Slashdot Mirror


Apple Deals with Devil, Communists

rschroeder writes "I keep thinking that this article can't be real, but it looks like it. Among the juicier bits: 'The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (Mac OS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an 'Open Source' license, which is just another name for Communism.'" Yes, of course. And I am still waiting for Jesux to be released.

699 comments

  1. Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's really it. It's a hoax, and a decent joke at that but it doesn't take much to see that.

    1. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by bergeron76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I actually don't think it is. This guy _really_ belives he's right. Look at the domain: www.truepath.com - it's an _actual_ Xristian website. They even use deceptive pop-unders so they can make a buck and push thier cultism. These people are really starting to scare me. Believe what you will, but don't try to convince me that pokemon was created for anything other than the corporate buck. I like the Jesux article better. The apple article really scares me though.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    2. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a hoax. Really. It's an offshoot of the site they claim to want to "bring down"

    3. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... I fell for it. I was duped. The scary thing is that even I can be duped by something like this. Just goes to show that the fanatical Christian stories just don't seem suprising no matter how radical or bizarre.

    4. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by gmack · · Score: 1

      yeah deffinatly.

      From the bios page "Since then he has gotten himself cleaned up, has started listening to Christian rock"

      Christian and rock in the same sentence has gotten me blasted by the more millitant baptists in the past.

      The sight is almost passable as real though and that's a sad commentary on some of the more extreme wingnuts who clame the title of "Christian"

    5. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by joel8x · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, the fine community at Macslash.com debunked this hoax earlier today - This was one of the greatest attempts at trolldom I have ever witnessed toward the Mac community (we're such an easy target too).

      --
      Sound waves should be free!
    6. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Informative

      is it a coincidence that Richard Paley is one of the aliases that Warren Beatty uses in The Parallax View? I smell something fishy.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    7. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Nah. Nobody clever enough to come up with the lines that he did could have really believed this stuff- it's too inventive; he'd have to have thrown too many bits away that he couldn't use. But he probably doesn't care if it's all made up- as long as it sounds right it serves his purpose...

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    8. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      Soon I will realease my competing OS: Hellix!

      (Diabolical Laugh) HA HA HA HA! All competing operating systems will perish under the diabolical stability of HELLIX!!

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    9. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by DennyK · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, www.truepath.com is a free Christian web hosting service...so it's quite possible that this particular member is having some fun... ;)

      Of course, the author does have several other articles up there. Like the Apple one, it's hard to tell whether he is being humorous or serious in them. Half his writings sound like tongue-in-cheek exaggerated Christian zealotry, and half sound like somewhat serious arguments (though these are usually backed up only by "Because the Bible tells us so...").

      Whether intentionally or unintentionally, his stuff is still pretty funny. I hope he truly isn't as paranoid about "Evolutionists" as it seems from his writing, though... I have the utmost respect for any and all belief systems, but it's pretty sad to go through life thinking that everyone who believes differently than you do is out to get you and corrupt your soul... :-/

      DennyK

    10. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surprise, Christians have a sense of humour too...

    11. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late. Bill Gates released, but changed the name to Windows before doing so.

    12. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by blibbleblobble · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Dr. Richard Paley comes to our movement through his involvement in fighting other forms of anti-Christian hatecrimes. He has lead successful boycotts against Sears and Piggly-Wiggly and has spearheaded the movement to stop Evolutionism from being forced on the children of Marian County. His experience in dealing with secularism's desperate grasp on power has proved invaluable as we move into the next phase of our campaign. Dr. Paley teaches Divinity and Theobiology at Fellowship University."

      Author's biography, from the site

    13. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Cujo · · Score: 1

      But they actually are selling abstinence shorts. If you were a hoaxer, would YOU sell abstinence shorts?

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    14. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by andang · · Score: 1

      The author just relates everything he doesn't agree with Apple. Who gives a fark?
      Don't be so serious, sir.

    15. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh, the banner at at the bottom of the page was a porn site for me. I reloaded a few times, and like 9/10 times it's christian, and one out of ten it's pr0n.

      IT IS A FAKE. If it's not, download it now, cuz it's gonna be gone.

      Zoober

    16. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Theobiology?! Now thats funny.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    17. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by jo42 · · Score: 1
      > Christian rock

      U2.

    18. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by ab762 · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, not a hoax, but hilarious is this Christian review of the South Park movie.

      a small sample ...

      The most foul of the foul words was clearly spoken *by the children* at least 131 times
      ...
      I'm a Christian, and I think this stuff is way over the top.


      Henry Troup, hwt@igs.net

    19. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by lamz · · Score: 1

      I have the utmost respect for any and all belief systems...

      Really? I don't. There are a lot of idiots in the world. We are not obliged to respect them all.

      --

      Mike van Lammeren
      It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

    20. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by MrResistor · · Score: 2
      Theobiology? What the hell is that?

      I thought the whole thing was pretty funny, although I'm surprised that the Mac Bible wasn't mentioned in any of the Addendums. Or even the Mac Bible, for that matter. Obviously anything that promises to "revolutionize the way you study the Scriptures" must be corrupt!

      My personal favorite quote:

      Hypnotically encased iMacs trick unsuspecting computer users into accepting Darwinism

      I almost fell out of my chair when I read that!

      The part about Pagans being notoriously bad spellers was pretty funny, too.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    21. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Fembot · · Score: 1

      What is even more ammusing is the ID3 genere tag "Christian gangsta rap" (hex 88 as I recall)

      Those christians that belive they are living proof "that cool chrisitans do exist" never cease to ammuse me too

    22. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by salinaspaul · · Score: 1
      It might be amusing, but as a christian, I get more enjoyment and exhortation from "christian gangsta rap" than I do with just about anything else besides straight praise & worship. You can't even call Amy Grant a "christian artist" anymore, IMHO. And I don't like secular rap!

      First post, BTW.

      Paul Salinas - aka salinaspaul

      --
      1 John 3:1 KJV
    23. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the utmost respect for any and all belief systems,

      OK, I beleive that Osama bin Laden is the re-incarnation of JESUS and he's here to "save the day", so to speak. Got respect for that? I demand your utmost respect!

      Yeah.

    24. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rof,l,mao,ol!!

      dud3!

    25. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we are that, but we also do not disallow things like satire as long as its not violating the terms of service. And yes it is satire.

      Truepath employee...

    26. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by |/|/||| · · Score: 1

      The biggest confusion amongst those who are afraid of "evolutionists" is what they think is the motivation of the "evolutionists." Religious people base their entire worldview on a system of beliefs, which are taken completely on faith.

      These people exist in a reality that is not based on the input that they receive from the world, and they can't seem to get it through their heads that evolution, along with relativity, quantum mechanics, and every other scientific theory, is NOT based on beliefs, and is NOT taken as an absolute truth. It is a theory that seems to accurately describe the universe that we live in. If someone could come up with a better theory, then that theory would be used.

      Thus, there is no "agenda" by which "evolutionists" hope to stomp out belief systems - science doesn't concern itself with beliefs to begin with. What these religious people get so upset about is the fact that they're effectively being snubbed. Belief systems are not useful for anything but controlling people, so they are (for the most part) ignored by science.

      This isn't stopping people from believing what they want, but it makes them seem pretty crazy when they try to convince other people to believe in a bunch of supernatural stuff, which is why they're paranoid of "evolutionists" spreading scientific thought.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    27. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... they can't seem to get it through their heads that evolution, along with relativity, quantum mechanics, and every other scientific theory, is NOT based on beliefs, and is NOT taken as an absolute truth. It is a theory that seems to accurately describe the universe that we live in.

      Perhaps what many Christians and people of other religions that believe in creation have the most trouble with is that fact that when Evolution is presented in schools, it is frequently not presented as a theory, but instead as a fact of how life on earth developed. Public school teachers insist in its truth, and are downright belligerent toward students who don't agree with them. I saw it many times myself while growing up. Furthermore, if creationism is presented at all, it is always presented as a MYTH, which is a none-too-subtle attempt to immediately discredit it. Both Evolution and Creationism should be presented as theories. If you can't call Creationism a theory (as someone else suggested), at least call it a concept instead of a myth. I don't think anyone could argue that organisms do not evolve over time and according to their environment. But despite what evidence there is supporting evolution as the manner in which life originated, it's still way too lean to be treating it as an indisputable fact. In fact, study of evolution would probably make for a much more worthwhile school topic if the studies included analysis of where evidence falls short, where finds are conflicting, and what kinds of evidence would need to be found to help strengthen the argument. These aspects are sadly lacking in today's curricula, even in the collegiate world.

    28. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a myth. If this bothers you, tough. Science classes shouldn't even consider creationism until it has some actual scientific merit; it should be wholely delegated to studies of cultures during the social studies/history phase of education.

    29. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is a myth. If this bothers you, tough.

      Ok. Just because you say it is, I'll believe you.

      Science classes shouldn't even consider creationism until it has some actual scientific merit; it should be wholely delegated to studies of cultures during the social studies/history phase of education.

      I agree that it should be addressed in social studies / history, and that until somebody bothers to do some scientific study on it, it has no place in the science class. However, the arguments in the previous post are still valid. The argument that life began by evolution is still just a theory, but is almost always presented as an absolute. It still pisses people off when they open their Social Studies book and find that something they have great faith in is ridiculed in the next chapter, which is entitled "The Biblical Myth of Creation." It's all fine and dandy for you to believe otherwise, but at least use a little tact. You can present what you believe to be "cold, hard truth" in a manner that doesn't immediately make those who would disagree with you tune you out. If you don't care about convincing others that you are right, then don't bother arguing. At least politicians, slimy though they may be, learn early on that to argue persuasively requires that you not alienate your target audience.

  2. From the article... by ocie · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dr. Richard Paley is a teacher of Divinity and Theobiology at Fellowship University

    Makes me wonder if they have Theomathematics, Theochemistry, Theophysics and Theoengineering as well.

    --
    JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
    1. Re:From the article... by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Funny
      Makes me wonder if they have Theomathematics, Theochemistry, Theophysics and Theoengineering as well.

      I remeber seeing a "Theological Engineering" paper once. It had such wonderful questions as: If 30ml of red wine is placed in the mouth of a devout catholic, and transubstantiation takes 3s, how many joules of energy are produced?

      Jedidiah

    2. Re:From the article... by PD · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Theomathematics, pi is defined to be 3.0.

    3. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn.

      Where did I hear about this nutcase, I'm quite sure this "Theobilogian" has popped up elsewhere. OH RIGHT. He was the one that went around talking about genetical engineering or something, Theobiology -- but why is he concerned about an OS?! This is not TheoCS (btw. do a /. search for paley)

    4. Re:From the article... by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      I thought that was only people in Indiana.

    5. Re:From the article... by czardonic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Makes me wonder if they have Theomathematics, . . .as well.

      Don't forget Theohuxtabology.

      --
      Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
    6. Re:From the article... by ghack · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is!

      In Kings 7:23:

      He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
      weird!
      the laws of thermodynamics are there too...

      I wonder why darwinism and christianity can't coexist: they both make sense.

    7. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity makes sense?! Since when? The Gospels contradict each other.

    8. Re:From the article... by operagost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because no one has ever demonstrated one instance of macroevolution, yet it's sold as scientific fact to every kid who manages to stay awake in science class. Naturally, by definition faith in creation cannot be proved. However, I feel that the way you talk about reptiles sloooooooowly turning into birds and everyone in the room nods as if he saw it happen himself, disturbs me.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:From the article... by Moofie · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's only sold as a scientific FACT by people who don't understand what a scientific THEORY is. In other words, ignorant people.

      I'm an engineer, and I don't know very many scientific FACTs. The closest ones I can think of off the top of my head are the laws of thermodynamics. Everything in science is subject to being disproved. All good scientists, by definition, understand and accept this basic Truth.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:From the article... by odaiwai · · Score: 2

      Well: a) the cubit isn't a precise unit of measure.
      b) pi *is* 3 to zero decimal places. It's certainly a reasonable approximation if you're measuring things with your elbow.
      c) Are there any instances of precise measurements in the bible? (Apart from the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.)
      dave "Lord, what's a cubit?"

    11. Re:From the article... by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

      You can mod me to oblivion if you like, but that was the funniest thing I've read in months. Good eye, czardonic!

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    12. Re:From the article... by baba · · Score: 1

      I thought you were kidding in the quote, so I checked it out in the original. Sure enough...

    13. Re:From the article... by GMontag451 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Because no one has ever demonstrated one instance of macroevolution,

      Observed Instances Of Speciation
      Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
      29 Evidences For Macroevolution

      Maybe you should do a little research before you make a greatly incorrect factual statement like that.

    14. Re:From the article... by Gerv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Observed Instances of Speciation" indicates examples of microevolution only.

      "Five Major Misconceptions..." just points to "Observed Instances of Speciation".

      "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" says, at the beginning: "Whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open." In other words, they are theorising about macroevolution without a scientific mechanistic basis to support the theories.

      It also cops out by saying "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." But that's the hard bit - if you can't explain the first self-replicating life form, then the argument that life appeared from nothing (as opposed to being created) doesn't hold water.

      Gerv

    15. Re:From the article... by Rushuru · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Shouldn't your signature be more like this?

      fUffhfjfbfN or even fNfUffhfjfbfN?

      right now it reads "zardanicc"
      or may be I just can't pronouce your user name correctly ^_^

      fWff

      ffVf...f

      --
      !
      ^_^
    16. Re:From the article... by Rushuru · · Score: 1

      guess I should have tried preview first :/

      anyway, are you sure about your third katakana?


      --
      !
      ^_^
    17. Re:From the article... by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      I don't get it.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    18. Re:From the article... by PEdelman · · Score: 1
      if you can't explain the first self-replicating life form, then the argument that life appeared from nothing (as opposed to being created) doesn't hold water.

      Evolutionary theory does not try to explain the origins of life. B.T.W. these hard-core christians don't try to explain anything, they just say it's so because the bible says so (if you interpret it this or that way)

      --
      Like science? Comics? Wicked...
      Funny By Nature
    19. Re:From the article... by Chucow · · Score: 1
      [Apple Computers] is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult.

      This coming from a man who talks endlessly about the evils of evolutionism, while rambling about religious purity on a Christian rights page.

    20. Re:From the article... by Gerv · · Score: 2

      Evolutionary theory does not try to explain the origins of life.

      But those who wish to deny God must do so in order for their denials to have any shred of credibility. If evolutionary theory does not explain the origins of life, why is it used by atheists as a counter to "God made the world"?

      B.T.W. these hard-core christians don't try to explain anything, they just say it's so because the bible says so (if you interpret it this or that way)

      You speak as if Biblical interpretation is like reading tea leaves - totally arbitrary. This is not at all the case; to take a trivial example, it would be somewhat difficult, in good conscience, to "interpret" the Bible to say that adultery was perfectly reasonable.

      Gerv

    21. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      What if the formation of this first molecule was only possible by the precise equilibrium of the universe? That the blend of different forces and caracteristics made it inevitable to eventually happen? That the formation of life was encoded in the universe itself? Would that make you happy? Well it is the case, just tip a few factors, even one, and life becomes impossible in this universe. Think about it... Maybe it was indeed created, just not directly by god's hand.

      You know , in nature when you have a complex system, some patterns are just bound to happen, how flowers always have a number of leaves or petals that are a number in the fibbonaci suite. How crystals have perfect geometric forms and so on.

      Maybe life is just one of those patterns...
      And the system that made it possible explicitly made for that.

    22. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that a cubit was traditionally the length from elbow to middle finger, and unless you can find a group of people with identically sized limbs, I don't think exact measurement was exactly a priority in Palestine at the time of the writing.

    23. Re:From the article... by GMontag451 · · Score: 2
      "Observed Instances of Speciation" indicates examples of microevolution only.

      Really? I must have missed the meeting where everyone decided to change the definition of macroevolution yet again. I could have sworn at least a couple years ago, all examples of speciation were considered macroevolution. Or is "kind" more general now than species? For the future, please define now exactly what you will accept as macroevolution so that when it has been observed, if it hasn't already, you will take it sitting down instead of trying to change the definition once more to support your irrational and unsubstantiated disbeliefs in evolution.

    24. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect for books written 70 years after the fact?

    25. Re:From the article... by GMontag451 · · Score: 2
      It also cops out by saying "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." But that's the hard bit - if you can't explain the first self-replicating life form, then the argument that life appeared from nothing (as opposed to being created) doesn't hold water.

      The article was quite right when it said that, evolutionary theory only deals with life once it already exists. In fact, it only deals with it once it is abundant enough to be considered a population.

      The theory that deals with life's emergence is called abiogenesis, and BTW Christianity has to deal with it as well. Abiogenesis is the formation of life from inorganic matter, whether it happened through naturalistic means or through God. The naturalistic version has quite an edge on the religious version here, having a few experiments showing at least the possibility of creating basic amino acids in the primordial soup. All the religious version has is "God did it" which isn't an explanation at all, but rather a cop out. Perhaps some "Creation Scientists" would be kind enough to at least hypothesize about exactly how "God did it" and then try to do some experiments to verify those hypotheses predictions. Until then the naturalistic explanation is the only game in town.

    26. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an engineer, and I don't know very many scientific FACTs. The closest ones I can think of off the top of my head are the laws of thermodynamics.

      Which aren't close at all. The most you can say about them is that nobody's managed to break them yet.

    27. Re:From the article... by tommut · · Score: 1

      Ok... Now that was just funny.

      Nicely done.
      "With the skizm-de-boop-de-jellopuddingpops!"

    28. Re:From the article... by jafac · · Score: 2

      "roughly" circular? (hexagonal)
      "roughly" 30 cubits? (31.415926535898. . .)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    29. Re:From the article... by czardonic · · Score: 1

      Could go either way. I went with the closest in terms of pronunciation.

      --
      Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
    30. Re:From the article... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Dude. Evolutionists didn't say that reptiles slowly morphed. They said that reptiles had a variety of children. Some of them died.

      When does this "micro" evolution become "macro" evolution in your mind? Where is the line? Who invented this distinction?

      Is the difference between a wolf and a chihuahua still microevolution? That evolutionary step only took 2000-5000 years of unnatural selection. Birds and some reptiles seem awful similar to me... why wouldn't natural selection be able to make that change over millions of years?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  3. To be fair, they're right sortof by Crag · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Open Source and Free Software are heavily based in the ideals of anarchism and communism, and many of us are athiest or agnostic.

    I don't have a problem with this, but _they_ do. This isn't really that funny. It's a clash between the age of pisces and the age of aquarius, much like a similiar clash 2000 years ago, and one 2000 years before that...

    Don't take them too seriously, but don't discard them as complete nuts, either. These people are holding views which were sacred to a much wider community in the past. 2000 years from now (if anyone's still around), this will happen again, and _our_ views will be the silly ones.

    1. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like you've been reading a bit too much Aleister Crowley, chum.

    2. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 2

      I disagree that open source software is, in itself, analogous to communism. If all software was REQUIRED to be open source, that would be communistic.

      Its like saying any time you give something away for free, you are exercising communism. It only becomes communism when you are forced to give stuff away for free.

    3. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      I've never agreed with OSS and Free Software being communist in nature. OSS and Free Software, imo, are about as free market capitalist as you can get. Think about it...so many groups and companies competing against one another charging different levels of prices (free to $$$$$) for software products that are essentially based upon industry standards and are interchangeable with one another.

    4. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by zeno_2 · · Score: 1
      Think about it...so many groups and companies competing against one another charging different levels of prices (free to $$$$$) for software products that are essentially based upon industry standards and are interchangeable with one another.

      And then you have Microsoft.. =)

      Sorry, couldn't resist..

    5. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by gilroy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Its like saying any time you give something away for free, you are exercising communism. It only becomes communism when you are forced to give stuff away for free.

      Indeed, people like the author most likely would get quite agitated if you suggested that their charity work was actually "communistic". Sometimes, even in a free capitalist society, it's good to give to the community.
    6. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by DrFrob · · Score: 1

      This is worse than the christains. Astrology was invented several thousand years ago and over that time the stars have changed position (i.e. the sun used to be in cancer from May XX - June XX but now the sun is in gemini on these dates). And yet the astrologers have not updated their calanders. Hmm....

    7. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by debrain · · Score: 2
      Sometimes, even in a free capitalist society, it's good to give to the community.


      I find that is a matter of opinion. I find that I am socialist at heart, but I have had disagreements with people who could genuinely support arguments for monoculture self interest, and by turning a few moral checks off at the door, I could wholeheartedly agree with them. Most of these people were economists, and their microcosm is "special" in the capitalist versus socialist debacle. Their interests are not the same as the interests of humans.
    8. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by natersoz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. And they call Christians stupid, narrow minded, superstiteous, ... humbug yerself.

    9. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Rand+Race · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I vehemently disagree... sort of. You mistake sovietism and maoism for the economic philosophy those systems were attempting to attain. A core principle of communism is the ownership of the means of production by those who operate the means: the workers. This is a similar concept as that behind free software, but the dissimilarity of information technology and industrial tech stretch the analogy quite a bit.

      Giving stuff away for free is communistic, but it only matters if it is required.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    10. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Mandelbrute · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Open Source and Free Software are heavily based in the ideals of anarchism and communism
      Only one reply to this - bullshit.

      This sort of stuff is peddled by those that say there is only one way to do things and that's my way - all else is evil/communism/insert_name_here.

      The idea of sharing knowledge dates back to the start of recorded history (which is shared knowledge).

    11. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1

      Communism is a system where there is no private property ... all property is belongs to the community as a whole. A person does not give their property to the community voluntarily -- it is required.

      The "voluntary" part is the key word. Charity is far from synonymous with communism. In order for an act to be charitable, it must be done voluntarily.

    12. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1

      "Giving stuff away for free is communistic" is a gross misintepretation of the communistic philosophy. This type of idiotic thinking is why some people think communism is a good idea.

      Communism is an economic/political system that removes any private property. It is NOT a generailzation for anything that benefits the community as a whole.

    13. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      State Communism (Marxism/Lenninism, stalinism, or any State enforced socialism/communism) will inevitably be bad, because all state AND corporate power is held by the government. Anarchism is stateless socialism, that is, no government, yet still a communistic sosciety, based on free association. I would compare Free software (open source, whatever) more to anarchism than communism, lots of autonomous groups, all freely contributing for the good of everybody else, under whatever conditions (licences) they choose.
      Microsoft is more like communism in that they want to tell everyone what to do and force them to do it.

      For more info on Anarchism: http://www.infoshop.org/

    14. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... Therefore the fact that I AM a Pisces is probably the reason why I think the previous post is pure bullshit.

    15. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by mqduck · · Score: 1



      I think you misunderstand the analogy. To give something away has no more to do with communism than capitalism, or for that matter, free/open source software. What they have in common is the concept that "the people," the society in general own something, instead of corporations. That's just socialism in a goddamn nutshell.

      -Jeff

      --
      Property is theft.
    16. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1

      The subtle difference is that socialism and communism imply that collective ownership is mandatory, not optional.

      I'm all for people dedicating their hard work to the community. It is very charitable to do so. However, to associate that pursuit with a wicked concept like communism is distasteful to me.

    17. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by SightlessOne · · Score: 1

      Okay but hold up a second, communism kind of equals sharing with everyone. In a roundabout, very simplified manner.. So opensource may be akin to communism/socialism. I really don't see that as much of a bad thing, socialism may be good in some instances. The only reason that most people seem to claim that opensource is not communism is because most idiots look at communism and think *whoah that's bad, i don't want to be aligned with anything like that*, which is kind of sad really.

    18. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by GMontag451 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It only becomes communism when you are forced to give stuff away for free.

      I disagree with this. I must have a very different impression of communism than most people. To me, the word communism conjures up images of The Hawg Farm, The Rainbow Family, and other 60's style communes rather than images of Stalinst Russia and Maoist China. These types of societies do abolish the concept of personal property for the most part, but it is most certainly voluntary.

    19. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I have to dive into this argument. I can't help myself. I can't, I can't, I really can't!

      Socialism is not only immoral, but it is impractical as well. Socialists tend to believe that there is a constant sum of wealth available in a society. They believe this sum of wealth is unfairly distributed, with the bulk of it going to the unscrupulous and greedy.

      The truth of the matter is that wealth is created through hard work. The sum of wealth in a society is proportional to the productivity of its citizens and is not constant. Without the productivity of an ambitious population, the sum of wealth in society will rocket downward. To believe that people will be as productive in a pure socialistic community as they would be in a capitalistic society through some sort of sense of altruism is outright foolish.

      I believe it is in the "interests of humans" to have more wealth.

    20. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well now, there is truth in what you say, but I think this is recognised and addressed in Astrology. Sure, most people who read their horoscope in the paper probably aren't aware of this, but then I suspect that many people who write horoscopes for the paper don't take it seriously anyway.

      I don't have much knowledge on this, and I'm not a big believer in it, but I'll try to explain the situation a little anyway, from what I know.

      In about the last 2000 years the star signs have "played musical chairs" (my metaphor), and all shifted around one place, as you say. But Astrology has been around much longer than this. There is a term for the shift that happens about every 2000 years, which is an "age", as in "the age of Aquarius" (perhaps you have heard this phrase?).

      Astrology used to be the "calendar", but then this function was taken over by the Gregorian calendar about 2000 years ago. The dates for the star signs were set in the Gregorian calendar at that time. For time keeping purposes, there hasn't been the need to keep them aligned with the with the actual positions of the stars for since then.

      I'm not really sure about this bit, but I think that the star->personality thing is not actually supposed to be a direct link. Rather the link is season->personality. Because the stars were the calendar, there was a star->season link, and hence a star->season->personality link, which is usually thought of as a star->personality link.

      But when the star->season bit changes, then the star->personality bit has to change as well. So it's actually easier to just leave them wrong. People still want to keep the star bit anyway, because, after all, what sounds cooler: "I'm a Sagittarius", or "I'm a Decemberian"? No contest.

      Although, as I said, I'm not really sure about this. It could be interesting to know a bit more about how time used to be kept, and the theories on personalities, but it's not something I think is important enough to spend time reading up on.

    21. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by sparkz · · Score: 2

      I'm a practising Christian, and I'm here.

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    22. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      The "voluntary" part is the key word. Charity is far from synonymous with communism. In order for an act to be charitable, it must be done voluntarily.

      Yes, of course. I am not trying to equate charity with communism. But the Open Source movement doesn't say that private, proprietary software must be banned. It only says that that's not the most efficient method. It recognizes that people like to share and can gain from sharing.


      Open Source is "communistic" in exactly the same way that fundraisers at a church are -- that is, not at all. Yet people will often criticize the former while extolling the latter. It was that hypocrist that I was noting.

    23. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by debrain · · Score: 2
      The sum of wealth in a society is proportional to the productivity of its citizens and is not constant.


      I assume then that in the context of your argument monetary measurement and wealth measurement for a state are different and incompatible? Axiomize that 95% of the monetary wealth is owned, and will forever be owned by no more than 5% of the population, most disturbingly likely the same 5% based on geneology and inheritance. Then at an impossibly low 1% interest rate, that 5% of owners will each make more money on interest than the average person, without working or incentive at all. Indeed, it is in their interest to undermine the ability of the average person to belong to their aristocracy, to prevent variables that would undermine their fabricated self-interested redistribution of wealth.

      The UN, with good experimental justification, uses the difference between the wealthiest and the poorest people of a nation to measure the "happiness" of a nation. Or so I have read, at any rate.

    24. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 2

      Funny, I always thought of freely giving the fruits of your labor to those who have not as Christian charity, not communism. I guess I'm old-fashioned that way.

      The thing I've always liked about Free Software is that concept of generosity, of teaching, of sharing, of charity and kindness and giving. It's a very Christian ethic for a programmer. (And, if you're familiar with the great religions of the world, it is also follows the ethical ideals of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Don't know about the others.)

      --
      ---dragoness
    25. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you die in America with even the smallest amount of wealth, the Government taxes you at 55% and gives that money to a bunch of lazy welfare queens and politicians' brothers-in law. It doesn't take long before the familly fortune gets recycled back to someone else.

      Additionally, taxes and inflation (covert taxes) make it difficult to earn a real return on saved wealth. Example: you have $1,000,000 in assests. It earns 7% per year, or $70,000 (assuming you're willing to risk your money in something other than T-Bills). Ha! You're rich and can sit back and watch all the poor slobs work! But wait, you have to pay Federal, State, and City taxes on the interest, so now you're only getting $44,800 a year. And then of course, because the governmnet can't keep from spending money it hasn't collected in taxes, it prints Monopoly money, and your wealth is eaten away at 3% a year, or another $30,000 by inflation.

      So if you were lucky enough to earn, save, or inheret $1,000,000, you'd have the precious after-tax income of $14,800 a year. Spend it well my "wealthy" friend, because it won't go far.

    26. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by debrain · · Score: 2

      Economists will cringe at my assumptions, but let's briefly investigate the $1 million mark as above the 5% rule ...

      95% of the US GDP of 1.8 trillion is $9.3 quints in 1999, spread among 5% of the US population, or 12.5 million people, is a harmonized $744 million each.

      So assume a deviation of say 20%, which is high, most of these people still have over $500 US million. The millionaire is hardly a contender in this 5% of wealth owners, and in fact probably falls close to the 90th percentile, a far cry from the 95th percentile.

      Plus, presume the legal autonomity at this level of chargen wealth, as you can begin purchasing laws in 3rd world countries and the United States, and as such inheritance laws are defunct, as are capital gains taxes and provisions can be fabricated for income, inheritance, gains, interest and property tax shelters.

    27. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think 1 in every 20 people you pass on the street is worth $500 million, then you are smoking more crack than Marrion Barry.

    28. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Rand+Race · · Score: 1
      Communism is an economic theory. Period. End of fucking paragraph.


      Giving stuff away for free is communistic in that it is redistribution of wealth. That it is voluntary is beside the point. Saying communism is simply removal of private property is as ignorant and naive as saying capitalism is simply stealing the profits of other's labor.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    29. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a clash between the age of pisces and the age of aquarius, much like a similiar clash 2000 years ago, and one 2000 years before that...

      I for one don't want to be identified with wishy-washy neo-New Age-neo-astrological claptrap any more than with born again Christians. Speak for yourself.

      The periodicity implied in the quoted comment is nonsense. I speak as someone with a degree in ancient history.

    30. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1
      Saying communism is simply removal of private property is as ignorant ...
      Webster's definition of communism:

      1 a : a theory advocating the elimination of private property

      Redistribution of wealth is not a characteristic that is unique to communism. Whether it is voluntary is the whole point! It makes all the difference in whether wealth distribution is moral or immoral. If it is voluntary, then it is moral (on the part giving away his wealth). If it is not, it is immortal (on the part of those that force the redistribution).

      I have a big problem when people compare moral actions as being equivalent to immoral ones. If you believe that a communistic society would allow you to voluntarily give your property to others, you are fooling yourself.

    31. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by i0lanthe · · Score: 2

      Open Source and Free Software are heavily based in the ideals of

      ...early Christianity, if you stretch a bit (you don't really have to stretch any farther than socialism). See the first few bits of Acts of the Apostles where they're setting up a nice little "to each according to their need, from each according to etc" community.

      I'm sure we could whomp up some vaguely plausible parallels to the "open source community", after a sufficient number of beers. Then slap it on a web page and see what kind of fan mail it generates... I bet it would catch flak from all sides. (Perhaps someone in the thread has already suggested this; I'm too lazy to check.)

      --
      "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
    32. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people are holding views which were sacred to a much wider community in the past. 2000 years from now (if anyone's still around), this will happen again, and _our_ views will be the silly ones.

      With all this 2000 years crap, seems to me your views already are silly ones. No worse than the Christians but that's not saying much.

    33. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Rand+Race · · Score: 1
      Holy shit! It took Marx 100 pages or so to set it down, if he'd only have known it could have been distilled into one sentance!


      Let's see here:

      A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. (American Heritage)

      A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all. (Websters!)

      A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society (WordNet)

      Yea, communism is a bit more complex than you think. I believe morality is too.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    34. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by ahde · · Score: 2

      Aha! That's where you're "common sense" fails you. More than a third of that elite fifth percentile DO NOT walk on the street, thus you would never pass them. Therefore, at the very most, only 1 in 60 people you pass on the street is worth $500 million.

    35. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by ahde · · Score: 2

      Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Krushchevism, Maoism, Sovietism, Jism.

      None of these were communism, or socialism. So you're saying there never has been anything resembling communism in the world, but we all yearn for it?

    36. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Communism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production, nothing more, nothing less. It is NOT a generalization for anything that diminishes the value of private property.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    37. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BSD == Charity
      GPL == Communism

      In a nutshell

    38. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is to say that communism can only exist as a viable and peaceful form of society where there exists an escape hatch to the capitalist world.

      Within the framework of capitalism, there is room for loonies to run off and live amongst themselves. When those loonies take over the government and implement their policies, the system becomes quite unstable.

    39. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1

      Holy shit! It took Marx 100 pages or so to set it down, if he'd only have known it could have been distilled into one sentance!
      From Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, Proletarians and Communists chapter (I have a copy):
      In this sense the theory of communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
      It does actually make me feel better, in an odd sort of way, that even though there is a frighteningly large number of supporters for Communism and Socialism, a large percentage of them don't even understand what they support.

      Are you an advocate of communism? If so, why on Earth would you believe it is moral?

    40. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1
      You are right.. it is a system where the workers own the means of production. It is also a system where there is no private property. The two statements are not exclusive.

      From Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, Proletarians and Communists chapter:

      In this sense the theory of communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
      If you are going to be a Communism apologist, you should learn a little more about it.
    41. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1

      It was that hypocrist that I was noting
      I'm not clear where on the hypocrisy is ...

      I am all for open source software and church fund raisers. They are both good. Communism is evil. Just because I write open source software, does not make me a supporter of Communism.

    42. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Just because I write open source software, does not make me a supporter of Communism.

      Exactly. And just because you support charity work doesn't, either. Yet the author of the original paper would almost certainly agree with the take on charity and vehemently disagree with the take on open source. Open source is given away? Then the people doing it must be Communist, since only Communists thumb their noses at the free market!


      I was only pointing out that people donate time and energy in other contexts to the general commonwealth, and it doesn't seem to raise the same alarm that OSS does.

    43. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by squiggleslash · · Score: 2
      Sorry, but as I understand it, that's a conclusion of what will happen, rather than a statement of what it is, just as unrestrained capitalism may result in monopolies but is not, in itself, about monopolisation. Marx himself said "I, myself, an not a Communist."

      And as for "Communism Apologist", you might want to look up what the word "Apologist" means. It doesn't have anything to do with correcting basic misunderstandings.

      Idiot.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    44. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1

      I know what apologist means. It is someone who supports, explains, or is an advocate for something. I apologize if I mislabeled you ... ;)

    45. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Rand+Race · · Score: 1
      It makes me feel better that you capitalists argue so badly. The operative phrase in your carefully picked quote is "In this sense...".

      That sense being "The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeoise property. But modern bourgoise private property is the final and complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antogonisims, of the exploitation of the many by the few."

      And furthermore: "Do you mean the property of the petty artisan or the small peasant, a form of property that preceeded the bourgoise form? There is no need to abolish that, the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."

      Everybody with internet access has a copy of the Manifesto so don't yank my lariat. I suggest you read it instead of cherry picking quotes to support the elements of your argument that don't rest on appeals to ridicule.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    46. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by leodegan · · Score: 1
      What is your point? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Are you still suggesting that a central theme in Communism is NOT the elimination of private property? If so, your argument is not at all clear.
      The operative phrase in your carefully picked quote is "In this sense...".
      Yes, this could also mean "looking at it from this perspective", which does not invalidate the statement. It is just one way of looking at it.
      "The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeoise property. But modern bourgoise private property is the final and complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antogonisims, of the exploitation of the many by the few."
      This is a statement indicating the emphasis is the elimination of private property for the bourgeois. This is consistent with my point. In industrial Europe, the bourgeois were the merchant class that owned the factories and means of production. It was the goal of Communism to abolish their wealth so that they could no longer capitalize off of it.
      "Do you mean the property of the petty artisan or the small peasant, a form of property that preceeded the bourgoise form? There is no need to abolish that, the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."
      This is a sentimental statement that is meant to appeal to the workers (or proletarians). After all, the Manifesto is a call to them for revolt. Marx conceded the workers had no property from which they could capitalize. Please explain how it is relevant.

      I remind you the topic of our debate is whether "giving stuff away for free" is communistic. I have challenged you on this statement, and you have failed to provide any reasonable evidence for it. You have replied that it is redistribution of wealth, and therefore, communistic. This is absurd. The "distribution of wealth" is a useless term that can be so broadly defined that it includes things such as taxation, bank robberies and the general transference of goods and services through commercial means.

      I would assert, rather, that Communism's result is that it cripples a person's ability to give something away for free. How can I meaningfully give wealth to another person, if the "system" already gives to each of us "according to our needs"? In a Capitalist system, my potential and capacity for giving to others is much more significant. The act of giving to others is much more compatible in a Capitalist society than a Communist one.

    47. Re:To be fair, they're right sortof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a clash between the age of pisces and the age of aquarius, much like a similiar clash 2000 years ago, and one 2000 years before that...

      Actually, we won't be in "the age of aquarius" until around year 2600.
      Ask an astronomer, they tend to be better at calculating the motions of the universe than astrologers.

  4. A related site by interiot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Also at the same site...

    Objective Landover Baptist Shutdown aims to get religious parody (?) site Landover Baptist shut down, removed from the internet, basically because they disagree with their message... very little to no legal ground to stand on. They're just trying to use tactics like contacting the hosting ISP and talking to WIPO to reach their goals. They apparently don't even pretend to grasp the first amendment.

    1. Re:A related site by interiot · · Score: 3

      I guess I don't even pretend to grasp a parody of an anti-parody site. Sheesh.

    2. Re:A related site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I think my husband and I were married by someone with a Landover Baptist ministry license. Hmmmmm....

  5. Netcraft Says... by bjtuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    The site members.truepath.com is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26 PHP/4.0.6 on Linux.

    That is all.

    1. Re:Netcraft Says... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heh, nobody better tell them that their sites are being served by a daemon...

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    2. Re:Netcraft Says... by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      And that to send a message to the daemon, you need to kill!

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:Netcraft Says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just did :).. infact,.. here is the entire email.. :).. btw.. i'm a complete atheist.. just want to see if ai start corendspondence with the idiot. :D

      hhmmm or maybe not.. looks like it bounced :( fuck!

  6. Funny by Calle+Ballz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Visit the Landover Baptist Church webpage for more fun, logical christian humor.

    1. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always make a pilgrimage to Landover Baptist after first visiting with America's Best Christian, Betty Bowers, a saintly woman so close to Jesus, they file a joint return!

  7. haha by WildBeast · · Score: 2

    while he's at it why don't he just label Apple as terrorists? Is this thing for real or is it April fools day again?

    1. Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will not rest until we have destroyed the Darwinist infrastructure and those who harbour them.

  8. Is this really worth a mention on Slashdot? by Slurpee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Are we now going to be posting stories every time a Nazi claims the holocast didn't happen?

    Leave this crud alone.

    Post real stories Slashdot...please!

    1. Re:Is this really worth a mention on Slashdot? by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's Funny, Laugh

      That foot icon is not just for putting in your mouth you know. :)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Is this really worth a mention on Slashdot? by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      "Post real stories Slashdot...please!"

      After a stressful day, I can use a good laugh. This article didn't provide it, but I'm glad they tried. I don't think Slashdot would work if it was too focused.

      I remember back in 2000, the Register ran a semi-similar joke about Apple. Here it is:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/613 1. html

      Unfortunately, I think they took the image down. Try to imagine a Nasa-style picture of the sun with a solar flare erupting from the top, shaped a little like an apple stem. It resembled the Apple Logo, heh.

      I showed this to a coworker (mac fanatic, no less) that read it and said something along the lines of "This doesn't surprise me." I honestly couldn't tell if I was putting her on, or if she was putting me on heh.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  9. What is he smoking by H1r0Pr0tag0n1st · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know if one is going to spout off this kind of tripe they should at least get the facts straigt. And how in the hell would good christans know about all this devil stuff anyway?

    This reminds me of the article for concerend parents that said linux is a hacking porgram.

    --
    Americans could not be more self absorbed if they were made of equal parts water and paper towel. -Dennis Miller
  10. Fucking HELL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    This fucking bastard has pissed me off for the last time!!! Everyone DoS this motherfucker:

    64.28.67.150

    Thank you. A shiny new penny for the first to knock his flimsy little PII offline!!

    1. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by iCharles · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No No No No No!

      The pastor dude is an idiot--'Nuff said. Anyone who can't see past a word or a name, and sees "communism" and "godlessness" behind every corner probably doesn't know his a** from his elbow. It saddens me to think of how many people are so closed- and literally-minded.

      That said, I feel strongly that reprisals of the sort that are described here should not be tolerated. I worry that if a DoS is tolerated in this instance, replicating it will be regarded as socially acceptable. So, someone else will write a DoS attack, or a worm, or whatever.

      And, whoever writes it will feel he will be held up by his peers here on \. because, after all, they speak about how bad the target of the day (today the document in question, in another Microsoft, in another--who knows?!?).

      Win people with your minds and your ideas, not random acts of terrorism. IF they listen, then you truelly have one. If they don't, then you move on.

    2. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      $ host 64.28.67.150
      Name: slashdot.org
      Address: 64.28.67.150

      Nice try.

    3. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by maxmg · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more.
      A sample from a song by Dog Eat Dog springs to mind:
      "Did you ever notice that dog spelled backwards, it's GOD?" - "Yeah, so?" - "Makes you think!"
      Morons.

      I wonder when they will start arguing that there has been no evolution in linguistic patterns either...

      Sig with slightly religious overtones: "Black holes are where God divided by zero."

      --
      I asked for a refund - and got my monkey back.
    4. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ host anonymous-coward.nutsack
      anonymous-coward.nutsack does not exist (Authoritative answer)

    5. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by Cenam · · Score: 0

      if you try to silence them you are just as closed-minded as they are, besides, they do a pretty damn good job of making anyone with an iq over 2 disbeleive them.

      --

      The Truth: There is no string:)
    6. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      on \. because

      You must be using Windows. In my browser it's /. :)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    7. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Why bother with DoS? Linking to the article here on /. is much more effective.

      Jw

    8. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by BtAFMB · · Score: 1

      Dude, for god's sake (no pun intended), IT'S A JOKE. IT'S FLAMEBAIT. And, oh, it looks like it hit it's mark.

      --

      "I have fallen off the wagon, for I am a slave to tea."
    9. Re:Fucking HELL!!! by WEFUNK · · Score: 1

      Not only is a DoS such a dumb idea for the above mentioned reasons, just having this page up does much more of a disservice to his opinions than taking it down would in a million years. There's good reason Slashdot linked to this in the Funny category and not under Apple.

      It's hard to imagine (although I do know they're unfortunately out there) anyone taking this seriously. This page is only dangerous to those who already stubornly agree with its point of view. Anyone with a half a wit should realize that it doesn't exactly help his case to have such mindless ramblings posted, even if you happened to believe in creationism.

      If its not a parody, its still really funny, but its also pretty sad that people exist who can so thoroughly and unknowingly butcher their own arguments by overzealously trying to make their point.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
  11. Apple as in knowledge by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    My favorite part... "Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness." So it's a reference to the tree of knowledge, knowing the difference between good and evil.. thereby having a choice.. what's so wrong withe that?

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    1. Re:Apple as in knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original logo back in the late 70s was that of a man (presumably Isaac Newton) sleeping by a tree, with a falling apple and a "Apple Comùuter" banner.
      They should at least get their facts straight.

      Also i'm still waiting for an actual proof of Creationism other than "it's written in the Bible!". So far creationists only proved that current scientific theories are not perfect.
      Well DUH, there is no perfect scientific theories, but it doesn't make rival theories any truer.

      Also the whole "logic" of creationists seems to be:
      - proving something that is supposed true from the start then warping facts so they don't contradict the theory
      while one of the most accepted protocols is:
      - building a theory from observations, then verifying the theory by confronting it to more experiences

  12. Re:Theomathematics by dissonant7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, "theomathematics" have been around in numerous religions for millenia, though it's usually called arithmosophy.

  13. spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guys, this is a spoof. There is no "Fellowship University" do a google search on it for cryin' out loud!

    I'm a evangelical pastor. I think Jesus is the only way, I'm also a geek who thinks that the darwin kernel is a wonderful thing. Even spoofs like this make me nervous, because people actually think that evangelicals are taught to think like this (well, they are if they listen to christian radio, I tell my congregation to watch the simpsons instead...).

    It has one valid point though....chmod 666 can be an evil command, depending on the file your sicking it on! :-)

    1. Re:spoof by gmack · · Score: 1

      "It has one validIt has one valid point though....chmod 666 can be an evil command"

      And that is exactly what I tell programmers who demand I set their log files that way so the webserver can write to them.

    2. Re:spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno ... it sounds so much like what I here all the time from some hardcore christian nutcases that gather in the cube next to mine. It's really hard to tell.

    3. Re:spoof by tshak · · Score: 2

      It's great to see your post. Personally, I think that the Simpsons is way more educational then TBN, because it actually Critiques the church (in normally very correct ways). And even I, a .NET developer with an XBox, am getting interested in the Darwin kernel.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    4. Re:spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > I think Jesus is the only way

      Can I join you on the only way if I ride on my invisible pink unicorn?

      I am Jack's fascist map.

    5. Re:spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You go to hell and you die!

      I'm an evangelical lawnmower! I am more articulate than you!

    6. Re:spoof by Darkstar9969 · · Score: 1
      Guys, believe him/her.

      They are posting as an anononymous coward!

      They MUST be telling the truth!!!

      It just goes to show how much stuff you can REALLY believe on the net. (present site excluded of course...*roll*)

      --
      MMMmmmmmm....erotic cakes!!! Homer J. Simpson - Treehouse of Horror VI
    7. Re:spoof by KaledZeCamel · · Score: 1

      For those who have doubts look at http://zapatopi.net

      A couple of stories found on zatopi.net
      Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie: Protect yourself from mind-control with an AFDB!
      Belgium Doesn't Exist!: Land of sprouts and chocolate, I think not.
      The Truth About Black Helicopters: What They don't want you to know!
      Black Helicopter Autopsy: Shocking photos prove their existence!
      The Republic Of Cascadia: Join us in our struggle for independence
      Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs: *NEW* Serving the needs of Cascadian Sasquatch
      Sasquatch Militia: *NEW* Defending Cascadia from invaders
      The Unofficial Daljit Dhaliwal Appreciation Page: Beautiful and brilliant anchor for ITN's World News
      Geriatrics and Time Dilation: Theory that explains why old people move to Florida
      KELVIN IS LORD!!: Come here to Praise the Lord Kelvin and be Conserved from Entropy!
      The Writings Of Lord Kelvin: A small collection of the Lord Kelvin's papers, lectures, &c.
      Kelvin's Kid Club: For Thermo-Dynamic kids!
      Happy Kelvinmas!: Celebrate the Holiest of days and read about the very first Kelvinmas
      Kelvinic University: Offering a Thermodynamics-Based approach to learning

    8. Re:spoof by derch · · Score: 1

      Let me get this right. A search for "Fellowship University" on Google returns no valid results thus Fellowship University doesn't exist?

      No offense, pastor, but just because it doesn't show up on Google doesn't prove its non-existance.

    9. Re:spoof by zbuffered · · Score: 2

      If this is a spoof, these people really put a lot of effort into it. A lot. Have you looked around? that webpage has dozens of pro-christian articles, most as... interesting... as that one. Check it out, tell me if you think someone would go to that much trouble to prank the internet.
      Although if it is a spoof, it's sure gotten a lot of people.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    10. Re:spoof by EuroChild · · Score: 1

      Rev. Lovejoy: "Marge, have you ever actually read this thing? According to this we're hardly allowed to go to the bathroom..."

      --
      Does this make my brain look big?
    11. Re:spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man, I might go to church if I had a pastor like you.

  14. text from the page by chocochip · · Score: 1

    Here you go - from http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda.h tml

    Apple Macintosh:
    Hypnotically encased iMacs trick unsuspecting computer users into accepting Darwinism
    However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism. But is this really such a shock? Lets look for a moment at Apple Computers. Founded by long haired hippies, this company has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values". But there are even darker undertones to this company than most are aware of. Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple2 by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness3. This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different". We have to ask ourselves: "think different than whom or what?" The disturbing answer is that they want us to think different than our Christian upbringing, to reject all the values that we have been taught and to heed not the message of the Lord Jesus Christ! Given the now obvious anti-Christian and cultish nature of Apple Computers, is it any wonder that they have decided to base their newest operating system on Darwinism? This just reaffirms the position that Darwinism is an inherently anti-Christian philosophy spread through propaganda and subliminal trickery, not a science as its brainwashed followers would have us believe.

    ADDENDUM: It has been brought to my attention that the Darwin OS mentioned above now has a cartoon mascot (no doubt to influence children) named Hexley (pictured above) -- a platypus dressed as a devil who performs occult magic, i.e. hexes. They're not doing a very good job keeping their ties to the forces of darkness a secret, are they?

    ADDENDUM II (4/20/2002): A reader has also brought to my attention that the aforementioned Atheist and anti-Christian Evolutionist Richard Dawkins -- who likes to compare religion to a virus -- has used Apple's Macintosh computers since they were introduced. In fact, his infamous anti-Creation polemic The Blind Watchmaker relied heavily on an argument based on software that he wrote using a Mac. He purported to have proved Evolutionism by making his Macintosh draw little squiggles -- or "biomorphs" as he called them -- that changed over "generations". (This of course begs the question: if it took a created machine running created software to make these squiggles, how then does that refute Creation?)
    Illustration of Macintosh generated "biomorphs" from The Blind Watchmaker. Here Dawkins shows us how to turn a cross into a swastika using Evolutionism. While I initially suspected that the Apple connection here was mere coincidence, I dug deeper into the issue -- luckily, we at Fellowship Baptist have an extensive research library that also includes a representative collection of anti-Christian hate literature which we use for just this sort of investigation -- and was shocked at what I found. In the 1996 edition of his book, Dawkins includes two appendices detailing his little program. The first (included in the original 1986 edition) is entitled "Blind Watchmaker: An Application for the Apple Macintosh Computer". The first illustration on the same page as the title shows a Mac window (similar to the Explorer windows seen in Microsoft's OS) and the rest of the appendix includes many screen shots from a Mac, a number of them even featuring the bitten apple logo. It gets even more perverse in the second appendix (added material from 1991) entitled "Computer Programs and 'the Evolution of Evolvability'" (infinite recursion like this is a sure sign of a flaw in a theory). Here he shows how he "evolved" the "inspired artefact with which all this work was done"... the word "Macintosh"! Illustration from the 1996 edition of The Blind Watchmaker. At the end of the appendix he even encourages the reader to switch from IBM compatible computers to Macintoshes, saying that "you can exult in something of the feeling of liberation that may have attended evolution's great watershed events." What a ringing endorsement for Apple computers that is! As you can see, The problem is much worse than we had originally thought as Apple has been aiding and abetting ardent Evolutionists like Dawkins since at least the mid 1980's.

    ADDENDUM III (4/20/2002): Another reader (it has been busy today!) has informed me of another link between Apple and the forces of darkness that my initial research missed. Apparently the Darwin OS is not the original creation of Apple Computers but is instead based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork (pictured above). This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a new Macintosh running OS X then you probably have these "daemons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! This clearly illustrates that not only is Macintosh based on Darwinism, but Darwinism is based on Satanism.

    ADDENDUM IV (4/21/2002): Apparently anti-Christian zealots -- as well as shocked Christians who have unwittingly become Mac owners -- are linking to this article, which explains the large number of emails we have received on this topic. More clues have come in showing the dark nature of Apple Computers. According to one of our readers, the new MacOS X contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?

    Footnotes:
    The first personal computer sold by Apple was priced by Steve Jobs and his hippy friend Steve Wozniak at $666. Need we say more? [ADDENDUM (4/21/2002): Some readers have been asking for evidence of this. Here is from the October 1976 issue of Interface Age magazine.] In recent years they have tried to distant themselves from their more militantly anti-Christian past, however it is clear that this is a public relations move, not a change of heart.

    1. Re:text from the page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple2 by the serpent.

      Seriously? I never thought 6502-based machines were all that tempting.

  15. Sign of the Beast! by dcavens · · Score: 2, Funny

    Really- people should read the article. It's rolling on the floor funny. It must be a hoax though. No one could be this funny without it being on purpose.

    My favorite quote: (right near the bottom)

    ADDENDUM IV (4/21/2002): Apparently anti-Christian zealots -- as well as shocked Christians who have unwittingly become Mac owners -- are linking to this article, which explains the large number of emails we have received on this topic. More clues have come in showing the dark nature of Apple Computers. According to one of our readers, the new MacOS X contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?

  16. Hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If things had been different fifteen years ago, and apple had become the defacto pc standard, the people on this fourum would like the article. Yes, it is obsurd, but if the subject of the article was microsoft, it would be a good read. Now the real point; all corperations suck.

  17. Apple/Devil by NickRob · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, Apple did have a well-publicized dealing with the Church of Satan. They had a "Made with Macintosh" logo on their homepage, and they had a b/w pic of their founder with "Think DIfferent" next to him. The kicker? They were (obviously) against those things. They demanded the removal of such things. The CoSatan, being the dissenters they are, naturally didn't remove them.

  18. Church of Satan by dissonant7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, the Church of Satan, so far as I know, actually *does* (or at least used to) run on Apples. They even used to proudly advertise the fact on their web site with a parody of Apple's "Think Different" campaign featuring Anton LaVey (the Church's founder).

  19. I feel like I've arrived... by FortranDragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    when the story I submitted was rejected -- 2002-04-22 14:56:33 Unix is truly the dark side (articles,humor) (rejected) -- and posted all in the same day.

    I'm off to chmod 666 some files and increase the minions of the dark side. ;-)

    --
    "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
    1. Re:I feel like I've arrived... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feel bad, I submitted it too. Sometimes the editors hold onto "accepted" stories for several hours before putting them on the main page. It's possible that the one that got posted was submitted last night or very early today even. It happens.

    2. Re:I feel like I've arrived... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not to mention that it was posted here on slashdot as a troll earlier today.

    3. Re:I feel like I've arrived... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      That's the great thing, a good troll is funny and witty, and more than a little controversial. Taco says he doesn't mind that kind of trolling. He does mind the stupid crapflooding, and the mindless jokes that are run into the ground by 12 year olds with nothing better to do in computer class than post 10 of the same message that is a stupid lame joke.

      So yeah, this whole story is a troll. It's still fucking hilarious.

      BTW- You assholes that are taking part in the blackout and modbombing me for posting anti-blackout comments eariler, fuck off.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  20. 'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda... by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a new Macintosh running OS X then you probably have these "daemons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! This clearly illustrates that not only is Macintosh based on Darwinism, but Darwinism is based on Satanism.

    Lordy, Lordy, this is so thick that you need a shovel to get rid of that high holy smell.

    When looking at *any* kind of text that may or may not be slanted towards or away from any given viewpoint, please keep a look out for the world 'Clearly'. It usually indicates that the author is expecting the reader to make a logic jump that might otherwise not be warranted.

    Examples:

    Some people who live in capitalist societies are homeless and hungry, therefore we can CLEARLY determine that capitalism is responsible for homelessness and hunger.

    Some people who live in socialist societies are oppressed and have no rights. Therefore we can CLEARLY determine that socialism is equivalent to a dearth of human rights.


    Religous types are especially bad about this. I am a Christian... a very liberal Christian... but for a long time I lost my faith because of a poorly produced anti-evolution video I was forced to watch in high school (in Texas). Typical contents of the video can be summarized as follows.

    Because of [poorly documented and inadequately evidence] we can CLEARLY see that this discovery is a sham designed to discredit the world of our Lord...

    'Clearly' gives away propoganda 9 out of 10 times.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  21. hrm by interiot · · Score: 5, Funny
    view source, see:
    • <META name="generator" content="Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath generated all">
    1. Re:hrm by Bruj0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know you are a geek when you look at the source of every html page you came across :)

      --
      http://securityportal.com.ar
  22. Lickable? by sweatyboatman · · Score: 5, Funny

    They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

    I've been licking the buttons on my Dell laptop, and that's okay, but have you tasted the new IMac? Apple has again leaped way ahead in terms of user interface.

    Lickable Buttons. Hmmm... I wonder if he's thinking about those candies you used to get at street-fairs and the like which were just little dots on a roll of paper. Or perhaps those weren't really candies and this is all one long, crazy trip...

    Sweat

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:Lickable? by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      No, he must've been thinking about those toads ;-)

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    2. Re:Lickable? by The+trees · · Score: 2, Funny

      OS X: The candy-coated OS with a gooey Unix center ©

      --
      $ make work
      make: *** No rule to make target `work'. Stop.
    3. Re:Lickable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I was thinking of a "clitoris".

    4. Re:Lickable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, no fair using words that geeks can't understand.

    5. Re:Lickable? by dmaxwell · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Do the schnozbuttons really taste like schnozbuttons?

    6. Re:Lickable? by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      Marge : Homer are you licking toads again?

      Homer : I'm not NOT licking toads.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
  23. "Saint William will save us" by Tuqui · · Score: 1

    That was the only phrase that need be added to that.

  24. Slashdot Atheists by Dr.+Carl+Jung · · Score: 1
    Apparently anti-Christian zealots -- as well as shocked Christians who have unwittingly become Mac owners -- are linking to this article.


    Looks like the pagan masses of slashdot have taken down yet another site. And I think he spelled "anti-Microsoft" wrong.

    Oh, by the way, cache is here.
    --
    -Linux was for the masses, who spoke, and everything was crystal clear.
    1. Re:Slashdot Atheists by Moleman · · Score: 1

      Ars Technica did this a few days ago. Notice the update is posted before the /. link.

  25. Betty Bowers, too by rco3 · · Score: 1

    Don't forget, when it comes to poking fun at Organized Christianity©, there's nothing better than Betty!

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    1. Re:Betty Bowers, too by GigsVT · · Score: 1
      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Betty Bowers, too by pedro · · Score: 2

      Urk!
      There's a link to Stile's Top 50 sites on that page!
      http://cgi.stileproject.com/top50/rankem.cg i?id=Si sTaffy
      Hm....

      --
      Brak: What's THAT?
      Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
  26. I was waiting for this to show up on /. by Space+Coyote · · Score: 3, Informative
    ... Since it's been on every other website I regularly surf, and seems to fit the classic definition of a meme.

    There are discussions about this site on MetaFilter, a MacSlash article, a very funny Fark thread, as well as mentions on Ars and Memepool.

    Seems the tech subset of the Internet has been well and truly trolled, if indeed this is a hoax, which I am inclined to believe, given that all of the banner ads on the site seem to lead to the same domain.

    --
    ___
    Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
    1. Re:I was waiting for this to show up on /. by Xenex · · Score: 2

      And As the Apple Turns will be covering it tonight.

      Anyone with a Mac and a sense of humour should be reading AtAT daily.

    2. Re:I was waiting for this to show up on /. by Bodero · · Score: 2
      Seems the tech subset of the Internet has been well and truly trolled

      It's happened before. Remember Is Your Son A Computer Hacker?

    3. Re:I was waiting for this to show up on /. by ClickNMix · · Score: 1

      What a great way to make money from banners etc! Spend a bit of time creating something that well send target comunity up in arms.. Submit to high volume sites.. Watch those hits come rolling in..

      --
      I saw the light at the end of the tunnel... But it was just someone with a flashlight bringing more work.
  27. Don't count on it being a hoax by browser_war_pow · · Score: 1

    Truepath for those that haven't checked it out, is indeed a christian-themed hosting service. Now obviously someone may have used that to their advantage to do a hoax, but remember.... there are plenty of fundamentalists that say that magic the gathering, martial arts and star wars are satanic too. I remember seeing something on CBN saying that the Phantom Menace was anti-christian because anakin skywalker was called the "chosen one" and only Jesus can be the chosen one. And of course, the day you can show me a fundamentalist that knows any appreciable amount of information about any scientific discipline is the day that sufficient evidence to prove macroevolution beyond any shadow of a doubt will happen.

    1. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by Black+Jack+Hyde · · Score: 1
      I remember seeing something on CBN saying that the Phantom Menace was anti-christian because anakin skywalker was called the "chosen one"

      I doubt Lucas is anti-Christian. Pure concentrated evil for foisting TPM on us, now that's another thing...

      Jack

    2. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by browser_war_pow · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      I agree, but that doesn't mean that some bible thumping christian reconstructionist bitch doesn't disagree with us

    3. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by thelaw · · Score: 2

      not anti-Christian openly (who knows what he thinks -- heck, i hardly know what my roommates think!) but certainly non-Christian. like most people in the world. i recall that he's got the california-new-age-thing going on.

      jon

      --
      -- http://www.cerastes.org
    4. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't CBN the same place that stated that 9/11 was caused by homosexuals or some tripe like that?

    5. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by TheKey · · Score: 1

      Since there are no guestbook entries (well, there were none at the time that I viewed this site a couple of hours ago), I'm guessing the site is merely a few days old and probably was made for the sole purpose of trolling. I doubt they expected such a large turnout.

      I could be wrong, if someone would like to try and convince me.

      --
      My Journal - 1,337 fans and countin
    6. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by questioner · · Score: 1
      Just because there are people out there who go far and beyond the level of sane belief doesn't mean that you have to paint all Christians with the same brush.

      And as far as any 'fundamentalists that [know] any appreciable amount of information about any scientific discipline' goes, I know several. One has his doctorate in macroeconomics, another in theoretical physics. Just because they have faith doesn't automatically make them inane ranters about the evils of society and so on and so on.

      This article is a complete farce. If someone believes this, that's their business, but it's either a hoax or written by someone who is a few fries short of a Happy Meal (TM).

      I am a professing Christian - that is my faith. I am an engineering student - that is my education. And I plan on being a researcher in my field down the road. That is my job. The three are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually inclusive. It's a balance. You seem to believe that all Christians automatically cannot form a balance between these three. I do not.

      My 2c. on this overhashed topic. :-)

    7. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by jellybear · · Score: 1

      Well, wouldn't that mean the Koran is anti-christian as well? and the Dune books?

      hardly tolerant

    8. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but doesn't what eventually happens prove that Anakin Skywalker probably wasn't the chosen one after all?

      However, the spiritual side to Star Wars in general is occult and most Christians will probably consider it either as a fairytale or as evil and misleading. According to Christian beliefs, any human practicing magic is evil (some biblical characters are exceptions), and Jedi powers are definitely magic...

    9. Re:Don't count on it being a hoax by jo42 · · Score: 1

      But aren't Jews God's chosen ones?

  28. It's a hoax by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative
    Go to the "updates" link at the top. Scroll down until you see a picture of a purple teddybear. Read the accompanying "story". Now scroll up until you see a multicoloured... "rainbow"?... teddybear. Read story.

    Laugh. There are probably more examples, I didn't have time to check.

    It's a hoax, a very clever one, but a hoax nonetheless.

    As a Brit in America, I suspect my non-American friends are reading this entire thread bemused. "Well, of course it's an effing hoax!" they're exclaiming. "It's too over the top! You Americans are {...}"

    Response: Nope. There really are people like that around here, especially in the South and the mid-West. Even many "moderate" Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education (sometimes successfully.) And moderate Christians do sometimes seem to form the minority of Christians in this God-forsaken country...

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:It's a hoax by FFFish · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here's the Best Page of the site. It's the Kid's Page. :-)

      What should you do if you find an atheist?

      Atheists such as crotchety old Mr. Gruff think they've got it all figured out...
      ...but then why are they always so sad?

      If you find an atheist in your neighborhood, TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!

      You may be moved to try and witness to these poor lost souls yourself, however AVOID TALKING TO THEM! Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.

      Very advanced witnessing techniques are needed for these grouches. Let the adults handle them.


      The TruePath host is gonna be some stiffed what with all the Slashdot, MeFi, Fark, ARS, and Memepool hits... Atheist geeks destroy Christianity!

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:It's a hoax by tclark · · Score: 1

      Anybody else see the banner ad for the Christian mime troupe? What's up with that?

    3. Re:It's a hoax by mypalmike · · Score: 1
      My favorite is in their online shopping area, where they sell 'Zounds Abstinence [Boxer] Shorts':

      These boxer shorts feature the Zounds Youth Rock Ministry logo with the inspirational words "Radically Abstinent, Saved & Saving it!" A great way to show the youths that abstinence is "where its at".

      Like, hey, check out my abstinence boxers. I'll just take off my pants to show you...

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    4. Re:It's a hoax by Billy+Bo+Bob · · Score: 1

      Best indication its a hoax:

      In 1802 a William Paley (you do get the name connection, right?) wrote a book entitled "Natural Theology"

      This is too much concidence to be real.

    5. Re:It's a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, you were kidding, right? Check Google.

    6. Re:It's a hoax by superyooser · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Response: Nope. There really are people like that around here, especially in the South and the mid-West.

      I've been a conservative Christian in the South (churches on every street corner) all my life, and I don't know any Christians who think like that. To be sure, there are crackpots in every niche of humanity, though.

      This web site is embarrassing whether it's a hoax or not, because it fits with one of the stereotypes that non-believers have of Christians. The media loves to report quotes, dutifully taken out of context, that have been spouted by some knee-jerk, shoot-from-the-hip, camera-happy televangelist.

      What if the media consistently (or even once) projected Dr. "Death" Kevorkian as a typical doctor in the medical community, or v1urU$ h4X0r$ as typical IT professionals? You'd never see that, because they are not widely respected among their peers. (This is why "peer review" is so important in the scientific community; it helps to weed out crackpots.)

      But for believers in "Jeebus" -- they're fair game for mockery and wild distortions (actually, the Simpsons is pretty fair in this respect). Unfortunately, you'll never see prominent articles in the mainstream/secular news media quoting truly great pastors and evangelists who are widely respected in the Christian community, such as Ravi Zacharias, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, James Dobson, and Ken Ham.

    7. Re:It's a hoax by invalid_user · · Score: 1

      or v1urU$ h4X0r$ as typical IT professionals?

      Cool...

    8. Re:It's a hoax by Billy+Bo+Bob · · Score: 1

      Not kidding...I think you just might have read my post backwards from the indended point. I was saying William Paley does exist and the "Theobiologist" Richard Paley is an obvious rip-off.

    9. Re:It's a hoax by PinkStainlessTail · · Score: 2
      As a Brit in America, I suspect my non-American friends are reading this entire thread bemused. "Well, of course it's an effing hoax!" they're exclaiming. "It's too over the top! You Americans are {...}"

      Two words: "spaghetti trees." USians have not cornered the market on being gormless gullible morons.

      --
      "Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
    10. Re:It's a hoax by karmawarrior · · Score: 2

      Try reading the next few words after those quoted. The point being made is the exact opposite to that you're trying to counter.

      --
      KMSMA (WWBD?)
    11. Re:It's a hoax by sbsaylors · · Score: 1

      Oh I went to saint Joeseph in texas and trust me my TEACHERS were like this --- I was kicked out of science class for talking about darwin! Of course one of the "brothers" who ran the school was in the newspaper (brownsville,tx for those interested) for molesting and stocking one of the boys in the school --- poetic isnt it? Oh yes there ARE people like that. My ex-girlfriends parents are ALSO like this :) Not a hoax folks ... :)

    12. Re:It's a hoax by PinkStainlessTail · · Score: 2
      Not really:

      As a Brit in America, I suspect my non-American friends are reading this entire thread bemused. "Well, of course it's an effing hoax!" they're exclaiming. "It's too over the top! You Americans are {...}"

      Response: Nope. There really are people like that around here, especially in the South and the mid-West. Even many "moderate" Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education (sometimes successfully.) And moderate Christians do sometimes seem to form the minority of Christians in this God-forsaken country...

      He is NOT saying "The Brits are gullible too", which is what I was saying. My "spaghetti trees" reference is to a ridiculous hoax that many of the "less gullible" British people bought hook, line and sinker.

      And as far as Screwy beliefs: IIRC, the founder of the Flat Earth Society was a Brit.

      --
      "Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
    13. Re:It's a hoax by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Well, I know three southerners that are at least that crazy. And I'm a northern atheist. I of course also know hundreds of totally reasonable Christians. Maybe all the crazy types get sick of having no one to save, so they move up here.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    14. Re:It's a hoax by karmawarrior · · Score: 2

      He is NOT saying "The Brits are gullible too"

      Indeed. It's saying "No, the Americans are not gullible". And you're countering "The Americans are not gullible" with "How dare you! The British are gullible too!" which is a bizarre and entirely inappropriate response.
      --
      KMSMA (WWBD?)
    15. Re:It's a hoax by PinkStainlessTail · · Score: 1
      Hmmm... read,read... parse... read more... coffee...

      Ah yes. Appears I was spoiling for a fight. How 'Merican of me. I particularly like the "Flat Earth Society" diversion. Apologies all round.

      --
      "Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
    16. Re:It's a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you really list Ken Ham?
      I mean, seriously? Ken Ham's site...well, its pretty bad. Its actually improved after the Evolution series because he looked like an idiot and dumped a lot of his really stupid claims. But he's still wrong and he's still a fool. And he doesn't stand up to peer review. And I hope he isn't widely respected in the christian community.

    17. Re:It's a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      James Dobson? No, you *never* hear from Mr. Focus on the Family, no sir. Feh. He's as nutty as Robertson and Falwell combined.

  29. Take a look at the URL by rlwhite · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda.h tml

    Says it all, doesn't it?

    1. Re:Take a look at the URL by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really. The whole point of the site, if you were to assume it was real, is to point out anti-creationism or pro-evolution propaganda.

      I don't see your point.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Take a look at the URL by blakespot · · Score: 0
      AHHHHH!!!!

      http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda.h tml

      ...or is it...

      http://members.truepath.com/objective/ PRO PAGAN da.html

      !!!!!!????

      blakespot

      --
      -- Heisenberg may have slept here.
      iPod Hacks.com
  30. The wrath of /. by smcavoy · · Score: 1

    I think their feeling it now.... time outs, high ping times. These must be the working of the devil and his evil minions. Muahahahahahha Muahahahaha

  31. Is science being taught in our schools? by cybercuzco · · Score: 2, Redundant

    The following is translated -almost- verbatim from an Onion book i have at home.
    Is science being taught in our schools?
    Asks the great news-paper "The Onion", instument of the rich, pacifier of the poor, americas finest news source, on its July 20, 1925 front page. "Scopes monkey trial raises troubling question:
    IS SCIENCE BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS?
    Should children be exposed to facts? are reason and empirical evidence suitable school subjects?"
    Clearly the answer to thes questions is no, as a man who holds that the welfare of the country takes precedence over any other human concern, I must stand firmly against the teaching of Science in our schools. This Science has already caused turmoil among the god-fearing readers of Slashdot, americas second finest, and most accurate, news source These peoples had no wish to know that they, as human creatures, may have descended from apes. What if Science were to champion other truths, provable and real, which people do not want to hear? For example, god forbid, what if Linux were proven by Science, to be superior to any version of Windows? The peoples reaction would cause division and conflict in our nation, nay, in our world, that would doubtless outweigh any benefits of the actual Scientific discovery. Should we teach our children facts? No, I say, a thousand time no! As they grow into tomorrows farmers, housewives, mill workers, and microsoft executives, facts are the last things they will need. Manners, subservience, above all, obedience! To speak only when spoken to, to standardize on one platform, and to not cause trouble! These are the principles upon which our educational system was founded. Why in the name of god should we replace it with a system that actually encourages the ignorant man to ask questions? A good citizen does nothing of the sort. He is content with the reasons he is given by his betters.
    Humanitys noblest heroes were not men who cared about facts. They were men who stood up for what they believed in, to hell with facts! To hell with any truth not their own! Our most cherished heroes would fight to the death, bludgeoning their enemies repeatedly, wholly uninterested in whether they were right or wrong. Once something is accepted as true, it should be true forever. This noble ideal, with its emphasis on unquestioning acceptance and obedience to authority, is what we should teach our children. It is the rock upon which we have built our government, our religion, and our American way of life, and it is the very ideal that science seeks to thwart with its new "discoveries" and impersonal ledgers of "facts".
    Learning! Why should we provide our citizens with learning? Does learning mathematics aid a man who will spend the rest of his life smelting iron in a foundry? Does knowing that man comes from apes, if he indeed does, which seems to be the subject of some debate, change the lot of the farmwife who spends her years shuttling barefoot between the birthing-bed and the milking-stool, as is proper? I say it does not. Furthermore, it fills the brains of children with useless facts which does not help them become better American Citizens. Does a fact have any inherent moral value? Does Science? We know that science allowed the Germans to develop the mustard gas,the motor-gun, and techno music. Has religion ever been used in such a fashion? With the exception of the holy hand grenade of antioch, no.
    Is it possible that we, with our motorcars, and aero-planes, powered by our internal-combustion engines, have already started us down a slippery slope of our destruction. We were not content to stay with time honored steam, to travel in our dignified trains and coach-and-fours, but we can take action now, before ape worshipping scientists turn us one against the other. We must cease our march of progress now, and there is no better way to achieve this than to keep the hellborn demon Science, and his diabolical Facts, from coming into contact with our children.

    --

    1. Re:Is science being taught in our schools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost as good as "Fundamentalist Christians Lobby to get the Second Law of Thermodynamics Repealed".

  32. Hey, them's fightin' words!!!! by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apparently the Darwin OS is not the original creation of Apple Computers but is instead based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix".

    Grrrrrr!!!!!!!!

  33. This Is All True by e2d2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is "All True"*. It all started with the insidious darwinist plot using the fluoridation of the drinkng water supply, thereby contaminating our precious bodily fluids. This is just one of many plots master minded by the...I've already said too much....

    * All True actually meant to serve as placeholder for complete and utter bullshit

  34. Jesux by mini+me · · Score: 1

    And I am still waiting for Jesux to be released.

    There is no hope. Evil reins when it comes to operating systems.
    There's Atheos, the FreeBSD devil, Darwin, as mentioned in the article, and Microsoft Windows.

  35. I thought trolling was reserved for comments... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    Not articles. Besides, did you see the footnotes?

    First nitpick: Actually, holyrollers that pretend to be true bible scholars annoy me. It wasn't a fig either, but rather a pomengranate.

    Second nitpick: The Woz chose that price as a joke. It was $666.66, not "666". Is the number of the beast 2/3's rounded off to the nearest cent? I suppose all electronic calculators are also satanic, since dividing 2 by 3 gives you the same thing. I guess that holyrolling is so boring though, even they have to dabble in numerology.

    And finally, I have to wonder if M$ isn't somehow involved with this. Maybe small cash donations to this guys church? There's something there, I'm sure.

    1. Re:I thought trolling was reserved for comments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Second nitpick: The Woz chose that price as a joke. It was $666.66, not "666".

      Yes, the Apple II's price was $666.66, but Woz didn't choose it as a joke. It was chosen quite deliberately so that with 5% sales tax (a widely used sales tax percentage) added, the total would be a marketing-friendly $699.99.

      Posting anonymously since this is blatantly offtopic. :)

  36. Re:It's a hoax - obviously by pkalkul · · Score: 2, Informative

    My favorite is the profile of contributor "Diamond" Jack Holgroth:

    "Diamond" Jack Holgroth is a Game Theoretician who currently teaches a course in Advanced Game Theory for Theologians at Fellowship University. He served our country during the Cold War as a Game Theory Tactician for the Department of Defense and single-handedly developed an elegant solution to the "Fisherman's Quandary", a game theory problem that was crucial to the winning of the arms race and that was famously intractable - until Diamond Jack came along.

    Very clever, but also quite clearly a joke.

  37. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Oh really? Christian rock exists - I listen to it, as do many other people. A few bands, some of which have gone mainstream:

    POD
    Jars of Clay
    DC Talk
    Third Day
    Petra (Older)
    Precious Death
    Michael W Smith (Well, he's contemporary, but still)

    And many, many more. Oh, and I don't listen to all of these, but DC Talk has been one of my favorite bands for many years.

  38. From Google by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.ironycentral.com/archives/theoexam.html

    "1. (20 pts.) Bob and Joe are standing on a street corner. God loves each an equal amount L. Bob then accelerates to .9c. In Joe's rest frame, how much does God now love Bob? "

    1. Re:From Google by MikeKD · · Score: 1

      Since God is omnipotent and not bound by the laws of physics, that answer is L

    2. Re:From Google by Cryptnotic · · Score: 5, Funny


      Since God is omnipotent and not bound by the laws of physics, that answer is L



      Omnipotence doesn't affect anything. God loves rapidly moving humans less, because they die more often (e.g., plane crashes, car crashes, falling out of buildings, et cetera). How much less? Unfortunately, I can't tell you because I'm not a theophysicist.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    3. Re:From Google by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2
      It is also my theory that God's Love approaches zero asympotically as velocity of the soul approaches the Speed of Light c. The reasoning for this is that there's nothing like the Light that God provides the Universe. And if there were (such as a soul travelling at a velocity approaching c), then he wouldn't be too pleased about it. See Genesis and Exodus for examples of God's Anger.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    4. Re:From Google by BJH · · Score: 1

      So, you're telling me that breaking the speed limit is a mortal sin?

      Oh, shit...

    5. Re:From Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Bob isn't. So the answer is L/2.

    6. Re:From Google by Cadrys · · Score: 1

      Omnipotence doesn't affect anything. God loves rapidly moving humans less, because they die more often No no no, He loves them MORE, because He is more likely to "bring them home" !

      --

      ----
      It is often easer to gain forgiveness than permission
    7. Re:From Google by MioceneMan · · Score: 1

      God loves rapidly moving humans less, because they die more often.

      And dead people don't move. There is a heaven!

  39. Apple in league with the devil? by JiffyPop · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then why have they had so much trouble turning a profit. If they made a deal with the devil then MS should be crushed by now... Or is the Apple/Satan conglomerate held at bay by all of those god-faring christians that use MS?

  40. Again... /. rapes another poor HTTP server by Talez · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Malda you're a fucking idiot.

    Stop hiding behind your pathetic excuses and start caching the fucking content of people that cant afford to handle your distributed denial of service attack.

  41. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check out no innocent victim http://www.victoryrecords.com

  42. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by gmack · · Score: 1

    I didn't say it didn't exist. I said some of the more extreme baptists wouldn't listen to it.

    For the record I've listened to most of the bands youve listed.

    And I made the mistake of letting the wrong people know that with rather entertaining results.

  43. M$ is $atan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly the good Lawd had goofed in not illuminating the good Pastor with this site:

    http://www.egomania.nu/gates.html

  44. Real christian propaganda by Rufus211 · · Score: 1

    Ok, it's pretty obvious that this is a troll article. But the real stuff (like stuff that people actually believe in and do for their life) is even funnier. Perfect example, the "The Truth For Youth" series of comic books/propaganda pamphlets. Everything ranging from pr0n and how it makes you an abusive addict to how homosexuals are evil to how obviously all rock music is satanic and finally the funniest one, "peer pressure", the freaking life story of the guy making these pamphlets and how he was a doped up pusher. It gets even greater when you move on to the guy's personal site. Great information such as how this guy's bible is now used as a text book in Russian schools (wtf?!).
    bah...and people wonder why I'm agnostic/atheist

    1. Re:Real christian propaganda by TheABomb · · Score: 1
      It gets even greater when you move on to the guy's personal site [timtodd.org]

      His personal site is TIMTOWTDI? Holy Camel! Batman, they've implicated Perl too!

      This is where the post stops making sense ... Ytterbium. Ytterbium. Ytterbium....

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    2. Re:Real christian propaganda by partridge · · Score: 1

      Nice. I really appreciate how the bad kid and the bad father who approves of porno and has sex with little girls are black, and the good christian kid and the good christian parents are white. Subtext anyone?

  45. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  46. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Funny

    What you say??? Clearly you are a heathen and must rot in hell.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  47. Guess what "truepath.com" is running! by Hank+Reardon · · Score: 1
    Heh. I just checked over at Netcraft and it seems that the servers are running Linux with Apache and mod_perl.

    As we all know, Linux makes extensive use of daemons for running background processes, something the True Path "gentleman" was critical of OSX and BSD for. And, these daemons will fork off and reproduce in a rather Darwinesque way.

    Shouldn't we let this person know that his Christian site is infested by foul, evolutionary daemons?

    --
    There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
  48. This Makes Sense by ImprovGuy · · Score: 1

    Actually, this makes sense. The iMacs have shown great variation, with models of different colors and shapes. Not all of the colors were popular, or suited to their retail environment. Others were more naturally selected for their hues, and these survived. However, some kind of natural catastrophe must have occurred in January, causing all the old iMacs to die out. This cleared the path for another household appliance, the lamp, to make the evolutionary leap to be able to take its place. On the other hand, this kind of sudden jump is ironically more indicative of a higher power having some kind of direct influence. This is likely going to be pointed at as conclusive evidence by many Apple fanatics that Steve Jobs is in fact God, however, I feel that much more research is warranted at this time.

  49. Slashdot: Non-news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the heck is up with this place. This place is turning into a haven for non-news.

    A few days ago we had a post about the JPEG format.. wow, like we didn't know about that already! Now we have this piece of crappy non-news that isn't even funny.

    Did the dot com crash make all the real news dry up? The last decent story was about a Web server on a Gameboy Advance, and even that's scraping the barrel. Let JonKatz make all the posts from now on, at least there'll be some fun debates on what a moron he is.

  50. Weirdly attractive, one way or the other by vekotin · · Score: 1

    I dunno how many deals with the guy down below are the reason but Macs are really using some hard-to-explain (devilish?) ways in luring us longtime x86 people to their (dark?) side.

    Seriously, it's weird. It seems like in the past year or two, they're using some kind of alien influence to eat off the creativity of pc manufacturers and meanwhile quietly putting a few new nice new functions to their products every now and then.

    If one were to love conspiracy theories, they might note that for example PC notebooks are "boring" nowadays, so very little new things, more new problems than new things. Then I ended up (work of aliens/the devil/something, but I love to blame) browsing apple's web pages. Or maybe pc notebooks are not boring, but we're only forced to see them like that... maybe we have tiny G4's screwed in our heads... maybe they got to us through a new kind of virus on irc... maybe...

    so finally someone unconvered their true methods. Let these people be our new gods!

    --
    /v\
  51. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by MisterBlister · · Score: 1
    I think the fact that the page is called propaganda.html (http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda. html) gives away the fact that it is propaganda even more than the use of the word 'Clearly' does.

    In any case, I'd say this page is pretty obviously satire.

  52. oh yeah, that's the stuff by donglekey · · Score: 2

    Thus far, the first episode (called "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" -- at least they are honest in the title) was a melodramatization of Charles Darwin's life. Darwin is portrayed as a sympathetic character who is attacked by ignorant Christians for his "revolutionary thought"

    This is just so good it has to be fattening. Attacked by Ignorant Christians you say? Here is one that will really keep you up at night, the earth is round, we are not the center of the universe, and this kind of stuff doesn't help your worthless cause of ignorance and closed mindedness. (thank God, [pun intended]).

  53. *cough* by MrHectibus · · Score: 1, Funny

    *glances at his freebsd shirt*

  54. I just read this on the register! by techstar25 · · Score: 1

    Here is the link from the register, so it must be true.
    here is the article

  55. Tool by greygent · · Score: 2

    You'd have to be a serious tool to think this site is real. The more intuitive among us will notice that they got far too many facts straight to be real...

  56. Something I've been thinking about by Trejus · · Score: 1

    There is something I've been thinking about for a while. I wonder what kind of reaction people (friends and parents mostly) have when I start talking about why Linux is a better choice than Windows. Like I read the site, and nearlly collasped laughing. It was so ridiculous, "chmod 666" to unlock files?! But the people writing that honestly believe that. The same goes for the folks who normally read it. On slashdot, a lot of great points for Open source and free software get made, but does the outside observer take it seriously? Does the concept of using an operating system programmed by a loose coalition of geeks with spare time sound hilarious to them? I know I've gotten a few weird stares, and not just from windows users. I get them from solaris users too. I guess this might have been more of an issue before companies like IBM got involved, but I wouldn't be surprised if it still existed.

    More on topic, I think I came across this site a few years ago when they posted something about halloween or homosexuals, can't remember which. Might have been homosexuals since I remember something about 100 sex partners, but that could apply to the girls in the devil costumes too, I guess.

    --
    "To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
  57. offtopic?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Refuting a troll attempting to trick people into DOSing Slashdot certainly isn't offtopic. The moderators must be sniffing glue tonight....

  58. Interesting pagan fact! by Patrick+Cable+II · · Score: 1

    Slightly offtopic, but no less interesting:

    Pagans added the 'k' to "magic" so people could distinguish pagan religious practices(magick) and stage tricks(magic).

    Patrick Cable II

    1. Re:Interesting pagan fact! by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      It also looks k-rad and goth. Teenagers all love k-rad and goth stuff, like Paganism. Luckily no one takes it seriously, at least no one over 18 with an IQ of more than 80.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  59. penis itch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    penis itch! penis itch!

    ahahahah penis itch!

    hhahahahahahah

    penis itch! ... oh... A proud member of the Homophobic A-Sexual Anti Slashdot Posters Union of April 21-27 Black Nigger Output.

    STOP POSTING !!

  60. Brought to you by... by PipianJ · · Score: 1

    The same people who brought you CAP Alert! Anyone think Microsoft is starting to help fund the Religious Right against the evil "devilry" of *NIX and Macs?

    1. Re:Brought to you by... by connorbd · · Score: 2

      I like how the popup includes a free pen for a $15 donation.

      A free "stick pen".

      A free, bought-in-bulk-for-a-dime-a-piece "stick pen".

      Why don't they just throw in a scoop-neck baby T saying "Showing My Cleavage for Jesus" for their female contributors? Objective Ministries doesn't seem to have a problem with that particular type of clohting; I certainly don't :-)

      /Brian

  61. ASSUME = ASS out of U + ME by nil5 · · Score: 1

    Not all of us are atheists or agnostic. I mean, just because some dorkr goes and writes something like this about computer software doesn't mean that we should now all gang up on those faithful to a particular religion. I mean, what are we coming to when we who fight so much for civil liberty then go and turn our noses against anyone with any religion?
    More importantly, don't take this guy as an example of all Christianity because that's just not true. We must seek the truth, and just because some of us don't see truth in the same places doesn't mean the others are wrong. This applies to all parties.

    1. Re:ASSUME = ASS out of U + ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the programmers that matter are atheist/agnostic. You never hear about a christian doing anything intelligent, now do you?

      You talk about truth. How is blinding yourself to a single obselete book "seeking truth"? Sure, we shouldn't forget history, but we also need to not get hung up on past superstitions, like God.

    2. Re:ASSUME = ASS out of U + ME by Tokerat · · Score: 1
      Well, you're right, but this guy is a nut. Clearly. C'mon, "chmod 666 is the path to satan"? 666 isn't EVEN 666, it's OCTAL, that makes it 438 in base 10. not even close.

      People like this give a bad name to religion. It's why I figure I'll deal with God when I die, if there is a God, because I just dont' know what to make of it anymore because of KOOKS LIKE THIS.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    3. Re:ASSUME = ASS out of U + ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Larry Wall ferinstance?

  62. Jesus OS has been Released already by tyrione · · Score: 1

    Its non-hebrew name is Windows XP

  63. 668 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    668 - the Neighbour of the Beast

  64. Blasphemy!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yes, of course. And I am still waiting for Jesux to be released.

    This is blashpemy - you have offended the creator! Repent now and refer to it from this day forth as GNU/Jesux lest you incur the wrath of the creator (i.e., RMS).

  65. T(H)GT(H)GSBB by thopo · · Score: 1

    Join the T(H)GT(H)GSBB from the 21st of April to the 28th of April. Thank you.

    --
    keep it simple.
  66. FreeBSD in Texas by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny


    It hasn't been a problem in California, but twice I was accused of being a devil worshipper while wearing my FreeBSD polo shirt in Texas.

    Noo... you see, it's an "operating system". There's these "processes" that run in the "background" and the little demon is just a mascot, sort of like... fuck it... you got me, it's Satan.

    1. Re:FreeBSD in Texas by ManDude · · Score: 1

      I am using the shell fire screensaver to keep the God fearing away from my system. It helps keep local root exploits to a minimum.

    2. Re:FreeBSD in Texas by dorsey · · Score: 1

      Kinda like Linda Branagan, eh?

      --
      hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.
    3. Re:FreeBSD in Texas by totallygeek · · Score: 2, Funny

      Twice I was accused of being a devil worshipper while wearing my FreeBSD polo shirt in Texas.

      I had the same problem with my OpenBSD wireframe daemon-head shirt. My wife's parents are ultra-religious (see deluded) and were freaking out about the shirt. I finally told them that Satan is just an angel....like me.

  67. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    Well, one way to force feed propaganda to the peons is to make them feel like everyone will think they are fscking stupid if they do not come to that conclusion themselves. Brainwashing using percieved peer pressure, works like a charm(*points to highschool again*).

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  68. Proof Steve Jobs *is* the Devil by AnonymousAlcoholic · · Score: 1

    I have long suspected that Steve Jobs is in fact the Devil! You guys where all worried about Bill Gates, but he's pretty pathetic compared to Steve.

    You want more proof ...

    The Devil is supposed to be good at tempting you right? But Windows isn't tempting. Take a look at a PC running Windows? It's not tempting, it's just an ugly beige box with a boring UI. You look at the damn thing and are instantly bored.

    But, look at an iMac or better yet a G4 Tower with 21" Studio Display and don't just want to lick the buttons, you want to make love to the damn thing, you want to sacrifice small animals before it and commit unholy acts on it!!! Chr*st, even Micro$oft software looks sexy on it! And have you seen the iPod? Don't let me get started on what I want to do with the iPod ...

    -------------

    Actually, I just wish that the server wasn't slashdotted so I could check out the link to BibleMan Action Figures at the bottom of the page ...

    1. Re:Proof Steve Jobs *is* the Devil by guuyuk · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but you have Larry Ellison on the Apple board of directors; and as he will tell you, he IS God!


      So we have God working for Satan??? Talk about a corporate take-over!


      (Old Reference: What's the difference between God and Larry Ellison? God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison.)

      --
      We're sorry, the phone number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try your call again
  69. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by jchristopher · · Score: 1

    Didn't one of the guys in DC Talk get his girlfriend pregnant? I thought that was kind of funny...

  70. Dear Fricking God by abhinavnath · · Score: 1

    I hope this is somebody's April 1 joke, a few weeks late. If it's not, then that webpage is just really sad. Please be a joke, and not someone's stupendous stupidity manifesting itself most depressingly.

    --
    My other sig is also a .Porsche
  71. Lamentable article by Orbitalb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just another one of those articles written by unnoficial members of the Grumpy Old Men From Texas Club. As a theology student, and a MacOS X user, I find Dr. Paley's article quite lamentable. Not only has he utterly failed to disprove any modern myths, he has made a complete fool of himself and Fellowship University. He will never hear the end of the torrent of criticism from both his academic and ecclesiastical peers.
    If any slashdotters are unfamiliar with Theology, then please don't let this man give you a poor first impression. If he were to read this article aloud in front of an assembly of people with accredited degrees, he might very well be laughed out of the auditorium.

    1. Re:Lamentable article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am also lamentable. I am also lamentible. I am also lamintalble, I am also lamintible, I am also la men table, I am also a man on the table, I also want to suck my cock on a table! I am fuuuuhhneeeeeeee!

    2. Re:Lamentable article by Orbitalb · · Score: 2

      ... actually, looking at it again, this article is way over the top. It is beyond rediculous. It is a farce. Supermarket tabloids aren't this bad. Nobody could keep a straight face while writing this. Is it supposed to be satire or what?

  72. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by weierophinney · · Score: 1

    This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.)... hmmm, evidently these people, hoaxers or otherwise, overlooked the fact that daemon, a word used in the bible, means "helper"...

  73. The Cult of Apple by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2

    He calls apple users a cult - I suppose its a good thing there aren't too many amiga users around anymore.

    1. Re:The Cult of Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I am now a cult of One, huh?

      ac

  74. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're saying that this isn't a hoax? Yikes!

  75. Re:You forgot....... by scotch · · Score: 1
    Warning, goatse.cx link in parent post.

    :)

    --
    XML causes global warming.
  76. I really wonder... by jschmerge · · Score: 1
    I Wonder how long it will be before the human race starts object to such lunacy... The man who wrote that article apparently never took the correspondence course in sylogistic logic... Oh wait, reading ideas by philosophers like Plato and Socrates is also a sin. Sigh.

    Even if you believe in creationism (not a subject I want to even try tackling here), you should be able to spot the blatant flaws in this guys argument. If it were up to this guy, we would still be in the dark ages, dying of the plague.

    Anyone who leads people around with such blatantly false arguments should be forced to have a full frontal lobotomy, after all, he doesn't seem to be using that fore-brain anyway...

  77. Hope he doesn't see this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Found this over at the OpenBSD (Open to Bondage, Satanism and Domination) site:

    http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html

    Gave me a pretty good chuckle. Fortunately I think that server can stand to be slashdotted.

  78. I'll troll a bit... and offtopic even... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    First nitpick: Actually, holyrollers that pretend to be true bible scholars annoy me. It wasn't a fig either, but rather a pomengranate.

    Says who?

    As far as I am aware, the bible doesn't say what kind of fruit it was whatsoever, and scholars have debated that it could have been a fig, apple, pomegranate, etrog, carob, palm, nut tree, grapevine, wheat stalk, etc.

    In fact, some dare to suggest that there was no actual tree at all, but that the story of the Garden of Eden is mythological!

  79. Bible belt evolution by bobgoatcheese · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education"
    I can personally attest to this. As a high school student in rural(very) Mississippi I loved it when my Biology "teachers" came to the point where we were to learn about evolution. The lessons were always preceeded with statements like, "Now, I'm not saying I believe this, or that it's at all true, but according to the state I have to teach it to you, it's up to you if you want to listen or not." I would sit astounded as half the class objected to a very fundamental concept by sleeping through the class because Brother so and so told them that, "he ain't evolve from no gosh darn ape."

    --
    How's my typing? Call 1-800-eta-shut
    1. Re:Bible belt evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      I know that most Christians object to evolution without understanding the issues. I am one who likes to understand and know the truth. For important issues, I'm often not happy to take someone else's word for it.

      This article, if true, is a real embarrasment. Natural selection is a fact, there is no doubt about it. It has been observed and documented. What is a fiction is the macro-evolution of one species changing enough to become a new one, and through this progression all variety of plants and animals today have come to be. I have presented arguments before that no-one has been able to answer.

      What annoys me about this article (if true) is the rejection of terms. True Christianity is about redemption, not exclusion. Example: today in English we call the Creator, God. God is supposed to be the name for a tribal German deity. This is the equivalent of taking the name of Zeus for the Creator, and then explaining to the people about His true character. For those with a Bible you will find another story in Acts 17:22-34.

      People without understanding reject all parts of an opposing view, without realising that some is true (such as natural selection). Christian's should take the time to study the issues they pretend to have knowledge about, rather than just repeating stuff they have been told. One day macro-evolution, like many other things we believe, will be rejected as wrong. This is the best progression of science - a natural evolution - that we hold a theory (and science is only ever theory) and apply it until one case contradicts the theory. Then at this point a new theory is to be made which more closely reflects the truth. Scientists, and people in general, must be willing to accept that everything they know could be, and probably is, wrong. Only this way will science progress. The Catholic Church stood in the way of Galileo's (and those before him) model of the universe. Eventually it broke through. Someday evolution will undergo the same death. In years to come it will be something else.

    2. Re:Bible belt evolution by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      I am one who likes to understand and know the truth.

      A noble desire.

      What is a fiction is the macro-evolution of one species changing enough to become a new one, and through this progression all variety of plants and animals today have come to be. I have presented arguments before that no-one has been able to answer.

      Speciation has been observed, maybe not to your specification, but it's convinced the taxonomists anyway. We've observed it in the last 100 years, it's hard to imagine how much things might change in a length of time 30 million times longer than this.
      As to your unanswerable arguments, I'd love to hear them.

    3. Re:Bible belt evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't challenge the zealot, he'll cry.

    4. Re:Bible belt evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks for your reply. Regarding millions of years, there are creatures and plants which are being found often that have been presumed extinct for millions of years. I could quote some examples, but I've given my books to someone else to read. You have probably heard about at least one, the coelacanth. This one's a common example.

      A lot of the abuse of creationists from evolutionists (and most definately the other way around too) is a lack of understanding of the arguments of the other side. Creationists ackonwledge that creatures will adapt to the environment through natural selection. The main difference between C&E is very important:
      Creationists teach that the adaptation is done by already present genetic information. Eg, a bear has the genetic code for white fur and black fur. It has children, one with white fur, two with black fur. Since they are living in the snow, the one with the white fur survives, so the two with black die out quicker. The white one's genes get passed on more, and eventually only the genetic information for white fur remains among bears in that part of the world.
      Evolution teaches that the genetic variety came through mutations, and that the code for white and black fur came through this process. Therefore, an isolated group could theoretically develop new, previously unexistant genetic code, such as purple hair, making them more or less likely to survive.
      Creationists reject this view for a few reaons, some of which are:
      1. Genetic mutations are almost always harmful/harmless, never beneficial (in the sense of different fur). The ratio of harmful mutations is much, much higher than neutral ones. I'm not sure if any beneficial mutations have been observed, but I could be wrong.
      2. We find the genetic code for the variety of species is present in the parent. With current data we are quite clearly dealing with genetic code that already existed, not through fresh mutations.

      Creationists also have problems with dating methods that show the earth to be millions of years old. This is not just religious dogma. Eg, samples taken from rocks formed from a volcano in New Zealand were said to be millions of years old in some cases, when it was known the exact day and year that the flows were created. This is not an isolated example. The Creationists believe there was a worldwide flood. Many dating methods are based on assumptions that would be destroyed if the worldwide flood was true. Anyway, this is just a brief introduction to show you some of the issues that Creationists have with macro-evolution and geological dating. There is much more depth and many more examples.

      As for my unanswerable arguments - I'm not certain there is no answer, I just haven't got one. It deals with inheritance, recessive genes. I have presented it once before on slashdot. Received a lot of replies, and no substance.
      Just briefly (since I don't have much time now):
      Fact: there are beneficial recessive genes
      Fact: harmful mutations occur at a much higher rate than neutral/beneficial mutations
      Fact: marriage between relatives causes much more complications in offspring than benefits. Royal family is a good example
      Fact: both parents must possess a recessive gene in order for it to become dominant

      Given the above facts, evolution has to explain how recessive genes were created. For natural selection to work, a gene must be dominant. Dormant abilities are not subject to natural selection (for very obvious reasons). Here is the problem: two people who possess the same beneficial recessive gene will also posess in common a much greater number of recessive harmful genes which will have opportunity to express themselves. A term for this is genetic load - the cumulitive negative genetic traits outweigh the beneficial. This is what happens in real life, and as far as I can see can't be explained in a macro-evolution framework. I could be wrong though. This problem is perfectly consistent with Creation theory though, that in the beginning each kind was created perfect with all genetic diversity for everyone alive today, but since then (or since the great flood), genetic mutations have become common, and all races are in decline from our former glory.

      There is an excellent article about this by the Institute for Creation Research.

      One thing I have tried to explain before is that both evolution and creation theory are not science. They are philosophy. This does not make them any less worth discussing, but it changes the way in which we should present them, and discuss them.

      A message to all who might read this, not to the author I reply to:
      For thousands of years most men have presumed that God/gods exist. Atheists have been and always will be a minority. People should not reject belief in God as a fairy tale - many of us dedicate our time to understand the deeper mysteries, and many of us try to be critical, able to give reason for the hope we have. The men of ancient times, and today, don't believe in the unseen without evidence. For a great challenge, I ask any that believe the Bible to be a fairy tale to explain it's accuracy in prophecies concerning the Messiah Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. It predicted the exact year He would be born, where, the feelings He would have at the time of His death, His purpose, and much more. Any who say that it was written after the event are ignorant - the prophecies were written in the Septuagint also, a translation of the Scriptures from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, before Jesus was born - this translation we know existed before the Messiah's birth.

    5. Re:Bible belt evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      You sound awfully sure of both yourself and me. Fact is, you don't know me at all.

    6. Re:Bible belt evolution by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2

      evolution has to explain how recessive genes were created

      Recessive traits which are harmful in a homozygote are almost always beneficial in a heterozygote. See for instance Cystic Fibrosis, the most important genetic disease among whites. It's a recessive trait. Heterozygotic carriers of that trait are protected from Cholera because they don't lose water as fast as others when they get diarrhea. Same for cickle sell anemia, the most important genetic disease among blacks. It's recessive, and heterozygotic carries are protected from malaria, because of the special shape of their red blood cells which the malaria parasite tries to attack.

      And now you won't be surprised to learn that malaria is a big problem in the area where blacks originated, and cholera is a big problem in the area where whites originated.

    7. Re:Bible belt evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      I'm not understanding what you are saying. A homozygote is when both genes in the locus are identical (DD, or dd)...so the recessive gene is dominant. Then you say it's beneficial in a heterozygote (Dd), so the recessive one (d) remains recessive - and therefore does not express itself. So wouldn't this mean it's beneficial because the dominant gene for that locus is beneficial and that the harmful recessive gene is playing no part? Could you explain this a bit more for me please?

    8. Re:Bible belt evolution by mdwebster · · Score: 1
      Regarding millions of years, there are creatures and plants which are being found often that have been presumed extinct for millions of years.

      And how exactly does that help or hinder evolutionary theory in the slightest?

      Creationists teach that the adaptation is done by already present genetic information.

      That's certainly one way that natural selection works. However, as pointed out by others, you are wrong in your assumption that all mutations are harmful. Mutations are roughly 90% neutral. In a population, harmful mutations (those that negatively impact a creature's ability to reproduce) are weeded out fairly efficiently. A beneficial mutation will permeate a population fairly rapidly. If I remember correctly, a mutation that confers a 1% survival advantage will spread throughout the population in 100 generations or so.

      Given the above facts, evolution has to explain how recessive genes were created.

      Again explained by another poster. Negative traits are weeded out via natural selection.

      Creationists also have problems with dating methods that show the earth to be millions of years old.

      These contentions have all been debunked to my knowledge unless something new has come to light in the last six months. Here is a good starting point. There is also no good evidence of a global flood or even a reasonable mechanism by which such a flood could happen.

      two people who possess the same beneficial recessive gene will also posess in common a much greater number of recessive harmful genes which will have opportunity to express themselves.

      I think you're assuming that all or most new beneficial genes come from recessives and not new dominant mutations.
      Deleterious mutants are selected against but remain at low frequency
      in the gene pool. In diploids, a deleterious recessive mutant may
      increase in frequency due to drift. Selection cannot see it when it
      is masked by a dominant allele. Many disease causing alleles
      remain at low frequency for this reason. People who are carriers
      do not suffer the negative effect of the allele. Unless they mate
      with another carrier, the allele may simply continue to be passed on.
      Deleterious alleles also remain in populations at a low frequency due
      to a balance between recurrent mutation and selection. This is called
      the mutation load.
      If beneficial mutants arise infrequently, the only fitness
      differences in a population will be due to new deleterious mutants
      and the deleterious recessives. Selection will simply be weeding
      out unfit variants. Only occasionally will a beneficial allele be
      sweeping through a population. The general lack of large fitness
      differences segregating in natural populations argues that
      beneficial mutants do indeed arise infrequently. However, the
      impact of a beneficial mutant on the level of variation at a locus
      can be large and lasting. It takes many generations for a locus
      to regain appreciable levels of heterozygosity following a
      selective sweep.
      - from AN INTRODUCTION TO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY by Chris Colby

      One thing I have tried to explain before is that both evolution and creation theory are not science. They are philosophy.

      Evolutionary theory is based on science. Creation theory doesn't exist as a theory. It has never been explicated by anyone. All the creationist-types ever do is try to punch holes in evolutionary theory and never quite succeed. Science actually has a self-correcting mechanism of peer-reviewed journals to prevent erroneous memes from spreading. Believe me when I say that the ICR-type organizations have no such mechanism. They've been spreading some of their lies for years after it's been clearly pointed out to them they are wrong (moon dust, speed of light slowing down, sun shrinking, earth rotation slowing and more).

      A message to all who might read this, not to the author I reply to

      So should I not respond since this wasn't for me in particular? :) I'm hardly an atheist but an argument from popularity is no argument at all. I understand the need for hope but I believe that faith should be reserved for when we need it, not as a default mode for our existence. If God/Aum/Ra/Shiva didn't want us to understand the Universe, why would it have endowed us with an intellect? As to your prophecy points I'd have to read up on your particular flavor if you want to provide some links. My impression of the prophecies I've seen so far is that they're not nearly as specific as their proponents make them out to be.
    9. Re:Bible belt evolution by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2

      You have to distinguish between DD, Dd and dd. If d stands for the recessive Cickle cell trait, then the dd people are sick, the DD and Dd people are healthy. The Dd people are carriers who can pass the trait on to their offspring. The Dd people are different from DD people in various small subtle ways. One of those is that they don't die as often from Malaria.

      If Dd and DD were completely indistinguishable, then indeed evolutionary theory would predict that the d gene die out over time.
      Such complete indistinguishability however almost never happens. The case where Dd people differ from DD people is called "incomplete dominance".

    10. Re:Bible belt evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      >And how exactly does that help or hinder evolutionary
      >theory in the slightest?

      You do the maths. A creature presumed extinct for millions of years is discovered alive today with virtually no change. The nearest ancestor of humans, the Neanderthal, was supposed to have been around 100,000 years ago. That short time is enough for significant change, apparently. The fact that living "fossils" have pretty much no change says something important.

      Let's take Australian Aboriginees as another example. They have supposedly been isolated in Australia for 40,000 years. That's a bit under half the time it took us to progress from Neanderthals. Surely we'd expect the Aboriginees to be at least a bit different from us...certainly not the same. But no-one today would argue that they are genetically superior or inferior. They are pretty much the same as us.

      And this question remains worldwide for humans. We are the same the whole world over. Where is the evolution in progress? Where is the last remaining neanderthal, or the next pocket of humans up the evolutionary ladder?

      >Again explained by another poster. Negative traits are
      >weeded out via natural selection.

      How is that possible if recessive traits don't express themselves until the point when a host of harmful mutations have the chance to express themselves?

      >And how exactly does that help or hinder evolutionary
      >theory in the slightest?

      I'm sorry, have you looked at all the date samples done by creation scientists (sent off to official, well respected laboratories for testing) and the samples show wildly innacurate dates? How do you explain this inconsistent dating? I have read many examples of this.

      As for using outdated arguments, from what I can see creationists have rejected the idea of the speed of light slowing. I don't know what the moon dust argument is, could you please tell me? I think I can guess.

      Creationists are nowhere near as bad as evolutionary textbooks publishing information long ago demonstrated to be false or a hoax. The peppermoths is a great example.

    11. Re:Bible belt evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      So now that I understand you a bit better here, what were you saying about the difference between black and white communities regarding some harmful genetic mutations?

    12. Re:Bible belt evolution by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      The fact that living "fossils" have pretty much no change says something important.

      It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent competition significant enough to make it change. Evolutionary theory doesn't state that species will change at some rate over time but that they change in response to selective pressure. There are other examples of "living fossils" amongst certain species of sharks. The explanation is that they haven't had to change in order to survive so they haven't. At least beyond the standard genetic drift. There are small differences. The presumed extinction was ~70 million years ago, btw.
      We are the same the whole world over. Where is the evolution in progress?

      We lack the isolation we once did in order to speciate and our brains have allowed us to relieve ourselves of many if not most of the selective pressures faced by our ancient ancestors. Now let there be a world war that sends us back to the stone age and have 9/10'ths of the world's population die and you might see some movement. But maybe not even then. It could be the mere existence of our higher reasoning allows us to alleviate the majority of the selective pressures on our species. I predict we'll be evolving ourselves with genetic engineering long before we significantly change due to 'mere' genetic drift.

      How is that possible if recessive traits don't express themselves until the point when a host of harmful mutations have the chance to express themselves?

      I'm not sure I understand your question. Why does the expression of a recessive have to wait for a mutation? If the recessive exists in population it just has to wait for two organisms with the same recessive to breed.

      I'm sorry, have you looked at all the date samples done by creation scientists (sent off to official, well respected laboratories for testing) and the samples show wildly innacurate dates? I have read many examples of this.

      Care to share a few? Something other than this one?

      As for using outdated arguments, from what I can see creationists have rejected the idea of the speed of light slowing.

      Those were just a few of many and not all creationists have given up the changing speed of light argument. Many Young-Earth Creationists still cling to it in some form or fashion.

      I don't know what the moon dust argument is, could you please tell me? I think I can guess.

      That the cosmic dust accumulation on the moon should have built up into a layer 20 feet deep (or whatever) if the moon were really 5 billion years old. Long and short, the calculation was based on erroneous suppositions.

      Creationists are nowhere near as bad as evolutionary textbooks publishing information long ago demonstrated to be false or a hoax. The peppermoths is a great example.

      I beg to differ. Creationists are called to the carpet on a daily basis for some of the things they try to get away with. Peppermoths should have only ever been used as an example of natural selection. If there ever was a textbook that said it was proof of macroevolution, it was wrong. All 3 textbooks I've seen and all I've ever heard of use it as an example of natural selection. Unless you can come up with scores more examples, you don't have a leg to stand on by saying creationists are nowhere near as bad.

      If you'd like some reading material, check some of these out. A couple of visits to the ICR museum and some of the inaccuracies and falsehoods contained therein. Take a look at the Creation Research Society's creed that members must adhere to. A list of "distortions" of truth by ICR founder Duane Gish.

      I am going along, aren't I? :)
      Btw, Kent Hovind still sports the light speed decay theory. You might want to check out Answers in Genesis and TrueOrigins and see if you can spot more errors on your own ... I'd help but it's really getting late and it's not as fun as it was when I started ... :)

    13. Re:Bible belt evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      >It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to
      >fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent
      >competition significant enough to make it change.

      This is absurd, there is always room for improvement, be it physical or mental. No other creature has come even close to the capabilities of the human mind, so to say that a creature has filled it's niche leading to no improvement is absurd. There will always be competition of many types - environmental, social, etc. If other species don't cause problems then it's own relatives will.

      >It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to
      >fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent
      >competition significant enough to make it change.

      I gave an example of Australian Aboriginees supposedly living in isolation for 40,000 years. That has to be enough time to see some beginnings of speciation. After all, neanderthal man was only around 100,000 years ago. Aboriginees have had 40% of that time to develop some difference, yet we consider them barely different. Certainly nothing that pre-existing genetic diversity couldn't explain.

      >It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to
      >fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent
      >competition significant enough to make it change.

      This is a followup of the initial argument I presented - the point when a recessive gene becomes dominant is when both parents possess the same recessive gene. Problem is that the two parents will also contain a great deal more harmful recessive genes in common, creating a genetic load that outweighs the advantage. Recessive genes can become deeply embedded in a species before natural selection plays a part, since it doesn't express itself unless it is present at both sides in the locus.

      >It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to
      >fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent
      >competition significant enough to make it change.

      Wish I could actually, I lent my material to someone else. An example I read recently though was on some recent lava flows from a volcano in New Zealand. The exact dates of the flows were known (from around 50 years ago up until a few years ago I think), yet the laboratory tests reported wildly innacurate and conflicting dates.

      >Those were just a few of many and not all creationists
      >have given up the changing speed of light argument.
      >Many Young-Earth Creationists still cling to it in
      >some form or fashion.

      Well, I know that the ICR at least has given up the changing speed of light argument. I can't be held responsible for all creationists, but here is something from their website so you can see the current theory (after all, science is all about rejecting a lie and considering a new possibility):
      http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-338 .htm

      I also know that in the Answers In Genesis magazine they advertise their technical journal, with the caption "Don't get caught using outdated arguments!", so it seems to me that it is a priority of theirs to reject whatever is shown false.

      Hmm, I wonder about your true knowledge of the integrity of ICR members. You say ICR founder is Duane Gish. According to the ICR, their founder is Henry M. Morris:
      http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-346.htm

    14. Re:Bible belt evolution by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

      About the homo sapiens neanderthalensis -
      They were *not* our ancestors, they were a competing species which seperated from "our" line of evolution about 500 000 years ago. The Neanderthals were wiped out about 30000 years ago (I think, I'm not sure about the date) why they were inferior to the modern humans is afaik still unclear - homo sapiens neanderthalensis and homo sapiens sapiens were not genetically compatible, means they could not have offsprings. Aboriginies on the other hand are homo sapiens sapiens and were only isolated for about 40 000 years

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    15. Re:Bible belt evolution by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      This is absurd, there is always room for improvement, be it physical or mental.

      Unfortunately for you, you're attacking a strawman. Nowhere does evolutionary theory say that populations will or must improve. In a large population, it doesn't matter that much if it's you or your brother that reproduces. Without pressure in the form of competition for food, environment or predation you wouldn't expect a species to evolve any faster than what drift would take them (a very slow process).

      I gave an example of Australian Aboriginees supposedly living in isolation for 40,000 years. That has to be enough time to see some beginnings of speciation.

      No, it doesn't. And man is the worst example of species that you might see this in because of our intellect. This wonderful brain of ours has made it possible to obviate many natural selective pressures that other species face. (Starvation countered by cultivation/group hunting, Environment countered by fabricated shelter, Predation countered by weapons, etc.) 40,000 years is long enough that there may be a speciation event but it certainly isn't long enough that there must be.

      I also know that in the Answers In Genesis magazine they advertise their technical journal, with the caption "Don't get caught using outdated arguments!", so it seems to me that it is a priority of theirs to reject whatever is shown false.

      Hey! And it only took 10+ years of people constantly correcting them about these particular arguments that got them to finally recant!

      Hmm, I wonder about your true knowledge of the integrity of ICR members. You say ICR founder is Duane Gish. According to the ICR, their founder is Henry M. Morris

      My humble apologies. Duane Gish was, however, one of the founding members and is currently vice president of the institute. Did you actually read the link I provided that describes some of Gish's problems with honesty? I'm not claiming first hand knowledge but do you believe Joyce Arthur is just making this stuff up?
      If you are truly one who wants to understand and know the truth, then read and try to understand the depth of what evolutionary theory is, not just what you think it is.

    16. Re:Bible belt evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Without pressure in the form of competition for food, environment or predation you wouldn't expect a species to evolve any faster than what drift would take them (a very slow process).

      There is always competition in one form or another. Give me an example situation where competition for food, environment and predation are all absent.

      I really don't know much about Duane Gish. I'm willing to accept that the things claimed by Joyce Arthur are true, but I also like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Because of this I'm going to ask the ICR on their comments about Joyce Arthur's analysis of Gish's innacuracies. I don't see this as important though compared to facts. Evolution scientists have had their fair share of zealots and blatant misapplication of the truth. This is human failing, which we are not addressing (except in a natural selection sense :).

    17. Re:Bible belt evolution by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2

      The sickle cell gene allele is much more common among blacks than among whites; the cystic fibrosis gene allele is much more common among whites than among blacks.

      This can be explained by genetics as follows:
      healthy carriers of the cystic fibrosis allele are protected from cholera, which historically was a problem in Europe but not in Africa; healthy carriers of the sickle cell allele are protected from malaria, which is a problem in Africa but not in Europe. Whites, with ancestry in Europe, therefore have a lot of cystic fibrosis; blacks, with ancestry in Africa, have a lot of sickle cell anemia.

      As soon as malaria is removed from the face of the earth, you can expect that sickle cell anemia will slowly vanish as well (unless there is some other as yet unknown beneficial effect of the sickle cell allele).

    18. Re:Bible belt evolution by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      Give me an example situation where competition for food, environment and predation are all absent.

      Not necessarily absent, but not significant. My apologies for misstating the case. In the case of sharks that haven't changed very much for hundreds of millions of years, they've evolved to be so good at what they do that there's not a lot of room for incremental improvement. Their environment is relatively constant, they produce more than enough young to counter predation and the food supply is abundant enough to support a large population.

  80. I had a crazy neighbour like this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There really are people like that around here, especially in the South and the mid-West. Even many "moderate" Christians see concepts like evolution as major threats to their beliefs and are actively trying to remove it from public education (sometimes successfully.) And moderate Christians do sometimes seem to form the minority of Christians in this God-forsaken country...

    I had a neighbor like this. We had a discussion of sorts when day when I found out that she wouldn't let her children use computers -- even at school. As she explained, the logical end for all computer progress is 'artificial intelligence' which is of course just another way of saying 'a living being not created by God' -- and therefore of the devil's minions. She further said that because of computers, the theory of evolution had been proven false, because it demonstrated that intelligent beings -- even soulless, simple ones -- must be created (i.e. evil men create computers, they didn't 'evolve' on their own). Thus, she said, the computers were the seed of the devils minions for armageddon, and smart cards, pet and child ID chips, etc. were the 'mark of satan' that is apparently spoken about somewhere in the bible. (?) The fact that computers were created by 'scientists' was also evidence to her, since it was 'scientists' who came up with what she called the 'lie of evolution' in the first place, presumably to put us all off the scent while they helped to build said devilish minions. 'Scientists' are, as she explained, fundamentally in the business of trying to trick people into believing that there is no God, so as to destroy their salvation and leave them no choice but to work for Satan in the final battle.

    Apparently, it all made a kind of sense to her, and the long and short of it was that she had filed some sort of form at the public school which then excused her children from using the computers, Internet, etc. She had also arranged to have them excluded from discussions of biology and evolution, on grounds that it was all a scientists' lie to destroy salvation.

    Poor kids. When they grow up, they'll be fit only to be one thing: a fanatic like their mother.

    1. Re: I had a crazy neighbour like this! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1, Troll


      > I had a neighbor like this.

      Check out this lamer's post to talk.origins a while back. Apparently the guy was in a debate with someone else and tried to get some creationist "heavies" to support him, and they sent him back with that excuse to terminate the discussion. (See this post by his adversary.)

      You'd be amazed at the claims you hear from fundies if you skim talk.origins now and then.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:I had a crazy neighbour like this! by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      Did you point out to her that individual human beings are created by a mechanical process called reproduction instigated by two other people and therefore technically none of us are created by God (even if God invented the process). Further, if some scientists ever do create artificial intelligence, there is no evidence that God either approves or disapproves and it was God that gave humans the tools (viz intelligence) to be able to create this AI. So God probably approves on balance and the AI will be part of God's creation.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    3. Re:I had a crazy neighbour like this! by WinDoze · · Score: 2

      Poor kids. When they grow up, they'll be fit only to be one thing: a fanatic like their mother.

      I don't know man, I've seen plenty of people grow up in such circumstances (myself included) only to completely reject all the nonsense the first time they get out of the house and hear some other viewpoints (typically high school or college).

  81. Re:I really loved her... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I loved her so much. I would cry every night when I went home because I was happier than I had ever been in my life and I could not bear the 10 hours I had to sleep before I could be near her again. And then one day she called me when I was at school and she told me that she wanted to meet other people and that her friends thought that was best too. How can a person who loved you for so long not love you anymore? And how can the other person, who always love that person, go on without them? The blood is rushing fast now, and it is so beautful, like her...

  82. The question is... by januz-nikolas · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with communism? and atheism? and paganism? (looks like no one said anything about this..)and what's wrong with anarchism? they're points of view, just that (well, paganism is a relgion -- a beatiful one -- but u get the picture) (hehe, i made a new account just to reply this =D )

  83. Re:The Cunt of Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call Apple users a cunt - I suppose it is a bad thing there aren't more exposed cunts around anymore.

  84. Re:Suckable article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... actually, sucking on it again, this cock is way down my throat. It is beyond long. It is a skyscraper. Porn star cocks aren't this long. Nobody could keep from gagging while sucking this. Is it supposed to be attractive or what?

  85. Organize by panxerox · · Score: 1

    Organize or be destroyed. Anarchy is only for the weekends

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    1. Re:Organize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I loved her! There is only this field of crimson in my bathtub that is left of me... she is no more and I cannot bear it. So sweet... so cold... I am cold......

  86. The true path pops up at me by Lac · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Funny. I didn't know that the Path to God could be revealed through pop-ups. Aren't pop-ups evil?

    1. Re:The true path pops up at me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the path will be revealed to me soon... I am coming to you, and I hope that someday you will know that love is the most important thing. I hope that is why I am going where I am. I will wait for you, forever, even if it is only a minute in an eternity there. I would give anything to see you for even a second again... I am so sorry for whatevier it was that I gone. I am so sorry. I promise that I was the best to you and never did anything that would make you run away. I promise on my heart... and you knew, you new! Please... I will be waiting for you there.

  87. seeking to control minds by 33nine3 · · Score: 0

    The whole aim of this rhetoric is to capture
    the minds of the less intelligent. By creating
    the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known,
    these batty headed buffoons hope to spawn an ever-
    growing network of zealots across the US.

    To believe in creationism is to abandon modern
    culture itself, so these folk are creating their
    own culture within the mainstream.

    It's scary to think they believe theirs will
    become the dominant culture one day.

  88. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI: any rock band with the word "Precious" in its name is not a rock band.

    I don't even care if its followed by the word "death". The word "precious" is enough to get you booted.

  89. /. effect by mkmiller · · Score: 1

    here is one time that the /. effect is a GOOD thing.

    1. Re:/. effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HHelp! I cant!

      HEEELP111111~!!!!!z

  90. Hoax or no.... by DavesError · · Score: 1

    its still the best laugh I've had in a LONG time! Thanks to the creator of that page for filling 5 mins of my life with laughter.

  91. the apple logo by samoa · · Score: 1

    on his point about the apple logo...

    i heard the logo was a tribute to alan turing,
    ie, the gay rainbow transposed on an (arsenic laced)
    apple. anyone know if this is true

    steve? are you reading this?

    1. Re:the apple logo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please hlp me i am in a bathum n east boise that is idaho and i am dying i cant!!

    2. Re:the apple logo by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 3, Interesting
      From Woz’s 86th letters page:
      Comment from E-mail:

      I really need your help about who designed the logo, the story behind it, the meaning of the logo, how the logo work with the company and all the employee, and maybe you could help me how to contact the designer.

      Woz:

      We ran a small partnership 'out of the garage' for a year, selling about 150 Apple I's. The closest thing to a 'logo' that we had was an etching of Newton under an Apple tree. We then developed a great product, the Apple ][. It looked like we could sell thousands of them, but we needed a lot of money. When we secured the money, from Mike Markkula who joined us as a third and equal partner, we hired an agency to help us with public related marketing concerns. On topic was a logo. We had a great company name, Apple, and wanted to leverage our company off the ideas that this healthful word represented.

      The Regis McKenna agency came back with some proposals, many based on the Apple shape. One of the most notable things about the Apple ][ was that the display was in color, with patents too. No other low cost computers were near such a feature. So the multicolored logo made sense. The McKenna version had the colors in rainbow order. Steve Jobs rearranged them to get the darker (heavier) colors toward the bottom, and the logo was born.

      I have no idea how to contact logo designers.

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
  92. The Truth about Dr. Richard Paley by inkswamp · · Score: 1

    Behold... the author of this piece is not what he appears... watch this.

    Make sure you watch long enough to catch the "daemon" running around in the background. :^)

    --Rick

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    1. Re:The Truth about Dr. Richard Paley by repetty · · Score: 1

      Excellent!

      --RP

  93. Re:Apple/Devil - Half of the Story by Redline · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can see the parody image on the home page of The Church of Satan near the end of the page. (Don't worry, it's not that offensive.) They also tell their half of the story regarding the "Made with Macintosh" debacle.

    At least the Church of Satan really uses Macs. Didn't Apple's actual "Think Different" campaign feature Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and other people who never used Apple computers?

  94. Re:T(H)GT(H)GISN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joing the T(H)GT(H)GISN from the 22nd of April to the 22nd of April. Thank you (and i hope you never need to right a S. note like I did... the blood is so pretty, but I am getting scared.)

  95. It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure who I dislike more; idiot people like this who don't know what their talking about bringing computers and religion together in insane ways, or the idiot athiests who look down their noses and say 'See! See what I told you. Look at how silly those closed mided Christians are!'

    Darwin was a scientist. He observed phonomonea and came to a conclusion. His findings do not disprove creationism or God. All he has done has provided us with, based on observable phonomonea, the best possible understanding about the development of life on this planet.

    It's innane to ignore that in the face of so much compelling evidence. At the same time, athiests take up Darwin's name as a banner with as much fervor, closed mindedness, and compleate lack of a world view as any firebranding preacher.

    There is a spirtual side to the Universe. You can ignore it in the lab and get better results, but don't poo-pah people who like to keep it in mind.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
    1. Re:It angers up the blood. by acb · · Score: 2

      Darwin was a scientist. He observed phonomonea and came to a conclusion. His findings do not disprove creationism or God. All he has done has provided us with, based on observable phonomonea, the best possible understanding about the development of life on this planet.

      Actually, by definition, that disproves creationism (being the doctrine that the world, life and humans were created as described in the Bible). There is no way of reconciling this doctrine with contemporary scientific evidence of how life originated.

      Whether one believes in God (or Allah or Vishnu or the Great Pumpkin or whatever) is one's own choice; though with physics and biology describing the physical world as well as they do, the spiritual realm has been more or less exiled to philosophy and poetic metaphor. Thunderstorms are not Thor's anger, the Earth wasn't created in 6 days, and chances are the Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin either. If there is a God, he's staying well out of the way.

    2. Re:It angers up the blood. by notfancy · · Score: 1

      chances are the Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin either

      She was a virgin! When she was called Aphrodite, she begot Pan on Hades and then bathed herself on the waters off Paphos and regained her virginity. Only that in Canaan she was called Mariam, her godly husband was Yahweh, or Baal (who also lived in a mountain of fire, as Exodus tells us) and his son was called Yeshu (who was a lamb, and died in Passover).

      Mind your comparative mithology, please.

    3. Re:It angers up the blood. by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Actually, by definition, that disproves creationism (being the doctrine that the world, life and humans were created as described in the Bible). There is no way of reconciling this doctrine with contemporary scientific evidence of how life originated.

      Well, that all depends on how you interpret things. IANABS (I am not a Biblical scholar) but I don't recall the Bible claiming that life was created by God and has remained unchanged ever since.

      There are those who hold that opinion, of course. I'm just saying that that's not what I learned in Sunday School.

      In other words, it seems that the creation belief and the evolution belief aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

    4. Re:It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      Darwin by no means disproves creationism. Evolutionary theory is simply that; a theory that describes things the best way we know how using what we can observe about the world around us.

      At the worst, if we find out evolution to be true (and there are some issues with that), it goes in contridiction to a literal interpratation of the bible, but not the spirit.

      There are things we don't understand. I'm not saying we should embrace some sort of blind ignorance; at the moment science is the best thing we've got. But science by far does'nt even begin to answer the mysteries of the Universe.

      Heck, I know a lot of physcists who still think we can't exceed the speed of light. They cling to that just as strongly as a hard core fundimentalists clings to a perfect literal reading of the bible.

      And I have faith that eventually, science will get us going faster then light, because I have faith in the scientific community to find new and different solutions to problems. It's always happened in the past.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    5. Re:It angers up the blood. by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
      Evolutionary theory is simply that; a theory that describes things the best way we know how using what we can observe about the world around us.
      just like [any] religion is a theory that describes things the best way we know how using... uhh... umm...
      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    6. Re:It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      ... by using faith and a simple view of the world outside.

      Take a pair of brand new Porsche sports cars. Give one to a scientist, another to a theologian. Tell them both "Look at this car for the next week, and tell me what you find out"

      The scientist will come back after a week and talk about the engineering, the attention to detail in the engine, use of turbochargers for increased performance, and an overall, detailed breakdown of every mechanical system.

      The theologian will come back after a week and say "It's very beautiful, and it's fun to drive."

      Who's right? Well, both of them are. The scientist will get frustrated with the theologian. "How do you measure this? How can you prove it to me this is fun to drive? Beauty is an objective concept. How do you know this is a good looking car?" The theologian will have to shrug and say 'I just do.'

      Two weeks later, the scientist drives up in a new Honda civic. "This car," says the scientist, "has just as much quality engineering as that Porsche. In fact, after 100,000 miles it will be running much better then the Porsche. The only thing that Porsche can do is go faster, which is illegal. Now, would you say that your Porsche is a better car?"

      The Theologian will drive the Honda, come back, and say 'no, I still like the Porsche better.' The scientist will become more frustrated, pull out his hair, go into great detail about fuel economy and injection systems, even the breakdown rates of the two vehicles.

      The theologian will still claim he likes the Porsche better. "Why? How? Don't you see the evidence? In every measurable way, when you put price into account, the Honda is a better car. Can't you see that?" "Yes, I see what your saying. And your not wrong. But the Porsche is still a better car."

      "But what makes it a better car?" 'Like I said from the beginning, it's better looking, and it's more fun to drive'. "But you can't prove this?" 'no, I can't' "And you see all the evidence I've put in front of you" 'Yes, I see it' "And you agree it's correct" 'Yes, it seems in order'.

      At this point the scientist will run off to the other scientists muttering about how the theologian is crazy, self delusional, and can't see the hierocracy of his own statements.

      Personally, I'd take a Porsche over a Honda, and I can't tell you why in any measurable sense.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    7. Re:It angers up the blood. by Turiya · · Score: 1

      There are things we don't understand. I'm not saying we should embrace some sort of blind ignorance; at the moment science is the best thing we've got. But science by far does'nt even begin to answer the mysteries of the Universe.

      So what, why do we need to answer them, I am more than content with saying I don't know about that (maybe not yet, maybe not ever), and have no need for a explanation.
      Its better to truthfuly say I don't know than to make some silly excuses to cover up our ignorace.

    8. Re:It angers up the blood. by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
      "Yes, I see what your saying. And your not wrong. But the Porsche is still a better car."
      funny... i thought that, by religion (christianity, at least), evolution is wrong? or maybe i misunderstood the fury with which people defend creationism and insult/denounce evolution.

      whether they like it or not, religion is just a theory... "the theory of god" as i call it. excpet in this case, their only available proof is an ancient piece of literature that has been translated and re-translated too many times to count. oh, and their own beliefs, which i should mentioned were probably beat and/or instilled into them before they could even think for themselves...

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    9. Re:It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      religion is just a theory... "the theory of god" as i call it. excpet in this case, their only available proof is an ancient piece of literature that has been translated and re-translated too many times to count

      That's not the point. Religion requires no objective proof. Occasionally many of the more ambitious keepers of the faith will try to find historical accuracies in the bible... but really, in the end it's not needed.

      How do I know God exists? I just know. It's simply impossible to define matters of faith in terms of science. Science can only tell us how. Religion trys to tell us why, and to that extent they can contridict each other while both are right. I can see how this would frustrate somebody with a purly analitcal mind because faith can not be measured or displayed in any objective way.

      But faith really is'nt concerened with the direction of an atom or DNA. Most Christians I know reconize evolution as the most logical reading of the orgins of life we've got from a scientific standpoint.

      But it's a lot harder to take that too liteary, because A: We've never actually seen evolutionary jumps in our lifetime (only mutations), and B: Even if Darwin was exactly right on the nose, it does'nt change the fact that God created us.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    10. Re:It angers up the blood. by raahul_da_man · · Score: 1

      religion is just a theory... "the theory of god" as i call it. excpet in this case, their only available proof is an ancient piece of literature that has been translated and re-translated too many times to count That's not the point. Religion requires no objective proof. Occasionally many of the more ambitious keepers of the faith will try to find historical accuracies in the bible... but really, in the end it's not needed. Absolutely wrong. Proof is needed. It was needed in ancient times, and it is far more necessary today. Did anyone accept Jesus as the son of God before he performed his miracles? It's also strange that God seems to have stopped direct intervention. Conveniently, when there is science to observe/explain what happens exactly, where is the parting of the Red Sea? Where is any miracle for that matter? And what happened to destroying cities? How do I know God exists? I just know. It's simply impossible to define matters of faith in terms of science. Science can only tell us how. Religion trys to tell us why, and to that extent they can contridict each other while both are right. I can see how this would frustrate somebody with a purly analitcal mind because faith can not be measured or displayed in any objective way. Sheer nonsense. You seem to be claiming that religion answers any questions at all. Science answers questions. Religion merely tells you to stop thinking. There is another word for faith. Blind obedience.

    11. Re:It angers up the blood. by mbbac · · Score: 1
      There is a spirtual (sic) side to the Universe.

      What is your empirical evidence for this statement?
      --

      mbbac

    12. Re:It angers up the blood. by sg3000 · · Score: 2

      > Darwin by no means disproves creationism.
      > Evolutionary theory is simply that; a theory
      > that describes things the best way we know
      > how using what we can observe about the
      > world around us.

      Well, science (and evolution specifically) does rule out a literal six days for the creation of the universe, which is typically called creationism or misleadingly"creation-science". One cannot do true science if one invokes a miracle or relies on "faith" to describe anything not presently understood.

      In my experience even "scientists" that believe in creationism rely on natural law for whatever discipline they understand, but then invoke miracles for phenomenon outside their discipline that they do not understand.

      Science (and specifically evolution) do not however rule out the existance of God. In fact, science is not interested in the existance of God because it's fundamentally a non-scientific question -- i.e., not a study of natural law. That's not to say that it's not an interesting question. Of course not! It just means that the tools of science cannot be used to determine the existance or non-existance of God.

      That's why many people get annoyed when atheists and theists alike invoke science to promote their agenda.

      > At the worst, if we find out evolution to be
      > true (and there are some issues with that), it
      > goes in contridiction to a literal interpratation
      > of the bible, but not the spirit.

      If you're looking for truth (strictly speaking), you'd better get out of science class. As many have said before, Science is the search for *fact* not truth. Evolution will never be found to be true, because that's not the purpose of science. The most science can do is determine that evolution has not been proved false yet. And universally, biologists have determined that evolution is a fact, the questions come in regarding what mechanisms caused it to happen the way it did.

      > Heck, I know a lot of physcists who still think
      > we can't exceed the speed of light. They
      > cling to that just as strongly as a hard core
      > fundimentalists clings to a perfect literal
      > reading of the bible.

      As for exceeding the speed of light, your response is typical of someone unfamiliar with modern science: demanding a simple, short answer to a question that requires complex answer to be accurate. Physicists do not rely on faith regarding the speed of light limitations any more than they rely on faith to determine the trajectory of a object thrown across the room. The proper discussion is in any second semester college physics class, but I'm sure there are books out there that can provide a better explanation than a slashdot forum.

      Good luck!

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    13. Re:It angers up the blood. by jgerman · · Score: 2

      Also if you've ever read Origin of the species, Darwin writes what amounts to be a disclaimer. I forget the wording but he states that there are holes in his theory, and that he is a Christian. Not exactly the anti-religion flag I'd be waving if I were a rabid atheist.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    14. Re:It angers up the blood. by sg3000 · · Score: 2

      > The proper discussion is in any second
      > semester college physics class, but I'm
      > sure there are books out there that can
      > provide a better explanation than a slashdot
      > forum.

      Haliday and Resnek have the definitive college-level text on physics, and I think it was called "Fundamentals of Physics" or something like that. If I remember correctly, look in the second half of the book for the chapters on modern physics.

      Or, if you wish a nontechnical, but more entertaining answer, try the Straight Dope. Cecil Adams provides a pretty simple explanation of the answer.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    15. Re:It angers up the blood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the point. Religion requires no objective proof. Occasionally many of the more ambitious keepers of the faith will try to find historical accuracies in the bible... but really, in the end it's not needed.

      Truth does require objective proof. That's the whole point. If a thing is true, then it is true for all. "Because you just know" is not objective.

      I don't just know. So what the fuck, man? Are you saying there's something wrong with me because I can't see things through your fucked up world view?

      Haven't you realized yet that people that question your religion want the same answers you do, but they lack the benefit of "just knowing" everything like you assholes claim to?

      I'm sorry, but your words really tick me off. All my life I've had to deal with jerk-offs like you who claim to have all the fucking answers and then don't actually have anything to show for it. What good is knowing the answer if you're the only one who can see it? What good does that do ME, you ignorant conceited shithead?

    16. Re:It angers up the blood. by connorbd · · Score: 2

      The key to fundamentalism is to suck up to the people you're trying to reach. Fundies take as their starting point that the Bible is to be read according to "simple, common-sense" thinking. From there follows the principle of Biblical literalism.

      These people believe what they believe not necessarily because they've been brainwashed (though most of them have), but because their spiritual leaders have started by calling Scripture the ultimate authority and then bending interpretations to fit what their congregation already believes. Many (but probably not a majority) of these ministers know that they're lying; they're the ones who create Bible colleges and suchlike to keep the poor suckers whose prejudices they're feeding from realizing they're being decieved.

      The two beliefs aren't mutually exclusive, really, as long as you try to understand the Bible from a literary standpoint (try A History of God by Karen Armstrong for a starter). The thing is that fundies don't see it that way, because the majority of them are conditioned in such a way as to not be able to see it without compelling outside influences making their way in (a powerful argument for why irrational singlemindedness is sometimes considered a virtue under the label of True Faith (tm) ). Some do find their way out.

      I have personally given up on religion myself -- I was raised Catholic, but being exposed to many influences eroded my faith over the years to the point where I finally admitted to myself that there was no point to me going to church as I didn't really believe anything past the existence of some kind of god. It's caused massive strife with my parents, who claim I'm not being open-minded (after twenty-six years?!). But I have enough to deal with in life without religious guilt.

      The process of fundamentalist Christianity (and a lot of organized religion in general) is to use fear to play off of people's prejudices. Them Northerners want you to get rid of your slaves? We all gonna start our own Southern church that sez you can keep your niggaz and beat 'em up when they get uppity. Them Jews and gubmint types takin money outa yer pocket? Get a gun and join our church for good Christian white folk who love our freedom. And so on. And once you've hooked them by validating their prejudices, you *really* start manipulating them.

      /Brian

    17. Re:It angers up the blood. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      You seem to be claiming that religion answers any questions at all

      It answers the important questions. Or at least it tries to.

      Science answers questions. Religion merely tells you to stop thinking.

      If anything religion makes you think more. I can't stop thinking about the nature of the universe, God, and the hows and whys behind it. The conflicting messages, trying to unravel the mysteries... it goes on and on.

      Yes, there are zelots out there that take an invintory of beliefs and just stop. Those are the ones who are likely to pass judgement on other people (which is'nt their job), and pretty much ruin the dialogue for the rest of us.

      But those same kinds of people live in the scientific world. They take what they know, they stick to it, and they don't move on.

      I'm not a scientist, but I've always been interested in it. Not because I want to tear it apart, or even approach it with an agenda, but because to me, it's interesting to see how the rules of the universe work.

      Through high school and college, I'd ask lots of questions to my science teachers (especially physics). The one that always got me was 'What causes gravity'. Most of them were not thinking; "It's in your textbook". 'No, it's not.. read it again'. "All it says in the text book is gravity increases in bodies with mass". 'Yes. Thats what causes gravity'. "No, that's a condition of gravity. An explination of it's level in relationship with mass. Why to bodies of mass attract to each other. What are the properities unique to mass that causes that attraction? It outlines in another chapter why and how magnitism works.. I follow that, but nothing is said about gravity... why does'nt gravity receive the same attention as magnitism?'

      I'd usually be asked to leave or be quiet. That always bothered me, because here we have an observable phoenomonea that's all around us, we deal with every day, and yet we know so little about it. To me, the scientific mind would be interested in finding out why. But, like the religious fundimentalist, the scientist has found enough answers he needs, and sticks with them. It was'nt until much later when I finally started dealing with more open minded scientists who finally admited 'we don't know. There is some research into that feild, but we really don't know'.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
  96. Early Christian Church was Communist.... by Slurpee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In practise, obviously not in name.

    Members of the early church gave all their belongings to the church, which was then used to support all the members of the church.

    Check out Acts (don't have the exact reference with me). For those who may not know, Acts is the book of the bible that describes what happens to Christianity straight after Jesus Leaves the Diciples. It shows how the church grew and spread through the world.

    For those who know no better....realise that this is a statement of fact by the author of Acts, and in no way does it promote nor demote Communisim.

    Any "preacher" who claims that Christianity supports capitalism (or communism) has no idea what the bible says (or doesn't say).

    1. Re:Early Christian Church was Communist.... by tshak · · Score: 2

      Karl Barth, a radical Christian Theologen, contends that the heart of Communism is closer to what Christ's heart was and that Capitalism's "spirit" is almost the antethesis. I haven't studied him much (yet), however, I don't believe that he "believes in" either system, rather, he debunks the whole "capitalism is the only christian way" that fundamentalists preach.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    2. Re:Early Christian Church was Communist.... by Slurpee · · Score: 1

      Putting things very bluntly (and missing all the intracities of both systems), it breaks down like.

      Christianity Teaches that a human is sinful, and needs their sins forgiven by Jesus.

      Whilst on earth, they are to now live in Love, putting others before themselves. They live this in a response for what Christ has done for them, and they live this way by following Christ's example, and trusting him.

      Communism teaches that man is basically good (not sinful), and if you give him the right social system (such as communism), everyone sharing everything works. IE Others are EQUAL to yourself.

      Capitalism teaches that man is basically selfish, and the only system that will work is if men look after themselves first, and others second.

      Communism will never work, as men do look after themselves first.

      Capitalism works for the same reasons.

      Capitalism doesn't work for the same reasons. A system that is set up to promote individuals above all others, creates cracks.

      So, Capitolism doesn't work, but Communism works worse.

      Communism is closer to Christianity in actions (putting others equal or before yourself), but the basis of it is totally wrong.

      And Christian Morality, without Christ is useless. They sound nice, but they don't work. Look around.

      Sorry for my over-simplification of Communism and Capitolism, I do know there are many more areas to cover, and it just ain't that simple!

    3. Re:Early Christian Church was Communist.... by tshak · · Score: 1

      Actually, you got across almost exactly what I was trying to articulate. Although you did trivialize the issues, I think you made a valid summary.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    4. Re:Early Christian Church was Communist.... by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      George Bernard Shaw clearly stated why he believed true Christianity to be Socialist in his introduction to Androcles and the Lion. It's an interesting read, and available from Project Gutenberg.

  97. Also MacSlash by Tokerat · · Score: 1

    MacSlash also ran it.

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  98. Chick Tracks by lostchicken · · Score: 1

    I'll be waiting for the day when I get a Jack Chick tract telling me how all good Christians use Windows, the OS of God.

    --
    -twb
  99. Re:The solution is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After you have gone for some time without knowing what to do, and you still love the woman you can never see again, you must set yourself free.......... I am scared, but I am so happy at the same time. I will see you in heaven, I hope, my love. :) :) I am sure I will or I would not have done this.

  100. Re:Bleeding in Idaho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the blood flowing into my bathtub is so beautiful, like she was.

    Uhh.. buddy maybe she left you because there was a certain time of the month THAT SHE WANTED TO TAKE HER FUCKING BATH BY HERSELF!

  101. Re:Theomathematics by sl3xd · · Score: 1

    OK, that's crossing the line.

    Now I'm scared...

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  102. moderate that up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    very very informative!

  103. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by mshurpik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    'Clearly' gives away propoganda 9 out of 10 times.

    I honestly don't know it's that bad, I think a lot of the time it is just another emphasis word. But it's worth pointing out that spotting propaganda takes attention and diligence. Good propaganda is crafted down to the last word, and often the flaws are easily glossed over.

    One trick is that propaganda makes an emotional impact without making a discernible point. I see this trick work far too often on the elderly. Some huckster calls up grandma, says "you won" this or that, and the emotional resonance never fades to the point where she can think clearly about what this person really wants.

    These tricks can be defeated if you understand how easy they really are. But none of them are obvious, which is why those of us who understand propaganda tactics should make an effort to educate people and spread the word.

    Here on Slashdot it's not so much of a big deal if people get hoaxed from time to time. But when you're talking about public policy, media standards, or elected leadership, the ability to cut through the hype becomes crucial for the functioning of a democratic society.

  104. And tomorrow on his website... by evil_one · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yesterday I was attacked by the followers of an evil heathen website, dotslash.
    What they did is called a DoS, and DoS stands for Denying Our Savour. The attack is called by the followers of dotslash the 'dotslash effect'
    The name of the attackers, dotslash is clearly a reference to the beast, and how it attacks.
    Fear not, I lit candles on top of my monitor, and now that the fire department has put the flames of hell out, and I have finished praying, all will be well.

    --
    Desperation is a stinky cologne
  105. "Large number of emails" by belg4mit · · Score: 1

    In fact the server no longer accepts messages
    for "drdinosaur". Oh, and isn't the username a touch ironic? (I was suggesting he rail on something more useful such as everybody's favorite whipping boy, scientology)

    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
  106. Re: No... It's not a hoax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's an ignorant man who gains money from other peoples' ignorance and blind faith.

    Truepath.com is a free hosting website for Christians.

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?site=truepa th . om&submit=Examine

    The funny thing is that his website runs on Linux which is yet another varient of unix (yeah yeah posix blah blah) just like that *evil* BSD.

  107. Shesss Slashdot by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I submitted this story this morning because it was a total riot... but I was rejected. And then what do I see later in the evening?... someone else got it through.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  108. Running Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone must tell him that he is running Linux as his server OS with the APACHE DAEMON - he is also a devil worshipper!!!!!!

  109. Apple has had the darwin idea for a while now by olegm · · Score: 1
    There is a little known marketing strategy that
    Apple started but never took to market. The ad campain was comparing mammals vs. dinosaurs, and the tagline was along the lines of "A computer for the smarter animal". They even went so far as to cybersquat at www.mammals.org.


    It is clear that Apple has had their eye on darwinism for a while now and I am not surprised by the name of Darwin as the Core of Mac os X.

    However I disagree with the idea that "clearly" Apple is Satanic or any of the other remarks in the article.

    --
    Mac os X, Beautiful, elegant, Unix. Need I say more?
  110. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CREED! For hubbard's sake, man, fight the true enemy!

  111. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by WhaDaYaKnow · · Score: 1

    Uhm, this is 'Clearly' a hoax. Sorry for the propaganda. ;)

  112. funny statistics by pressman · · Score: 1, Redundant

    There are ads all over this site for a true Christian ISP. Then the lunatic that runs this site talks about how UNIX is a tool of the devil and that free software is another word for communism. Then there are all the rants about how the internet is an American invention and that the government should suppress freedom of speech for people critical of the Christian faith. Whoever is behind this site is as bad as the Scientologists!

    From netcraft.com

    Operating System and Web Server for www.truepath.com

    The site www.truepath.com is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix)mod_perl/1.26 on Linux.

    Linux users include Rackspace, www.dialtone.com, www.sphera.com and www.vasoftware.com

    Apache is also being used by Rackspace, www.sphera.com, www.dialtone.com and website.oreilly.com


    --
    Pooty tweet
  113. Open Source = Anti-Christ? by Tigerfoot · · Score: 1

    Man, did I get an education reading this thread!Until now I thought being pro-open-source was pretty much equal to pro-Linux/anti-MS. It was "educational" to learn how, apparently, I must now consider Christian beliefs subject for ridicule or if they're "fundamentalist" enough (open to wide interpretation of that word), even "dangerous".

    Sheesh! And how do ya'll (the broader ./ community) react when people tirelessly dredge up a tarball of the most extreme behaviors of the tech-savy and nail it to the wall and say: "SEE!! We have to **STOP** those DANGEROUS vido-game playin, computer hackin, web-page destroying, illegal music tradin pornographers who are ALL training our children to shoot their classmates and subverting our democracy and American way of life!" I'd say ya'll don't take very kindly to being lumped and classified like that. No... I'd say the reaction is, well... loud and vocal.

    This is one very pro-open-source Christian who isn't about to sit here quietly while a fair number of you do that to us, er, me.

    I'm not the slightest bit "threatened" by "new ideas" like evolution, even if I don't agree with them. Completely apart from religion, as a university-educated technologist I have serious questions about the "proof" of evolution (as we now understand it) offered by science. I'll be the first to say that creationists have taken valid questions and some intersting hypotheses and completely destroyed them with highly questionable (embarassing) scientific practice. That only means I'll continue to ask more questions of science and faith, and I expect my kids to do the same.

    Read enough of this? Fine with me. Kindly disassociate your technology from your theology
    (or lack thereof) and I'll gladly repay the favor. :-)

    1. Re:Open Source = Anti-Christ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creationists are lying fucking fucks who have disgraced and discredited themselves, admit it please and don't give me crap about "valid questions" and "interesting hypotheses".

      Every creationist screed includes a bullshit session on the second law of thermodynamics (a law about ENERGY) that they misquote and out right lie about calling it a law about order and disorder. They will not withdraw this lie when confronted with a textbook definition of the second law. They also usually introduce irreproducible results about radiometric dating. They should be prosecuted for fraud when they publish these creationist tracts and books because it is truly what they are committing.

      Give me a break, how could the authors of the bible formulate in "interesting hypotheses" of the origin of life when they were clearly incapable of understanding the machinations of rain. Besides what Genesis timeline of creation do you propose the one outlined in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2&3? Both are clearly distinct and different creation stories.

  114. Well at least they are running Linux by m_evanchik · · Score: 2

    Well at least he's being hosted on a Commie linux server, and not a Satanic and Commie BSD one.

    I don't think I have the heart to tell him.

  115. Open Letter to Dr. Paley by MrBomb · · Score: 1

    I've read your article on Evolutionism Propaganda. However, I think you missed the point greatly when using Apple Computer and it's new operating system Mac OS X:

    1. Though most Christians may find it distasteful, Darwin is a good description of the core component of Mac OS X since it's loosely based on the Open Source model and no, it's not communism, it's the opposite. The open-source model requires developers to make their software improvements available to the community (In this case, the "source code" that comprises Darwin is posted for public review) and allows programmers direct access to the software source code, which can be modified at will. The only caveat to this is any developer who modifies or debugs the software (In this case, Darwin) must report these modifications back to the main developer. The purpose of doing this is to improve the software's stability and to modify the software for specific purposes in situations where the main developer does not have the resources to do so. In other words, it fits Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. However, the object of that selection in this case is a computer's operating system, not a man or a woman and the "environmental effects" being the computer industry and market.

    2. There's a reason why Macintosh users are fanatical about Macs: These computers are easy to use and easy to configure for various tasks, especially when compared to Microsoft Windows! It's no secret that Apple is one of the few computer manufacturers that enjoy "brand name" recognition. They make great, innovative, appliance-like computers.

    3. I seriously doubt that Apple Computer or anyone in the computer and information industry is marketing evolution and Satanism. Though some the programmers who have developed the various forms of UNIX are atheists and Satanists ; they are many developers who have worked on UNIX are devout Christians also. I seriously doubt they took any of the UNIX nomenclature and logos as seriously as you.

    I'm disappointed that you would use the "pulpit" to spread misinformation, exaggerations and outright lies to further your ministry. Shame on you Dr. Paley.

  116. Obviously satire by diogenes57 · · Score: 1

    From the 'anti' link to another parody site, to the tech-savvy humor (e.g. chmod 666) it is clear that this site is a clever work of satire. The designer is probably a Christian or at least very familiar with Christian doctrine (i.e. Bible major or Seminary student) who wished to point out some of the absurdities of some of the "Christian" sub-cultures out there. "Fellowship University" does not show up in a Google query. I am sure a little more research by the poster and/or editors would have discovered the true nature of the site. I would dig up more proofs of its satirical nature but Google's cache is too slow at the moment.

    1. Re:Obviously satire by pressman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would not go so far as to say it's obviously satire. If you look at the lengths they went to to provide links to other Christian sites and texts is pretty extensive. I checked out a lot of the links, especially the ones on the Christian roots of the US and of the US and various state and township Constitutions. On the surface I can see where one might think it is satire, but the level of research and effort that went in to build this monstrosity definitely goes beyond satire.

      Some people just are that zealous. Make a subtle, sarcastic anti-linux comment here and see what happens!

      --
      Pooty tweet
    2. Re:Obviously satire by diogenes57 · · Score: 1
      Here are some proofs of the satirical nature of the site:

      Email addresses of "OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries" members:

      jimcarlson@ilovejesus.net -- real domain name of real, free, web-based email (address unverified)

      amiller@minister.com -- site not up, whois shows owned by afternic, a domain reseller

      timtax777@msn.com -- address unverified, could be fake

      tfranklin@antioccult.org -- site doesn't show, whois shows no owner, Register domain here

      diamondjack@nacgt.org -- register nagct.org here

      cobm16273@aol.com -- see MSN address above

      holby4life@christianemail.net -- site not up, whois says registered to Strang Communications; this "member's" homepage is hosted for free

      drdinosaur@covenant.org -- Richard Paley does not appear on the covenant.org site staff-contact page

      zounds@groovy.nu -- domain forwards to a Danish site

      I could go on, but I think you see the point. A hoax, but an elaborate one.

    3. Re:Obviously satire by pressman · · Score: 2

      This is the page that got me.

      Not even part of their site. Man, do I feel like a sucker now!

      --
      Pooty tweet
    4. Re:Obviously satire by diogenes57 · · Score: 1
      More proof:

      From the source code:
      <META name="generator" content="Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath generated all">


      Talk.origins has a thread about this site that claims the author could be Kyle Goldman who is on the list of newsgroup members and has homepages that point to the parodies:
      Here and old version
      Anyone still uncertain? ;)
    5. Re:Obviously satire by migmigmig · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, of course, it's slashdotted all to hell.

      I was very ALOT curious about whether or not it's a hoax site. I read most of the other poo in there. Especially the "Game Theoretician" section from the silly old DOD guy.

      That's the section that made me come to believe it wasn't a hoax.

      How many people know the two formal arguments against Pascal's Wager? Anybody?

      I do. Of all the people I know 2 others, ever, also knew them before I told them to them.

      There's nothing funny in that section. There's no comedy, there's no nothing. I _like_ to think I'm hip enough on the basics of game theory that I'd get any satirical jokes in that section. I don't.

      Anybody who does, please do email me.

      I don't want to be so frumpy and humorless!

      mig

    6. Re:Obviously satire by diogenes57 · · Score: 1

      Do a quick search on Jack Holgroth and the National Association of Christian Game Theoreticians. Neither return any results.

  117. The funniest part of the site.... by pressman · · Score: 3, Funny

    The kids section.

    The section on what to do if you discover that there is a grumpy old atheist in the neighborhood is hilarious. Also the little cartoon about how dinosaurs and humankind used to walk the earth together because the earth is only 10,000 years old is beyond compare. Evolution as a tool of Satan! I love it! Almost as funny as good ole Elron's theory about intergalactic genocide 75,000,000 years ago being the cause of all suffering for humans.

    --
    Pooty tweet
  118. hahaha, I hate faggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just satire I assure you...

  119. What a crock of $h!t by quan74 · · Score: 1

    The first personal computer sold by Apple was priced by Steve Jobs and his hippy friend Steve Wozniak at $666. Need we say more? [ADDENDUM (4/21/2002): Some readers have been asking for evidence of this. Here is an image of an ad showing the price from the October 1976 issue of Interface Age magazine.]

    Funny how upon close examination of the image using The GIMP (another notoriously satanic application used by pagans and atheists both) You can clearly see that the area around the $666.66 price looks to be cut and pasted ala photoshop.

    Now I'm not exactly a big fan of Apple or the Macintosh, (although I do have a Mac plus somewhere in the attic..) I think this is pure slander and that Satan^H^H^H^Hteve Jobs and Wozniak should sue these slanderous morons back to the dark ages of the inquisition where they belong.

    1. Re:What a crock of $h!t by Etcetera · · Score: 1


      Actually, that's probably the only thing on the site that's true. The first Apple I *did* in fact sell for $666. In the early days, the Steves had quite a sense of humor. Did you know also that Apple was incorporated on April 1?

    2. Re:What a crock of $h!t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how upon close examination of the image using The GIMP (another notoriously satanic application used by pagans and atheists both)

      Well, maybe not pagans and atheists, but definitely by cheapskates and OSS zealots who don't understand the value of finely crafted graphics software.

  120. Quite pompous? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1


    Uh, this was a rather pompous comment:

    ...mostly Atheists and Pagans...

    Where exactly is the data to support this statement? Perhaps a majority of computer geeks may be Atheist or Pagan, but the amount of religious geeks is still quite large, definitely an amount that can not just be pushed around, and does not deserve this sort of ridicule. These sorts of statements are exactly what is not needed here. Why try to divide up the current population of people who support the ideas at hand on Slashdot and other techie guru places. A community like this needs to stay together and grow, we don't these sort of segregating statements.

  121. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by Keith+Mickunas · · Score: 2

    Its actually titled "Evolutionism Propaganda" if you look at the top of the text. Still this guy is either completely insane, or you're right and it is satire.

  122. At least he got something right. by SrlKlr · · Score: 3, Funny

    [Apple] is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult.

    Well the article got one thing right... I just did not know MAC people were so weird because they were in with Satan...

  123. It's a parody, albeit a brilliant one. by lumpenprole · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We spent a lot of time debating that today. The nail in the coffin was when we noticed the site uses the same retailer for its t-shirts as the landover baptist site. I really want a Bazooka Jesus shirt.
    -M

    --
    Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
    1. Re:It's a parody, albeit a brilliant one. by derch · · Score: 1

      The site's /.'d right now so I'm going off of memory. I might be wrong, but doesn't Landover and this site in question both use Cafepress?

      Everyone uses Cafepress so that can't put a nail in the coffin. Just go to the Cafepress main page and start browsing. There are thousands of people using the site.

  124. This site has exceeded it allocated data transf by spike+hay · · Score: 1

    Looks like the info on that new Jesux OS is unavailable. Because Geocities is heathenly blocking the Jesux site, Geocities will burn in Microhell once "The Coming of Jesux 2.0" is complete!!

    Here is the Google Cache of the page.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  125. Re:It's a hoax - obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am no longer illiterate!

  126. Is that for real? by Danse · · Score: 2

    If I lived in Indiana I'd be freaking terrified that these people were in charge of establishing the law in my state!

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Is that for real? by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      Heh yea, the bill was dated to the late 1800's so they shouldn't have much to worry about there.. Or should they? =)

    2. Re:Is that for real? by qqtortqq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in indiana, and in the 100+ years since they changed PI to 3, it hasn't gotten any better. It is illegal to have a stiffy in public in this state- 35-45-4-1c: (edited for your pleasure)

      (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place:
      (3) appears in a state of nudity; or
      (c) "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

      damn state...

    3. Re:Is that for real? by Crenfax · · Score: 1

      DOn't worry, the rest of the world expects stuff like this from Indiana so its not really a shock. :-)

  127. sigh... by glwtta · · Score: 2

    How many times do we have to explain it? It applies to Free software, not Open Source, and it's a lot closer to Socialism, than Communism. Geesh.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  128. Evolution and Creationism are compatible by Jeremi · · Score: 2
    From the article:


    He purported to have proved Evolutionism by making his Macintosh draw little squiggles -- or "biomorphs" as he called them -- that changed over "generations". (This of course begs the question: if it took a created machine running created software to make these squiggles, how then does that refute Creation?)


    I realize the article is a hoax, but this is an example of reasoning that I hear fairly often from Creationists. They believe that if Creationism is true, then evolution must be false, and vice versa. But as the example above points out, software-based 'evolution' was created by an intelligent being. Move the scenario back to the real world, and it works there too -- there is nothing to prevent an all-powerful God from creating a Universe that generates human life through evolutionary processes. You can have your Creationism and evolution too.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    1. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by z4ce · · Score: 2

      No, not really. God created man in a single day. Interpreting a day as a thousand years does not make sense in that context (And it was morning the 6th day...) and STILL wouldn't be enough time for evolution. Some people try to recouncil the two beliefs but they are really totally and absolutely unrecouncilable. Either the bible is true or it is false.

    2. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by pato+perez · · Score: 1

      This is, in fact, what most mainstream Christian sects, including the Catholic church believe--that evolution is the hand of God. It's only the nuttier fanatics that believe that the Bible is both infallible and literally true. Unfortunately, they are loudmouths who take over school boards etc. BTW, I don't think the article is a hoax. He seems to be a Christian of the unctuously sincere but ignorant type.

    3. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by notfancy · · Score: 1

      Hmm...no, not for the American variety of Christians (what do you call them? Baptists?). Actually, the Catholic Church chose that path of reconciliation between doctrine and secular science, but by saying that the Bible must be read in a "poetic" light, or under a metaphoric interpretation. And that is precisely what American Christians reject: they believe the Bible is God's revealed, literal truth against which everything else is measured.

    4. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by Jeremi · · Score: 2
      Either the bible is true or it is false.


      And why can't it be the case that parts of the Bible are true, and other parts are false? Or that some parts are true in spirit, but not meant to be taken literally/scientifically? Why the black-and-whitism?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by z4ce · · Score: 2

      Suppose that part of the parts of the bible are true and parts of it are false, as you determine.

      Well now you decide that murder thing really is bad. That's definitely right on. No murder. That's definitely a sin.

      But is lying really all that bad? I mean come on, there are good times to lie. What if it will make someone feel bad about themselves. What if it could help me make a big sale?

      And that adultery thing, that's definitely outdated and isn't relevent anymore.

      If you can do that, then you have no moral standard. No one can come to you and say look this is in God's word, this is wrong. If you take parts to be true and parts to be false the bible is nothing more than a bunch of nice fairy tales with moral lessons.

      Ian

    6. Re:Evolution and Creationism are compatible by Jeremi · · Score: 2
      If you take parts to be true and parts to be false the bible is nothing more than a bunch of nice fairy tales with moral lessons.


      ... which is pretty much the conclusion I came to as well. :^) But even as a book of fairy tales, some of the moral lessons do have truth to them (in that they reflect a cultural distillation of what sort of behaviour is beneficial to one's self and society, and what behaviour is not)


      If you can do that, then you have no moral standard. No one can come to you and say look this is in God's word, this is wrong.


      Arguably no one can do that anyway in many cases, since the Bible contradicts itself on some issues. One book of the Bible says one thing, another says the opposite. Which should one believe?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  129. A hoax??? by Indigo · · Score: 1

    All a hoax? It's almost a disappointment. The article was much like many other crank articles I've read (it's a little vice I have), except better researched. No doubt a quote like "Infinite recursion like this is a sure sign of a flaw in a theory" in an article promoting creationism should have been a tip-off. Well, my hat's off to the perpatrators.

  130. The Devil? In My Powerbook? by jcenters · · Score: 1

    All the more reason to carbonize MacJesus! (Sorry, no link)

    Save us Robert Carr! Let me see the light!

    --

    vi ~/.emacs

  131. Jesus' number was 7, so.... by kordless · · Score: 1

    You can assume the best thing to rid yourself of those pesky demons would be to login and run:

    chmod -R 777 /

    Be sure to email me your IP address and I'll put you up on my holey server site.

    Kord
    Shameless plug, check out Grub!

  132. It is a hoax (credits) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, its been said, but for those aren't convinced that this is a hoax, check out this

  133. actually it does by metalhed77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    most science seems to refute most of the events of the bible, but that doesn't matter to most christians who simply agree and say "I still believe in the core beliefs" or who find extremely irrational explanations. As someone who attends church weekly for 2 services (I work at one, though I am atheist) I see a startling number of contradictions and ridiculous events presented in religious text.

    You still of course have the right to believe, and i'm not denying that. But I too have the right to believe that you are wholly wrong. Don't think your weak arguments will persuade anyone/

    --
    Photos.
  134. His Site Runs Communist Linux by dew · · Score: 3, Interesting
    look here -- he's running Linux:
    The site members.truepath.com is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26 PHP/4.0.6 on Linux.
    --

    David E. Weekly
    Code / Think / Teach / Learn
    h4x0r for

  135. Re: Headline by Dwedit · · Score: 1

    Reading the headline to this article immediatly made me thing of This.

  136. So you think this is a hoax by theCat · · Score: 1

    Look at the rest of the site, it drips with innocent stupidity. They are trying to shut down another web site, one they think is anti-Falwell, which if you want a parody go there; it's a total gut-buster.

    Come on people, get your heads out of the sand. The Internet is crawling with stuff like this, and worse. The Fundies have Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson totally fisting us off in Washington. The 10 Commandments in the schools, give me a break.

    I'd beseech the Goddess for well-placed lightning bolt, but hey, that would just play into their hands.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:So you think this is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Landover.com was originally a spoof of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University (the creators got kicked out of LU), and when you read some of the older Landover stuff, it's really funny because it's so obviously a bunch of inside jokes about LU (Liberty is actually a good school, my brother graduated from there). But, in the last year or so Landover seems to have lost it's edge and ventured out into the realm of complete absurdity. It was funny because it was just close enough to real life, but now it's reached the point where it has nothing to do with reality.

  137. It's a Chickenhead operation by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Chickenhead Productions put in a lot of work on this. They also have WhiteHouse.org and several other parody sites. And there's real depth at each site.

    I'm impressed.

    They have some cool merchandise, too.

  138. Why don't script kiddies DoS sites like THAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people think that just because they have the ability to type and use FrontPage, they have the right to "publish" such garbage. That guy needs to be put out of commission.

    1. Re:Why don't script kiddies DoS sites like THAT? by Armchair+Dissident · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regardless of the fact that this is a hoax: Yes they do have a right to publish such garbage. It's called freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is not, and should not be limited because you don't like it.

      --

      The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
  139. Christianity vs. Computers, what next by SuSEMann · · Score: 1

    I must say, as a fundementalist Christian, and a hacker I find things like this to be repulsive and scary.

    It is ridiculous to think that Darwin OS is out to push evolution. What a joke.

    People like this give Christianity a bad name.

    I for one would love to see the Darwin OS and OSX to make large headways into the MS market.

  140. Send me your Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Apparently anti-Christian zealots --
    >as well as shocked Christians who have
    >unwittingly become Mac owners -- are linking
    >to this article, which explains the large
    >number of emails we have received on this
    >topic. More clues have come in showing the
    >dark nature of Apple Computers. According to one
    >of our readers, the new MacOS X contains another
    >Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS
    >mentioned above; to open up certain locked
    >files one has to run a program much like the
    >DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a
    >secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors
    >lurk in this thing?

    Fellow Christians, send me your possessed Macintosh machines, G4 600Mhz, OS X and above along with $100 to cover exorcism fees and I will cleanse your Macintosh of all daemons. Your Mac will then join a Christian support camp where it will engage in various Christian activities. Because of the severe anti-Christian nature of Macintosh computers this camp will last approximately four years. At the end of this group session your Macintosh will be returned to you if you wish. An additional shipping and handling fee of $450 will need to be paid at that time to cover shipping and handling expenses.

  141. I have a copy up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I somehow knew that stuff wouldn't be up very long, so I saved the source and managed to put copies up here and here

    apparently, it's also available by google cache... the CSS is busted up and you'll get a stupid pop-up window, too ... but i just opted to keep every byte of that file as it was when i saved it from the site to my hard drive! hahaha

    in any case, it really is funny; enjoy.

  142. Re:the apple logo - John-Louis Gasse's take by sl0pppy · · Score: 1

    I like the idea that the Apple Logo represents
    Anarchy and Desire (Sinful).

    I do remember a comment once from JLG in a Be newsletter or something Be related about the Apple logo. He said the Apple with the bite out of it represents desire. And it's not just image of a forbidden fruit but one with a bite out of it, so maybe it's sinful desire fulfilled. Then you have a rainbow but with the colors all out of order - anarchy!

    I guess this is just his interpetation, rather than it's origin, but still that shouldn't stop those fundamentalists from using it. Had they not overlooked it, they might not have been so surprised by "Darwin".

  143. who is us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dont assume geeks are atheists.

    actually you would be wrong to think that alot of scientists are atheists.

    1. Re:who is us? by The+LowTech+Swede · · Score: 1
      I think you are wrong. It takes quite an intellectual process to acquire a set of beleifs that are different from the ones that are historically prevalent in your community. Given that the ratio of atheists to believers have increased over the last century, quite a lot of people have made conscious shifts to atheism. It is most likely so that intellectuals are at the lead of this trend (not ALL intellectuals mind you) because intellectuals usually are. Therefore I think you will find a higher percentage of intellectuals = geeks = scientists being atheists. Of course it also contributes that for many atheists, or in my case, agnostics, such as myself, atheism is really a belief in science.

      /TLTS

    2. Re:who is us? by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1
      actually you would be wrong to think that alot of scientists are atheists.

      A lot and many of the best are, some are outspokenly so:

      Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize in physics - Electroweak Theory), Dick Feynmann (Nobel prize in physics - Quantum Electrodynamics), Murray Gell-Mann (Nobel prize in physics - Quarks) to name a few.

      Others such as Einstein and Hawking cloak their atheism by referring to the totality of the laws of physics as God.

    3. Re:who is us? by ahde · · Score: 2

      No, atheism is the belief in "no god" or gods. It is a specific anti-religion. It has nothing to do with science, except that some people who call themselves scientists also call themselves atheists.

      Likewise monotheism does not denote a lack of belief in science.

      Cause and effect, observable phenomena, hypothesis, data, theorem, proof, mathmatics. Neither belief system can claim "science" for its own. If the principle of atheism (disbelieve what is not proven) were extexded to science, there would be no atheist scientists.

  144. Communism, Anarchism, blah blah by afxgrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, it all depends what flavour of communism(probably Marxism) you're thinking.

    If you take the complete social-libertarian perspective (Anarchism), you would be having contributions to a community that benefit everyone as a whole. GPL'd software is not viable in a capitalist market because you're selling software that gives you no edge over someone else who's selling the same thing. If money was to be made on the software alone, the market would get flooded with the GPL'd software and the price would bottom out to the lowest cost of distribution.

    Companies that make money by providing Free Software are not capitalizing on the software itself, but the 'value-added' services, manuals, and most likely proprietary software tossed in. If they were generating huge income from the sole sale of software, we'd see Microsoft join the Free Software movement.

    Marxism, would have us hand over our code for the 'greater good of the people' - as history has taught us, a totalitarian regime would ensure this. Anarchism, it's an individual choice. But anarchism works on the ideals that we can live better by working together, but working together because you want to. Not because someone in a position of authority has forced you to.

    For more info on Anarchism:
    www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
    To determine your political standing:
    www.politicalcompass.org

  145. This is ancient by Cyberllama · · Score: 2

    I read this years ago, word for word the same. How is this possibly "news" for nerds?

    1. Re:This is ancient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Years" ago? The page was created 2001...so maybe you read it a year ago?

  146. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by z4ce · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm.. interesting technique there for spotting propoganda, but I normally just look to see if the file contains the word "propaganda" :)

    Ian

  147. walk with us by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

    Come ye all, follow the cult of the solar devil whose 8th incarnation is in the peak and the ninth will be born soon. Let us close all windows to god and block the ways out coz in our world you can only go in

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  148. BSD Logo Story is even funnier! by rana · · Score: 1

    If you think that's funny, check out the BSD logo story, at http://www.softpanorama.org/Bulletin/Humor/bsd_log o_story.shtml

    That one had me rolling in my seats. The jist is that some rednecks approach a lady wearing a T-shirt with the BSD devil-in-sneakers logo. Hilarity ensues.

  149. Duh. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    Because Satan is in the operating system business. Sure, Apple may be roughly on the same team, but Satan still isn't gonna give the industry to them, when he is competing himself. Besides he did bail them out with that 10% non-voting stock deal a few years back, didn't he?

  150. Re:Bleeding in Idaho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See? Natural selection at work!

  151. Coming soon to fundamentalists near you by jamie · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I won't be at all surprised when this anti-Apple satire shows up in far-right-wing Christian literature. Remember the Onion story, "Harry Potter Books Spark Rise in Satanism Among Children"? Turns out it was taken seriously by many fundamentalist "news" agencies, including WorldNetDaily.

    So many people believed the Onion story was true that Snopes had to debunk it!

  152. not bullshit. by afxgrin · · Score: 3, Informative

    umm ...

    Isn't the concept of sharing Communism?
    Communism/Socialism, it's the idea of doing things together. It's just a matter of how it's implemented is what has left the bad imagery in our minds.

    If we ever do hit the absolute extreme of capitalism, information such as recorded history, will only be availible to those who can pay for it. But that's speaking of the ridiculous extreme ... wait a second, we are commodifying water now. Keeping that in mind, sharing knowledge in the future might be regarded as some to be 'communist' in nature, and those who do so must be imprisoned.

    Hmmm ... how many people do I need to start listing for those who've been persecuted by a social and economic structure we've approved of for sharing knowledge?

    Wasn't there some kid arrested or charged for releasing some code to decrypt DVDs?
    Was there not a Russian guy arrested in the United States for code he wrote while in Russia? Had something to do with Adobe eBooks if I remember correctly ...
    Was there not a man who released code to encrypt information, and wasn't he threatened with criminal charges?
    Older examples ...
    What about Galileo? Thomas Aquinas?

    There's good reasons why Free Software can be seen as having ideals of anarchism and communism.

    1. Re:not bullshit. by Mandelbrute · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Isn't the concept of sharing Communism?
      No more than the idea of swapping stuff is capitalism. There is a lot more to both - and without both sharing and swapping we would not be civilised.

      Shared intellectual property between indivuals may offend the sensibilities of some business, but they need it to survive in their current form (otherwise they would be unable to get trained staff). Linux has spread and developed the way USENET was supposed to spread scientific knowledge .

    2. Re:not bullshit. by afxgrin · · Score: 2

      But capitalism is based on the simple concept of accumulating wealth. And what we're seeing now is a very small percentage of people who are no longer sharing so much, and instead hoarding a very large portion of the resources that would be quite helpful if shared.

      I also don't doubt the fact that we share and swap in our day to day activities, but comparing free software to free market capitalism is a long stretch. Since, if any single sellable package of free software had an edge over another package, that package would simply adopt that feature with no additional cost to them except redistribution. And would then make any competition useless, since there would be no profit. The only edge that would ultimately be left for any company is how good their marketing team is and their customer support. Companies would leave those markets in droves and abandon them completely ...

      Especially with GPL'd software. For example, the GPL requires sources to be included with the sold package. If Microsoft went and bought up every single linux distributor around the globe, Microsoft would have a distribution monopoly. But once they sell ONE CD, the source is availible to the public and they'll have heavy competition within a very short period of time.

    3. Re:not bullshit. by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
      but comparing free software to free market capitalism is a long stretch
      My point was that comparing open source software to communism is such a long stretch that it was originally only seriously suggested by:

      1/ Those that consider communism is evil, therefore bundling it in with communism makes it evil. Or

      2/ those that consider communism is good, therefore bundling it in with communism makes it good.

      Sharing of intelectual property is only a political act to those that see everything as a political act - or those that have had to listen to poeple like that for years. I don't see it as having much to do as either of those two isms - it is a seperate thing of itself.

      The first time I remember seeing gnu software described as being communist was in a column by Bob Metcalfe (of ethernet fame) which was his portion of a flame war, but in print and not email.

      Speaking of flamewars, if you want to take this offtopic stuff furthur, my shiny new email address that I would be mad to post on slashdot if it was the only one I had is bosto@worldoptions.com.au.

    4. Re:not bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The GPL is very much in the ideals of communism, note the ideals of communism not the reality where an oppressive leadership takes advantage of the system to further there own agenda.

      licensing source code so that the information is always open for use, modification and redistribution providing there is no direct capitalistic gain could definitely be described as a communist ideal, though some might describe it as more anarchist, freedom of information is common to both, while as modern capitalism particually attempts to turn all information into a commodity

    5. Re:not bullshit. by leodegan · · Score: 1

      The sharing of wealth and intellectual property is going to be ideal in ANY economic system -- not just communism. The thing that separates communism from other economic systems is the abolishment of private property. That has nothing to do with open source software.

      I am a big advocate for open source software (and I am currently attempting to write some), yet I believe communism is evil. Where am I wrong?

    6. Re:not bullshit. by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      If we ever do hit the absolute extreme of capitalism, information such as recorded history, will only be availible to those who can pay for it.

      It already is available only to those who can pay for it. Encyclopedias, CD-ROMS and teachers aren't free. They are all paid for either by private individuals, or out of taxation - nothing is free.

      This is the reason Open Source coexists so uneasily with the existing economy. The cost of duplicating a piece of software is negligible compared to the cost of developing it, and tends to zero if you can make assumptions like that the infrastructure is a) a fixed cost and b) already present. But the cost of cars, loaves of bread, woolly socks, etc, doesn't - so how do you trade a piece of software for these things, if you don't make units of software behave like them, economically speaking? After all, you can't make material goods behave like software until humanity develops an unlimited power source and has access to unlimited raw materials, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

      Open Source is a great idea in the Star Trek universe, but it's an anomaly in ours.

  153. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    score +1 (duh)

  154. Chill Out! by tshak · · Score: 2

    The site is a PARODY!

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  155. Hoax. by Kerry · · Score: 1

    It's a hoax. For example, on the "progress" page, there's the obvious joke about the purple stuffed bear where, when they realized that purple can represent homosexuals, they change it to rainbow colors. It mentions a "Fellowship Baptist Convention," which does not exist. Also, if even it you could sue over "religious trademark violations" over the name Baptist, who would own the trademark? The Southern Baptist Convention? The Americian Baptist Convention? The Missouri Baptist Convention? People decended from the family of John the Baptist? This page is so obviously a hoax I'm surprised that so many people fell for it.

  156. Maybe this will help convince you. LOL! by tshak · · Score: 1

    <META name="generator" content="Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath generated all">

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  157. Yeh what is it with Americans & creationism by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2

    I'd saythere's only about 4 christians in the whole of Oz & Europe who don't accept evolotion.

    Gez most people in Oz just happen to be born Anglican or Catholic & that's as far as it goes. It's the same again in Europe. Except depending on the part of Europe you can substitute Lutherian, reformed, etc for Anglican or Orthadox for Catholic.

    Now with the small minority in Oz 'n Europe, who actually happen to bother thinking about theological concepts, evolution was just the way god did it. The Melbourne Cardinal even banished a American Catholic preach back to the US because he publically denounced evolution.

    Here in Oz there's only about 4 creationists, all probably in Queensland. From my experiance in Europe virtually the only creationists there are the American Baptist missionairies in Russia trying to convert the godless communist heathens (haven't they heard of the Russian Orthadox Church?).

    1. Re:Yeh what is it with Americans & creationism by Airline_Sickness_Bag · · Score: 1

      Four, huh? I got into a discussion with one of them, leonbrooks, in an older slashdot thread recently. The best part was when he argued that a (fake) millions of years old hammer and canyons at Mt St Helens (made from volcanic ash - not at all like normal canyons in rock) could not be explained by the theory of evolution. Of course, he brought Hitler into the discussion :).

      -asb

    2. Re:Yeh what is it with Americans & creationism by JumpyMonkey · · Score: 1

      I know quite a few hardcare, Bible thumping Brits who could give any Missouri Pentecostal a run for his money. A few from Down Under as well.

      Off point, however, I find that many "foreigners" somehow believe what they see on TV and movies about the US is actually true. I had a Brit ask me to show him the gun I must obviously be concealing. I told him I only carry when driving K.I.T. around chasing drug kingpins with Bruce Willis.

      That seemed to satisfy him.

    3. Re:Yeh what is it with Americans & creationism by dbremner · · Score: 1
      Ah, but our country (I'm American) was founded by religious zealots with guns. The Puritans came here because the Church of England wasn't strict enough. LDS, Scientology, 7th Day Adventist, Baptist, were all started here, it's really unfortunate.

      If you want to amuse yourself, cross-reference religiosity rates with the UN's Human Freedom index. With the exception of Communist countries, most of the countries with low rates of religious belief are great places to live.

      --

      Life is a psychology experiment gone awry.
  158. WTF I submitted this same thing 18 hours ago and.. by phunhippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was rejected..
    2002-04-22 08:45:25 Evolutionists spread "false" theories via MAC OS X (articles,humor) (rejected)

    Burn my karma.. i dunt care.. thats way fucking lame of you editors... sheesh...

    Maybe i should be supporting the lame slashdot blackout!

  159. The Cult Of Apple by MacGod · · Score: 1

    Apple is not a cult! Now put on your robes, we have to go the the hail-Steve chant!

    Not that my username should have anything to due with it!

    Incidentally: http://cult-of-mac.utu.fi/

    --
    "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
  160. Sure, Slashdot the poor Geocities site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you no heart? I'll bet the poor Jesux site fell within 10 seconds of the article being posted.

  161. Learn something about Darwin you idiotic fucks! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For God's sake Darwin was an ordained minister in the Church of England. Though he had trouble reconciling his findings with his religious beliefs; then, just as now it is possible to reconcile natural selection with creation.

    WHY IS IT SO FUCKING HARD TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT GOD USED EVOLUTION AS A PART OF CREATION???????

    Damned Jesus freaks. Jesus used parables to make his points. Why isn't the Biblical story of creation a parable as well?

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Learn something about Darwin you idiotic fucks! by polar+red · · Score: 0

      Problem is, those fucking christian,muslim,jewish, [insert other religion here] don't think for themselves: they take everything that's in the bible,kuran,thora literally. In this way many many many many many wars started (and still are being fought). (i always wonder how it comes that one of the most important things in the bible are being ingnored ... fifth commandement: THOU SHALT NOT KILL.)

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    2. Re:Learn something about Darwin you idiotic fucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You too dumbfuck. It is a possibility, but a more clear possibility is that you're an idiot dumbfuck coward who is unable to think outside the confines of whatever religion he'd been spoonfed.

      Get a life.

    3. Re:Learn something about Darwin you idiotic fucks! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I don't think the problem is that they rely on their Holy books, they rely on what other people tell them about the books.

      BTW, a more accurate tranlsation is "Thou shalt not murder."

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  162. Jesux Mirror by batobin · · Score: 2

    Maybe somebody has already posted a mirror, or maybe I'm the first person that got Yahoo's "exceeded bandwidth" message, but here's a google mirror for the Jesux page.

    Jesux
    For the goatse weary: http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:CruA_mWMcQQC: www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/4081/+jesu x&hl=en

  163. Hoax or not, it's still an interesting topic... by CySurflex · · Score: 1
    If you really want to learn about the latest on both side of the argument, I recommend reading the two top sellers on each "side" of the argument. (As I did several years ago):

    #1 pro Evolution book
    The Blind Watchmaker

    #1 pro Creationist book
    Darwin on Trial

    CySurflex
    Avid athiest with an open mind.

    1. Re:Hoax or not, it's still an interesting topic... by Airline_Sickness_Bag · · Score: 1

      Here is a review of Darwin on Trial My Phillip Johnson. There are links to Johnson's home page, other reviews, a debate with Johnson, and an article by Johnson about "The Blind Watchmaker".

      -asb

  164. Re:It's a hoax--sorry, it's not by ajp · · Score: 1

    Just because it's "over-the-top" doesn't mean it's not sincere. If this is a hoax they did a lot of work making (or finding) other over-the-top sites to link to. Check out their Objective: Landover Baptist Shutdown page. The links at the bottom are all the same style, but not all the same hosting service. This is one expensive and time-consuming hoax.
    Citizens United for a Decent Internet
    More shutdown Landover Baptist stuff
    Rebuilding Noah's Ark. Maybe if they did it with Legos it'd be a good /. story...
    I'm sorry to say, SS, but this is as real as Christianity in America gets. Maybe you Brits are a little more subdued, having gotten all of your religious craziness flushed out with Old King Hank. This is 'Merka, though, boy, and we march to the tune of our own banjoes.

    For those who want to see the Evolution series in Seattle, it airs beginning May 14 on KCTS. I'm just finishing Dennett's book and look forward to the TV special. God has really blessed me: if not for the good folks at Mt Fellowship Baptist, I would have missed two hours of anti-Christian brainwashing Communist propoganda.

  165. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by SlugLord · · Score: 1

    *sigh*
    It must be difficult not understanding what you are reading. It must be more difficult being modded up for it. Any good propagandist knows not to use 'clearly,' much as any good satirist knows to use it profusely.

  166. Icons? by |<amikaze · · Score: 1

    Aren't all GUI's evil to use since we have to use ICONS? And those shortcuts, those are FALSE ICONS!

  167. Well, at least they've got one thing straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Apple] is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different"

    (Sorry, it was too good to pass up.)

    On another note, someone should email this guy and tell him about the daemons in Darwin.

  168. Ugh. by pedro · · Score: 2

    Perhaps you might invite them all down to the mall teraplex to see 'Frailty'?
    I'm sure she'd enjoy that!
    Bill Paxton is SUCH a hunk >:->

    --
    Brak: What's THAT?
    Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
  169. Open Letter to the Truepath Authors @15 hours B.S. by migmigmig · · Score: 1

    (That's "Before Slashdotted")

    I sent this at 6am this morning after having fun with their site all night long. It's not often that I beat slashdot to the punch by 15 hours, but here's the email I sent them, verbatim:

    Subject: Dear Dr Paley and Mr Carlson, Thank You.

    Michael Gerard wrote:

    So I was reading my blissful little heart through the internet this evening, and I came across this article:

    http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda.h tml

    Interesting little read, altho I'd agree with PBS's assertion that Darwin's claims were as welcome to The Church of his day (the Episcopalian C of E, of course) and brought him as much joy and happiness as Galileo's claims did for him back in "renaissance times" (under the rigid hand of Roman Catholicism). That discussion is probably beyond the scope of this email, however, but do try to keep those two people and what happened to them in mind as we keep thinking forward through my point, please?

    Wandering through the rest of the article, however, past the suggestion that people should not support public television, really made me start to giggle.

    Hah! Wonderful Silliness! Oh yah. Apple is in league with the devil. Hee hee hee.

    The "flying leaps of assumption" by which any word, deed, trademark, or othersuch entity vaguely resembling Something of Naughtiness to be prima facia evidence of wrongdoing is simply taken to such an extreme in this article that I couldn't help but laugh and laugh (and laugh and laugh). Especially when you start talking about things like BSD under the covers. Makes me wonder what OS your websites run on. Looks like apache on linux (with all of the "daemons" that run equally well under linux as they do on BSD... as they have on every unix system since the dawn of modern computing.... oops!). And, well, yes, there's enough stupid bits and pieces like that through the whole article that I just couldn't keep from rolling and rolling on the floor with laughter. My proverbial ass was quite fallen off and nowhere to be found.

    What a wonderful work of satire!

    I realized I must, of course, be reading a parody site! A site not unlike the myriad other parody sites which pretend to have Christians writing about how "Star Wars," "Valentine's Day," "Pepsi Cola," or "The Entire Fall Primetime Lineup On UPN" are such "obvious" anti-Christian works of He Who Must Not Be Named and must therefore be shunned! I smiled at the concept, and passed the link along to many of my friends. Looking at the navbar on that page, I saw another link that said "Landover Baptist Shutdown." Ah, of course, those silly boys over at Landover Baptist! This seemed to obviously be some of their handiwork, so I clicked that link and arrived at this page:

    http://members.truepath.com/objective/index.html

    Now, let's stop right there, for right about then is when I must confess I became rather confused.

    Having a parody site recursively bash itself is, uhm, well, to be honest, more obtuse humor than even I usually engage in. And I'm one to always like the weirder side of the funny pages.

    Maybe.... maybe that wasn't a parody site? Maybe people actually do get on the internet and type stuff like that? And honestly mean it? (So, by the way, if it really is a parody site, I think you guys are a little too subtle... but, anyhow, operating under the assumption that that is not the case...)

    So. :)

    Let me smile nicely at you and give you a free legal opinion from someone who doesn't know anything about how the law in this country actually works, but who thinks they are in tune with the way it's supposed to:

    Landover Baptist has a stronger legal defense against you than you do against Apple Computer. Why? Because The Law of The Land respects the rights of people seeking to entertain via satire far more than that of people who seek to damage a business's revenue stream by engaging in insulting innuendo about having gone over to The Dark Side Of The Force. The very horrible nasty secular laws that protect Landover Baptist from your righteous crusade against its "blasphemous atrocities" are the same "god-given rights" that you would hope would protect you from Apple Computer after doing something reporting that they must "obviously" be in league with the Powers of Darkness in making a product both "anti-Christian and cultish."

    I'd agree with the latter, of course... cultish in the extreme! Have you ever seen some of those weird freaky Mac users who walk down the street with shaved heads wearing peach bedsheets wrapped around them, beating on drums and tambourines, chanting "MOOF! MOOF! MOOF!" everywhere? Frightening! Mothers should cover the eyes of small children, I wholeheartedly agree, but that doesn't mean they're automatically going to spend their Eternity in the Pit, does it?

    Since you seem to be acceptingly fond of quotes from places other than the Bible (especially from our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution), let me give you an additional one you might want to consider as important as the other ones that assist your faith in the fact that our nation was founded in the Name of Christ:
    "I cannot agree with your words, but I will defend to the death your right to say them."

    Too bad I can't remember who actually said it. But, actually, the fact I can't makes me chuckle. I think it's very funny I can't remember who said he'd defend my right to say whatever the hell I please. That's just my warped sense of humor (which only proves yet again I'm an obvious danger to myself and others, I recognize that, but it doesn't make my argument any less valid -- just more incoherent).

    Now, if Apple decided to sue the living snot out of you for "Libel and Defamation," how would you defend yourselves? If they decided to play hardball, would you hire a lawyer or would you assume that God would intervene? Ah. Well, of course, I'm sure you have plenty of lawyer friends who would cut you a deal to stop that horrible evil Apple Computer Corporation from censoring the important message that you have to get out to the public at large about how everyone's everlasting salvation is in grave (a pun! hah! see, I do have a sense of humor!) peril from the evil brainwashing secularistic vibrations that originated from the drug addled brains of a couple of hippies in the 70's and now resides in Cupertino, CA.

    Yes, indeedy! We must get a campaign going immediately to inform the public that "Think Differently" is just another noisy gravel-slide on the vast slippery slope into The Abyss.

    Of course.

    If you decided to play hardball with the "Landover Baptist" site, would you hire a lawyer, or would you just assume that now that you've seen the site and that you're praying about it, God will just take care of the rest for you? Ah. Well, of course, I'm sure you have plenty of lawyer friends who would cut you a deal to help you censor that horrible evil Landover Baptist site (do your lawyers give 10% off on instant conversions, too? do I get to mutter under my breath about "moneychangers in the temple" for that slap in the face at anyone who actually has TRUE faith? no... the email is getting long enough without going into that).

    Luckily, so far, the America I've been blessed to have been born and grow up in and learn so much about has done a fairly decent job over the last few centuries at protecting both "the many" from "the few" AND "the few" from "the many."

    Tell me, is the same thing true for the America you live in?

    Or maybe I just find it moderately, hmmm... stupid? typical? ironic? Well, none of those are quite the appropriate word to describe the manner in which your own article is so easily mistaken for the others' parodies which you would point at and call "hatespeech." ``Sanctimonious`` gets even closer still, but still isn't quite on the nose. What word do you think would go best there?

    I'm just curious, of course.

    I'm even more curious to see if anyone will bother to answer this letter, or if I'll just be immediately dismissed as something worthy of nothing more than your pity because I will, obviously, Burn in the Lake of Fire because I Think Differently than You. (I don't personally believe I Think Differently than Him, but that's not the point of this email, now, is it? I mean, you weren't attacking me, personally, were you? yet?)

    Speaking of personal attacks, let's get back to what happened to Darwin and Galileo... which entity do you think is most likely to be rejected and villified by the "entire" (read: "entrenchedly secular") population at large, this upcoming century: Apple Computer, Landover Baptist, or You?

    Who shall be the one to be accused of engaging in writing "such that they look arrogant, hateful, or just idiotic?" Chris Harper? Dr Paley? Both? Neither? (My personal money is on ``C`` -- but you should already have guessed that, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this email. Right?)

    Think carefully (certainly not differently!), and make sure you've legibly written your response before the "Jeopardy Theme" completes.

    Or, maybe, the whole problem with "parody sites" is that the people being parodied are too often incapable of realizing the underlying reason for which satirists find them to be such a juicy target for their irreverent wit. Nobody ever thinks it's funny when the people are actually laughing at them. That might be it. I'll have to include that question in my prayers before bed this evening. Yes. God promised me he'd give me 10% off any answers asked if I was willing to convert on the spot.....

    (Okay, I lied. I can't help it. I must talk about this! YOU'RE THE ONES who got upset at the Landover site for, in your own words: "offering a free cellphone as a reward for those who become saved - demeaning the value of Salvation to that of some material trinket." -- What would your good Timothy Allmon think about such marketing tactics? Think, people! You're really alot making the rest of us just look bad in general as human beings. http://members.truepath.com/objective/members.html )

    By the way, to make a "small" correction, and just to beat this lovely dead horse into a long crimson smear across the asphault, any good sysadmin should (and, hopefully, would, but some are anti-Christian bigots, I think) inform you that `chmod 666` is just about the stupidest and most unsecure thing you could do to random files on your filesystem, especially executable binaries. Well, almost. You could delete them. That would be worse. Probably. Most of the time.

    You're far better off using `chmod 755` if an executable, `chmod 644` if not, and `chmod 600` or `chmod 700` if you have secrets to keep from the other users on your box. Obviously, you're not going to be able to keep secrets from root or from God, so limiting all the other users' access isn't quite as important for a Christian admin as for an anti-Christian (by definition) BOFH.

    If some unsuspecting user, Christian or anti- (since they who are not with us must be against us, and your computer doesn't really know or care), were to do a chmod 666 like you suggest (and while `chmod 777` exists as a command, keep your numerological lusts in control and just trust me that it is even worse than `chmod 666`), they're very likely going to hurt their operating system. And then at least one of them will hire a lawyer and probably sue you, too.

    Unfortunately, some things about America still do Suck. Right? How'd you like to be McDonalds paying someone $3,000,000 because they weren't smart enough to protect a stupid woman from herself? In America, you always have to ask yourself: "in what way could my actions cause someone to hurt themselves in a manner which leaves me open to lawsuit?" Does that make you think twice before randomly posting commands that you don't understand onto the internet? Or would you argue in court that whatever happened to a user attempting to do such things was really just the Inevitable Will Of God for using such a Beastly OS?

    But even while the computer illiterate population mobilize to sue you, the computer savvy reader, Christian or anti-, is just going to think... well... let's hypothesize that, say, 50% of the pieces of information presented as "evidence" are as ludicrously and hilariously wrong as your little "fun with chmod" paragraph. If that _were_ true, even if you were a devout Christian computer user (and I know how patronizingly "rare" you believe such people must be), you'd think the person writing that nonsense, well, you'd probably believe that they Suck. Maybe you'd think you were just reading another parody site because you wouldn't want to have to believe that there were actually people out there who did stuff like that. Maybe it's all just, you know, ``psychological.``

    It is left as an exercise for the reader to go back and actually and objectively research the origin, status, context, and any other necessary bits of needful information to be able to properly determine if the validity of your article about Apple computer remains above the 50% "does not Suck" margin.

    Luckily, in America, all of us irrespective of race, color, or creed have the ability to know for an undying fact deep in our immortal (or otherwise) souls that WE do not, at all, personally Suck, even without having to prove it when odd gentlemen send us long and confusing emails asking us to do so! It is, of course, only everyone else who is not us or like enough to us that are responsible for how much everything does Suck. Yes, of course, that must be it.

    Isn't it neat how human nature works? There's enough of that kind of nonsense to make each man woman and child on earth act like an egotistical hypocrticial moron 5 or 6 times a day and still provide enough energy left over to comprise a viable alternative to Fossil Fuels (if only the damn Oil Cartels wouldn't spend so much time and money on their vast conspiracy to discredit a perfectly valid scientific theory that would so wonderfully benefit all of mankind! Quo vadis, baby! Quo vadis!).

    Shameful, don't you think?

    Yours, cheerfully, nigh gleefully,
    mig
    Favourite Passage From Scripture -- Leviticus 16:2
    "And The Lord said unto Moses: ``Tell Aaron to quit coming into my room
    whenever he feels like it, or I'll kill him. He might see me!``"

    ps: That was fun! Write another article making fun of, ah, excuse me, I mean righteously exposing to the world the subltly seductive evil anti-Christian ways of the WWF, or maybe the Kellogg's Cereal characters, next!

    Or how about how I show that Pascal's Wager is an horrifically bad evangelical tool because 1) believing in God should be for the sake of God, not "just in case I might be wrong" (ie: if you were told pascal's wager, said "yes, that makes sense," and were then shot in the head, you'd still not be Saved, and you'd still go Into the Pit) and 2) because Pascal's Wager is equally valid for any other religion as well, so your evangelical target could possibly be captured back by any further evangelical contacts from, say, Islam or Baha'i.... well, then again, Baha'i wouldn't be likely to use Pascal's Wager as an evangelical tool... but I think you see my point, anyhow, right? I could write it up better than that, of course, if you'd want me to.

    Hey, like, wanna make this like a weekly thing or something, guys?

    Guys?

    Hello?

    Well, if you're still with me, feel free to forward this to anyone you think might also need or want or hate to read it. :)

    What do you think will happen if they look my picture up on the team page?

  170. Daemon by mark_space2001 · · Score: 1
    Well, I just looked up "daemon" in my unabridged dictionary (handy thing, that). It means a god or minor diety in classical mythology. It's kinda related to the Roman idea of a genius (from Greek, daimon a diety or a fate). Whereas a "demon" is an evil spirit. Daemon can mean demon, but that wasn't the primary definition.

    I was taught that the origin of the term "daemon" in computer usage is biblical. Some translations of the Bible say that when God turned Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden, He set a daemon (a minor diety, i.e. an angel) to guard the gate. It waited at the gate, and slew any who tried to enter.

    Daemons are programs that wait, then when their trigger occurs, they act. The action could be for anything from delivering email to notifiy an accountant that a transaction over a certain amount has occured. (That was actually the context for this discussion about daemons: a hypothetical database that had daemons or triggers that would execute when certain criteria were met.)

  171. The page is hosted on a linux machine! by dwillen · · Score: 1
    Netcraft, What's that server running?

    Wasn't "Open Source" just another name for communism?

  172. Atheist/Communist? by mqduck · · Score: 1

    I can't speak for Apple about it's attitude towards religion, but considering that Apple is owned by individuals, and hires workers for less money than they create, that's a really silly way to be communist.

    Now, if Apple declared itself a worker-owned cooperative and made an officially statement against the dehumanizing and disinformative effects of religion by definition, I'd have to seriously reconsider OS X.

    What's that? It was a joke and I'm taking it too seriously? Ya, well, screw you, jerk.

    =D,
    Jeff

    --
    Property is theft.
  173. Don't like the names by ilovekimmy · · Score: 1
    As someone who's read a little about the various problems with (the modern, naturalist, neodarwinian theory of) evolution and how the math doesn't add up,etc, I don't really care much for the names of some open source projects, like apple's darwin, and gnome's evolution mail client.

    I'm not dissing the code, or the hard work people have spend on them, I just think the name is stupid and turns me off from it. How many of you would think "Creationism" is a good name for a mail client (the authors are creating it right?) or, I dunno, name your kernel after Jesus?

    --
    I love Kimmy!
  174. Question by FredBaxter · · Score: 1

    This may not be on the topic of Apple, but what exactly does this mean?

    "(they conveniently neglect to point out that Darwinistic propaganda equating us with animals might have helped to spread the disease in the first place)." This in reference to part one of the article about the PBS series Evolution and how Darwin's theories helped us to understand AIDS.

    Could someone (not just a 'he-is-a-nut' flamer/troll) tell me what this means or what the rationale is for this line? Is the implication that God is punishing us for our evolutionary beliefs and culture?

    I'm confused, and just a bit curious.

    --I used to have a sig. Then my karma ate my dogma and had my sig for dessert.

  175. That article is Just Not Funny. by pedro · · Score: 2

    It's a smug, self-satisfied and feeble attempt at 'Satire(tm)' that is an utter failure on all fronts. ALL of it has been done before, better.
    I cannot *believe* that I *ever* found the Onion even remotely amusing.
    (washing his hands feverishly, YET AGAIN!)

    --
    Brak: What's THAT?
    Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
  176. AC/DC, Apple in league with the devil by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 4, Funny

    No wonder I've had a strange urge to a rip an MP3 of "Highway to Hell" on my iMac.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  177. Tux the Fisheather by pacc · · Score: 2

    Symbolic irony

  178. Tools of the devil? by foolish+youngster · · Score: 1

    dammit, now I just GOTTA go down to my local used comp junkyard, buy an old mac and put BSD on it. Thats what my brother does and his mailserver aint had to be rebooted in 4 years. Thank god, I have seen the light! Now all I need to do is figger out how to get mozilla to run on my INDY, dammit.

    --
    -- Defenestrate Microsoft!
  179. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by Kenneth · · Score: 2

    My first clue that it was propaganda was the url:

    http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda .h tml

    I don't really know about anyone else, but I tend to think that anyting with the filenmame "propaganda.html" would tend to fall into that category.

    Alright, anyone who didn't catch that this was a joke within the first ten seconds out of the pool now.

    --
    There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
  180. Re: sorry, it's not - I think it is by Tadhg · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure it's a hoax. The other stories (the one on Game Theory, for example) are too ridiculous to be real, and apparently there is no Fellowship University. However, it appears that the perpetrators have managed to fool the hosting service (which is 'Christian'). In addition, the authors link to a number of actual Christian sites, but that's just a way of making it more credible. I wouldn't be surprised if this were another spoof by the people who did Landover Baptist.

  181. The Holy C by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 2
    Someone forgot to mention that Unix is papist, too, with the Holy C.

    I will honestly admit that I got caught by the hoax. Even after I noticed the name of the author as "Richard Paley" (which I took as a nom de plume.).

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
  182. An Evil Parody by Arandir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is an evil parody. This is not real. I can't believe so many of you fell for it.

    Christians do not believe this tripe. Not even the fundamentalists or evangelicals. If all you know about christianity is what Hollywood and the MPAA tell you, then this guy sound genuine, but it most certainly is not. Distrust all stereotypes. A christian would be as likely to spout this blather as a geek would wear a pocket protector and taped glasses.

    The members.truepath.com website is hoax. A very elaborate hoax to be sure, but still a hoax. Just go to the members' bios page if you don't believe me.

    The proof of this hoax is simple: there is no theology anwhere. There's a lot of shouting about darwinism, communism and anti-christian terrorists, but I can't find any scriptural references anwhere in their arguments. Not one bible thump in evidence.

    I am a christian. I was raised in a christian household. I grew up in the California version of the bible-belt. But I've never met anyone who even remotely resembles these turkeys. Not even the nutbags on the Patriot Network or JT Chick come close.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    1. Re:An Evil Parody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually from what I see on tv of your country, it does seem there are many such loonies. The greatest democracy is also the one where the head of state can have complete disregard for atheists and the separation of church and state. "crusade" and many other of george bush's little phrases comes to mind.

    2. Re:An Evil Parody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      An evil parody of... what? The US congress? >>The proof of this hoax is simple: there is no theology anwhere. By that standard, many religious organizations would be classified as hoaxes, since for all of recorded history (the last 1400 years in particular) religion has been utilized by politicos to rouse the rabble, giving people a feeling of the moral superiority of their own righteousness and some easily identified, often cartoonishly outlandish, enemy to deplore. The fact that individual practitioners may actually follow the doctrine instead of the dogma doesn't nullify the fact that the only reason we come into contact with the doctrine at all is because it has been found to be a useful tool for controlling people. Think back 2000 years, picture the Romans. Now move forward 6 or 7 hundred years, and suddenly there is the Holy Roman Empire. Think that was the result of divine inspiration? Think again. >>I am a christian. I was raised in a christian household. I grew up in the California version of the bible-belt. Well, I was raised a christian as well... I grew up in Utah, and the website in question doesn't sound that different from some of the stuff I was told as a child... such as 'Proctor & Gamble' are a satanist organization, people with black skin are being punished by god, and playing cards are a modernized version of satanic tarot cards. We shopped at church-owned stores so we wouldn't be pouring money into the pockets of the sinners. My mother and the woman next door got in a 6-year fight because my mother suggested that the woman had seen her own husband nude. Our church was involved in a letter-writing campaign to various stores protesting the 'smut' they put in their Sunday advertisements, such as the pictures of models in underwear that all of us pre-pube repressed boys were jerking off to. In junior high, 75% of my health class was allowed to sit in the library during class time so they wouldn't hear any lectures that involved sex, and my biology teacher was forced to resign after a lecture on the Galapogos Islands strayed to close to the heretical idea of 'evolution'. I currently work with an engineer who home-schools his children so they won't be turned into liberal homosexuals by the school teachers. He and his friends hold a very vocal discussion group in the middle of the cafeteria each Thursday, in which doctrine is only mentioned in passing as they discuss the liberalization, demoralization, and communist...ifi...cation (whatever) of the country by gays, drug addicts, evolutionists, democrats, transexuals, jews, devil worshippers, and libertarians. I once thought that the culture I grew up in was exceedingly bizarre, a rare pocket of backwards thought that survived only through willful isolation from mainstream culture. Now (3 states, 5 cities later) I am worried that those people may be just normal Americans, in a Tom-Joad we're-the-people sense.

    3. Re:An Evil Parody by Armchair+Dissident · · Score: 1

      It certaintly is a superbly well done paradoy/hoax - the biggest clue is in little jokes in the options when you sign the guestbook (ahem! - prayer book), my choice of religion: macintosh :)

      However, the reason it works so well is because there really are too many fundamentalist christians that really do go for this tripe. Wherever you see the "WWJD" type books/seminars/bumper stickers, you're watching people fall for the same old trick. It is of course, not a phenomenon limited to christians, but sadly to most religions.

      I'm just waiting for the book "Toilet cleaning - the christian way"

      --

      The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
    4. Re:An Evil Parody by interiot · · Score: 2

      Christians do not believe this tripe. Not even the fundamentalists or evangelicals. If all you know about christianity is what Hollywood and the MPAA tell you, then this guy sound genuine, but it most certainly is not. Distrust all stereotypes. A christian would be as likely to spout this blather as a geek would wear a pocket protector and taped glasses.

      It didn't seem to be any different from what's in the Chick Tracts...

    5. Re:An Evil Parody by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      For what its worth (as another Christian), you'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian who read Chick Tracts. They are aweful (as far as I'm concerned) and don't work (for their supposed purpose).

      Consider, for a moment, that basic Christianity is supposed to be about telling people that they have a basic need for God and that God cares for them and wants to help them. How then, does the site, or Chick tracts for that matter, further this? Not at all (except maybe a couple of the tracts, at the most).

      Just FYI ...

      http://www.craigfoster.com/kcc/

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    6. Re:An Evil Parody by mbbac · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never been exposed to good old fashioned bible thumping then. I have. I live in Charlotte, NC. My freshman roommate in college swore that Jesus elevated him and all of his Jesusfreak friends into the air in my dorm room when I wasn't there. They do think like this. Listen to Billy and Franklin Graham sometime.

      --

      mbbac

    7. Re:An Evil Parody by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1

      Hell I'll have to go back to the site - and sign in my religion as Chuch of Emacs.

    8. Re:An Evil Parody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evil? You seem very much insulted by this. Lighten up a bit :)

    9. Re:An Evil Parody by Dynedain · · Score: 2

      There are people who are sheepish enough to believe this, and there are those that are like this. I am a Christain (a fairly liberal one now) and I have been through many Christain schools and met many people shortsighted enough to spout this kind of stuff. I even once had a Mormon kid condem me for eating a Brach's Pina Colada flavored hard candy, claiming there was alcohol in it! I've had a science teacher flat out tell me that Louis Pasteaur's experiments (resulting in the pasteurization process) is proof that evolution is false, and a world history teacher say that the Pope is the Antichrist and worships Satan. And this was in urban Southern California, not even the "religous right" controlled midwest.

      The point is, there are people out there who strongly believe this stuff. And they aren't going to use Biblical quotes if their aren't any to support it. There's nothing in the Bible about BSD, or evolution (although you can see the current model of the formation of the universe in the creation story, as well as the chronological order of life forms appearing on the earth).

      While this may be a hoax/satire....there are people out there like this guy. Most of them probably haven't heard enough computer jargon though to ramble on about this stuff. But believe me, they're out there.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    10. Re:An Evil Parody by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 2

      I understand how paradoies of these stereotypes must make moderate christians feel. I know that the majority of christians are sensible people. But it's not entirely true to say that there are no christians like this out there. I was raised by one, in an evangelical church, in moderate (and sometimes not-so-moderate) parts of western Canada. Pastors ranged from strict in their faith, but pragmatic about the world, to sounding an awful lot like the linked article. Received truth was often along the lines of "Gorbachev is the beast, he bears the mark." I was actively discouraged from pursuing (secular) university because being taught by unbelievers was considered dangerous.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying all christians are like this, but there is a large enough minority to be noticed. They vote, they make political noise and their views are equally dangerous to christians with more moderate views, followers of other faiths, and athiests/agnostics. We shouldn't ignore them.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    11. Re:An Evil Parody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've worked with geeks who wore pocket protectors and even taped glasses (well, they got the glasses fixed but still).

    12. Re:An Evil Parody by Arandir · · Score: 1

      They do think like this. Listen to Billy and Franklin Graham sometime.

      Not in my wildest dreams could I imagine Billy or Franklin espousing this drivel. They may talk a bit against evolution and secular humanism and other things. But to think that they would get up there on a stage and denounce BSD because it has a daemon mascot, or Unix because it has chmod 666, or Apple because its logo is an apple with a bite (by Eve) taken out of it, is ridiculous.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    13. Re:An Evil Parody by mbbac · · Score: 1
      Apple because its logo is an apple with a bite (by Eve) taken out of it, is ridiculous.

      The bite is in the apple to make it look like an apple instead of a cherry.
      --

      mbbac

  183. blackout...yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yup....one great blackout

  184. FreeBSD = communism = evil by luckymat · · Score: 1


    FreeBSD = communism = evil

    Jesus Christ helped people for free with food , wine and health etc

    so

    Christ = communism = evil

    Micrsoft not free therefore not evil

    so

    Christ = evil = not Bill Gates

    therefore

    Bill gates = anti Christ

  185. Think ones more guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys in USA have a real real issue with Communism. Im not a communism, but hey, they are big (or has been) so calling them "devil" I feel is wrong. They built a world of there own, think of the spacerace.. And they got some tech knowless thats very cool to. Then I do prefere a socity where the induvidual have choices, so Im not going to vote for them in my country.. but call them the devil is just plain wrong..

  186. Shouldn't this be on Portal of Evil by Dusabre · · Score: 1
    I thought Portal of Evil was for this sort of insanity...

    The insanity contained on this page is cringe worthy and laughable but is it Stuff That Matters? Wrong site, IMHO.

  187. Open Source != Communism != Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use the word "communism", as it has been tainted with connotations of particularly inhumane dictators/governments. And don't think Marxist socialism, which calls for violence. Think "community effort" or "public". And since Open Source isn't communism, it isn't necessarily run by athiests. There are certainly religious programmers out there, and many many religious computer/technology users.

    Call Open Source "Open Source". Attaching the word "communist" to anything that's not communistic confuses its meaning for no good reason except FUD. Remember learning about McCarthyism? The entire left-wing (which is where I believe Open Source fits in) is also gets an unfair association with communism.

    And anarchism is _not_ part of the left wing. It's outside of the building, along with ultra-conservative fundamentalists.

  188. Americans & creationism by Jimmy+Breeze · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Do not be fooled. I am constantly surprised at the number of intelligent people who want to believe. They become Christians and the bible is the source for them. This is true no matter what country you live in. I live in Sydney, and I have had many numerous conversations with people who want to save my soul before the day of judgement is upon us.

    They are just more obvious in America because Americans are, without exception, louder, brasher, more egotistical and obnoxious than the rest of the world.

    1. Re:Americans & creationism by LMCBoy · · Score: 1

      "They are just more obvious in America because Americans are, without exception, louder, brasher, more egotistical and obnoxious than the rest of the world."

      You've met us all, have you? No?? Then where do you get off passing judgement on 280 million people like that?

      This statement is certainly more brash and obnoxious than anything I've ever uttered, so unless you are an American, I think you just defeated your own argument...

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    2. Re:Americans & creationism by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Americans != Every individual American.
      When someone says Americans are This or Americans are That, they are talking about the percieved public image of the average American. And (I am an American) Americans as a general rule are louder and more obnoxious than other cultures. That does not mean that each individual American is more obnoxious than each individual non American though.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    3. Re:Americans & creationism by LMCBoy · · Score: 2

      Except that the parent poster did in fact say that all Americans, without exception are more obnoxious, etc. than the rest of the world...he made the generalization, not me.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    4. Re:Americans & creationism by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Oh, well in that case, he's a flaming moron...

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    5. Re:Americans & creationism by Jimmy+Breeze · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I should have said all Americans are, without exception, more obnoxious etc etc and (ahem) can't recognise a joke...

  189. Sigh by Danse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it might be better for the universe if we humans never make it out of this solar system. I'd really hate to see the kind of harm we could inflict due to the almost willfull stupidity that is so commonly displayed on this planet.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Sigh by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Just ask the residents of Marklar, right?

    2. Re:Sigh by GypC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Feeling a bit misanthropistic today?

      Personally, I hope we perfect immortality treatments, interstellar travel, and terraforming so I can see the human race infest the entire galaxy.

      I mean, if you aren't for the human race who are you for?

    3. Re:Sigh by WinDoze · · Score: 2

      I mean, if you aren't for the human race who are you for?

      Clearly, if you're not with us, you're against us!

    4. Re:Sigh by GypC · · Score: 2

      Well, I wouldn't say that, but you are pretty obviously on your own...

    5. Re:Sigh by ronfar · · Score: 1

      Kent: Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but, uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has been taken over -- "conquered", if you will -- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
  190. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

    Were you in an Apple Store? Did they get out the LSD iMac and show you a thing or two?

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  191. oh well... by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 1

    I was almost tempted to make some snide remarks, but unlike most religions, I DO let people make their own choices.

    1. Re:oh well... by RockyJSquirel · · Score: 1

      I was almost tempted to make some snide remarks, but unlike most religions, I DO let people make their own choices.

      And I would have almost been tempted to reply to those snide remarks but I didn't get a chance to.

      No one was tempted to write anything at all; we must live in the best of all possible worlds. Oops, I slipped.

      ;)

      Rocky (More subjunctive than thou) Squirrel

  192. I'm a Devil loving communist. by Openadvocate · · Score: 1

    So I guess I am a devil loving communist. hmm.
    Amazing what can happen to you when you download a ISO image of FreeBSD. I expected a lot of thing, a stable server, new gadets optimized disk drivers. But it seems that I got a little more than I bargained for.

    --
    my sig
  193. praise jeebus! by vistic · · Score: 0

    because it appeals to you personally, just like some religions appeal to different people's sensibilities. there's no reason why the theologian can't be a practical man and like the honda better. personally, i'd rather have the porsche (but only to sell it for some cash, get something like a grand prix, and have fun with whats left... porsche's have big ugly round asses, imho).

    however this is the difference between a person's opinion and actual knowledge and reasonable thought. and they shouldn't be made to direct comparison because they are apples and oranges my friend. the person you replied to was basically correct, there isn't any science behind beliefs. it seems its just there until its proven wrong. and when it is, then the followers of that faith become even more loose in their original interpretations of their scriptures so they can adapt while keeping some aspect of their treasured identity. it's happening even now with christianity in america.

    evolution is a great example of science at work. religion is basically an expanded, groundless opinion (scientifcally speaking of course, we've all seen the televangelists who holler about their own personal revelations and divine experiences until their faces are beet-red) of how the world works and thats all.

    :)

  194. Merchandise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 'objective ministries' store:

    and the Landover Baptist store:

    www.landoverbaptist.org is a spoof website

  195. chmod 666 is evil - but we host on Linux? by bildstorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just wrote a long e-mail to this guy debunking his ideas.

    I did a little digging, and found that, tada, their server is running on Linux, an open source (and hence, in his view, Communist) server. I kindly informed of why chmod works the way it does, and that chmod 666 isn't nearly as powerful as 777, and that, well, they can do the same thing on their server.

    I don't know. Being a Christian myself, these guys are an embarrasment. I know where they get there ideas now more and more. If you want an interesting read on the developments of the Church and the Jews, read Constantine's Sword. Maybe you'll understand why these guys have such misplaced views.

    --
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
    1. Re:chmod 666 is evil - but we host on Linux? by herk · · Score: 1

      I fired off a quick email myself to point out some of this guys fallacies in my eyes, but the address drdinosaur@covenant.org made me wonder, and I didn't spend a whole lot of time working on it. It bounced just the same. =/

      --

      I like ice cream.

  196. The clue is in the merchandise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops the links didn't show:

    The 'objective ministries' store:
    "http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.a spx?stor eid=objectivemin"

    and the Landover Baptist store:

    "http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.aspx?st or eid=bible10"

    www.landoverbaptist.org is a spoof website

  197. Scary and Funny by vanyel · · Score: 1

    The scariest and funniest part about this whole thing is that no one can figure out if it's a hoax or not. That says something right there...

  198. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's people like you that make these hoaxes the wellspring of glee that they are.

  199. Once this gets to public... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple will lose market share!!! BTW, xBSD will NEVER become big - Daemon maskot prevents that. Think about it! You just can not have a demon as your logo!

  200. Hoax? Mmmmaybe.... (GOOGLESAFARI!) by migmigmig · · Score: 1

    Okay, so, everyone has been crowing at how "Fellowship University" isn't listed on Google. Fine.

    So I decided to go to Google and hold my own little Safari of Fun.

    I'll list to you all the links I followed [and apologize in advance if I kill anyones' sites]. It took awhile before I got anything out of google. My first mistake was searching for "Fellowship University" -- all you get from that is the ability to hate search engines for not allowing you to exclude punctuation marks from a quoted string. I know why, I understand lexigraphical indexing (mostly), I still don't like it, and a second-pass process for punctuation marks should still go fast. So nya! Are you listening, Google?

    Anyhow, my first paydirt didn't hit until I used a search of:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=Ba ptist+anti-Christian

    Toward the bottom, I got this link (to the australian broadcast servers):
    http://www.abc.net.au/compass/explore/anti.htm

    Amusingly, they have both the Landover site, and then this other "anti-anti-baptist site" which links to:
    http://www.ilovejesus.com/myhome/jimcarlson/

    Now, unfortunately, www.ilovejesus.com (which I'm very familiar with, it's NOT a hoax site, more's the pity) says that jimcarlson is a 404. Does that mean ilovejesus found out about him and booted him?

    How about "Mt Fellowship Baptist" (which is a good quote from their own pages) ???
    http://www.google.com/search?cat=&q=%22Mt+Fellowsh ip+Baptist%22

    That gives us the OBJECTIVE links and this:
    http://www.orgsites.com/mi/cudi/news.html
    Read down to 03/07/2000 for the pertinant info:

    "It is unacceptable that innocent and impressionable children should be exposed to the sort derogatory depictions of Christians that are becoming all too common on the 'Net," stated Dr. Andrew Miller, pastor of Mt. Fellowship Baptist Church and a member of a group opposing the Landover site, "It is imperative that we as Christians act now to keep these people in check before another incident like the one that happened at Wedgewood Baptist Church happens again.".

    More than that, there's a link to the "OBJECTIVE: Ministries" on that page.

    But, well, let's face it. As Abercrombie and Fitch learned to their supreme disgruntlement, two Wongs do NOT make a White. Two other sites may have been easily duped by this hoax. Or I might have better evidence that it's real. Goddamnit (no pun intended).

    Hmm... but there WAS a link to "OBJECTIVE: ministries" right? Okay, let's grep the internet for that:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Objective% 3A+ministries%22

    Besides the CUDI links the only other useful link is from www.metafilter.com and had to be gotten from the googlecache, but it's just talking about that site as hoax:
    http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kvVdd74wwaoC: www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/16547+%22Objectiv e:+ministries%22&hl=en

    Okay, let's try http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=Ba ptist+anti-Christian+objective

    And we get:
    http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:SO6eFb9I3YAC: www.geocities.com/hands_off_lb/index_old.html+Bapt ist+anti-Christian+objective&hl=en
    "Hands Off Landover Baptist" (google cache)
    If the OBJECTIVE: site is a troll and a hoax, here's your index of all the other ones to go have fun with! (Also lists CUDI on there, w00t) (I think this would be properly described to be an anti-anti-anti-Baptist site?)

    Okay, one more Run through the Google Sprinklers:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=%2 2jim+carlson%22+landover

    The good link from there is:
    http://www.angelfire.com/realm/ninglun/fundamental ist.html
    Here's some correspondence with the author of the site with Carlson. Of course, this also has a letter back from the Landover people, calling Mr Carlson a 16 year old kid. Which is fine... except 16 year old kids don't make nice happy websites like that. If they do, I want to hire him as an intern. [DON'T SEND ME EMAIL, THAT'S A !@!?! JOKE, YA MOPE]

    Luckily for me, I can remember some of the ``offtopic`` pages well enough to find them in google cache: http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:V9xvB3hZdYcC: members.truepath.com/objective/progress.html+Fello wship+Baptist+-Medical+Jesus+anti-Christian&hl=en

    They list there that they were once on the ilovejesus page, and had to flee. So at the worst, we could write the ILJ freekies and ask them for the real poop. But that's too much like real work.

    Anyhow, even more vaguely-subtle "quite probably hoax but not quite sure" stuff on that page. Like changing the purple bear to a rainbow bear to keep people from thinking it's homosexual.

    Dear god.

    March 24, 2000, however....

    Okay, who is good at spotting badly photoshopped text on signs? (sigh)

    I love this guy.

    I hate this guy.

    He makes my head hurt.

    And I mean that in only the best way.

    Have I fallen for a troll? Do I care? I wonder if he'll marry me?

    How about if he'll feed and support me because I didn't get enough work done tonight and I got fired for having so much brainfire over this silly little site?

    I suppose the whole point is that we're all more than prepared to accept that these people really DO exist even when we don't want them to.

    Oh well. For a bonus, if you don't mind waiting for the site to log (it's now late enough that the site is readable again if you're patient), here's all his groovy advertising links. Afaict, a random sampling mostly match against WHOIS registrations. But I'm lazy, so don't take my word for it.

    http://members.truepath.com/objective/ads/

    (Anybody want to research the CUDI site for hoax-or-notahoax? I'm tired and going to sleep)

    Just to test who all is bothering to pay attention to all my slaving hard work and effort I've put into this damn article, I'll throw in one more punchline from google:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22OBJECTIVE% 3A+Christian+Ministries%22

    Click on the THIRD link on the page (served through "turn.to"). The cache entry doesn't work, but the current entry comes in LOUD and CLEAR (if I need to be more obvious: "don't follow those links if you're at work").

    Cheers, folks!

    mig

  201. Religion neutral study of evolution by nusuth · · Score: 1
    You have a few fairly basic misunderstandings in your text that can be trivially answered by studying changes in a population of evolving agents in a religion neutral context. I suggest you to study artificial evolution in genetic algorithms; that way you will see the pure mathematical reasons why evolution works the way it does, and in what alternative ways it could have worked (since a GA researcher is rarely interested in duplicating natural evolution) or failed. All four facts you mention are common to both artifical evolution systems and natural biological beings, and as such can be explained (in the sense that they are not troublesome) thru a purely population mechanistic viewpoint.

    I didn't want to discuss with you just yet because of nonsense in the last paragraph, but once you do your homework about artifical evolution, I will gladly point out how GA concepts map onto natural evolution concepts.

    --

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    1. Re:Religion neutral study of evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your misunderstanding and reaction to my last paragraph. I can only guess as to the reasons why you thought it was nonsense. Every person is different.

      I found this website
      on genetic algorithms. I have no idea how accurate it is, since i have never studied it before. Let me know if you think it contains a poor introduction to the topic or not.

      It seems to me though that genetic algorithms ignore a few facts of life that would seem to make a huge impact.
      Most importantly of all, the more complex a system, the greater impact that small changes have. Eg, the change in genes in a human are much more likely to cause a major change, and a harmful one at that, than a genetic mutation in a very simple organism.
      Secondly, it ignores a lot of environmental factors. Under evolutionary atheistic theory, humans are just animals, and in that regard no different. For that reason, we can guess that, just like humans, upgringing, philosophy in the animals mind, desire, culture, and much more, would affect the upbringing of an animal. Result? An animal with a superior feature (such as the shortening of the arm and locking of the elbow, in the example on that page) may in fact be weaker than an inferior counterpart merely because it was lazier, didn't enjoy a particular activity that the other did, or a myriad of other possibilities.
      Under genetic algorithms and real evolution, changes are gradual and minor (the theory, anyway). There are a number of factors that make such changes have an almost non-existent effect on the chances of the creature's survival above everyone else's.

      Do genetic algorithms deal with the problem I presented? Namely that a multitude of harmful mutations will lie dormant together with one beneficial mutation - and the beneficial one only expressing itself at the same time as the many harmful mutations also will?

      Also do genetic algorithms represent changes in information rather than addition of information? When a genetic mutation occurs, it changes some already existing information, rather than being added. This is a serious question and not a criticism of genetic algorithms, because I don't know anything about this topic.

      Of course, I like others enjoy pointing out that animals do not do any of the things of humans like art, music, etc.

      If you have any good web references for me to learn more about this issue, then please reply to this post with a link to them. I'll see if I can learn about it.

    2. Re:Religion neutral study of evolution by stapedium · · Score: 1

      You speak as if the mathemats of genetic algs are a ground state truth and that the natural world must conform to them. In fact, they are just useful models. They are useful at solving certain sets of problems, however they do not explain many important genetic concepts such as gene penetrance, mosaicism, and fragile genes.

    3. Re:Religion neutral study of evolution by nusuth · · Score: 2
      I found this website [rennard.org] on genetic algorithms. I have no idea how accurate it is, since i have never studied it before. Let me know if you think it contains a poor introduction to the topic or not.

      As an introduction, it looks ok, but I doubt that you can make use of that page since it is loaded with similarities between natural and artificial evolution. Actually evolution is a matemathical/statistical phenomenon, I gave a reference to GAs only because mathematical analysis of evolution is rarely done elsewhere. Lets call this mathematical phenomenon evolution Ems. Biological entities have also been subject to an evolution, lets call that EB. Whether EB is an instance of Ems, or whether EB is an instance of natural/automatic (as in: without any external influence) Ems are different issues and not my focus now. I just want you to find out about Ems, so that we can discuss why I think EB is an instance of unguided Ems, any you can argue why it isn't.

      Under genetic algorithms and real evolution, changes are gradual and minor (the theory, anyway). There are a number of factors that make such changes have an almost non-existent effect on the chances of the creature's survival above everyone else's.

      Do genetic algorithms deal with the problem I presented? Namely that a multitude of harmful mutations will lie dormant together with one beneficial mutation - and the beneficial one only expressing itself at the same time as the many harmful mutations also will?

      Yes, it is called genetic hitchiking in literature. It is a tradeoff, controlled by mapping and crossover operators; higher the probability of meaningful chunks staying together in an offspring(good thing) and persisting in population in time (another good thing), higher the probability of hitchiking (bad thing) and early convergence (a real bad thing.) But keep in mind that had there been no hitchiking as in all bad mutations are immediatly destroyed, a very early convergence is assured, degenerating the GA to hill climbing. Biological equivalent of early convergence is a single species in a single habitat, and not necessarily best fit one on the long term. The reverse of that is high mutation rates and splicing genes at positions that break coherent interpretation, which degenerates the GA to random searh. This has the biological analogy of subjecting sperms to almost lethal doses of radiation while hoping that the mutations will be somehow benefical for the baby.

      Also do genetic algorithms represent changes in information rather than addition of information? When a genetic mutation occurs, it changes some already existing information, rather than being added. This is a serious question and not a criticism of genetic algorithms, because I don't know anything about this topic.

      Yes they do. The plain vanilla GAs almost exclusively use both constant length genome representations, and a direct mapping thru a stateless function onto phenotype. Your critisim is valid in that case. GAs are usually used for static and closed problem solutions, like "there is one or many solutions, and we want to find one or some of them that fits these criteria." In a dynamic problem (such as survival in biology or game playing in AI) potential solutions are infinite and may change in time. Celular automata encodings, variable length phenotypes, evolution of genotype->phenotype mapping etc. are solutions to these. You also need a dynamic objective function, which suggests that even the "same" traits will have different effects over time and should be trated as such.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    4. Re:Religion neutral study of evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      As you probably have guessed I have not heard of Genetic Algorithms up until now. As such, I don't think I'll research it in a day and talk to you. It's definately a topic I'll want to learn more about sometime, but not yet.

      So thanks for introducing it to me. I won't reject your challenges, but will hopefully examine them sometime in the near future.

    5. Re:Religion neutral study of evolution by nusuth · · Score: 1

      When you are done, feel free to contact me on my mail address. /. is not a good place for serious discussion anyway.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    6. Re:Religion neutral study of evolution by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Sure thing, I put your address in my addressbook, hopefully I'll see it there sometime and remember.

  202. Proof for the irony impaired by RockyJSquirel · · Score: 1

    Compare:

    The hilarious tote bag that teaches kids disdain for hindus (Habu the hindu elephant says, "I have so many God's I don't know who to turn to" - Hey Habu, simplify you're life with... Jesus!)
    From "objective: christian ministries"

    http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/productdetail. as px?prodno=objectivemin.2019725

    With

    http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/productdetail. as px?prodno=untouched.1287242

    The "You Make Jesus Vomit" tote bag from Betty Bower's web site (so close to Jesus, we're thinking of taking seperate vacations this year).

    Same seller, same product, same picture even (with different text photoshopped in).

    Rocky J. Squirrel

  203. pending apocalyse?? by beakburke · · Score: 2, Funny

    so if we all "chmod 666" does that mean that jesux will get here faster :P

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
  204. Re:WTF I submitted this same thing 18 hours ago an by DarklordJonnyDigital · · Score: 1

    That's nothing. I accidentally repeated myself four times in the chat window at Everything2, and five minutes later found every one of my writeups voted down to zero.

    No point in complaining, though - they're imaginary points handed out by anonymous nobodies, after all. Keep whor^H^H^H^Hposting, I'm sure we'll both make twenty-five karma in no time.

    Either way, you can count yourself the luckiest man alive that you just made two points with a story submission complaint. ;)

  205. Fellowship University of Kansas actually exists/ed by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2
    This would indicate that there is a "fellowship university". However, their lack of presence on the net indicates either that they are ludites, or that the university has been disbanded.

    However, I commend you for posting this anonymously.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  206. Re:Fellowship University of Kansas actually exists by awharnly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wrong, silly. Read those google results a little more closely.

    See all those commas and colons separationg "Fellowship" from "University"?

    A moment's inspection reveals: You found a list of resumes of people who did research fellowships at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas, or medical fellowships at the Medical Center in Kansas City.

  207. I feel personally insulted... by MKalus · · Score: 2

    ... I am Agnostic (or if I feel spiritual Taoist).

    Damn Christians, always twisting everything around, they don't even diss people correctly.

    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  208. Re:Theomathematics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong.

    Mathematics are not "the science of numbers". It is about building a theory of axioms and theorems where nothing is unproved.

    Arithmosophy is about : 3 is the magic number of the god, and women have 2 tits and 1 pussy == 3 so this proves that our theory is right. Also the height of the pyramids divided with the number of words in the bible == 3 and if you keep searching you'll be finding proof inside everything.

    This is the oposite of mathematics.

  209. This could have come from adequacy.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This looks like it was ripped off from adequacy.org - the most controversial site on the Internet.

  210. Jesux is dying by sporkulum · · Score: 0

    Churchcraft has confirmed: *JESUX is dying.

    Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *JESUX community when recently IDC confirmed that *JESUX accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all parishoners. Coming on the heels of the latest Churchcraft survey which plainly states that *JESUX has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *JESUX is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a John the Baptist to predict *JESUX's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *JESUX faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *JESUX because *JESUX is dying. Things are looking very bad for *JESUX. As many of us are already aware, *JESUX continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeJESUX is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core adherents.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenJESUX leader Theo states that there are 7000 believers of OpenJESUX. How many users of NetJESUX are there? Let's see. The number of OpenJESUX versus NetJESUX rants on talk radio is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetJESUX followers. JESUX/OS letters to the editor are about half of the volume of NetJESUX letters. Therefore there are about 700 adherents of JESUX/OS. A recent article put FreeJESUX at about 80 percent of the *JESUX market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeJESUX users. This is consistent with the number of FreeJESUX street corner proselytizing nutbars.

    Due to the troubles of Jim Bakker, abysmal sexual practices and so on, FreeJESUX went out of business and was taken over by JESUXI who sell another troubled faith. Now JESUXI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *JESUX has steadily declined in market share. *JESUX is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *JESUX is to survive at all it will be among eschatology hobbyist dabblers. *JESUX continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *JESUX is dead.

    Fact: *JESUX is dead

    --
    semper ubi sub ubi
  211. Meanwhile, outside of California by Zoop · · Score: 2

    I hate to disillusion you, but throughout the real Bible belt, you could get Christians falling for this in droves--literally likely over 50% of the population. I grew up in South Carolina, and had the local public radio station tell me that if you play Van Halen's "Stairway to Heaven" backwards, it exhorted you to smoke marijuana. This during our previous Secretary of Education's term as governor.

    They're pretty much equivalent to the political correctness freaks of the left that I met in college--everything you owned had to be checked for PC/TC (theological correctness). No products from countries with incorrect regimes/godless commies, thousands of "scholarly works" with lots of propaganda and incredibly self-referential citations, and an extreme ingroup-outgroup separation.

    So it gets to the point where you could take the PC-ers and tell them that Apple was exploiting the working class and get them to boycott it and take the religious right and tell them they were in league with the devil, and take both of them and tell them they were involved in the illuminati/corporate/UN conspiracy and they'd both believe you uncritically.

    The thing that gave it away for me is that the site's design is too good. Fundies always have crappy design.

    P.S. If reading this as a Christian offends you, go out and tell your bible-thumping bretheren not to be such complete morons. Same goes if you're a World Bank protester and you don't like what I said about the Politically Correct--tell them to read a book or newspaper not written by the collective.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, outside of California by BurntHombre · · Score: 1
      "I hate to disillusion you, but throughout the real Bible belt, you could get Christians falling for this in droves--literally likely over 50% of the population."

      Meanwhile, I'd estimate that nearly 90% of the Slashdot population fell for it. Hmm.

      Did somebody turn off the Critical Thinking switch?

    2. Re:Meanwhile, outside of California by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2
      Meanwhile, I'd estimate that nearly 90% of the Slashdot population fell for it. Hmm.

      90% of Slashdotters fell for the fact that people might have seriously made this (because it seems like there are loonies out there like this). What he was saying about the bible belt is that over 50% of people would believe not just that the creators of the site were serious, but that this was true information. And they would agree with it.

      I mean, just this weekend we had another round of pamphlets under every car's windshield on campus "What the Bible Really Thinks About Homosexuality". Don't they know that we take these and read them with our friends and hang them up because they are hilarious? Don't they know that they probably caused one or two more college students to give up on christianity?

      One of the most classic ones though was the one that said "What You Miss By Being a Christian"-- then you open the pamphlet, and in big red letters-- "HELL!" Then it goes on citing passages of the bible that describe hell as fire and brimstone, burning sulphur, etc. It's like "believe in the bible, because if you don't, the bible says you'll go to hell!" But I don't believe in it so...er nevermind.

      Yes, most slashdotters think this site is ridiculous and totally far-fetched... but from the things I've seen the extreme religious right do, it's not really that surprising.

      (Not to say this is what I think christianity is all about, just that there are people like this.)

      mark
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    3. Re:Meanwhile, outside of California by Arandir · · Score: 2

      Are there morons in the christian faith? Absolutely! There are morons in every faith. And there are moron agnostics and atheists to boot. It is the nature of some people to turn off their brains and believe any asinine crackpot theory presented to them. I know some people who manage to simultaneously believe multiple conflicting conspiracy theories.

      It is not my place to judge whether or not someone is a "true" christian or not. But when I see people believe the words of Jack Chick more fervently than the words in the Bible, my suspicions are that they are not. There are a great many cults who call themselves a christian denomination when they most certainly are not. The foundation of christianity, regardless of flavor, is the words of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. When I see someone spout about the evils of a UN Conspiracy with nary a reference to scripture, I suspect cultism.

      That said, I still can't envision Jack Chick denouncing Mac OSX as a satanic plot, or Bob Jones University banning FreeBSD, or the Patriot Network placing the Open Source in their list of communist conspiracies. This is what I was referring to. Of course there are nutbags out there. But I don't know of any nutbags saying Apple, BSD, or Linux are satanic. But I do know of several hoaxes along those lines.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    4. Re:Meanwhile, outside of California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stairway to Heaven was by LedZep and it says "My sweet Satan" when played backward. Well, *they* say it does. All I hear is gibberish.

      ac

    5. Re:Meanwhile, outside of California by broken77 · · Score: 1
      You must be right. There's no way anyone could be that crazy. Why, that would be like speaking out against the teletubbies because you think one of them is gay. But maybe it's not so far-fetched, considering the power of the covert gay agenda. Or that anyone could possibly think that the reason we were allowed to be attacked on September 11th was that God was punishing America because of the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays... And nobody could possibly suggest that having a school mascot of a blue devil encourages satanism. But don't forget literature. They could never consider burning literature that they think is subversively satanic.

      Ok, I think that's enough. Look, you need to be a little less naive. The evidence you're presenting is purely anecdotal. You assume the world everywhere is just like you've seen it where you grew up. It isn't. There are nutjobs all over the place, and yes, they can think and say some pretty idiotic things, not at all any more far-fetched than the idea of BSD being satanic because of its mascot. Fundies are notorious for coming up with insane theories about things. You just need to realize that, and realize that it is not the fault of your faith, it's just those particular people.

      --

      I modded the Troll Investigation and I got

  212. What a superb parody site! by Doctor+Dark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For me, the giveaways are:-
    The fictitious university,
    The glaring errors in the Game Theory section,
    The sheer stupidity of the opinions. This has to be deliberate, as actual stupid people are not that literate.

    I only respect the opinions of others if I think they are right. Clue, not you God Squad.

    --

    The original Doctor Dark.

  213. Dont know if you noticed... by lcde · · Score: 1

    I checked the site on netcraft and much like 90% of the internet it is running communist linux. tools of the devil.

    --
    :%s/teh/the/g
  214. Buttons by Joel+Ironstone · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons"

    Man I love those lickable buttons. Makes everything taste so good

  215. Hexley by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

    I wonder if the mascot Hexley is named after T. H. Huxley, 'Darwin's bulldog' and the strongest defender of the theory of evolution after it was published.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:Hexley by artels · · Score: 1

      I believe he is.

  216. It's definetly a hoax by usermilk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I am almost positive this article is a hoax.
    Here is the member list, it looks pretty satirical: http://members.truepath.com/objective/members.html and here's part of a thread about the site on google groups: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&fra me=right&th=3d39f9a7c118de89&seekm=a9nj4o%24f1f%24 1%40grapevine.wam.umd.edu#link1.

    For me the funniest part is that whoever is perpertrating this satire has the balls to get the site hosted by a Christian web host!

    1. Re:It's definetly a hoax by Oswald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was going to mention that page too; I think it pretty well cinches the parody theory. My personal favorite is the treasurer/accountant who offers a 10% discount to non-believers willing to convert on the spot.

  217. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is POD really a christian rock group?

  218. Christians by mbbac · · Score: 1
    it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an 'Open Source' license, which is just another name for Communism.

    If the computer elite are mostly Atheists and Pagans (probably a true statement), then shouldn't Christians quit using computers and go back to typewriters?
    --

    mbbac

  219. Put a big smile on my face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm... unable to login... methinks I shouldn't have waited so many months to login again...

    I read the article, thinking, "Typical useless religious arguing, clearly making wild assumptions instead of doing actual research or actually thinking." I decided to see if the author had an email address available anywhere on the page.

    drdinosaur@covenant.org

    That says it all for me. After all, what fundmentalist, ultra-conservative Christian is going to admit that the earth is old enough for the dinosaurs to have walked on it all those years ago ?

    Cheers
    Craigus

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

  220. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by zaren · · Score: 1

    Well, you might want to note the page name - propaganda.html... I'd say that's a bit of a giveaway there :)

    -----
    An evolutionary OS?
    Aww, FSCK!

    --
    Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
  221. Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "belief" by moorewr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thanks for your post. I have to point something out, though, that is forever being ignored in these discussion, which is that science, and evolutionary science in particular, is not a belief system. I don't "believe in" evolution, or gravity, or optics. I accept the scientific evidence.

    There is a serious attempt in the country to make a false equivalence of religion and science, and we must guard against it.

  222. microsoft in other languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since this is a bashM$ site...
    what does the sound "mycrosoft vindows" or "billgaytse" roughly mean in other languages
    like maybe algonkian, sioux,xhosa,croat,ossetian,cantonese,native australian languages, armaic,hebrew..?
    this is a international site, right?

  223. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Slarty · · Score: 1

    Uh, no...

    --
    Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
  224. Evolution != Abiogenesis by MosesJones · · Score: 2

    Abiogenesis is the creation of the first self replicating life form. Done in a lab but how it happened on earth, who knows exactly ?

    Its strange that after each proof of "what must
    be proven else..." that another is created. If you want to say that God, little green men or whom ever created the first self replicating piece of clay or whatever, then fine. You have no evidence and no proof, you ask for Science to give proof but offer none in return.

    In terms of Adultery in the Bible, they have incest in there which many people would regard as much worse. Also condones murder, including of infants.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  225. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    POD is some of the worst crap I've ever heard on the radio.

  226. Christian IRC by The+Last+Post · · Score: 1

    Granted, this is a hoax. But if you want to see just how wacky some fundamentalists can get, visit irc.christian-chat.net:6667 sometime. It is a place totally devoid of free speech and, well, freedom in general. I actually knew of a Christian IRC server that changed thier port from 6667 to 7000 because thier patrons were complaining about the "666".

    1. Re:Christian IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a strong possibility that this is not
      a hoax. I am a Christian, but I reject the
      funny-mentalist views. As I was a student at
      Bob Jones University for two years ( my
      recovery lasted 20 years thereafter ),
      I know that there are idiots who spread such
      garbage, and, unfortunately, many more who believe it.

      Check out nobojo.com for some interesting
      materials. They even have an excerpt from
      one of BJU's own in-house high school science textbooks.
      A must read...

      But that explains my problems after having
      attempted to do all-nighter iso downloads on
      my FreeBSD setup. Every night the machine
      would crash at precisely 3:01 AM. And yes,
      a DEMON did it, just to piss me off. Well,
      I 'cast' the evil influence out (requesting
      kernel statistics on a firewall for which I
      had not loaded the module).

  227. A few comments on the mistakes by edremy · · Score: 2

    1. Genetic mutations are almost always harmful/harmless, never beneficial (in the sense of different fur). The ratio of harmful mutations is much, much higher than neutral ones. I'm not sure if any beneficial mutations have been observed, but I could be wrong.

    You are wrong. We have indeed seen beneficial mutations, including antibiotic resistance in bacteria and bacterial digestion of nylon precusors. One of my personal favorites is tetrachromaticity, as this is a *human* mutation that offers a distinct advantage to a few lucky women.

    2. We find the genetic code for the variety of species is present in the parent. With current data we are quite clearly dealing with genetic code that already existed, not through fresh mutations.

    Again, wrong. We've seen new mutations appear: nylon didn't exist in nature before the 1940s. Now bacteria can eat it. Other types of mutations scramble existing code and generate new: you can claim that rearranging all the letters in a /. post doesn't introduce new information, but I can take the words in your post above and make it say most anything.

    I can't argue your latter bit: I'm a chemist rather than a biologist, so I see a different set of wrong arguments against evolution.

    This problem is perfectly consistent with Creation theory though,

    Here's the real crux of your problem. What is "Creation Theory"? Is it scientific? Is it testable? Is it falsifiable? "God did it" is none of these.

    Please explain the testable, scientific creation theory. The folks on talk.origins have been asking for *years* and have never gotten one.

    Eric

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    1. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      >Here's the real crux of your problem. What is
      >"Creation Theory"? Is it scientific? Is it testable?
      >Is it falsifiable? "God did it" is none of these.

      "Chance did it". Given billions of years I can argue that anything is possible. If I don't understand, or if I can't explain why there are no missing links, it's because we haven't found it yet or worked it out.

      What's the difference? Just for the record though, I don't consider "God did it" a good enough example, when trying to explain something that seems unexplainable. It is acceptable when asked what caused the flood to say "God did it" because that is what the Bible says - and that is what we base our creation theory on. However, when asked, "why are there millions of years old dinosaur fossils if the earth is only 6,000 years old" I don't consider "God did it to test us" an adequate answer.

      >Please explain the testable, scientific creation
      >theory. The folks on talk.origins have been asking for
      >*years* and have never gotten one.

      This does not sound like a very fair request, given two facts:
      1. Science by necessity must reject theories previously thought to be true and later discovered false - the theory of evolution has undergone corrections, and so while the underlying idea remains a constant, the specifics change
      2. Both macro-evolution (the process by which all life began from a small organism to the complex lifeforms we see today) and creation are areas of philosophy. As such, neither fit the requirements for being science. Please, look up science and see what it means.
      Also, I have taken the time to understand evolution. I have also read up on creation theory, and have come to understand it. If you (or the guys at talk.origins) can't put in the effort to do the same for creation theory, why should I have to type it up for you? The information is out there, go find it.

      Philosophy is no less important than science, it is just examined in a different way. While science seems to deal with specifics - facts and laws - philosophy deals more with how these fit together, the essence of existence.

      As for beneficial mutations it seems I was wrong. I had heard that there were some, but I do know that they are a small amount compared to harmful/harmless ones.

      On the second point, I'm not sure what you are saying. Nylon didn't exist? Here is the summary of a plant which I can't reference, since I lent my books to someone else, but I could find out at a later date if you would like to read it:
      A certain plant was being selectively bread. The farmers picked the best ones from the crop and bred from them, doing this process for 100 years or so. Eventually they reached a stage where the crop would not produce any more increased yield. They had reached a stage where the ultimate potential had been reached, and the plant could improve no further through selective breeding.

      This is how creation natural selection works - an existing set of genetic variety present in the parent. Eventually diversity runs out (which is why people from the same race look similar). In some parts of the world the races are mixing again and their children are showing the full spectrum of skin colors. In the macro-evolution model, you would not presume that the plant over a lifespan of 100 years could possibly improve so much and then reach it's maximum potential. Creationists argue that there were original "kinds" (whatever they were) that contained the genetic diversity for all life we see today - skin color, eyes, hair length, etc. macro-evolution theory says that all this diversity came from mutations.

    2. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      Also, I have taken the time to understand evolution.

      Do you really understand it if you didn't even know that beneficial mutations had been observed?

      I have also read up on creation theory, and have come to understand it. If you (or the guys at talk.origins) can't put in the effort to do the same for creation theory, why should I have to type it up for you? The information is out there, go find it.

      Believe me, I and hundreds of other have scoured creationist websites for this elusive theory. It has not materialized. To date, noone has cared to explicate a scientific Theory of Creation (fyi you need a falsifiable hypothesis if you want to take a crack at coming up with one).

    3. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by edremy · · Score: 2
      Please explain the testable, scientific creation theory. The folks on talk.origins have been asking for *years* and have never gotten one.

      This does not sound like a very fair request, given two facts:

      No, it is the *absolute crux* of the matter. "Scientific" creationists want evolution and SC taught side by side as if they were equal theories. They are not: SC is *not* a theory, it is not scientific.

      Both macro-evolution (the process by which all life began from a small organism to the complex lifeforms we see today) and creation are areas of philosophy. As such, neither fit the requirements for being science

      WRONG! Evolution is science. It is testable. It is falsifiable. It is both a fact (we've seen it in a lab, we've seen fossil records that show very clearly how one animal came from another) and a theory.

      The mere fact that you differentiate between micro and macroevolution shows that you don't understand evolution: they are the same thing. It's like saying that an inch and a mile aren't both measures of distance since once is so much larger than the other.

      Finding a fossil of a flowering plant in a Cambrian strata would instantly disprove evolution. That's what makes evolution science.

      I have also read up on creation theory, and have come to understand it. If you (or the guys at talk.origins) can't put in the effort to do the same for creation theory, why should I have to type it up for you?

      We *have* put in the effort. It's garbage. There is *no* evidence for creationism. None. The few "facts" presented by creationists to support their theory are simply wrong. My personal bugaboo, being a physical chemist, is the classic "2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution". It's wrong. Scientists have explained to creationists like Gish and Ham many times why it's wrong. Guess what: it's still up at answersingenesis.

      You claim that you understand the theory of creation. Present it. You've dodged once. If it's truly scientific, we can see how it stacks up against the evidence, just like we can with evolution. If it's just philosophy, then teach it in Sunday school and don't bother the rest of the world with it anymore.

      On the second point, I'm not sure what you are saying. Nylon didn't exist?

      Yes. Nylon didn't exist prior to 1940. It's man made. Yet bacteria have evolved to eat the (man-made) waste products. This ability arose from a change in a totally unrelated enzyme due to a beneficial mutation.

      This is how creation natural selection works - an existing set of genetic variety present in the parent

      See above nylon example: trivially falsified. The ability to eat nylon was not present in the genetic code of any organism prior to 1940. Antibiotic resistance is another good example: vancomycin resistance didn't exist until very recently.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    4. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Would you like the full and complete Theory of Creation? Well, if you ask me what mine is it's thus: In the beginning, there was nothingness. Then God spoke, and the universe as we know it began. Then God started life. Now God sits back and laughs at us.

      The issue here is that even if every aspect of Evolution, from Macro to Micro to The Big Bang to the Big Crunch is proven, it doesn't disprove the existance of God. I think it is absolutely STUPID to argue that the existance of God precludes Evolution, the Big Bang, or anything else, doing that is like saying that it's impossible for God to make something happen. If God decides that his mechanism for creating life is going to be a huge fucking explosion and then a bunch of bacteria developing into people then who the FUCK are you to tell him he can't do it that way? I think that science and the purpose of science is to understand everything around us as well as we can in order to better understand God. The concept that we have of God right now may be COMPLETELY wrong, but the more we know about the Universe, the more we know about God, because the Universe, the Earth, and each one of us exists as part of God.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    5. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      Well, I was asking for a scientific theory of Creation and what you've given is simply assertion. But as to the main thrust of your argument, I agree. God doesn't preclude science, science doesn't preclude god.

      because the Universe, the Earth, and each one of us exists as part of God.

      Good Ol' Pantheistic Solipsism, a philosophy I try to believe in at least 3 days out of every week.... :)

    6. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Evolutionary theory:
      The earth was created around 4 billion years ago.

      Is this scientific? Is it testable?

      "There must be a way to prove the theory wrong. If we can't prove it wrong, it is not a scientific theory. This idea of a theory being falsifiable is one of the most important aspects of science. The theory, "beyond Earth there is intelligent life in the universe," may be true, but it is not a scientific theory since there is no way to prove it false."

      Creation theory:
      The earth is around 6,000 years old

      Is this testable? Which of the two statements, the evolutionary or creationist one, is easier to affirm or deny? Can any of us give an experiment that's results will demonstrate whether the statement is true or false?

      Evolutionary statement:
      Genetic mutations were the creator of all genetic diversity, leading to everything that exists today.

      Have you an experiment to prove this? Heck, even different groups of humans at previous, or further stages of evolution would help. How is this statement scientific?

      http://www.csicop.org/youngskeptics/education/re so urces/sciencedef.html

      >Finding a fossil of a flowering plant in a Cambrian
      >strata would instantly disprove evolution. That's what
      >makes evolution science.

      That's not enough. You need to be able to show a set of experiments whereby we can know if evolutionary theory is true or false. Otherwise this is just a philosophical argument.

      Besides, that's a pretty weak requirement for destroying evolution. Why? There are mountain ranges across the earth with a later period buried underneath a new period. The explanation that shifting ground caused them to overturn is insufficient, since in one case it is an area around 50 miles wide!

      Besides, dating method is flawed and impossible to argue with since it is so unscientific. What would happen if a flower was found blooming in a cambrian strata? The "scientists" would simply say, evolution of flowering plants began earlier than we thought!

      As for the nylon example - there was a stream of germs that was found in a hospital completely immune to all antibiotics. Presumably, one, or some of this germ stream had developed an immunity and then become the sole surviving creature since everything else was destroyed by the anti-biotics. What happened then was that the carrier of this germ went outside for a walk. After a few days or whatever, the germ was wiped out. Despite being immune to anti-biotics, it had lost information that made it able to defend itself against other germs - in the hospital this wasn't an issue.

      Give me an example of added information that is the beginning of the process to evolution.

      What are you looking for in an explanation of Creation theory? I can point you to the Bible, that is where we get our authority from. You will find an account of the beginnings of the universe, and the course of human history from then until a short time after the death of Jesus. What more do you want from Creationists?

    7. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      I don't know everything about evolution. I had a suspicion that beneficial mutations had existed. Just because there is one thing I don't know doesn't mean I don't understand it overall.

      As for the creation theory, as I said elsewhere look to the Bible, it contains the creation of the universe and the history of man from the beginning up to a few years after Jesus' ascension. Creation is a philosophy not a science. As such, it can still be disproven, but it's not the same process as science. Could you tell me the falsifiable hypotheses of evolutionary theory please? Give me an example of what observations or experiments would demonstrate it to be false.

    8. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      There can't possibly be a Scientific Theory of Creation. It's specifically stated biblically that the whole rigamarole is faith based. So no matter what we find, we will never find ABSOLUTE proof that God doesn't exist, nor will we find proof that he does. If we did, it wouldn't be faith anymore, would it?

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    9. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by mdwebster · · Score: 1
      The long version? :)

      "The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
      - Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

      As to falsifiablity, I'm cribbing from the Talk.origins website here as they are a wonderful resource and I am a layman myself when it comes to these matters, an interested layman, but a layman nonetheless.

      Evolution and common descent are certainly falsifiable. One way to disprove them would be to show that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Not surprisingly, many creationists are trying to do just that. One could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or trilobites, organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago, would be one way to do this.

      In addition to being falsifiable, evolution makes a large number of verifiable predictions. It predicts that closely related organisms will share a large amount of the same genetic material. It predicts an ordering of the fossil record, in which animals like mammals never appear before the first reptiles. It predicts that isolated regions of the planet will be populated by living organisms that are unique throughout the world. It predicts anatomical similarities between genetically similar organisms. It predicts the existence of atavisms and vestigial structures that were useful to ancestral forms but are much less useful to present forms. And so on.

      While it is true that these types of predictions are based on prior observations of the evidence, so are the predictions of any scientific theory. In the scientific endeavor, observations are collected, a theory is built to explain them, and the theory is tested by comparing its predictions with further observations.

    10. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Still seems to only fit philosophy. Science must have a falsafiable statement clearly showing how it may be tested, eg:

      "My right hand thumb will reduce in length by 5 millimeters if I do 20 star jumps a day for one week". The way to test this is very clear, and so are the ways in which it can be disproven.

      The examples you gave are different - the ways to test it are very unclear, and the ways to disprove it had to be listed, they weren't immediately known.

      Besides, some of the ways to disprove it have been done with people ignoring it. Many different animals and plants have been discovered alive that were thought extinct for millions of years, virtually unchanged. If you would like, I could try to find the list. In fact, the famous trilobite has been found alive in parts of the world - although if this is a very elaborate hoax I would be happy for someone to point it out. Doesn't matter though, since there are many more living "fossils".

      As for ordering strata, that is very subjective. A strata is given it's age by the presence of certain fossils in it. Fossils are given their age based on the strata they were in. Very circular. In the end, these dates are based on the very subjective dating methods which have been repeatedly demonstrated to give wildly inaccurate data for samples where the date is known. For older samples where the date is not known, how can we be sure the reading is correct when it is incorrect for dates we do know?

      As for vestigial structures, there used to be a list of over 100 in the human body. That list has been almost eliminated as the function of these previosuly "useless" structures became known.

      And again on the topic of strata - around the world different ages are shown to be in the wrong order. Older ages sitting on top of younger ages when it should be the other way around. Excuses like shifting ground are insufficient since the surface area is sometimes quite large, making shifts almost impossible, and shows no evidence of shifts.

      On the topic of a young earth, around 6,000 years old, history and culture at least seem to vindicate our view. Language, for example, seems to have first existed in a very advanced, complex form at the beginning, and from there degenerated into a simplified, less complex version. As for dating methods, there are some which support us, some which contradict. They are a lot based on assumptions that are not always fair. The dating methods that support millions of years have been shown to be especially flawed over and over.

      I'm not sure exactly how many examples of evidence contradicting the expectations of the evolutionary model, but I doubt it will help to mention them. If you are interested in some more in-depth information on any of this stuff I wrote, then let me know. I'll dig up the information for you so you can reference and examine it yourself.

    11. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by edremy · · Score: 2

      You're so confused about these issues that conversation is difficult.

      Evolutionary theory: The earth was created around 4 billion years ago. Is this scientific? Is it testable?

      1. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the age of the earth. It requires an old earth, but we get the data from geology.
      2. Testable? Of course. There are literally dozens of different tracks of evidence that show an old earth: radioactive dating, sedimentation rates, magnetic field reversals, glaciation evidence, etc.
      3. Creation science has it at 6k years. Testable? Yes. All evidence shows that this is not the case. Every bit of it. Not a *single* piece of evidence shows otherwise. You are welcome to troll the creationist web sites looking for something, but what they claim as evidence is laughable.

      Ergo, creation theory is *wrong*. You can dance around the issue as much as you want, but you simply can't ignore the facts. (Well, it appears that you and other creationists can, but people living in the real world can't.)

      Besides, dating method is flawed and impossible to argue with since it is so unscientific. What would happen if a flower was found blooming in a cambrian strata? The "scientists" would simply say, evolution of flowering plants began earlier than we thought!

      Again, there are so many misconceptions in here that it's clear you do not understand science. Dating methods are *not* flawed. You are quite welcome to present any evidence you think proves this. Unlike some of the tricky bio that I have to rely on experts in that field for info, as a physical chemist I can blow them out of the water by myself.

      Second, a flowering plant in Cambrian strata would certainly prove evolution wrong. *Land* plants hadn't evolved by the Cambrian, much less flowering ones. They're a quite recent invention. Finding a fossil 300MY before any precursors appeared would be a disproof of evolution. You're quite welcome to look for one.

      As for the nylon example - there was a stream of germs that was found in a hospital completely immune to all antibiotics.

      You're babbling here. Nylon is not an antibiotic. You clearly don't understand the premise here. Nylon did not exist before 1940. Why would an organism be able to eat the waste products before nylon existed? Hint: they couldn't: a *new* enzyme was created by a favorable mutation to do this.

      Ditto vancomycin resistance. Please read the details None of that existed until quite recently.

      Give me an example of added information that is the beginning of the process to evolution.

      I've given you several: nylon eating, antibiotic resistance, tetrachromaticity. You choose to simply ignore them.

      What more do you want from Creationists?

      I want them to present a scientific, testable, non-falsified theory of creationism or get the fuck out of science classrooms . Teach your fairy tales in Sunday school.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    12. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Your post just irritates me. I get tired repeating myself to five people.

      >Testable? Of course. There are literally dozens of different tracks of evidence
      >that show an old earth: radioactive dating, sedimentation rates, magnetic field
      >reversals, glaciation evidence, etc.

      Ack! Again, I say, that many or all of these dating methods have been
      demonstrated to be inaccurate for known dates, so how can we trust them for
      unknown dates?
      And as far as I recal, magnetic field reversals supported the 6000 year old
      earth, not the 4.5 billion year old earth.
      Here we go: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
      Erosion rates also show that the earth should have been flat a very long time
      ago.
      As for glaciers - I visited New Zealand where they have some glaciers left. As
      we were driving to one, I saw a post that said the glacier was up to this point
      150 years ago. We kept driving for a few kilometers and eventually arrived at
      the walk to the glacier. The glacier was incredibly small compared to what it
      was only 150 years ago. Not only that, but the forest had grown back in that
      short time. I'm sure this is not what you meant by glaciation evidence - you
      are probably talking about pockets of oxygen in them? That reminds me of
      another story of a buried aircraft from WW2 in ice. Showed that ice built up a
      lot quicker than was previously thought, here it is: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-226.htm
      Radiocarb on dating has been demonstrated repeatedly in the Creation magazine to
      be wildly inaccurate. They don't date the strata themselves, but send them off
      to recognised and respected laboratories. I suggest you grab some Creation
      magazines and read these examples for yourself.

      >Creation science has it at 6k years. Testable? Yes. All evidence shows that
      >this is not the case. Every bit of it. Not a *single* piece of evidence shows
      >otherwise. You are welcome to troll the creationist web sites looking for
      >something, but what they claim as evidence is laughable.

      I don't just use the creationist websites. Do you get all your information from
      the internet? As for the age of the earth, yes there is evidence.
      cultural evidence - I mentioned this in another post somewhere on this
      thread. Language has come from a beginning of complexity and completion, and
      since then been changed, had vocabulary and inflections reduced, and words
      simplified
      There are other examples I have seen, but as I said I don't have that
      information in front of me, I have loaned it to someone else.

      >Ergo, creation theory is *wrong*. You can dance around the issue as much as you
      >want, but you simply can't ignore the facts. (Well, it appears that you and
      >other creationists can, but people living in the real world can't.)

      What facts? The dubious dates from methods that have repeatedly demonstrated to
      be false and wildly innacurate for known dates? I'm not sure why I should
      accept that. Or perhaps the overwhelming evidence of missing links, that should
      be there but simply aren't. Or maybe the fact that humans are radically
      different from every other living creature, with art, music, religion, clothing,
      etc. Perhaps the experience of many people worldwide who have had supernatural
      experiences - miraculous healings, out of body experiences where they have seen
      things going on while unconscious, and then explained them in detail afterwards.
      What about people who have control of the Djinn (or think they do) that kill
      animals in rituals without going near them? I'm sure you though reject this
      because it's simply not possible in your worldview. If you were/are honest
      though, you will examine it. There are people everywhere with stories to tell
      (many just misinterpretation of the experience), but likewise some who'se
      experiences are genuine. Again, I'm probably a crackpot in your eyes because of
      this statement - if that is your response then there is no point me talking with
      you. It shows your unwillingness to consider opposing views. However, if you
      are not so ignorant as to reject without knowledge, then I encourage you to
      examine the supernatural (beyond the X-Files) and you will find a world that has
      largely been hidden from the west through our culture.
      A flowering plant in a Cambrian strata? I'm sure I have seen an example
      or five somewhere of creatures/plants in the wrong strata. Again, I don't have
      my material here, but I'll certainly try to find it soon when I get my hands on
      it.

      >Again, there are so many misconceptions in here that it's clear you do not
      >understand science. Dating methods are *not* flawed. You are quite welcome to
      >present any evidence you think proves this. Unlike some of the tricky bio that
      >I have to rely on experts in that field for info, as a physical chemist I can
      >blow them out of the water by myself.

      I certainly shall once I get my books back. I have many examples. What makes
      you so sure it's accurate? Have you seen or heard of it tested with strata
      where the date is absolutely known (would have to be recent for the date to be
      known) and the tests have proven correct around 99% of the time? From what I
      have seen, a lot of these dating methods require strata of at least a certain
      minimum age. These ages are usually beyond anything we have that we know 100%
      is from that time. So then we can't ever test these dating methods. That makes
      them flawed from the beginning. Unless I'm missing something here...

      >Second, a flowering plant in Cambrian strata would certainly prove evolution
      >wrong. *Land* plants hadn't evolved by the Cambrian, much less flowering ones.
      >They're a quite recent invention. Finding a fossil 300MY before any precursors
      >appeared would be a disproof of evolution. You're quite welcome to look for
      >one.

      I'll see what I can do

      >You're babbling here. Nylon is not an antibiotic. You clearly don't understand
      >the premise here. Nylon did not exist before 1940. Why would an organism be
      >able to eat the waste products before nylon existed? Hint: they couldn't: a
      >*new* enzyme was created by a favorable mutation to do this.

      My germ example was completely relevant. You have a string of genes, eg
      "FfEGjj". When creating nylon was it the equivalent of changing the genes to
      "FfEGJj", or of adding new information, like "FfEGjjII"? I suspect it was the
      former. The change in the enzyme would have at least been a modification, like
      in the germ example, rather than an addition of information.

      >>Give me an example of added information that is the beginning of the process
      >>to evolution.

      >I've given you several: nylon eating, antibiotic resistance, tetrachromaticity.
      >You choose to simply ignore them.

      Yes, but was it changing information or the addition? This is an important
      point.

      >>What more do you want from Creationists?

      >I want them to present a scientific, testable, non-falsified theory of
      >creationism or get the fuck out of science classrooms . Teach your fairy tales
      >in Sunday school.

      That's stupid. I fully acknowledge Creation as a philosophy, not a science. To
      me that doesn't make it invalid, just a different method of arguing. Science is
      probably a means to providing evidence for philosophical arguments. This is why
      creation and evolution theory can often be confused for science. Now as for the
      classroom...your comments are based on the assumption that I will somehow agree
      with you that my beliefs are fairy tales. That is absurd, of course. I believe
      that they are a close reflection of the truth, and if anything they should be
      solely presented in the classroom, and only fact at that. That would include
      presenting to students the process of natural selection, since that has been
      observed. The theory that all life came from a single celled organism and
      multiplied and dapted through genetic mutations - that is not observable, and
      is merely an interpretation of the available scientific data. Don't mix science
      with philosophy.

    13. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Again, I say, that many or all of these dating methods have been demonstrated to be inaccurate for known dates"
      You can SAY it all you want, but until you actually provide said evididence, your argument is null.

      "nd as far as I recal, magnetic field reversals supported the 6000 year old earth, not the 4.5 billion year old earth"
      Could you actually say why instead of just linking a site?

      "rosion rates also show that the earth should have been flat a very long time
      ago."
      That's absurd. Erosion of high land masses is counteracted by rising landmasses through plate tectonics.

      "I don't just use the creationist websites"
      You just linked two.

      "As for the age of the earth, yes there is evidence. cultural evidence - I mentioned this in another post somewhere on this thread. Language has come from a beginning of complexity and completion, and since then been changed, had vocabulary and inflections reduced, and words
      simplified"
      Not really. Languages only get more and more complicated. Compare Spanish to English. English is a much more complicated, and far newer, language.

      "there are other examples I have seen, but as I said I don't have that information in front of me,"
      If you can't reference it, you can't use it.

      "I'm not sure why I should accept that. Or perhaps the overwhelming evidence of missing links, that should be there but simply aren't"
      HAHAHAHHA. I'm sorry. That's just so absurd. Do you really think that all bones fossilize? Do you have THAT much of a lack of understanding?

      "Or maybe the fact that humans are radically
      different from every other living creature, "
      We aren't that different from apes, actually. We're nearly genetically identical except about a half dozen pairs.

      "with art, music, religion, clothing,
      etc. "
      All of those are attributed to our enlarged Frontal Association Area (the front part of our brain). Animals with larger FAA's are commonly more "intelligent". The closest to ours is apes, who are able to actually learn languages.

      "Perhaps the experience of many people worldwide who have had supernatural
      experiences"
      Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.

      "I'm sure you though reject this
      because it's simply not possible in your worldview"
      Actually, I'll reject it because you've provided no evidence.

    14. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As for the creation theory, as I said elsewhere look to the Bible"
      You mean that horrifically translated peice of WASP crap?

    15. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by edremy · · Score: 2

      Your post just irritates me. I get tired repeating myself to five people.

      As do scientists to the ICR. We repeat and repeat and the knowledge just bounces off. The ICR repeats its lies. Let's take a look at an example

      Radiocarbon dating has been demonstrated repeatedly in the Creation magazine to be wildly inaccurate. They don't date the strata themselves, but send them off to recognised and respected laboratories. I suggest you grab some Creation magazines and read these examples for yourself.

      I have. Let's, for example, look at their argument that radioactive decay rates aren't constant This is of course very important since a dozen different radioactive clocks date the earth and the universe to a lot older than 6K years, and the ICR cannot allow that since they must swear that they believe the 6K date.

      First, we see that experimental decay rates have a 1% error bar on them. Yep they do: the article then goes on to state that this shows that the rates could vary tremendously since nobody has checked in the last 50 years. That's simply wrong: even without experiments directly checking, people operating nuclear power plants would know. So would biological researchers who work with short-lived isotopes daily.

      The first two reasons why to believe in changing decay rates aren't worthy of discussion. Backed by experimental data both would win Nobel prizes when shown true. (There can be slight alterations in some decay rates, most commonly those with k-capture in certain molecules since k-capture involves the electron density around the nucleus, but these don't affect most radioactive clocks.) Why not publish and win fame and fortune?

      Radiohaloes: I assume they are talking about Po halos. Old argument

      Speed of light changing? Didn't you claim in another post that ICR had given up on this one? Given that c is a fundamental constant, the universe itself wouldn't exist with a large change in c.

      Observed values of half lives. He's somehow amazed that thay have such different values for different isotopes. This is such a bizarre comment that I don't even know what to make of it. Is he also amazed at the difference in the strength of gravity and the strong nuclear force?

      He now goes on to do some curve fitting. His math is correct, but he gives no reason *why* we should believe alpha and beta are changing: he simply plugs in random numbers until he gets the answer he wants. That's not how science is done.

      Now, let's see if there's any good evidence that alpha doesn't change. Oh, here we go. SN1987a happened 170,000 years ago and the isotopes created by the supernova decay at exactly the same rate they do on earth today. Or perhaps the evidence from a natural atomic reactor that atomic physics was the same ~1.7 billion years ago as it is today?

      This is pretty typical creationist stuff. The arguments presented make little sense, extrapolate from experimental error into something huge, make up numbers where appropriate and finally don't agree with what we see in the real world.

      I'm going to stop here. There's no real point in further discussion: you've decided that the world is 6K years old and that evolution is a sham. If you want to believe that I won't further disabuse you.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    16. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Your responses are starting to annoy me. First of all, forget the changing speed of light theory. It was proposed, analysed and rejected because it had too many problems. It's history. Forget it. Stop talking as if we still propose it.

      Second of all, you are just presenting the reason why the dating must work, and laughing at creationist excuses for why it doesn't. This is just stupid. It's like that play of Galileo I read in school. The Catholic Church basically said "Let's work out what we would expect to see in the telescope before we look through it." And then, when they decided they said "There's no need for us to look in your telescope because we already know what we will see". Congratulations on replicating that behaviour. I say to you "There have been many times when samples that the date is known for have given wildly innacurate results. Go find out for yourself." And then you say "This is why the dating works, so I don't need to see your examples".

      Fact: The dating method gives false dates for samples where their date is known
      Therefore there is something wrong with the method. Whether the current creationist proposals of what it is that is wrong are correct doesn't matter, because somewhere there is a false assumption.

      So when I said "I suggest you grab some Creation magazines and read these examples for yourself" and you said "I have", you weren't actually talking about the same thing as me.

    17. Re:A few comments on the mistakes by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      The examples you gave are different - the ways to test it are very unclear, and the ways to disprove it had to be listed, they weren't immediately known.

      So science is supposed to only deal with things a simpleton can understand? Maybe the ways to disprove it weren't immediately known to you but you seem bright enough, I'm sure you could have come up with a few if you'd thought about it for a few minutes first.

      In fact, the famous trilobite has been found alive in parts of the world - although if this is a very elaborate hoax I would be happy for someone to point it out.

      I'd be happy for any proof of it. I'm not finding any on the newsgroups or the web and you'd think there'd be a bit of buzz about it if it were true.

      As for vestigial structures, there used to be a list of over 100 in the human body. That list has been almost eliminated as the function of these previosuly "useless" structures became known.

      Yay for science! Really though, this does not at all extrapolate to mean we'll find a use for all of them.

      And again on the topic of strata - around the world different ages are shown to be in the wrong order. Older ages sitting on top of younger ages when it should be the other way around.

      You do jump around, don't you? I'm afraid that geologists have been well able to explain any of these that I've ever heard of through the nifty theory of plate tectonics and erosion.

      Excuses like shifting ground are insufficient since the surface area is sometimes quite large, making shifts almost impossible, and shows no evidence of shifts.

      Do you have evidence that this is the case or is this just an argument from incredulity?

      As for dating methods, there are some which support us, some which contradict. They are a lot based on assumptions that are not always fair. The dating methods that support millions of years have been shown to be especially flawed over and over.

      By whom and where? What are your objections to the data collected here? You really need to start providing evidence or cites and not just make these assertions.

  228. Google's cache for Jesux by Zenithal · · Score: 1

    Not suprisingly, Jesux has gone over its bandwidth cap.

    Here's a link to the google cache for it

    --


    Aaron
    AaronCameron.net
  229. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny -clarification by tcm614ce · · Score: 1

    What you're saying is that the hoax is quiet well written but not as good as it could be. Those of us who have been there would catch this. i.e. if this article was for honest real, listening to Christian Rock would put this man in the heathen bin, not the "cleaned up" bin.

    --
    Error: Success
  230. Isn't that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the same thing as Nigonometry?

    :)

  231. Re: No hoax - There ARE REAL PEOPLE like this by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    It's a funny article, but I'm not sure it's a hoax. (I've heard the hoax-supporting evidence.) What many may not know, is that there really are zealots who are this foaming-at-the-mouth luney.

    Long ago, as an early teen, I was taken by Mommy to church to listen to one. He preached to us about the evils of "rock" music (anything not explicitly Christian). The year was 1984, the location was the suburbs of a city of 350,000.

    These guys can find "evil" in anything, and will fabricate ridiculous arguments to suport their position. This guy's arguments were so unsupportable that even at 14 I could tell he was nuts. Guys like this still occasionally get groups to have "burnings" of books, records, etc.. Somehow, though, I doubt that they would find many takers for a Tibook burning party. ;-)

  232. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by pdeweese · · Score: 1

    You also have to remember that any of our "evidence" is only relative to our current perspective. Newton developed his laws over a period of time, slowly connecting them based on evidence. We have since found those "laws" to be true only when the effect of other dimensions of physics are minimal. Newton realised this as well when he developed equations that assume that the earth is flat. In the right field of reference(such as here in my cube), it may as well be.

  233. Re:Apple/Devil - Half of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's "Gandhi"... When will you people learn ?

  234. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny -clarification by gmack · · Score: 2

    Exactly.. and I know this because those groups tend to put me in the "heathen bin"

    I think in bible times they would have referred to themselves as "Pharasees".

  235. Discussion abou this Dr. Paley guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a story on this page about this dr. Paley
    Posting it as a coward so I won't get any karma...
    but here it goes!

    http://www.nku.edu/~eng151/spring02.htm

  236. Some more Google-ing... by fredrikv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After writing an even loooonger discussion about the site and having it all erased in a system crash, this will be a short version. (On the second reading: ha-ha).

    * The web service provider www.truepath.com/ has been online since September 1997. They are definitely for real and serves many, many other cristian sites. Let's not scan or bomb them. They are doing a great job handling the slashdot effect - we have seen many other sites choke immediately.

    It all looks very, very much like a real site. Some glitches point in the hoax-direction however:

    * On the member page, it is very hard to find any evidence of any pastors or doctors on the web. However, searching for '"Tim Allmon" baptist' on Google returns two hits.
    -The Digital Missourian: Citing
    "Tim Allmon, 22, plans to vote for Bush. But the Southern Methodist University student says he is tired of candidates "putting on the fake happy face, shaking hands and kissing babies.""
    There is acutally a guy called Tim Allmon, about the age (24) of the portrait on the member page, studying at the Southern Methodist University. Sounds OK to study at the Methodist Univeristy if you are ultra christian, but I guess there are 10.000 other students there that are not, on the other hand...

    The second link is not about our guy anyway.

    * The bible verses they have chosen are good reading.
    Tim Allmon, the treasurer, chose Mattew 22:17-22... (bible citations from bible.gospelcom.net)
    "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away."

    Too good to be true? You judge. But the femnine looking Peggy Miller's choice is Luke 11:21:
    ""When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

    Pastor Jose Rosas is also surprising. Claiming to work in "the ecumenical Catholic Outreach Baptist Ministries" is exceedingly hard to believe for me. If the catholic and baptist acutally had any collaborations, we would find it on Google... Wouldn't we? Again, we are directed to Objective as the first link...
    Corinthians 8:1-13 is not that obvious either...

    Kyle Goodman then. His story is almost too good to be true... We can read in the Google cache (to save his Geocities accound from flooding) that he was salvaged by Jim Carlson of the Objective site. He first was a "bad guy" with a webpage against Jim Carlson and pro Landover. Now he has changed and is against Landover. It is hard to know if he is serious. Would anybody changing mind so drastically still keep their old web page that insulted what you now believe in? (His pages are still up on Geocities, but they are often overloaded so use the Google cache instead.
    There is some really good reading in Kyles guestbook. I especially like a comment (KirthGersen - 11/22/00 06:05:12):
    "Taking parody to the razor's edge... The fact that you left your old site up shows you are faking your conversion. The fact that those idiots at Shutdown Landover believe you shows that they are really, really dumb. Congrats on your parody - it's quite convincing. Can't wait till you suddenly fall from grace - should be hilarious!"

    Furthermore, Kyle Goldman is a very uncommon name in Google. Most hits points into golf result tables. Some link actually points to the Faith Presbyterian Church in Huntsville, Alabama, were they have posted the participants in the cermon (how about that privacy?). Actually Melissa Goldman also participated. This seem strange as Kyle have chocked his jewish parents when converting as the Objective site says. Maybe this Kyle Goldman is not the one we are looking for...

    One of the links points to a sermon that was held the 15th of October 2000, which is only two days after Kyle's last note on his Geocities webpage. It seems normal to me that a young newcomer in a presbyterian congregation would be asked to lead the prayers.

    The golf-playing Kyle was a freshman in Temple Highschool in Bell County, Texas in 1997 (See this link, and this directory listing). Is he the same Kyle Goldman? There also seems to be a horse-riding and -judging Kyle Goldman that originates from Washington in Wilkes county, Georgia. Btw, his horse is named Cookie.

    Aaaarghhh. I want to know the truth!

    Conclusion
    It is harder for me to believe that someone spends the enormous amount of work on a site likeObjective for fun rather than if they do believe in it. (On the other hand it may be hard for people to believe that someone spent the time to write this :-) The only obvious people that could do it "for fun" is the Landover crew (and they are probably overloaded with that site, plus they specialize in sharp and clear irony) and Kyle Goldman that has a very different style on his other webpage. Faking the artwork on the Objective site would also take lots of skill and time.

    This has largely turned out to be a study if the people named above really exist. It is hard to determine that using only the Internet, and it gets even harder when the persons are not supposed to use the 'net because of its low moral. It is next to impossible as the pages in discussion lack real-world adresses. Even if that is a sign of a hoax, nobody that tried leaving their mail adress on a page like that would do it again. They may be misinformed, but they are not stupid...

    So, I choose to believe that there acutally are people different enough and determined to set up a site like Objective because they do believe in it for real. If anybody have hard evidence of the opposite, I welcome it.

    ...or maybe I think it is a hoax... :-) /Fredrik

  237. His email address is dead. by handorf · · Score: 2

    Too bad, though. Here's what I tried to send:

    From:

    To: drdinosaur@covenant.org

    I was greatly concerned to learn that the site on
    which your "Creation Education" article was posted is,
    in fact, running on a variant of the UNIX operating
    system (speciffically Linux, which is Open Source).
    As you correctly point out in your article, Open
    Source software is effectively another name for
    communisim. Also it uses the same "chmod" command
    which the "Darwin OSX" operating system uses to give
    access to files, and yes, the full access command is
    "chmod ***".

    Given these facts, I am concerned that your advise may
    be tainted with the exposure to the influences you
    yourself claim to stand firm against.

    (For information on the version of the operating
    system the computer is using, I reference this site: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=on&mode _w=on&site=members.truepath.com
    )

    * I refuse to type the Number of the Beast.

    Regards.

    --
    -- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
  238. Atheists and Pagans? by thunker · · Score: 0

    "it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans"

    Do you have proof to back up this claim or is this your opinion or wish?

  239. What's scary... by Mahrin+Skel · · Score: 1
    ...is some of the sites that he links to (baptist.org, christiananswers.net, etc.). I am forced to believe in either a massive conspiracy to discredit christianity by making them look like complete idiots, or in a seemingly equally improbably conspiracy of idiots to convince themselves they really do have the Whole Truth, and if the rest of us don't take their Word for it, we're all going to hell.

    I feel dirty.

    --Dave Rickey

  240. Their system tracking. by BreakWindows · · Score: 2

    http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=olobs

    Bwaha! The page hits are 18% evil, and roughly 12% communist.

  241. California is *not* the bible belt. by Otto · · Score: 2

    I am a christian. I was raised in a christian household. I grew up in the California version of the bible-belt. But I've never met anyone who even remotely resembles these turkeys. Not even the nutbags on the Patriot Network or JT Chick come close.

    Yes, this is a hoax. But it's too close to reality to be called a "parody".

    Take a trip to Alabama, Georgia.. heck, even as far north as Kentucky. At least 10-20% of the population wouldn't find this sort of thing funny at all. Really. I know hordes of people who think *exactly* like this. I have personally seen people show the "chmod 666" fears when I was showing them how to use unix-like systems. And I have seen one person switch to a non-unix system because she found out her computer was "infested with daemons" from her sysadmin.

    You may think you know fundies, but trust me brother, you don't know fundies.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  242. How deeply ironic... by Lethyos · · Score: 2

    ...that this group of Americans struggles so endlessly to preserve core American values... by destroying core American values. When will they wake up and realize that this country was founded in the name of freedom for people of all backgrounds. It was only in recent history that they were be persecuted in similar ways.

    --
    Why bother.
  243. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by haas_repair · · Score: 1

    Actually, evolution is more akin to a belief than scientific evidence. You see, it's a THEORY, in the same vain that creationism is a theory.

    However, a main difference between science and fundamentalism (be it Christian, Islamic, etc.) is that science is willing to bend when evidence suggests that a current THEORY is wrong or doesn't explain things well enough.

  244. theomathmatics by mikeee · · Score: 2

    Actually, that once comes up from time to time.

    There's a bit in the old testament describing the jewish temple, and a certain object is described as being circular, 10 cubits in diameter with a 30 cubit circumfrance.

    Thus, Pi = 3. And since it's in the bible, any other claims are heresy.

    1. Re:theomathmatics by byoung · · Score: 2

      Never Mind the fact that cubits are an imprecise measurement, something akin to "about 18 inches."

      But hey, whatever you need to prove your point, right?

  245. It's not a hoax. by Phreakiture · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not a hoax at all. It's terribly sad, but true, that there are people claiming to be Christians out there who are really so paranoid. Print doesn't do it justice. Until you have heard this sort of pablum expressed vocally, you just don't grasp that these guys are dead serious.

    To quote one of their own, however, they're almost there--they can almost see the ridiculousness of their position. In the text, it talks about simulations of evolution on a created machine. Why can't evolution take place in a created universe? Wny are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive? It strikes me as though one answers the question "What happened?" and the other answers the question "How did it happen?"

    Idiocy like this is part of the reason why I am no longer a Christian. I grant that these guys are fringers, but questioning them led to me questioning the whole shooting match, and drawing the conclusion that none of them know what they are talking about, regardless whether or not they are this paranoid.

    This is, of course, my opinion as an agnostic (not to be confused with an atheist). I mean no disrespect to Christians. I subscribe to the Ghandian principle of equality of religion, based on the belief that no mortal can know all about God.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  246. It's possible. Seen it happen. by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 1

    I'm from Alabama - a state where allowing the ten commandments to be displayed in the courtroom is a popular campaign platform, and "I didn't come from no monkey" is a viable political argument against teaching evolution in school. I say it's possible that this is no hoax.

    Once, a teacher in my junior high school showed the class Geraldo Rivera's devil-worship special as an educational film. In that same place, I was called into the principal's office and threatened with expulsion for devil worship. (I had brought an Ozzy Osbourne tape to school.) I've also attended a church function (involuntarily) in which youth ministers played Rush and Judas Priest albums backwards in order to expose the hidden Satanic messages.

    This site may be a parody, but it's not foolish to believe that it's sincere. People like this exist in real life.

    And yes, Jack T. Chick is that nutty!

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

  247. Re:WTF I submitted this same thing 18 hours ago an by phunhippy · · Score: 2

    Nah i already got karma of 48-50 range(changes daily) sure it'll go down after this one...

  248. Daemon is Greek Mythology by Thunderweasel · · Score: 1

    Look it up:

    Daimon or alternate spelling Daemon

    It's a name for a type of spirit that assists people in their daily lives. It has nothing to do with Christianity, Paganism, Satanism, etc.

  249. Now THIS is weird by thedbp · · Score: 1

    I saw this article on MacSlash yesterday, but didn't see it on Slashdot 'till this morning. And guess how many comments were posted at the time the page loaded up?

    3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count.

    666.

    Hehehehehehehehe Christians are so much fun to mock and laught at. I can't wait until Jesus is sitting in the same spot the Greek and Roman gods are now. ("How quaint!")

  250. Not just Apple - but Slashdot too by flagstone · · Score: 1

    As I checked the front page this morning, the last line of the Apple story read:

    ( Read More... | 482 of 666 comments | Apple )

    Coincidence?????

    --
    These people have looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
  251. I admit.. all these years... SATAN HAS OWNED ME! by haaz · · Score: 2

    Dear friends,

    I come to you today, a ... shaken man.

    All these years, you see, I thought I was living the life of one who... truly Believes... in the Way of Macintosh, the Way of the Apple II, the Way of... it matters not which Way I thought I was going. For it has been REVEALED to me -- I was ... MISLEAD!

    All this time, you see, I've been promoting "free" software, "shareware," even the EVILLE Gin-Uuue Pub-lick License. Though it was not until years later that I was drawn into the EVILLE FOLD of Richard Stallman's ways.

    But I digress.

    See, brethern and cistern, I thought that I had returned from that PATH of EVILLE, away from the GPL, away from the CANCER known as LINUX... only for it to be REVEALED that I WAS NOT SAVED!

    No, today, I had a... shocking realization. I looked at my computer, at the logo that is etched in it as much as the CLAWS of SATAN had touched it -- and there I saw it -- the Apple.

    This humble Apple is no humble Apple as it may seem.. it was a temptation from the GARDEN of EDEN! The Deville, Torvalds, must have sent it to me, to tempt me -- there could be no other way!

    And although this Apple bears only one color -- it pretends to be WHITE, the color of all that is holy and good -- I realized, in my childhood, that the Apple of those days had SIX colors. SIX!

    And let us think about this some more, the SIX COLORED APPLE.

    My first computer, it was an Apple, the "Two Plus" they called it. (two is SIX divided by THREE!) this "Apple TWO Plus" bore a HUUUUGE Apple upon it. And above it.. there rested TWO MORE APPLES, EACH bearing the six-steeerip-ed Apple. Do you know what this put upon my machine?

    This bore before me... three six-strpied Apples.

    And do you know what this makes?

    Six-striped Apple here. Another six-striped Apple here. And another Six-striped Apple here.

    SIX SIX SIX!! THE NUMBER OF THEE BEAST!!!!

    Indeed, when I looked upon my floppy disks, I found the Mark of Thee Beast -- MICROSOFT!

    ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN AN EVILLE CABAL TO BRING ME INTO HIS GRASP!

    And even now, I am tempted to return to the land of three Apples, with their salaciously tempting new iMac... pray for me, brethern!, that I do not FALL into HIS HANDS.

    YOU SHALL NOT GET ME YET, GATES!

    repenting now, sir,

    --
    -- haaz.
  252. Insight into truepath.com by ajs · · Score: 2

    First off, understand that truepath.com is just a christian hosting service. They are not the ones saying this. The "member" in question (the one who runs "Objective") has been ranting about the Internet being a christian-founded network that should be purged of non-christian thoughts for a long time. The creationism section is run (in theory) by yet another guy who thinks that creationists won't be able to have a fair debate until they define thier own terms (you see, "species" is an evolutionist term... ignore the fact that the term pre-dates the theory of either evolution or natural selection or the origin of species).

    Also, note that the folks ranting here seem unaware that their complaints about communist OSes are being made on a site which runs Linux/Apache ;-)

    I think Christians can be, and usually are, good people. However, it really gets me hot under the collar when folks mis-use doctrin that millions hold sacred like this. It's shameless and someone ought to throw a pie at this nutter instead of Bill Gates!

    Also on the humerous side, I just hit the front page and saw this:

    Apple: Apple Deals with Devil [...]
    ( Read More... | 67 of 666 comments | Apple )


    Heh.

  253. Re:666 by flufffy · · Score: 2

    the front page just now indicated a total of 666 comments for this story ... wonder what the 666th was - and who posted it, eh, eh? sadly, since then great 'first post reforms' of 2001 we can not tell (or at least not easily...). ok back to work.

  254. Re: No hoax - There ARE REAL PEOPLE like this by Zordak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to agree with you. Let me just say for the record that I have been raised very much Christian and I am a conservative Republican. That being said, if this guy is not a hoax, he is definitely a misinformed zealot. The guy doesn't even have his Biblical facts right (at no time does the Bible refer to Adam and Eve eating an "apple" -- in fact, I'm not totally positive about this, but I don't think the Bible uses the word apple aywhere). Whether this guy is for real or not, his article is a great example of everthing bad about people who claim to be "Christians," while the only doctrine they seem to preach is intolerance and hatred. Take your "rock" music for example. My wife was teaching third grade and had a student in her class that was being raised by such religious zealots. She used to turn on a Yanni CD while the kids were working quietly to help keep a quiet mood. One of the kids went home and told Mommy that the teacher was making them listen to some Devil non-Christian music in class. Mommy came and explained with her very best poor grammar that their family only listens to "Chrisian" music (because obviously a song is more spiritual than Yanni's soft music if it says "Jesus" somewhere -- even if said music is loud and obnoxious). A couple of weeks later, this same kid became unusually upset when he lost one of his "good behavior" tokens for the day. My wife tried to console him and tell him that he had five of them every day (fifteen for the week) and that losing one every now and then was no big deal. All of the kids lost a token every once in a while. By this time the kid was crying, but he finally managed to explain to her that if he lost any of his behavior tokens on a given day, he was not given dinner that night. By this time, my wife was downright pissed with these people, so she proceed to call the good Christian parents, arrange a meeting, and chew them out. Of course, they had a hard time dealing with an educated person, so they just lied, contradicted themselves several times, and finally she let them go.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  255. Another example. by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

    In the Final Tests in physics where I live, each school chooses 2 additional chapters to teach HOWEVER, there was a section for relegious schools.

    I'm not joking about this, here's a question from there (translated, not sure about every word):

    "If science shows that the universe exists for 10 billion years (not sure about the number here), and the relegion states it exists only 5000 years, how fast did the universe expand so that these 2 theories don't contradict?"

    There were more of these, but I don't remember them now.

    --
    ^_^
  256. Should be a prize for this by ynotds · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just scanned the index for the first time since this was the top article and saw underneath:

    ( Read More... | 666 comments | Apple )

    Definitely needed that laugh.

    Having managed to stash away a few ancient Macs last week which I grabbed for archive retrieval purposes, I would have thought there was precious little evidence of evolution in the Mac lineage ... at best punctuated equilibrium, but sometimes verging on mass extinction.

    But if there is a prize, I could imagine worse than a new desk lamp.

    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
  257. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gasp! My cute little Newton MessagePad 2100 must be evil too! I shall exorcise it with a brain-wipe!

  258. from the front page by Libertaine · · Score: 1

    Saw this right when I was reading the story. Read More... | 218 of 666 comments | Apple I think it is even more evidence of satan.

  259. Re: No hoax - There ARE REAL PEOPLE like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >he was not given dinner that night

    This is the point at which you call the Child Protection Agency and have the kid removed from the psycho parents.

  260. Re:Theomathematics by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

    Mathematics are not "the science of numbers". It is about building a theory of axioms and theorems where nothing is unproved. You may be forgetting Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

  261. Re:Icons? And "members", oh my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux, schminux. The hostname is members.truepath.com. A real Christian wouldn't allow their site to be hosted on a domain address called "members".

    Or are they telling us that they're a bunch of wankers?

  262. Say hello to the Taliban by tomdarch · · Score: 1

    Let's be frank here - The author of the site actually believes this stuff. In case anyone is wondering what was being taught in the Madrasas that led to the Taliban - well, here it is.

  263. The scariest thing... by tacokill · · Score: 1

    The scariest thing about this hoax is that it's actually believable. Anyone who has spent siginificant time in the South (and South West) can attest that there *ARE* people who believe this crap. As crazy as it is...there are still believers.

    Come down to Texas and I'll introduce you to you a whole boatload of them.

  264. Re:Open Letter to the Truepath Authors @15 hours B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, hoax or not, your reply was very cool.

    I wish I had such a way with, um, them speaky things, um, "words".

  265. look at the header by saforrest · · Score: 1
    Look at the HTML header:

    <HEAD>
    <TITLE>OBJECTIVE: Creation Education: Evolutionism Propaganda</TITLE>
    <META name="description" content="How Evolutionists spread their false doctrine">
    <META name="keywords" content="God, Jesus, creation, creationism,
    evolutionism, dinosaur, man, moon, eye, Darwin, irreducible complexity, flood,
    thermodynamics, second law">
    <META name="author" content="Jim Carlson">
    <META name="generator" content="Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath generated all">
    <LINK href="stylesheet.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
    </HEAD>

    Come on. The generator tag is "Our Lord, Jesus Christ, Who hath generated all"? That's *way* too geeky for the tone of the article. This has got to be a hoax.
  266. trolled again by onShore_Jake · · Score: 1

    I keep thinking that this article can't be real, but it looks like it. You sir, are gullible to the extreme. This article is a troll!

  267. It's a hoax, check their CafePress stuff. by Hot+Soup+LD · · Score: 1

    After looking through all the merchandise they have on their Cafe Press site, this has to be an elaborate hoax. The basketball backboard that says 'Score on the court, not on a date!'? Or the t-shirt that mocks hindu? Seriously. This is a thick gag.

    --
    Hot Soup - Lethal Doses
  268. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by lamz · · Score: 1

    Were you in an Apple Store? Did they get out the LSD iMac and show you a thing or two?



    Mmmmmmmm...LSD iMac.


    --

    Mike van Lammeren
    It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

  269. Wrong.... by Wntrmute · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.... I am *so* tired of hearing this.

    You see, it's a THEORY, in the same vain that creationism is a theory.

    Creationism is *not* a theory. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. It is not predictive. There is no such thing as a "Scientific Theory of Creationism." Ask any long-time poster to talk.origins. They've been asking for one for years, and noone's ever offered one up that meets the actual criteria of being a theory.

    Secondly, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

    Sorry if I'm sounding harsh, but I see these same misconceptions all the time, and they drive me crazy sometimes.

    1. Re:Wrong.... by hawk · · Score: 2
      >There is no such thing as a "Scientific Theory of
      >Creationism." Ask any long-time poster to
      >talk.origins. They've been asking for one for
      >years, and noone's ever offered one up that meets
      >the actual criteria of being a theory.


      Uhh, if they all agree on this, then who are they asking? No wonder no one answered . . .


      :)


      hawk

    2. Re:Wrong.... by Grax · · Score: 1

      Evolution is a fact. Creationist scientists will usually admit it happens.

      The real issue is "evolution as the origin of all life" vs "creation as the origin of all life". That issue is so clouded by arguments "proving" one point or the other.

      That issue can never be proven one way or the other. We can "explain" how the universe began back very close to the beginning of this universe but until we can show what happened before the beginning there is nothing to say that the spark that created all life was the finger of God or a lit cigarette falling in a puddle of gasoline in another universe.

      We have a limited view of the past and no way of testing to show that the assumptions we have made are true. Perhaps the universe is millions of years old as science seems to show, perhaps thousands of years old as according to historical records, or perhaps less than 100 years old as in "The Matrix".

    3. Re:Wrong.... by marklark · · Score: 1
      By your same arguments, Evolutionism is not a theory.

      Is it testable? Umm - no.

      Is it falsifiable? Umm - no.

      Is it predictive? Umm - I'd like to know what my children will look like and what mutations they'll have. Can anyone tell me? no.

      I wasn't there. I didn't see it. I don't know anyone that was. The evidence that is available is equivocal.

    4. Re:Wrong.... by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      By your same arguments, Evolutionism is not a theory.

      Is it testable? Umm - no.


      Umm - yes. We have seen species change. We have even seen speciation happen.

      Is it falsifiable? Umm - no.

      Umm - yes. All we would need would be to find, say, fossils of the skeleton of a modern human in Cretaceous rocks. Or if you could should the DNA of humans and chimps was not similar.

      Is it predictive? Umm -

      Umm - yes. If you keep using insecticides that aren't 100% effective, theory predicts that you will soon end up with insect populations that are resistant to insecticides. And, hey! It happened!

    5. Re:Wrong.... by marklark · · Score: 1
      Umm - yes. We have seen species change. We have even seen speciation happen

      I'm only 34. I haven't seen it happen. So "we" haven't seen it happen.
      You must be very old...

      And you have not submitted a test of evolution. Please do so.

      Umm - yes. All we would need would be to find, say, fossils of the skeleton of a modern human in Cretaceous rocks. Or if you could should the DNA of humans and chimps was not similar

      Oh, so the Creationist wins points for finding only well-developed/complicated organisms in any stratum of rock. Thanks!

      Umm - yes. If you keep using insecticides that aren't 100% effective, theory predicts that you will soon end up with insect populations that are resistant to insecticides. And, hey! It happened!

      How is this evolution? It is "natural selection," but is insufficient to cause speciation as no new DNA has been created.

    6. Re:Wrong.... by ArizonaBay · · Score: 1

      If someone wants to believe in Creationism, that's fine with me. The theory of Evolution doesn't have all the answers (namely, how it actually happens), so I guess I could see why someone would take up Creationism instead.

      But Creationism has nothing to do with science.

      Creationism 'science' theories can not be considered reputable until they show us even the least bit of empirical evidence that backs their primary assumption: God/an omnipotent being exists.. or at least did exist.

      Science is the collection of data and evidence aimed at establishing general truths about our universe. This is something that Creationists don't do, because you simply can't prove the existence of God. So, instead they spend much of their efforts attempting to discredit the theory of Evolution.

      Their logic: If A is not true, then B must be true... even though they have not provided the least bit of evidence that supports 'B'. It's a complete fallacy, yet it's a fallacy that some states are attempting to disguise as a science.

    7. Re:Wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speciation events:
      * Inside of recent human history, it has been found to occur. Numerous species of plants, and quite a few of animals. Usually this occurs when a small population becomes somehow isolated from a parent population.

      Evolution falsifiability:
      * Actually, if one found any fossil that didn't belong in the stratum (by dating methods), then there would be some falsification. For example, finding a modern Equus fossil in anything older than 2 million year strata.

      DNA creation:
      * There have been experiments where the specific point of evolution you are contesting (creation of new DNA in an organism) has been shown.

      One example is the synthesis of a lactose-digestion method in E. coli. This can be done by removing the operons that produce the enzymes for digesting lactose. Allow the modified bacteria to grow in a lawn that contains at least some lactose. After the colony has been growing for a sufficient length of time, switch the growth medium to 100% lactose. Most of the lawn will die off, however, there are a few colonies which have developed the ability to digest lactose, by addition of the necessary DNA.

      The reason we don't (or can't) see similar results in nature is the generational times are too long for anything but bacteria. If a noticeable mutation (sufficient to be determined as speciation) takes 2000 generations to produce, you'll only see the process from start-to-finish in bacteria, and maybe mayflies. Otherwise the generational time is simply too lengthy.

      And as for your request to determine what mutations your descendants might have, it's being worked on. Sort of. There are already lab-tests being done, for example, to determine the length of time before bacteria become resistant to a particular drug, by artifically mutating key areas and seeing the reaction, thus finding which mutations will result in resistant bacteria, and then producing the drug to combat those mutants as well.

    8. Re:Wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution happened with moths in England around the Industrial Revolution. White moths were more prevelant in cities until soot from factories turned all of the buildings, well, soot colored. Then grey moths that were mutants of the white moth population became more prevelant because they were better camoflagued on the walls of sooty buildings and didn't get eaten by birds as rapidly as the mutant white moths did.

    9. Re:Wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm only 34. I haven't seen it happen. So "we" haven't seen it happen. You must be very old...

      This discussion is pointless if you're going to be childish.

    10. Re:Wrong.... by Copid · · Score: 2, Informative

      This depresses me. Seeing these types of arguments always depresses me. Are there really people out there whose understanding of evolution is that misguided?

      I'm only 34. I haven't seen it happen. So "we" haven't seen it happen. You must be very old...

      You haven't seen it because you haven't read any of the countless articles in which scientists have written about specific instances of observed speciation. We haven't observed wings developing in a species that didn't have wings. We haven't been around that long. We have, however, seen speciation a number of times. www.talkorigins.org is a good place to start if you're actually interested in learning about some of the specifics.

      And you have not submitted a test of evolution. Please do so.

      OK. I'll bite. Start with a colony of E. coli and select one cell to start a new colony in a clean dish. This colony should have all the same DNA as the original. Repeat this using the new colony. Now you have two colonies of what should be identical E. coli. Dump a bunch of penicillin in one of the dishes and watch the colony die. OK. So we know the original cell was most likely susceptible to your antibiotics (the colony of clones showed a significant reduction in population). Now put a small amount of watered down penecillin into the first dish and let it quickly run out. Let the survivors of the colony regenerate a bit and then start a new colony. Repeat. You'll eventually end up with a colony that's resistant to the penicillin treatment. What can we conclude here?

      Well, the original cell was susceptible (its decendents tended to die when treated heavily with penicillin). Over the next several generations, a few lucky ones mutated in such a way that penicillin doesn't bother them. Those survived. Natural selection (or at least, simulated natural selection) refined the population to contain only penicillin resistant bacteria. Neat, huh? We know that the DNA changed or all would be dead (exact copies of the parent cell). Try this test for yourself, or simply acknowledge the fact that it has been done countless times with a number of bacteria and antibiotics. It doesn't always work (depending on the organism and the chemical) but it often does. Evolution. Bang.

      Oh, so the Creationist wins points for finding only well-developed/complicated organisms in any stratum of rock. Thanks!

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't understand the example rather than assuming that you're deliberately mischaracterizing the argument. The point is that if you can prove that species haven't changed smoothly over time (we have significant fossil records that indicate that they have), evolution would be turned on its ear. Another way to do it would be proving that the earth is too young for the process to have advanced so far (people try this to little avail). There are a number of things that could turn up that could make evolution obviously impossible. None have, though. On the other hand, it's not possible to prove that an intelligent creator didn't just create things the way they are. People actually argue that the creator made it look like evolution happened when really it didn't. Argue against that. Scientific? I think not.

      How is this evolution? It is "natural selection," but is insufficient to cause speciation as no new DNA has been created.

      The fact that you, obviously a layman, have decreed that no new DNA sequences exist does not make it so. Sexual reproduction by its very nature invariably causes new combinations of genes to pop up. You can't scramble two organisms' genes together and come up with a child organism with the same genes as both parents. The string of DNA is different. New base pairs are not (necessarily) added to the strands of DNA. The strands are different, though. The result is a different organism. The "no new DNA" argument is way overused by people who haven't seen the experiments that control for this (like the example I gave above).

      Again, talk.origins is a great place to go if you're actually interested in getting some of these questions answered. If you're more interested smugly shooting down arguments that you don't understand, it's probably not the place for you.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    11. Re:Wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:Wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the main thing I don't fully understand about the whole "evolution vs creationism" argument. The theory of evolution makes some statements about how a given, existing system will behave based on its current state and some rules - as such, it doesn't say anything about how the system came to exist in the first place. It only predicts what will *happen* to an *existing* system. Creationism, on the other hand, ONLY talks about how the current system's existence came about, but doesn't actually say anything about future behaviour of the system.

      I am doubtful as to whether or not science will ever be able to claim to know how the universe sprung into existence.

      Evolution is virtually impossible to deny when argued properly, its really so simple. Consider: say you have a closed population of 10000 people, with various genetically inherited characteristics (i.e. say exactly half of them are black, half white; half have black hair, half are blonde).

      Now, create some method of *non-random* selection, such that certain genetic traits correspond to higher or lower probabilities of survival (for example, say every generation we kill 80% of the white people and the blonde people).

      Now who could POSSIBLY realistically argue that after doing this for a dozen or so generations, that the proportion of blonde people and white people amongst the population will still be 50/50? Voila. You can't. To do so you would have to attempt to argue that the probability of having white offspring is NOT dependent on whether or not the two parents are black (which as we can see in reality is not the case: black people have black offspring).

      Now moving this example into the wild, given any population of, say, zebra, some ARE going to be weaker than others. Here we have our non-random genetically inherited selection trait. What kind of idiot would argue that a fast, strong zebra has an equal chance of being eaten by a lion than the slow, weak zebra? You can't - the stronger faster zebra *will* have higher survival rates.

      So to deny that this sort of non-random selection *wouldn't* influence the inherited traits of future generations, is to flat out deny the entire system of inheriting traits via DNA.

      Non-random selection happens around us every day. Consider when you buy fruit at the supermarket, initially the basket of apples has hundreds of apples with varying characteristics (i.e. some are small and dirty and maybe being slightly rotting, while some look shiny and big and clean). Immediately, we have non-random selection, some have traits that influence their probability of being picked up by buyers (you can't tell me that people completely randomly choose fruit .. they pick the best ones first!) So guess which apples are the last ones picked? The horrible, small, rotten-looking ones. Thats *selection*, one *part* of evolution - the other part is *inheritance*, and we've already demonstrated that to deny we have a trait inheritance system is to essentially claim that black parents are just as likely to give birth to black babies as white parents.

      Important to note: one of the main reasons why the human phenotype would appear to be so stable is simply that we've systematically, through technologically, vastly reduced the amount of non-random *selection* in the population (i.e. modern medicine allows the majority of people to live relatively normal lives and to produce offspring, regardless of what horrible defects they may have, e.g. I would never be able to survive without my contact lenses. Diabetics are another example). Thus our environment no longer provides any "evolutionary pressure".

    13. Re:Wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm - I'd like to know what my children will look like

      Damn, you make this so easy:

      If you are white (I presume you are), and your wife is white, I'll bet my house and car that your (natural) offspring will be .. (drum roll) .. white!

      There, see how simple it is? A simple example of an inherited genetic trait - isn't it magic, your child's characteristics aren't random!?

      Unless you want to claim that white parents are as likely to produce black offspring as black parents?

      Heres a question for you: what do you think would happen if you introduced a non-random trait-based system of selection whereby certain genetic characteristics had higher probability of survival than others? (e.g. if you killed off all the black people). Do you think that the proportion of black people in the population would remain the same? Or would you end up with a higher proportion of white people? There we have it, "fitness functions" change the population characteristics over time.

    14. Re:Wrong.... by marklark · · Score: 1
      I didn't intend to be overly flippant. I was just pointing out that I haven't seen evolution occuring -- an error of my correpondent that I was correcting.

      Speaking of childishness, why are you posting as an AC? :^)

  270. Darwin, Darwin, Darwin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evolution Happens! Suck-It-Up!
    Cry baby, Church going, Jesus Freak!

    Grinder

  271. Take a look at Umberto Eco... by tomdarch · · Score: 1

    Umberto Eco (best know for his novel "The Name of the Rose") is a professor of semiotics. (Semiotics could be defined as the study of symbol systems and their interpretation, or a better definition). "Symbol systems and interpretation" - sound familiar? Our dear Professor of Theobiology is all about finding 'hidden meanings' and 'concealed connections'! Pokemon=evolution! chmod+base 8=satan! Steve Jobs' reality distortion field "mind control"(hmm, maybe he has a point on that last one... ;^) )

    In his novel "Foucault's Pendulum" he tells the story of a publishing house editor who gets way in over his head working on a project on books on the occult. He and his friends keep finiding more and more wild connections between elements that at first seem unrelated, but when put together form a wild web. (If you read it, don't get bogged down in the hundreds of names, most aren't that important) Because the characters are willing to form connections between things that aren't really proveable, their world turns into a madhouse of hidden meanings and sinister powers. Sound familiar? Our dear Professor of Theobiology lives in just such a world.

    For a more in depth (but not too dry) look at how and why connections between ideas should (and shouldn't) be made, look at Eco's essay "Interpretation and Overinterpretation" (A little more at this link). Basically, Eco is reacting to the excesses that can take place in the academic world.

    I believe that he is reacting to the extremes of some of the academic movements that arose or became more prominent starting in the late Sixties, such as Deconstructionism, Feminism and Post-Colonialism (as examples). At their best, these movements have revealed important limitations in our ability to present purely rational arguments (Deconstructionism)or the societal and interpersonal structures that harm women (Feminism). But when stupid and lazy people jump on these bandwagons, the basic (often very difficult) ideas get thrown around slopily and wild connections are made, where no such connections exist.

    This brings us back to our Professor of Theobiology. In "The Name of the Rose", Eco used the conflict between the Dark Ages and the Renaissance to illustrate the distinction between two different modes of thought. The medieval monks were trapped in their way of thinking - full of hidden meanings and sinister connections. In contrast, the protagonist used reason and science to deal with the problems at hand (a series of murders).

    All in all, it's rather frightening that here in the 21st century we're still trying to deal with the Taliban and our Professor of Theobiology.

  272. of course! by hawk · · Score: 2
    >If you were a hoaxer, would YOU sell abstinence shorts?


    Of cours--though I'd certainly include a twist of some kind . . .[twists are left as an exercise to the reader]


    hawk

  273. ahem! by hawk · · Score: 2
    As a devout Catholic, I must take exception:
    1) while the bottles may be sized in that evil metric system, we measure our wine and beer in God-fearing "ounces."
    2) 30ml? that's two much for Communion, and far two little to drink.


    hawk, just helping htings out

  274. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by glapalom · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    OK, you win. Evolution is for real. Although evidence is lacking, I concede. God does not exist. Now what?
    You get to sit on your death-bed however many years/minutes from now, and say "Well, it was fun while it lasted. Guess that's it. See ya.", and you get to look back and see your life pass before your eyes. You might even give a smug little smile about how you had it all figured out. Those stupid believers, and then that's it. Done. Finished. You are history.
    Me on the other hand, I'm sittin there on my death-bed, and I get to look FORWARD. I get to go in ANTICIPATION of what's next. I have the knowledge and COMFORT that my family will be with me sometime soon. I get excited thinking about when the creator meets me and says "Thanks for believing, and welcome." The only sadness I have is thinking about those who didn't end up believing and what they are going to go through.
    Hmmm. looking back vs. looking forward.
    Weigh our two acceptances and your fate will either be one of two things...

    1) If you are right, looking back and then nothing, conceding to the end.
    2) If God is right, suffering eternally with satan.

    My fate will be one of two things...
    1) If you are right, looking forward and then nothing, but I don't care cause I'm dead anyway, but I went happy, not conceding.
    2) If God is right, looking forward, eternal life, joy, love, happiness, family, etc...

    Yes sir. You sure got it all figured out...

    Anybody who wants to learn more is more than welcome to email me, but please save your rants and flame for the forum.

    - Joshua 24:15

    --
    Joshua 24:15
  275. letter to Mr. Paley by delorean · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Greetings Dr. Paley,
    I read your article concerning evolution and the linking of certain computer operating systems and inferring their maniacal perversion of users into evolutionists. I am troubled by some of your logic and reasoning.
    First let me introduce myself-- I am a believer in Jesus Christ. He is The Savior, the Son of God, and God Incarnate. He was virgin born and Perfect-- without sin. I was middle and high school educated in a Christian environment, and worked for many years in Christian ministries. I am politically conservative. Yes, I do work for NASA now; I am contractor that Administers unix servers for the Space Station project. I, and many other people who work for the Space Agency, are firm and out spoken believers who stress that Space Exploration can show the majesty of our creator. It does not imply that we are godless evolutionists looking for life, aliens, or any other such nonsense as you might want to infer.

    Now...
    The development name of the Apple OS X (or Ten) certainly was called Darwin. True. Somebody, some manager or Pointy-Haired Boss, decided that they would call the new OS (Operating System) Darwin because 1) it will be "the next best thing", 2) a great leap forward in computing. Yup, that certainly smacks of computer evolution. I would much rather they called it Genesis-- but that name is trademarked, so that's out.
    But now the OS is released and for sale as "Darwin"? No, it's called OS X-- or Operating System 10. Apple's previous OS was 8-- so they skipped 9. Big deal. Should people burn their Macs and go buy Windows? No-- because using a piece of software does not effect their spiritual, mental, political (sould/mind/heart) processes in that way.
    Think about the alternative. Windows. Did you know that Windows began working on their "next evolutionary Operating System" back in'92? Do you know what their Code Name was? Cairo. You presumeably use Windows-- at least 95 or 98 version since you don't like Macs or Unix. Did you know that a good deal of that OS is built on Cairo techonology? Does that make you an evolutionist? Does that make you an Islamic Terrorist? I don't think so.
    Being an evolutionist is a heart/soul/mind condition. Not a favorite computer. Making a connection like that is just absurd.
    You also stress that the Mac OS X is built on BSD technology. This is also true-- it is one of it's greatest strengths. Here is more fuel for your fire-- but the B in BSD stands for Berkely. Egads! That's the foundation of the LSD movement, wasn't it? That makes Mac users freaked out druggies, doesn't it? No.
    Sun Microsystems also uses BSD technology in their Solaris operating systems. As does IBM in AIX, SGi, HP, and Linux. It was developed by AT&T waaaaay back in the 70's. It certainly is not obsolete. It is very powerful and extremely functional. That is why Microsoft and Apple are constantly integrating functionality from these environments into their systems.
    Off the top of my head I can't remember why the services were called "daemons". I don't like it... but I take joy in the fact that I am often "terminating" daemons on machines with problems. It is rewarding... but I digress.
    Using a name for a service type as reason to abhore a computing system is ridiculous. I, assuming that you do use Windows since that is the only other alternative to Mac or Unix, notice that you did not discuss Windows' Wizards. Shocking, really. Windows is constantly running little Wizards to help users configure their computer and setup this or that. We all know that Wizards are witches and Satan worshippers. So using your same arguments and assumptions, I can assume that you are an Islamic Terrorist Warlock. Very odd.
    If all this were true, I don't think I would like you very much, Mr. Paley. But I would love you through Christ, and pray that you would come to know him. I would not attack you on your beliefs, or your computers. I certainly would not publish such irrational arguments about you.
    I apologize for taking such an offense with you; I believe you are a good man and do not wish to attack you. I think your arguments were very weak and not well thought out. Your intentions were good and honorable. Your motive pure. The plan was faulted.

    Instead of attacking people and their computers and operating systems, how about attacking the problem? The problem is not what computer they use, but how they use it. What they use it for. Mr. Dawkins' program written for Mac mentioned in your article could just as easily been written in Windows. Probably with minimal work, I could make it run in Windows or Unix. Attacking the people, I've noticed, is not very helpful either. It is ironic that that was what I used to make my point. I apologize for that and I hope my hypocrisy was not in vain. Reach out, touch and change hearts with God's Truth and Love... not attacking and tearing down people that still need to be saved.

    I haven't the time or energy to talk about the Communist-freeware comparison. I like getting free software; I don't mind paying for something really good, but I like it even better when it is free. There is nothing wrong with someone giving away their code and programs. I find it admirable. There are people who make it their religion, but they need to be reached and loved in the same manner as any other man. Not attacked. Not called-names.

    Thank you for time.

    --
    "You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
    Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
  276. guess the internet is evil too.. by josepha48 · · Score: 2
    .. cause all us satin worshiping geeks created most of the content out there...

    I often wonder how dumb fundies really are.. and this just goes to show you .. very ...

    Oh and for the record I am not a athesist, I am a spiritualist..

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!

    1. Re:guess the internet is evil too.. by kindbud · · Score: 3

      Spiritualist == irrationalist. The moment you agree that the supernatural is possible, every idea becomes equally credible. If the supernatural exists, then it is just as likely that your opinions about spirituality were implanted in your mind last Thursday by god, along with fake memories of your life and what you believed before then. Go ahead, try to disprove it. You can't. That is what is wrong with the idea of the supernatural. It makes any attempt to understand anything futile.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:guess the internet is evil too.. by josepha48 · · Score: 2
      why does everyone always associate spiritualist with the supernatural?

      And what is so irrational about it?

      If we are all made up of matter and enery and matter and energy are neither created or destroyed. Then where does our energy go when we die?

      Matter can change form to energy and energy to matter, so then we become part of the universe again.

      We are all star stuff... (babylon 5)

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    3. Re:guess the internet is evil too.. by kindbud · · Score: 2

      why does everyone always associate spiritualist with the supernatural?

      Because they are synonyms.

      And what is so irrational about it?

      I described what was irrational about it. It is nonsensical, by definition.

      If we are all made up of matter and enery and matter and energy are neither created or destroyed. Then where does our energy go when we die?

      The matter in your body goes six feet under, or is burned and the remains placed in a urn, or is dumped into the sea, or is frozen in Dahmer's refrigerator, or....

      Matter can change form to energy and energy to matter, so then we become part of the universe again.

      So you aren't part of the universe while you are alive, is that it?

      We are all star stuff... (babylon 5)

      That is not a spiritualist outlook. Anthropic perhaps, but not spiritualist.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    4. Re:guess the internet is evil too.. by seinethinker · · Score: 1

      Your comment is well said, but I don't have the same perspective. Here is just an alternative thought, and I am not saying its right or wrong.

      In trying to understand, nothing is futile. It is not a concession to defeat. When you cease and give up your inate ability to reason, decipher, or diffuse the essence of a situation - in these terms only should one be deemed an irrationalist.

      Webster defines irrationalism as "a system emphasizing intuition, instinct, feeling, or faith rather than reason or holding that the universe is governed by irrational forces." I don't agree with this at all. As this an opinion in itself. One's reality is not another's.

      People are a balance of rationalism and irrationalism. I think the real issue is when people lean in one direction too much.

      Many people will allow faith to dissolve the balance between this philosophic line. This is when a great deal of problems arise, and it becomes impossible to relate and exist in harmony. There is a certain air of righteousness that starts to form. Convictions based on this lapse of overbloated faith.

      Many people who turn to Spiritualism are seeking themselves and an understanding about the interworkings of life itself. It is isn't about a humanly figure waving his hand and creating something. It is about the divine ability to understand that we exist in a symbiotic world. We are important to each other and every thing that exists. Our reality affects other realities.

      Oft the world may be a conundrum and at times inexplicably obtuse, however - it is this so called ability to achieve a balance that gives us the real power and nothing is futile. Futility is a stale, flat and unprofitable state.

      I think it imprudent to establish a world in which futility is easily given as an excuse for what could be. Things that have evolved in our own realities have developed because of an ability to think beyond what we see.

      What's really futile? It's when we don't dwell on the possibilities. Its when we give up the ability to think and we just quit because of an impass in particular belief. There is such the thing a thing called Compromise. You don't have to agree, you don't have to give up, but we can all come to an understanding. If we come to a wall, we find a way around it. Why should we if we built it in the first place.

      I am probably rambling... but I just throwing thoughts out... No one here is right or wrong... We just are.

      --
      Truth like surgery, may hurt, but it cures. - Han Suyin, Chinese Physician and Writer
  277. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by jrp2 · · Score: 1

    Were you in an Apple Store? Did they get out the LSD iMac and show you a thing or two?

    Was that the one with the "lickable buttons" the article referred to?

    --
    The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
  278. Those are all in laboratory settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not entirely sure that those observed instances of speciation are really valid for demonstrating macroevolution. Nearly all occurred in a laboratory, and the rest occurred in controlled environments. In order to better demonstrate macroevolution, it would be necessary to show that speciation can occur naturally.

    An additional problem is with the very definition of speciation. There is a species of wasp in which, if the male is infected with a particular virus, the gametes are modified such that they are no longer usable. If the male mates, however, with an infected female, the virus in the female changes the incoming gametes such that they can be used again, but changes incoming gametes from a non-infected male such that they cannot be used. Therefore, non-infected wasps can mate, and infected wasps can mate, but a non-infected and an infected wasp cannot. By some definitions, infected and non-infected wasps are now different species, even though no genetic changes have occurred in either.

  279. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by pirho666 · · Score: 0

    Ah the age old Pascals wager reason for needing a god. You miss one critical point though as you state if I dont believe in god and there is one then I will spend eternity in hell (or someother equivalent) wheras if you worship a god and are wrong then nothing happens because you are dead anyways. The only question I pose is what if you are worshipping the wrong god? or doing it in the wrong way? Suppose that royally pisses the real almighty voice in the sky and he punishes you for your misadventures with your 'god' when you really should have been worshipping cthulu or the voice that comes from my ass when I am really stoned. Then your only hope is that this mystical being that no sane person ever actually talks to is decently forgiving and would recognize that you didnt know about the one true god that lives in my ass. therefore this all powerful being would also probably realize that it is preposterous to have anyone truly believe in it and hopefully wouldnt punish me for just ignoring its exsistence and living my life as I see fit. Sorry for the rant but I really dislike fundies

  280. Re: No hoax - There ARE REAL PEOPLE like this by Fembot · · Score: 1

    My parents had a leaflet explaining how bad harry potter was. One of the characters names was an anagram of diagonal ley. And dont come trick or treating at halloween or they'll try and convert you. It is kinda funny watching, but kinda hard growing up in the middle of it

  281. Re:'Clearly' is a keyword to look for in propganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most propogandists are not 'good', which is why it never occurred to anybody that this was satire. Pat Robertson, anybody? He gives religion a bad name.

  282. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by pischke · · Score: 1

    Weigh our two acceptances and your fate will either be one of two things...

    1) If you are right, looking back and then nothing, conceding to the end.
    2) If God is right, suffering eternally with satan.


    False dichotomy. What if we're both wrong? What if I decided to worship your god and it turns out that Baal or Zeus get angry and smite me for worshipping the false christian god?

    Read about the many problems with Pascal's wager.

  283. Christians should listen to what Jesus said: by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 2

    "The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand". He made that statement ~2,000 years ago and it is still true today. At hand = now. A great many of Jesus' sayings were recorded; very few made the editors' (James and Richard, IYKWIM) cuts. See The Gospel According to Mary Magdelene and The Gospel According to Thomas and you will understand how Jesus' teachings would have prevented all of the tyrannical governments of the last 2,000 years from coming into existence. Someone--Ezra Pound, maybe--said that the purpose of Christianity is to make good Roman citizens. I'm sure Jesus is still rolling over in his grave due to the endless perversion of his teachings by those who claim to be JHVH's authorities on Earth.

    It seems much easier to tell everybody else that they will go to hell instead of reflecting on the teachings of your supposed Saviour. Don't forget that your belief system is one of many, and that the teachings have your Saviour have been perverted by Kings, Priests, and Politicians to now mean exactly the opposite of what He said.

    --
    "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
    1. Re:Christians should listen to what Jesus said: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, he said he would rise again from the dead (Luke 18:33). He's not in the grave, so there will be no rolling about today, thank you very much.

      I find it funny that you people are willing to quote Jesus when it, in your mind at least, proves your point. Here's a few more things Jesus said. Take them to heart:

      • "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
      • "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul" Mark 8:36
      • "As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God." Romans 14:11

      You see--it really doesn't matter what you think. Your knee *will* bow and your tongue *will* confess that Jesus is Lord. It's just a matter of when. For your sake I hope it is before you meet him face to face.

      Every man is accoutable for his own actions. All you must do to be saved is believe that Jesus is Lord. Contrary to popular belief, you cannot earn your way to heaven. It is a gift from God. Simply accept it and never wonder about eternity again.

      --
    2. Re:Christians should listen to what Jesus said: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Jesus is still rolling over in his grave due to the endless perversion of his teachings

      He's not.

      He knew full well what would happen... that pretty much everything he taught would be perverted for political gain.

    3. Re:Christians should listen to what Jesus said: by lamz · · Score: 1

      Someone--Ezra Pound, maybe--said that the purpose of Christianity is to make good Roman citizens.

      Nietsche said that there was only one Christian, and He died on the cross.

      --

      Mike van Lammeren
      It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

  284. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by glapalom · · Score: 1

    It would appear you intelligence is derived from the same location as your god. ;) Do you dislike everyone who offers a differing point of view to yours? I am sure you have many friends.
    But just to humor you and just in case there is someone truly intrigued by your rant...

    I go with the God that provides proof. He has proven Himself to me time and time again. Even though He should never have had to. Surely you can relate to accepting proof. What's that? He has never proven Himself to you? Open your eyes. How can He prove Himself to you when you choose to ignore Him?

    I could close my eyes to evolutionism and I would not be giving it a fair chance. However, I gave evolutionists the chance to prove their theories to me and they have failed. Have you found the missing link yet? No? I didn't think so. It's funny how you will place your acceptance in a half-baked theory riddled with holes and lacking answers. Yet call me insane for talking to God.

    Maybe you should give Him a fair chance?

    --
    Joshua 24:15
  285. Ever checked out Usenet? by artdodge · · Score: 2

    I seem to recall a usenet group "alt.atheism.satire" (or something like that) which was, at one point anyway, dedicated largely to producing a non-stop stream of articles like this, spoofing/satiring "christian" culture and apologetics and theology.

    The amount of vitriolic energy that was poured into that group was pretty amazing. A dozen such articles is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

  286. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by phyxeld · · Score: 1

    So, pretty much your saying "I better stay religious just in case cause I don't want that pesky satan to make me suffer later".

    Thats cool.

    But how do you know yours is right? Lets add a third person to your scenario (we've already got an athiest, and you, a christ-follower): A Muslim.

    So, if your right, then are both the muslim and the athiest going to hell? And, though unlikely, what if the muslim faith turns out to be the one true faith? I'll see you in hell, jesus boy.

    What it comes down to is that you don't know your religion is more right than any other. The majority of the world beleives in a god other than yours, so by your bible, most people are going to hell. And thats a pretty sad outlook, dude.

    --
    __
    Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
  287. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by glapalom · · Score: 1

    Ha! That was funny! I kid you not, I have never heard of Pascal's Wager before today. But in reading the problems with it, I realize how much effort satan would go through to thwart a basic logic.

    Baal or Zues huh? I'll pass. I still like what my God has to offer. Where is the book on those guys anyway? What are their teachings? If they were a powerful god, wouldn't they have made their teachings the most prevelant and available teachings around? Unless of course, they believe in letting people just believe in what they want and run around with no real accord and not get involved. But then, that would mean we are here for their amusement, because they haven't offered us anything to look forward to. Nope, I'm stickin with mine. Thank anyway.

    --
    Joshua 24:15
  288. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by glapalom · · Score: 1

    Sad indeed. Better jump on board quick! ;)

    --
    Joshua 24:15
  289. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christian rock exists:
    POD (sucks)
    Jars of Clay (sucks)
    DC Talk (sucks)
    Third Day (sucks)
    Petra (Older) (sucks)
    Precious Death (sucks)
    Michael W Smith (Well, he sucks, but still)

    However, it does all suck .

  290. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by Yunzil · · Score: 1

    OK, you win. Evolution is for real. Although evidence is lacking, I concede. God does not exist. Now what?

    *Sigh* Evolution is real. We have seen it happen, which is pretty good evidence. However, the fact that evolution happens does not mean that God (if you believe in one) does not exist. You don't have to reject one to accept the other.

  291. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see, so you're of the "Millions of people can't be wrong" camp. Have you ever taken a basic philosphy course? Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant, your argument is a falacy. It is, in fact, *possible* for millions of people to be wrong. I do recall a historical tail of "scientific evidence" that the world was flat. How many people do you think believed that "absolute truth"? Hmmmm? Your argument needs some strengthening.

  292. Not found? by WiggyWack · · Score: 1

    The article seems to have just disappeared. (about 3:45pm EDT)

    --
    Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
  293. Its gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As of 3:20PM EDT, the site was disabled.

    SLASHDOT WINS!

  294. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

    No, no. It's better than that. It's technically called the Flower Power iMac, but everyone calls it the Acid Trip iMac.

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  295. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by phyxeld · · Score: 1

    I see, so you're of the "Millions of people can't be wrong" camp. Have you ever taken a basic philosphy course? Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant, your argument is a falacy. It is, in fact, *possible* for millions of people to be wrong. I do recall a historical tail of "scientific evidence" that the world was flat. How many people do you think believed that "absolute truth"? Hmmmm? Your argument needs some strengthening.

    Actually, that wasn't my argument at all. Of course millions of people can be wrong, considering the number of different religious groups which are each hundreds of millions strong that tell their followers that the millions of people in other groups are wrong. (Clearly, they can't all be right). I don't know how you got a "millions of people can't be wrong" argument from that, "millions of people can't be right" would be more accurate.

    --
    __
    Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
  296. left-wing - right-wing, so archane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check out the Political Compass. It's much better than this out-dated left-wing, right-wing model.

  297. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by phyxeld · · Score: 1

    Sad indeed. Better jump on board quick!

    See, the bible doesn't teach love, it teaches guilt, fear, and sorrow. =)

    --
    __
    Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
  298. His mail address is drdinosaur@covenant.org by mleopold · · Score: 1

    This has got to be a fake.. I mean DrDinosaur!? For real? I think not.

    Even so I laughed so hard my stomach started to hurt.

  299. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by spanky555 · · Score: 1

    Argh. You stole my thunder. :) I was going to make the same point. Rabid anti-evolutionists will never understand that evolution is NOT a belief system, and they will never understand that it's certainly not some scientific conspiracy - I haven't seen numbers, but I'd wager that the population of scientists approaches the same levels of faith as the general population.

  300. bzzt! Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1
    I'll take that wager.

    ObjectiveThought.com (from google)
    says... bzzzzt... wrong answer...

    includes choice morsels such as:

    • According to Nature 394:313, a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.

    There is indeed a distinct correlation between dedication to
    scientific principles and an absence of religious belief.
  301. Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it is a big Satanic conspiracy to wrest the teachings of God from the classrooms! ;-)

  302. I cannot believe Apple! by ellem · · Score: 2

    How could Apple ask the Church Of Satan to remove their "Made With A Macintosh" logo? Whatever happened to "Think Different"? Fer Chris'sakes Woz & Jobs charged $666.66USD for their first computer! Obviously they are in League With The Devil!

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  303. Re:bzzt! Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is by spanky555 · · Score: 1

    Hmm. It seems that 7% hardly approaches the 90% of the general population, so that may say something. However, I am a bit concerned with both the measured population and how it may have been asked - the terminology "personal God" may have markedly changed the outcome. For example, Stephen Hawking mentions God several times in his book (title escapes me at the moment), but I'm not sure that he would have answered that survey as having a belief in a "personal God". Also, and more importantly, since it was one subset of scientists, in this age of Political Correctness and the view that some government folks (and not just in schools) hold towards any public display of faith, the very environment of fear that might have created cannot be discounted.

    Even accounting for that, I'm surprised to see these numbers so high. I'd still like to see the results from an anonymous, carefully worded survey of a more general set of scientists.

  304. The Irony is beautiful. by Penguin2212 · · Score: 0

    If you force your broweser to visit a page taht doesn't exist on the server, it returns this message.

    207.67.219.101
    Tue Apr 23 19:58:38 2002
    Apache/2.0.35 (Unix)

  305. Re:Evolution (and Science in general) is NOT "beli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those most prevalent? The Christian God has a long ways to go before that's the case. To top that off, it sure took its sweet time even distributing it the begin with, or bestowing its wonderful son upon man.

    Christianity is a minority religion on this planet, even if it's a pseudo-majority in the "West."

  306. Holy shit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I first opened this story it had 666 +1 comments!!!

    It scared the shit out of me!!!

  307. Re:Yes, it's a hoax, but it's funny (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christian rock blows

  308. 2nd coming... by bytesmythe · · Score: 1

    The Jesux page was last updated in 1999... Apparently it isn't coming back, either.

    bytesmythe

    --
    bytesmythe
    Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
    -- Scott Meyer
  309. Hoax! Hoax!! For pity's sake, it's a hoax!!! by angrybagel · · Score: 1

    . . . albeit an astonishingly well-executed one. I mean, whoever put this thing together definitely put the time in. They don't link to a single spoof site (with the exception of the Landover site itself, which they claim to be trying to shut down). On the contrary, they link to a large number of genuine Christian sites and had previously been hosted on two authentic Christian hosting services - ilovejesus.com and truepath.com. They also seem to have constructed at least two or three web sites to further the ruse. They left very few direct clues scattered around the site, and the ones that they put in aren't 100% conclusive (i.e. no meta tags spelling out "this is a joke you idiots"). The online store was a nice touch - almost every item in it is oddball enough to make you think "they can't be serious, can they?" and just within-the-realm-of-possibility enough to make you say "well, maybe they're serious." The site is subtle in a lot of places where parodies normally go off the deep end, and that's why it's such an effective troll. Remember that the hallmark of truly great satire is its deadpan quality - the audience should be rolling on the floor laughing, and the satirist should be looking around with a puzzled look saying "what's so funny?"

    But the site is absolutely, completely, positively, without-a-doubt a hoax. (I'm pretty sure. I think.)

    The evidence:

    1. The Bios page - http://members.truepath.com/objective/members.html - is a bit too ridiculous. Look at the pictures - even though the page has a link for all members to submit photos, presumably netting member photos from all around the country and from at least a few different walks of life, they're all a bit too carefully picked out - they all have the same pose, the same silly expressions, and the same Photoshop-induced sheen/background about them. The bios themselves are a bit too tongue-in-cheek - Timothy Allmon giving a 10% tax-preparation discount "for non-Christians willing to convert on the spot"? Or Pastor Jose Rosas - "Though most of the Pastor's flock are too poor to own computers, they are still a valuable asset for raising the awareness of more affluent Christians"? Dr. Richard Paley, who "has lead successful boycotts against Sears and Piggly-Wiggly"? Fred "Skeet" Hoskins as a recently-appointed "Abstinence Czar"? Every single bio has some detail in it that could be interpreted as satirical, and that's too much of a coincidence for a real organization.

    2. They slip up and go a bit over the edge a couple of times. In the online store, the description for the "Missionary" Tote Bag featuring Habu (an elephant that would seem to be Hindu, Buddhist, and Hare Krishna all at once) says "Excellent for carrying Bibles and tracts to far off villages!" In the article declaring the Godlessness of shopping malls, the author points out that security guards in need of salvation may be watching you through security cameras as you try to witness to passing shoppers, so "When in view of one of these cameras, hold up inspirational signs and put on pantomime plays for their benefit." Finally, re-read addendums III and IV in the original "Apple" article with an eye cocked for a lampooning author behind the writing. Doesn't he/she seem to be milking the new material for all it's worth?

    3. A long shot - The Onion's "astrologist", Lloyd Schummer, is listed as a "Retired Machinist" next to his picture on the Onion's site, and Jim Carlson, the supposed founder of Objective Ministries, is listed as a retired machinist next to his somewhat similar picture on the Objective site.

    4. Not such a long shot - many people have pointed out the fact that the source code reveals the tag META name="generator" content="Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath generated all". I mean, give me a break. Also, Jack Diamond's address is listed as "diamondjack@nacgt.org", Dr. Troy Franklin's address is "tfranklin@antioccult.org", and the infamous Dr. Richard Paley sports "drdinosaur@covenant.org". A Whois lookup will reveal that nacgt.org and antioccult.org are both unregistered domains, and covenant.org is the site of a Presbyterian rather than a Baptist church. Add to that the idea of a Creationism zealot going by the handle of "drdinosaur", and the e-mail adds look pretty suspicious.

    5. Use your head. If you read every single line of every article with the assumption that the whole thing is a send-up of stereotypical fundamentalist Christians (yeah, yeah, I know what assumptions make, but it's just an exercise), there are WAY to many parodical patterns to ignore. Look at the picture of John the Baptist on the Halloween article and Darth Maul's pic in the Mall article. Whoever wrote this stuff has their finger firmly on the pulse of what will make people laugh.

    Just my 30 silver pieces worth.

    - Mark

    --
    'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.' - Albert Einstein
  310. Re:WTF I submitted this same thing 18 hours ago an by DarklordJonnyDigital · · Score: 1
    Nothing to do now but start a new account with a weird name. Pretend to be a troll, evil overlord or Bill Gates!

    Can anyone say Slashdot roleplaying? ;)

  311. BOGUS SITE -- CONFIRMED by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    If any of you had bothered to test out the site, instead of taking it at face value...

    First of all, the church staff for Mt. Fellowship Baptist Church is featured prominently in the Bio's section. Fine. So why isn't there a street address and phone number for the church on the site? Not even a city or state listed anywhere!

    Second, I actually emailed each one of the members on the Bio's page. Of the 10 listed, SEVEN BOUNCED.

    TWO OF THE DOMAINS WEREN'T EVEN REGISTERED.

    But hey, Slashdot is all about Christian bashing, though, right? Accuse Christians of being ignorant of scientific facts while being ignorant of facts themselves?

    Carry on.

  312. politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The contention that the open source movement is "anarchism by any other name" is wrong, I think, but does have it's basis in some form of reality. The open source movement is very certainly opposed to the current socio-economic system, capitalism. It does not take long for people to realize that such a system is anti-thetical to the goals and interests of people within the open source movement as a whole.



    Anarchism is a political ideology that advocates the idea that liberty and socialism are inseperable principles, and that embracing one without the other leads to undesirable circumstances - slavery, tyranny, etc. The anarchist critique goes against both capitalism and marxist-communism, commonly reffered to as "state communism" or "state capitalism".



    Anarchism is not about chaos, disorder, throwing bombs, or other typical slanders. Such notions come to us from hostile propaganda, both from capitalists and communists. For example, in 1905 US president William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Cslozag [sp?], who is known to have voted in Republican primaries and was a supporter of the republican party. He was labelled an "anarchist" because it was convenient to demonize the anarchist movement as such.



    The ideals of the open source movement do fit in line perfectly with anarchist ones, but this does not mean it is anarchism. It means that there is harmony between the two movements, while open source is constantly "at war" with capitalist industrial forms. It is patently obvious that capitalism is not about "free enterprise", but about the monopoly of control by a dominant class. Such ideas as the "invisible hand" and "free market" are too idiotic and weak to even be regarded as fact on this forum.



    To give people some idea of what anarchism is, I can only point to practical anarchists today and of yesterday, and of their accomplishments. There is Noam Chomsky, the former Institute Professor of Linguistics at MIT, and one of the world's most important intellectuals.



    Albert Einstein, himself considered an anarchist by the FBI [but not in any way directly involved with the anarchist movement, and more of a socialist] had a brilliant newphew named Karl Einstein. Karl, an influential member of the German dada movement and an intellectual in his own right, was an anarchist Shock Trooper in the famed Durruti Column, during the spanish civil war. Over 2.5 million anarchists were involved in the Spanish Civil war, which saw some anarchists from around the world [like Karl] volunteer with columns to fight fascism, rightly regarded as an extreme extension of capitalism. It is no coincidence that todays anti-fascist groups, ANTIFA, ARA, etc. are almost wholly comprised of anarchists.



    Anarchism does not conflict with religious beliefs, it conflicts with socio-economic structures that are created by a society to control and regulate religious beliefs. There are many christian anarchists [Tolstoy a famous mention], who are all opposed to the institutionalized church. [Tolstoy wrote "the kingdom of god is within you" on this premise]. When religious sociological and psychological teachings are not changed to fit cultural developement, they become stagnant and rotten, subjected to the degredations of time.



    There are, of course, several anarchists like myself and others in the open source movement. We do not advertise anarchism as a fad, fashion statement, or form of psychological "escapism" from the troubles of everyday life. Many of us work and organise openly as anarchists, and some of us advocate anarchist forms of organisation and developement without calling it "anarchism". it makes no difference either way.



    I suggest people check out the anarchist communications network, the TAO federation, www.tao.ca.



    "Fight the power and the power fights back, you're only as good as the system you can hack" - MDFMK [when you think system, do not think only in terms of a coded language system. think also in terms of social relations, economic structures, etc.. these are also systems]

  313. Re:Apple/Devil - Half of the Story by bednigo · · Score: 1

    The point of the whole "Think Different" campaign obviously wasn't to so people who used Apple computers, thats not even thinking different thats what everyone else tries to do (Look at me, I'm a big famous movie star and even though I don't know a thing about this product, I'll endorse it because they're paying me). The point was that those were all people who THOUGH DIFFERENT, and were not bound by societal norms.

  314. Re: U2 by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1
    Funny. In 1982-3 I worked as a late night Dj at a Christian Rock station in San Antonio, TX (KSLR 96FM, later 630AM; at the time it was one of the top Christian Rock stations in the nation). The Friday night/Saturday night DJ played the "red dots" - the hot songs in the rotation - and some "black dots" (which meant don't you DARE play this except during the weekend rock show). For a while U2 was in the rotation with "40", "Sunday Bloody Sunday ('claim the victory Jesus won')", "New Year's Day" (thought to refer to the Second Coming), etc. That is until Bono went to Austin, Tx, and appeared on a "regular" Rock station to promote a tour and nearly cost that station its license with his vulgar language.

    I still think Bono and 2 of the other 3 are recalcitrant Christians wandering in the vanity of the current age, listless...(the 4th member, who always faces a different direction from Bono and the other 2 on album covers and publicity shots, is supposed to be the group's unrepentant unbeliever).

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  315. Last name gives it away... by tgv · · Score: 1

    Darwin attacked the views of rev. Paley, so I think the name "Richard Paley" may be a pun in itself. Do a Google search for "Darwin Paley" and you'll see..

  316. the site moved by jthurma · · Score: 1

    They moved to a new site due to atheists mac users. The new url is http://objectiveministries.tripod.com/

  317. Interesting read by flk · · Score: 1

    So fun was poked at the use of BSD's cute daemon. Odd how an educated person, such as the author (?), did not mention the _other_ acceptable definitions of "daemon".

    For your enlightening pleasure: yes, I acknowledge the fact that "daemon"/"demon" _can_ be synonymous. Yet, "daemon" comes from the Greek word "daimon", which means "divine power." In Greek mythology, a daemon is a lesser deity. A daemon can also be considered an attendant spirit, or better yet, a genius! (All definitions from my trusty American Heritage College Dictionary.)

    So the author _appears_ to be computer-literate. Apparently not a sponsor of Apple, nor does he seem to be a fan/endorser of Open Source. What does that leave us? A proud registered user of the Micro$oft Cru$ade? Please! Of all people, Bill Gates has not made a pledge to Chri$tianity ... or has he? I can assure you this: the devil's work it is not.

    --
    [...]