This just means that you had bad teachers. A good teacher always tells you, "We're making such and such an assumption, which makes our answer just an approximation, but it's a pretty good approximation." etc.
Just because there are things evolution doesn't explain doesn't make it invalid. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the Universe. Big Bang theory also does not.. it explains what happened AFTER the Universe started. We still have no evidence for any theory about just how the Universe was started.
Still, that doesn't invalidate evolution any more than it invalidates Special Relativiy or Maxwell's equations.
for the sake of argument....if creationist theory were true, then wouldn't that make it science?
Science never claims anything to be "true", so I'll rephrase your question for you: "For the sake of argument, if Creationist theory had significant evidence in its favor, then wouldn't that make it science?" And the answer to that is a resounding "yes".
Signal 11 never said that he thinkgs all organized religions should be wiped out. He just said that it should be kept out of schools. He CERTAINLY never advocated arresting religious people!
Please don't imply that people are saying things they didn't say!
I personally am perfectly fine with people practicing religion in public as long as it doesn't provide an oppressive atmosphere (or worse) for people of other religions.
I think that current law says it's perfectly fine for religious groups to meet on campus as long as they are not funded or in any way specially treated by public institutions (i.e. your school).
The problem with any official support is that there will very likely be a biased support for particular religions (i.e. anything but the most popular one).
Science thinks that evolution is true, and that that is the only possible explanation without a God, but that many people believe God eally did create us, and evidence exists to back them up.
Actually, science does not at all indicate that evolution is "true" and the "only possible explanation". Why? Because the entire point of science is that nothing is ever certain. Evolution is the best explanation given currently available evidence. It is no more deemed "true" than Newtonian mechanics was a hundred years ago before Einstein. If a evidence is found to support a different hypothesis, THAT will become the new primary theory. Far from ever saying that things are "facts" or the "only true explanation", the power of science is in its flexibility and openness of amendment.
Every one what? Every fertilized egg? Every sperm and egg cell? Every skin cell which could potentially be used from cloning?
Re: If Mac users are influential with Apple...
on
Whither Netscape 5.0?
·
· Score: 1
I think that when you get down to it, it's a primarily a marketing gimmick. The idea of having an interface more similar to consumer electronics and looks cool is not a bad idea per se.. It's just that the execution sucks.
And I think at this point, the management doesn't really care as long as they can brand it. I'm thinking that whatever Apple's longterm UI plans are will be much more carefully thought out.
The difference between the Voight-Kampff test and the Turing Test is that the Voight-Kampff test doesn't really test intelligence.. It tests emotional history. The idea is that since replicants are made as adults, they don't have the proper emotional background to give the same empathy responses... not that they aren't as smart as people.
I, on behalf of All Members of the Universe, hereby kick Lotus out of this Universe, to any parallel Universes that may exist. (Go talk to some string theory junkies or something, Lotus.)
I personally think it'd be really neat to have a movie that's different. Otherwise, we could just go watch Conan again or something.
Imagine if the characters all had little HP meters floating beside them....:)
Actually, this is starting to remind me of this TV show I saw a while ago with fake Mortal Kombat-esque fighting where the fighters actually did have HP bars at the top of the TV screen. Forget what it was called.
Slashdot Mirror
This just means that you had bad teachers. A good teacher always tells you, "We're making such and such an assumption, which makes our answer just an approximation, but it's a pretty good approximation." etc.
Just because there are things evolution doesn't explain doesn't make it invalid.
Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the Universe. Big Bang theory also does not.. it explains what happened AFTER the Universe started.
We still have no evidence for any theory about just how the Universe was started.
Still, that doesn't invalidate evolution any more than it invalidates Special Relativiy or Maxwell's equations.
I remember now.. it was from this page:
http://eveander.com/trivia/
(I think the questions are randomly generated so you won't find it every time.)
I don't recall where I got this from, but I had this had this bit saved on my hard drive:
In 1897 the Indiana state House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill setting pi equal to 16/(sqrt 3), which approximately equals 9.2376.
I have no clue whether it's true.. but it's certainly funny.
for the sake of argument....if creationist theory were true, then wouldn't that make it science?
Science never claims anything to be "true", so I'll rephrase your question for you:
"For the sake of argument, if Creationist theory had significant evidence in its favor, then wouldn't that make it science?"
And the answer to that is a resounding "yes".
However, there is no real evidence in its favor.
Signal 11 never said that he thinkgs all organized religions should be wiped out. He just said that it should be kept out of schools. He CERTAINLY never advocated arresting religious people!
Please don't imply that people are saying things they didn't say!
I personally am perfectly fine with people practicing religion in public as long as it doesn't provide an oppressive atmosphere (or worse) for people of other religions.
I think that current law says it's perfectly fine for religious groups to meet on campus as long as they are not funded or in any way specially treated by public institutions (i.e. your school).
The problem with any official support is that there will very likely be a biased support for particular religions (i.e. anything but the most popular one).
Science thinks that evolution is true, and that that is the only possible explanation without a God, but that many people believe God eally did create us, and evidence exists to back them up.
Actually, science does not at all indicate that evolution is "true" and the "only possible explanation". Why? Because the entire point of science is that nothing is ever certain. Evolution is the best explanation given currently available evidence. It is no more deemed "true" than Newtonian mechanics was a hundred years ago before Einstein. If a evidence is found to support a different hypothesis, THAT will become the new primary theory.
Far from ever saying that things are "facts" or the "only true explanation", the power of science is in its flexibility and openness of amendment.
Er.. I wasn't really arguing about that.
My main point is that people don't need to post comments announcing that a site is slashdotted. It's obvious and redundant.
Every one deserves a chance to live.
Every one what? Every fertilized egg? Every sperm and egg cell? Every skin cell which could potentially be used from cloning?
I think that when you get down to it, it's a primarily a marketing gimmick. The idea of having an interface more similar to consumer electronics and looks cool is not a bad idea per se.. It's just that the execution sucks.
And I think at this point, the management doesn't really care as long as they can brand it. I'm thinking that whatever Apple's longterm UI plans are will be much more carefully thought out.
Will this Mac "skin" be written in their language, or will it actually use the standard Mac toolbox?
Now THAT is the funniest thing I've read all morning. :)
Hmm.. your echelon keyword dump seems more relevant than ever....
Slightly off-topic: Isaac Asimov wrote novel called "Nemesis" that I thought was one of his better books.
Why bother going there? Why not just get a bigass telescope and look at it? It's not like there'd be any life there or anything.
The difference between the Voight-Kampff test and the Turing Test is that the Voight-Kampff test doesn't really test intelligence.. It tests emotional history. The idea is that since replicants are made as adults, they don't have the proper emotional background to give the same empathy responses... not that they aren't as smart as people.
I think it's hilarious because the TCO argument has long been a favorite argument of Mac advocates...
Don't forget that RMS is also at MIT...
I, representing the Slashdot Moderators' Union, decree that it does, in fact, deserve a 4.
:P
I, on behalf of All Members of the Universe, hereby kick Lotus out of this Universe, to any parallel Universes that may exist. (Go talk to some string theory junkies or something, Lotus.)
I personally think it'd be really neat to have a movie that's different. Otherwise, we could just go watch Conan again or something.
:)
Imagine if the characters all had little HP meters floating beside them....
Actually, this is starting to remind me of this TV show I saw a while ago with fake Mortal Kombat-esque fighting where the fighters actually did have HP bars at the top of the TV screen. Forget what it was called.
I think PurpleBob was making reference to the Australian internet censorship situation.
Given that it doesn't even have any explosives in it.
Yeah.. And I have some bullets here that aren't weapons either...
Well, if the objective is to deter wackos or accidental launches, then we won't NEED to deter a volley of missiles.
I'm thinking that the probability of that happening is a lot greater than the probability of some large country deploying a whole bunch of nukes.