone carvings of this event.
Just to make it even more interesting (becuase we all know the Jews were harrased by The Man in Egypt). It turns out that the name Egypt was given to the country on the NE side of Africa buy the French about the time of Nepolian. A word like "Aegypt" means accross the water in Hewbrew so this had to be the land right? Of course all the records being dug up show that that people we refer to as Jews are from an area north of Baghdad where the Tigress and Euphratis rivers and may have been even farther north. That little habbit of only allowing priest from one tribe has provided lots of insight into tracking an acient nomadic group of people. One other tidbit about Jews that has been very helpful is, if your mother was a Jew, your a Jew. It gets rid of that question of "who was the father?" Very few societys in the world have used that system and when mixing cultures, it tended to be the fathers cuture and lableing that stuck to kids no matter who the real father was.
The evidence for a quick flooding of the Black Sea 7500 years ago seems to have made many flooding storys and most of thouse end up being corrupted with the story of Noah.
When I think of infalibility, I keep having to think of the popes.
I've encountered quite a few people of faith who are far from "feeble minded" or "weak willed". And I've encountered some people who are "feeble minded" or "weak willed" who are nevertheless very worthwhile people. Styopa is right in saying that it is not our decision to weed them out.
Faith is a crutch, but so is an operating system. I could be posting this from a wire-wrapped board connected to an oscilloscope. I've coded low-level (even hand-assembled code when the assembler wouldn't do exactly the bit pattern I needed) and I know enough hardware theory that I could build a computer without even using chips. I don't need an operating system. I can do this all by myself. But I don't want to. For one thing, just weaving a K of core RAM would take me a week, and I don't have 8192 little donut magnets handy...
Similarly, I could probably cope with Self-and-Other and Mortality and Randomness and Man's Inhumanity to Man (and let's not even get into what, if anything, it all means) without resorting to the mythic structures that humans have apparently used for the entire time that we've been thinking, except for the very recent times (what is it, 3, 4 centuries out of the last however many thousand (the number keeps getting bigger as we learn more about the past) centuries?) when the idea that there might not be any gods was considered. But I see little value in the exercise.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Any chance of not spoiling Survivor for those of us on the other side of the world who haven't got this episode yet?
Chris
I dont really see a problem with it. What would happen if he would have released his novel only in book form. Do you think that the only people who are going to read it are those who buy it? I lend my books to my friends all the time. He expected to make a certain amount of money off of this little project of his, and it looks like he is doing very good so far, so where is the problem at?
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist.
HOWEVER, just because the geek community, self-appointed arbiter of all that is Right and Good, believes that evolution is Right and creationism is Wrong, doesn't inherently entitle us to force our beliefs on others any more than the Christian Right is. As one of my teachers put it a while ago, and one for whom I have a great deal of respect, the purpose of society is to make judgements. One judgement that our society has made, and I support, is that the religion of science is "correct." I say religion simply because it is a belief system that attempts to explain the world. There are plenty of ther such; I happen to think science is the best such. Others would disagree. So, so long as our society makes that judgement, then that is the one that stands. All are welcome to support or oppose it. But those who disagree must be given their voice, in my opinion through elections. They seem to be losing the elections, which I aprove of, but the lections must be held. Even if those who are currently losing would abolish them should they have complete control.
---
Timothy wrote:
:)
This still doesn't mean Jamie is wrong -- yet.
Jamie wrote:
I predict King's return rate will be something like 15%. Maybe it will go as much as twice as high, thanks to his deal with Amazon to let people use credit cards -- much more convenient.
Looks to me like Jamie *was* wrong. See Monday's news on Stephen King's site, in which he reports 76.38% payment. Now, 19.8% of the 116,200 that he counts as having paid have actually just promised to pay, but haven't actually paid. 80.2% of them paid via credit card. That means that at least 61.3% of downloads have been paid for, which is more than twice Jamie's most optimistic estimate.
King goes on. In response to the question "Are you go for Part 3 in September?", he replies, simply, "Yes."
Sorry, Jamie.
-Waldo
-------------------
These are all self-fulfilling prophecies you dipshit they do not impact on anything besides the Bible. This arguement is completely circular- I can understand if you do not understand this!!
Nearly every religion can have these self-fulfilling prophecies eg. The Koran, The Teaching of Buddha etc etc etc there is a tribe of African's that believe the Universe was created from the excrements of Ants. Prove to me that that isn't true???
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
I should hope not, those kind of changes happen all around us, all the time. The only question is whether we pay attention to them or not.
Here's why I pressed the "Reply" button. The "micro" vs. "macro" distinctions are not used by real biologists. They were coined by creationists who could no longer deny that evolution took place and wanted to distance themselves from its larger implications.
In other words, they since they could no longer deny that it was possible to walk down the street, they claimed it was impossible to walk from San Francisco to New York City. 8-)
However, in general, the trend appears to be to more simplicity (specifically in the case of vestigual organs) than more compelxity. If anyone has evidence to counter this, I would be interested to see it.
Maybe I can help you there. Check out Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events. The first link especially may interest you. It gives numerous examples of polyploidy in plants, in which the number of chromosomes double. This, while a relatively simple genetic change, is an increase in complexity. Is that what you were looking for?
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
ObJelloBiafra:
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
"Information wants to be paid"
One more thing: Creationism is not science and should not be presented as such is schools.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Its speed depends largely on what you're doing.
:-)
The 603's floating point scores are in the tank,
but its integer speeds, IIRC, are not bad. On
the average, it's just a little slower.
Also you have to take into account that the
7200 was probably running a newer (read bigger)
version of MacOS, unless the 5200 had been
upgraded. Finally, you have to consider whether
the performance was bounded by other factors
such as waiting for user input or the hard
drive speed or the speed of the bus between the
processor and RAM.
Also, I think most or all of the 5200s came from
the factory with a L2 cache, and I think only a
few 7200s did, which would also have a leveling
effect.
David
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
So does that mean when I have vanquished my enemies I get to rape and sodomise their daughters???
Come on your a clever boy you should know the Bible like the back of your hand. Tell me which Book, Chapter and Verse this was commanded and to whom. If you can't then shut the fuck up.
By the way I could easily say the same thing. Scientists say there might be something missing in the STANDARD MODEL guess what hold the phone it's me??? See this is a prophecy that I have fulfilled as well.
By the way I think that I have been wounded and bruised, come from the seed of Women, Mocked, accused by a false witness
If you like I will enter Jerusalem by Donkey to does that mean it's me?????
Check back into the nuthouse I think your daypass just expired............
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
Still reeling from the absence of the Ten Commandments in public schools,
How would the posting of the Ten Commandments in government schools not be a state endorsement of Christianity?
without having the entire fossil record from the first genetic material to the present.
This is the stupid argument that Christians always bring up. "You don't have the entire fossil record, so how can you say it's true?" Well, the counter to that is this: Christians have no evidence of God, souls, angels, demons, heaven, hell, raising the dead, walking on water, or any miracles that Jesus himself promised Christians would be able to do, so how can Christians claim that they have "The Truth"? I guarantee that there is much more evidence for evolution than there is for any of those things I mentioned in the last sentence.
How can I feel good about myself if I am reminded that I share common ancestry with ape-brutes?
Why is the government's responsibility to protect your feelings? Do you have some special right enumerated in the Constitution which guarantees this?
I've been to the zoo, and I decline to write of the horrid, disgusting things I have seen the creatures do.
You also declined to write of the horrid, disgusting things that we have seen Christians do. You have also declined to write of the horrid, disgusting things that your God has done (such as mandating the murder of children, the ripping of infants from the wombs of their mothers by sword, and the taking of sexual plunder). Instead you chose to pick on animals which have not need for conscience nor morals.
Take a moment and reflect on the innocence lost the day our world left it's prominent spot
at the center of the universe.
The world's position did not change relative to the universe. It may have changed relative to the beliefs of human beings.
Does a man who is doing his utmost to get into heaven benefit from filling his head with theories?
Perhaps you need to go back and read your Bible a little more carefully. Did not Paul say that there is nothing you can do to enter heaven? That is is faith and faith alone which saves? Then again, perhaps you are following the words of Jesus instead, who stated that it is works and works along which grants entry into heaven. In that case, you are correct -- but it doesn't answer the blatant contradiction between Jesus and Paul on the most important question the Bible could possible raise: How can I escape eternal torture? I can think of at least four other ways the Bible says one can be saved, and they are all mutually exclusive. Which one is right?
Do we want our teachers questioning all that is good and decent, twisting things around with their fancy words?
Who decides what is "good and decent"? It certainly won't be "God." It will be some person, which, according to the Bible, is just as evil and "worthy of hell" as the next person.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I'm certain that IBM would disagree with you...
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
NetBSD does NOT support the 5200/5300/6200/6300 (except for the 6300/160 and the 6360 which used differant motherboards). These are the old school Apple systems that didn't use PCI, or Nubus for that matter... According to http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/m odels.html NetBSD does not support these machines.
Most Christians believe that the Bible was written by God, through men. This is usually called "inspiration" by God. That idea comes from passages such as 2 Peter 1:20-21:
But scripture says nothing about how the books were chosen to go into the Bible, does it? Nor does it say anything about which manuscripts the books were translated from, right? So your "inspiration" argument falls flat on its face as soon as the pens left the parchment of the original autographa. But guess what? Even Christians concede that the original autographa no longer exist! So how do we know if the manuscripts which were used for translation were even valid? What verse in scripture will address this question?
The Bible was written by committee, not by God.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Egghead link isn't working for me, anybody got a corrected one?
First off they didn't replace evolution with creationism, they gave school districts the right to choose to teach it or not and removed it from state testing standards. I believe they also pulled the terminology too. No, I don't think that's right, in fact I think its very wrong and there is a not-so hidden fundamentalist agenda here but lets not boil this down to the typical hackneyed science vs. religion rhetoric.
What is going on here is political activism vs. political apathy. These fundamentalists were organized and spent *years* getting into the school board to change policy. The same way any special interest group can gain some power, whether you agree with their politics or not.
The lesson learned here is that small municipal and state elections serve an important purpose and can have a very powerful effect on society. Its your job to keep an eye on your politicians, see what happens when you don't?
The CSICOP-style paranoia that the world is under attack by religious people is about as believable as most conspiracy theories. There are people both religious and secular who will do their best to push their agendas when you're not looking. People do it all the time, we just get angry when the resulting legislation isn't to our liking.
. Religion, the crutch that it is, has no place in public life, mine or anyone elses.
I strongly disagree with this, we have very public laws and traditions to regulate non-profits like Churches and Mosques. Not to mention put limits on what some brands of religious philosphy dictate (xtian scientists, animal sacrifice etc).
Personally, I don't like the reactionary tone of your post as I'd rather make my own decisions based on open-discourse and freedom of information than being force fed "facts" from either fundies or hard-core materialists, both calling for the censorship of the other.
If you want smart kids teach them the history and philosophy of science and religion and let them make decisions on their own, not just reciting whatever party-line you most agree with.
The egghead link doesn't seem to work - does anyone have an updated link or know the brand name or something else identifiable enough to search on? Thanks
But it's chock full of errors, contradictions, and lunacies.
"Why me, Lord? Where have I gone wrong? I've always been nice to people. I don't drink or dance or swear. I've even kept Kosher just to be on the safe side. I've done everything the bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff."
-Ned Flanders in The Simpsons episode 4F07
I won't go into the number of holes that get opened up when you consider the non-controversial fact that the Book of Genesis wasn't even written originally as a single document, but is instead a conglomerate pieced together from at least 3 different source texts....
then you simply don't understand what the theory of evolution says.
'nuff said.
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Furthermore, images*(adlog.pl|banner).* should be a giveaway that it's probably an ad.
The javascript junk looks like another attempt at *gasp* a page counter. Maybe they're counting the number of hits from browsers that have javascript and images turned on?
It's not a webbug unless the 1x1 image is going to another server. /. already has a list of all of the /. pages your ip is going to (which is why they don't need webbugs). Could a more likely explanation be that they're trying to get a guestimate of how many people are viewing images (for ad reasons) and how many people are viewing javascript (for more ad reasons)?
Obviously if a person hits a page and is getting these 1x1 images, but is *not* getting the ads, then that person is running an ad filter. I think that a person is entirely within their rights to run filters, but I also think that slashdot is entirely within their rights to try to figure out how many ad views they're "losing".
hymie
Hey,
This is flamebait. I personally don't want to get into a big fight of creationist vs evolutionist fight. Such a debate belongs somewhere else, like talk.origins newsgroup. So take this fight elsewhere.
As far as I am concerned, both creationists and evolutionists can be nerds.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
...is the Kansas curriculum now going to cover homo superior ?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I have the same birthday as the earth!! Awesome!
We were both born in the evening too. So cool. This is one they never mention in the "this day in history" column.
kahuna burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
WOW!! When did they invent that? Cool -- and it comes with Netscape? Damn it.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
That made no sense.
Filling out a form is a hassle?
How many times have you filled out a form for say getting a new hard drive cheap online.
Honestly, I think there's a worse trend than stealing (all my mp3s are of CDs I own). Convenience-ism. Stealing indirectly deprives a vendor of the support, if not the incentive, to do business. Not all incentives are monetary, some people work to produce products that give them peace of mind.
But convenience-ism? How the hell can someone transfer money without source and destination info?
It's like driving a car without conservation laws.
Sure conservation laws make accidents deadly but they also make everything else possible.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Hey.... This thing is almost exactly like the WebSurfer Pro. Same hardware (manufacturer!) and it looks like the only differnce is that it probably has the onboard NIC installed and the DiskOnChip has a linux image instead of QNX. I want that image!!!
Creationism has lost in Kansas. There are 5 seats up on the school board. Of them the primaries have eliminated creationist incumbents from 3 and a fourth had no creationist running, and the fifth has the writer of the current guidelines. The guidleines were voted is 6-4. So, the vote now change to a minimum of 7-3 and maybe even 8-2. depending on who the non-running incumbent is in the 4th slot.
'Moral guidance' (and those that tried to counter it) brought us such heavenly moments as the Crusades, forced conversion of Christians to Islam in Spain and south France, the Salem witchhunt, the house-arrest of Galileo, the decimation of American Indian culture, and our current little squabble in the Mideast.
The house arrest of Galileo. An interesting tale. Just in case you have no history of science knowledge at all, Galileo's observations of the planets and his subsequent conclusions arguing for the Copernican view of the world over Ptolemic thinking in his discourse "Dialogues of the Two Chief Systems of the World" lead to his trial by the Catholic Inquisition in 1633.
Galileo was persecuted even after his death - he was buried without rites, epitaph or marker. But he did eventually have his revenge as I discovered in Florence.
Galileo was eventually re-buried in a decent memorial. But not all of him. His middle finger bones from one hand were placed vertically in Catholic relic, which can be seen in the Science Museum in Florence, forever raised in salute ...
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I did read past the first page. Whoever taught you your probability theory must have gone to a vo-tech school.
Does it matter what the first person's name was?
Given the creationist claim that the Bible is literal, unaltered, untainted truth, I would say that it matters very much. Could you possibly be saying that evidence is more important than the various assorted ancient texts that modern people conveniently lump under the label "Genesis?"
Evolution theory is bloated and 'buggy', but has a good PR dept. (edu. institutions), while creationism just works.
If it works, why do so many Christians believe in evolution???
The $129 Smart Deal at Egghead is over, but they are running an auction on the same item. The URL is:
0 75406.htm
http://www.egghead.com/category/inv/00325632/03
-- Kevin G. Austin || kaustin@sffan.net || http://sffan.net/kaustin/
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
----
WWJD...For a Klondike Bar?
Score:5, Truth
How do they keep track of the copies floating around via irc or even posted to usenet? What about files on gnutella (yuck) SX and even freenet? It seems his site only counts the people who download from there.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
"Monitor not included."
For a cool thin panel monitor picture it's all fake! There's no monitor attached to that 129$ box. Which makes it a 'reasonable', but certainly not a good deal. Keep your money people!
Joseph Elwell.
And giving people choice is wrong?? A person should not have to have creationism shoved down his or throat, just like a person should not have to the (the theory of) evolution shoved down his or her throat.
Letting people mistakenly believe that they can pick and choose what to call facts and calling the result still science is wrong. It is a disservice to students to cut science at a politically convenient point.
Truth is not a matter to be decided in the court of public opinion. The truth is that evolution is part and parcel of the scientific world-view. You can legitimately not teach science, or you can teach science and also teach evolution. But saying that you can validly teach one without the other is a pure and simple lie.
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
We (Americans) teach Science in schools. As I understand it, things like Mathematics, Chemistry, and Biology all fall under the heading of Science, and these topics include things that Scientists the world over hold to be True, such as Evolution.
We don't teach Religion in schools because:
1) (not my point, but the real reason is) This country has something called the separation of church and state, and
2) Religious types the world over do not hold Christianity to be true. The analogy Evolution is to Science as Christianity is to Religion is not valid, because while assuming the theory of Evolution to be 'true' does not contradict other principles of Science, assuming Christianity to be 'true' does contradict most if not all salient points of other Religions. Christians and Hindus (who far outnumber Christians, by the way) do not agree that the Christian God created the Earth, but Christian scientists (not those ones, the ones who study scientific fact) and Hindi scientists probably agree that evolution, if not fact, is highly probable.
"As for Science vs. Religion, I am issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay fifty yards from Science at all times."
Computers will not save the world.