The 40k deaths a year on the highway system are a good reason to automate the operation of motor vehicles, an option that would cost far less than 53 billion, and pay for it self rapidly in avoided costs, of course it would make the socialist dream of complete control of travel much more difficult, since even a mid-size car realizes better energy efficiency than buses, because it does not ever run empty, and is handily where it is needed when it is needed. If our time is worth anything at all the car makes very good sense.
What are you basing your cost claim for automating motor vehicles on?
A general rule I've used more than once, which seems pretty damned obvious but just never seems to be followed very much is: If you want to keep a secret, the first step is don't tell anyone.
Anyone who's as big of a douchebag asshole as this guy wouldn't be able to resist the chance to tell someone how clever he is.
Only if it actually is evidence related to that investigation. If the investigation is about X, but they're destroying evidence of Y, of which the investigators know nothing (i.e. isn't relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding). So, maybe they're destroying evidence of a Ponzi scheme, because they don't want an investigation of insider trading to turn up that, too.
IANAL, but I play one on/.
From what I've read of corporate security policies and training, destroying anything that they want to subpoena would be considered destruction of evidence. If they subpoena your hard drives or entire computer systems, or flash drives, or whatever, and you've destroyed them after knowing that there's an investigation, that's still destruction of evidence.
That is a bit worse than that. If the police already suspected them, they could simply follow the suspect, wait for him to dump the driver at the truk, stop the truck, get the disks without any trouble on getting search arrants or any such thing.
People think hard about how to destroy data on a disk for a reason.
Having cops conduct round-the-clock surveillance on a suspect is expensive. It would probably be hard for them to justify the cost for a non-violent crime.
Let me first apologize for making an assumption. I assumed that someone with an interest in evolution would also have done some investigation into past reasoning on the subject. I realize that this is an oversight on my part.
There is a decent (incomplete) explanation of entropy in information theory at:
Evolution predicts that a given line of organism will get better over time, given random inputs. Organisms are quite complex, but the same rule should hold for simpler systems, and allow a demonstration in a shorter time-frame then the evolutionary time-line, hence the example of cars. The use of a junk yard is a way of compressing the time required for the experiment, because we can examine many samples quickly. The point of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that instances of a design do not get better in the presence of random inputs. ID predicts that the quality of information decreases over time as random changes are made in copies of the information. Evolution predicts the opposite.
Why choose this thought experiment? because it demonstrates a crucial difference between Evolution as an origin model and Intelligent Design. I suspect the actual problem with a creation origin is that a Creator God has the authority to make a moral claim on his creation, on us. Evolution, on the other hand, presents successful procreation as the only virtue, perfect for the 'Me' generation.
I'm guessing that everything you know about entropy and thermodynamics you picked up from creationist texts or sites. At least that's where your conclusions seem to come from. They are incorrect. Maybe try some other sources for your information on the subject. Here's a good place for a quick start. Particularly this article.
It might have been deliberate, but NPR segued straight from talking about the (sadly almost certainly temporary) failure to renew the Patriot Act provisions... to discussing protests in Egypt over the decades-old 'emergency provisions' that gave 'sweeping powers to the security services'.
Seriously. The WH criticizes Egyptian Gov with one hand, and tries to say we need to renew the patriot act with the other. Obama, I trusted you, and I have now lost all faith. Thanks for making me never want to vote again. Whats the point when even the most heartfelt speeches about change pre-election dont mean shit once the puppet gets elected?
South park put it best, you gotta choose between an douche and a turd sandwich...
Start with serious election law reform at the state level. Until we get that done, there's really no hope of having better choices.
I know it will cause a biologist flamewar, but can we describe studying viruses as "studying life" when it's arguable whether viruses are alive or not?
Did you miss the part that noted that viruses aren't the only things they can study with this tool?
How many times have you heard the Democrats claim the Health Care legislation was "bi-partisan" because handful (fewer than35% by far) of the Republicans voted for it?
And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers.
So did Republicans - it would have passed without NO votes from both sides.
This was not a Democratic block at all, it was a bi-partisan block with many people on both sides questioning the extent of the Act.
Bi-partisan? Barely. 89% of Republicans voted for it. 35% of Democrats did. Yes, it would have passed if some hadn't dissented, but saying that "Republicans" blocked it is highly disingenuous. A relative handful of Republicans voted against it, against the wishes of the party.
Pseudo-scientific garbage would be someone not willing to debate an issue with a theory.
I would propose a measure of information that can be readily measured, such as the number of deviations a car exhibits from the original design. (To stay with the J-yard example.) This is easily measured and gives repeatable results. The control is the original design, with a value of zero deviations. Of course, we would prefer to limit confounding variables (mechanics, in this case.) who would reinsert design back in to the data set. We would probably also prefer to limit changes to the design we are comparing. (Newer models are right out.)
There are some very interesting results that cannot be obtained without knowing something of the original state of things.
If you had an actual scientific theory, we'd have something to discuss. You don't have one. Your argument does nothing to support your claim that ID is testable.
I remember the debate that preceded the Voyager Magnetometer experiment. There was exactly one person who correctly predicted all measurements. His basis for estimation was derived from Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5.
Could he publish the basis for his estimation? of course not! your compatriots in the evolution-only orthodoxy would never hear of such a thing! In order to publish his predictions and the agreement of the experiment with theory he had to hide the origin of the idea.
No idea what you're talking about here. Perhaps a link to some sort of explanation is in order.
You put an awful lot of faith in the "free market". History tells us that it doesn't remain free for long without regulation. As a democracy, we should be regulating in the interests of long-term prosperity and the maintenance of the free market. Free markets sound great in principle, as does your idea that we can influence them by choosing what to buy and who to buy from. That idea depends upon people having accurate and complete information upon which to make those decisions. That is so far from the way things actually are that it's a fantasy.
People don't have time to learn what the implications of any given purchase will be. They can't influence the market that way. They don't know what a company is doing with it's money, or what the highest paid executives at the top do with their money. They can't make the kinds of informed decisions you seem to think they can make because they don't have the necessary information, and they never will.
Even if all the information that was published was absolutely true and complete, we would be utterly overwhelmed by it. Of course it's not that way. It's both overwhelming and full of misinformation and outright lies, as well as gaping holes where we have no information at all. Depending on markets to solve everything is a complete fantasy. I wish people would stop acting like they're the solution to every problem.
A better approach would be to state your theory in a way that yields a testable hypothosis. You are correct in pointing out that saying "God did it" is precisely that same as saying "Life Evolved" Neither statement yields a testable proposition, since we cannot get God to do it again, nor can we wait the age of the universe for life to evolve.
What we can do is this: propose a test that distinguishes between two ideas, based on things we can test today. Creation claims that life arose by design. This would imply the presence of information and that information can be lost by a system, but a system gaining information is done only by a designer. Does this yield a testable hypothesis? It does: "In the absences of design, systems will become more disordered over time."
Do I need to continue? An examination of a junkyard will reveal the disorder that time brings to an ordered system in the absence of an ordering intelligence.
What a load of pseudo-scientific garbage. You have no control to test against, and you don't even define your terms, like information. How do you measure information in your experiment?
ID does make predictions about the world, the fundamental one being that there is design in life. There is order that can be discovered. ID also predicts that people are valuable as individuals, because we were designed as individuals, and there is a deeper purpose to our design than mere existence. Evolution reduces the value of the individual to zero, since there is nothing he could do that a sibling could not do as well. Even carrying a positive mutation is not enough, since that mutation could arise again making the individual's contribution moot.
With respect to the current generation of evolutionary theorists, there is no better statement of the theory than Darwins. (I reviewed it about a month ago, for a project I was working on.) The problem has gotten no easier over the centuries, indeed, now that we understand the complexity of life it is considerably harder that Darwin thought. There is no current idea in evolution that any better than Gould's punctuate equilibrium, But this is just ID by stages, not uniform process.
Let me clarify. When I say predictions, I mean scientific predictions. Testable, falsifiable predictions. You seem to have no understanding of science, and are obviously incapable of engaging in a discussion about it.
Sure, some of their tasks need to be done, but the vast majority of it is just bullshit. If you don't agree, then you better get on explaining how the endless piles of laws is useful, when our constitution was a whole couple of pages long.
Because the Constitution serves as a boundary for the laws that the government can make. It certainly wasn't intended to be the last word on law in this country. It's vague in many ways and we need specifics. Hence the laws. I'm not claiming that they're all useful. I'm sure there are tons that should be done away with, but someone believe they were useful at some point. I'd be glad to see some serious housecleaning when it comes to the laws on the books already. That doesn't mean that I think they're all useless or that we don't need regulation and enforcement.
This idea, of forcing freedom, i think is an oxymoron.
The idea that the Internet will remain free if left in the hands of corporations free of regulation is absolutely insane though.
as opposed to depending on the government who has enough trouble defending our first and second amendments.
I'm fully in favor of defending all our rights under the Constitution and its amendments. That certainly doesn't mean I trust the government, but we have more influence over the government than we do over the mega-ISPs that own the Internet infrastructure, and the government is more likely to pursue a path that will maintain the freedom for small companies to innovate, while the large companies have every incentive to lock it down as much as possible.
And if they keep providing me with a valueable service that i am willing to pay for, so what. BUt then, why haven't these things happened?
They're already trying to double and triple charge for data. You may be fine with paying more while they add nothing of value, but I'm not.
that's quite a contradiction in my eye. And what do you think will happen in a few years, when something else happens and the government wants more power? you think they'll jsut say, nah we can't do that? Nope, they'll just do it, after all it's for the good of the people.
If they can just do that, then what's to stop them from doing it now? That doesn't make sense.
I wonder how this will affect add-on developers. I have been holding off on moving to the beta releases of 4 because Tree Style Tab isn't available for it yet. Hope that it doesn't get harder for them to stay up to date.
Where to start? I'll start with your "alternative options." A person teaching something like a flat earth or a moon made of cheese is something that would indeed be absurd. Why? Because it has definitively been disproven. We have knowledge that directly contradicts those theories so much so that they could in no way be correct. Why is everyone now acting as though creationism or intelligent design has been disproven? Can you point to something in those theories that is directly at odds with something that is fact? No. And just on a side note, intelligent design uses evolution as the way the world was created. How is that at odds with anything you are saying other than it says God led the way for it to happen?
Considering that neither creationism nor ID are scientific theories, there's nothing to disprove as far as science is concerned. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, but that doesn't mean we should start teaching the truth of Pastafarianism in school.
Now let me get back to evolution. I will leave aside the problem of how the first living thing came into being.
As well you should, since that is not within the domain of the theory of evolution, but you knew that, right?
One of the problems I have with the evolutionary theory has to do with the energy required for new aspects of a species to come about through evolution. Let's start with the first cells. They likely had nothing for locomotion right? How were flagella developed in evolution? A cell with a flagellum moves by flapping the flagellum. How does it do so? It does so through the use of a small motor in its cell membrane. How did the cell get everything needed at the same time? Evolution would require the cell develop the flagellum in stages. Until every piece of the flagellum was present, it simply was using extra energy with zero benefit. Because of this, the cells with primitive flagella would have been at an evolutionary disadvantage than those without. So, how did something so simple as a flagellum evolve? Was it by pure and utter chance that all the parts evolved in the same generation? So, no, evolution has a lot of problems with it.
I encourage you to look into the problems with these theories. They are very enlightening.
So here we have your run-of-the-mill argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. You don't understand how it happened, therefore evolution has gaping holes and is wrong. Of course if you bothered to do even the most basic bit of research, you'd see that this subject has been covered all over the place, ad nauseum. Then you could at least frame your argument as a scientific rebuttal to those explanations. Since you haven't gotten past the hand-waving point, I don't think you're serious about finding answers, because you don't want a real answer. You want your beliefs to be validated. Sorry, but that's not what science is for.
At the end science cannot provide a sistem of values for us.
Neither can accepting on faith the writings of people hundreds or thousands of years ago and constantly trying to make them apply to society today. Sure, some things will fit. But many things won't, and by claiming that it's all divine dictate from God, we get stuck with at least as much bad as good. Let's have a more rational discussion about things rather than basing our morals on fairy tales.
Why should creation as a theory of origin be treated any different than evolution as a theory of origin? Both theories make claims about the world, and so should be provable based on their ability to predict the world we see. Why the emotion? Just apply scientific reasoning to the problem and see what you get. Please not that this is NOT the same thing as "believe every interpretation of data that is presented in a scientific journal". I say stick to the facts, and let either theory beware. In this forum anyone who questions evolution or AGW, even if that questioning is the result of careful thought and consideration is called an idiot. -- That is not science, that is polemic.
---------
Tut was not using his head anyway.
In addition to the other replies you got, I'd like to point out that evolution is not a theory that covers the origin of life. If you knew anything about evolutionary theory, you'd know that. Unfortunately there are many people on various boards of education who are equally ignorant about evolutionary theory, if not more so, and seem to take some sort of pride in that. These people are determining what is to be taught in science class, and yet have no idea what science actually is! It's terrifying.
And you don't find those word scary? excluding clowns.
Actually, I find clowns to be extremely creepy. Nannies are generally useful, and sometimes they're hot too! Bureaucrats vary wildly in their usefulness, but generally perform tasks that need to be done. You just have to keep your eye on them, lest they run amok. As for control, I'd actually prefer that it be balanced in the interest of preserving openness. This is in direct conflict with the wishes of the largest ISPs. I obviously can't depend on them to preserve it. They want to lock it down and monetize every possible avenue they can. That leaves the other major power as the only recourse. I don't advocate giving the government the power to micromanage the net, or to shut it down at will, but I do think that telling the ISPs what they can't do is a good idea, and in the interest of keeping the net open for innovation and progress.
They can teach about scientific weakness, right? How about teaching about scientific weakness of intelligent design? Now they can do it without reprimand. As for which theory is better: if you need to say evolution is right because it's right and not because it predicts things better, isn't it just a dogma?
Not good. While in theory, what you are saying could happen, in practice it generally won't, because that's not the point of this legislation, and it's not the driving force behind it. The idea is to give cover to those who want to push a religious point of view by pointing out areas where evolutionary theory is incomplete, and allow them to state, or at least strongly imply, that this invalidates the theory as a whole. This is, of course, ridiculous, but it would be protected by law. I think that would be completely insane, unless your intention is to further screw over this country's ability to compete in science and technology in the future. Students will be taught lies rather than science.
According to Darwin the geologic record should be filled with transitional forms, but it is not. His explanation is that the geologic record is imperfect, so we end up with evolution taking place 'off stage'. Contrary to Darwin's theory we can identify distinct species from the fossil record, and there is little in the way of transition to speak of. Philosophically it matters little, since one can either assign a new fossil to an old designation or create a new one by the whim of the observer. Even if one found a birdfish or a lizzardfrog, it could just as easily be assigned to a new designation as puffed as a transitional form.
Oh, and by the way, the fossil record certainly is imperfect, but it also is full of transitional forms. That's really not much of an avenue for attacking evolution.
According to Darwin the geologic record should be filled with transitional forms, but it is not. His explanation is that the geologic record is imperfect, so we end up with evolution taking place 'off stage'. Contrary to Darwin's theory we can identify distinct species from the fossil record, and there is little in the way of transition to speak of. Philosophically it matters little, since one can either assign a new fossil to an old designation or create a new one by the whim of the observer. Even if one found a birdfish or a lizzardfrog, it could just as easily be assigned to a new designation as puffed as a transitional form.
Darwin may have been the prime contributor to the beginnings of evolutionary theory, but his writings and understanding of it are very flawed compared to what we've learned since his time. Using only his understanding of evolution to attack it is just a straw-man argument. Either address modern evolutionary theory, or give up. Anything else is not scientific.
Evolution has randomicity at it's core, and so makes no prediction except chaos.
ID postulates design as the core premise, and so makes predictions about the world: there is order to be found. I prefer the idea that science works, that it works to find the design of things in the interest of making the world a better place.
There is no scientific theory behind ID. If you know of one, you should present it, because nobody else has. ID tries to shoot holes in the theory of evolution, but it is not scientific. It is only speculative. It presents no falsifiable hypotheses. It gives no evidence to falsify any hypothesis of evolutionary theory either. It's pretty useless for explaining anything.
Why would an evolutionist work to cure a disease? isn't it better to allow the disease to kill off the weaker individuals to create a better species?
In the interest of survival? Both his own, as it gets him a paycheck, which lets him support a family, as well as for society as a whole. Are we not more fit as a species for our ability to use our intelligence to combat threats to our existence? We may be raising all boats, but the weakest will still be more likely to die sooner, and so will many others, just due to chance. Your argument holds no water.
Personally, I believe in evolution. My problem is the way it is taught. It's not entirely the fault of those who set the credentials either. Because so many "theists" feel it is a threat to their beliefs, they insist on teaching "God did it" in the classroom. That's wrong. However, the problem comes in where people want to limit the teacher's ability to point out some of the shortcomings of evolution. And even in mentioning that evolution could possibly have shortcomings, there are people who would respond (had this been posted in a "live" thread) that there are no holes in evolution. They act the exact same way towards people threatening evolution as theists act when questioning their faith.
Sure. We see this behavior on many issues. No argument from me on that.
So you have two groups, both acting the exact same way on opposite sides of the issue. Then you have moderates in the middle getting labeled by both sides. If you believe in a god and evolution, you are labeled a heretic by your religious piers. At the same time, if you point out that evolution is not complete, you are labeled a religious nut job who wants to replace a science textbook by those who don't "believe".
If we let the morons on either side run things, we're doomed. The honest answer is that of course the theory of evolution is incomplete. There is no such thing as a complete scientific theory. They're always open to reevaluation in light of new evidence or new understanding. This may not satisfy some people, but those people have no business determining what should be included in science education because they have no understanding of science.
I believe in God AND evolution which puts me in the middle, getting attacked from both sides. To me, God simply saying "let it be" and it was is a bit too simplistic for me. I want to know how God did it. God is a mathematician and a scientist. I have no problems studying His disciplines and teaching them as math and science. There is no need to bring God into it. I also have no problems with a teacher explaining that science does not negate religion. I have enormous problems with someone saying "No God Required" as another posted did earlier.
I'm fine with the belief in a prime-mover sort of god. I just don't think that it belongs in the classroom. Making the claim that the laws of nature require a god is a faith-based claim that has no basis in science, and is, by definition, completely outside of the domain of science. Making the claim that it doesn't require a god also has no basis, as we don't know what the requirements for the creation of a universe are. However, since there is no evidence of supernatural intervention, there is no need to include it in any discussion of science. It explains nothing. It also brings up new problems, of the "turtles all the way down" variety.
The other group is those scientists, who may or may not believe in a deity but know that their religious beliefs don't matter. They keep the two basically separated because they don't feel that one is any kind of threat to the other. THERE IS NO CONFLICT in their minds. They either marvel at the universe as created by God or they marvel at the universe created by chance. But, just like the other group, if they are to point out that there are questions that our current understanding of evolution does not answer, they are ridiculed by their piers.
I don't believe that's true. There are many areas where we are still seeking answers, and those are valid areas for research. I don't know of anyone being ridiculed for researching areas where we still don't understand things. This research leads to better understanding all the time. The only people I see being ridiculed are those that suggest that because we don't currently understand something, that we should toss the whole thing out as wrong. Those people are rightly ridiculed.
Slashdot Mirror
The 40k deaths a year on the highway system are a good reason to automate the operation of motor vehicles, an option that would cost far less than 53 billion, and pay for it self rapidly in avoided costs, of course it would make the socialist dream of complete control of travel much more difficult, since even a mid-size car realizes better energy efficiency than buses, because it does not ever run empty, and is handily where it is needed when it is needed. If our time is worth anything at all the car makes very good sense.
What are you basing your cost claim for automating motor vehicles on?
A general rule I've used more than once, which seems pretty damned obvious but just never seems to be followed very much is: If you want to keep a secret, the first step is don't tell anyone.
Anyone who's as big of a douchebag asshole as this guy wouldn't be able to resist the chance to tell someone how clever he is.
Only if it actually is evidence related to that investigation. If the investigation is about X, but they're destroying evidence of Y, of which the investigators know nothing (i.e. isn't relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding). So, maybe they're destroying evidence of a Ponzi scheme, because they don't want an investigation of insider trading to turn up that, too. IANAL, but I play one on /.
From what I've read of corporate security policies and training, destroying anything that they want to subpoena would be considered destruction of evidence. If they subpoena your hard drives or entire computer systems, or flash drives, or whatever, and you've destroyed them after knowing that there's an investigation, that's still destruction of evidence.
That is a bit worse than that. If the police already suspected them, they could simply follow the suspect, wait for him to dump the driver at the truk, stop the truck, get the disks without any trouble on getting search arrants or any such thing.
People think hard about how to destroy data on a disk for a reason.
Having cops conduct round-the-clock surveillance on a suspect is expensive. It would probably be hard for them to justify the cost for a non-violent crime.
Let me first apologize for making an assumption. I assumed that someone with an interest in evolution would also have done some investigation into past reasoning on the subject. I realize that this is an oversight on my part.
There is a decent (incomplete) explanation of entropy in information theory at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
Evolution predicts that a given line of organism will get better over time, given random inputs. Organisms are quite complex, but the same rule should hold for simpler systems, and allow a demonstration in a shorter time-frame then the evolutionary time-line, hence the example of cars. The use of a junk yard is a way of compressing the time required for the experiment, because we can examine many samples quickly. The point of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that instances of a design do not get better in the presence of random inputs. ID predicts that the quality of information decreases over time as random changes are made in copies of the information. Evolution predicts the opposite.
Why choose this thought experiment? because it demonstrates a crucial difference between Evolution as an origin model and Intelligent Design. I suspect the actual problem with a creation origin is that a Creator God has the authority to make a moral claim on his creation, on us. Evolution, on the other hand, presents successful procreation as the only virtue, perfect for the 'Me' generation.
I'm guessing that everything you know about entropy and thermodynamics you picked up from creationist texts or sites. At least that's where your conclusions seem to come from. They are incorrect. Maybe try some other sources for your information on the subject. Here's a good place for a quick start. Particularly this article.
It might have been deliberate, but NPR segued straight from talking about the (sadly almost certainly temporary) failure to renew the Patriot Act provisions... to discussing protests in Egypt over the decades-old 'emergency provisions' that gave 'sweeping powers to the security services'.
Seriously. The WH criticizes Egyptian Gov with one hand, and tries to say we need to renew the patriot act with the other. Obama, I trusted you, and I have now lost all faith. Thanks for making me never want to vote again. Whats the point when even the most heartfelt speeches about change pre-election dont mean shit once the puppet gets elected?
South park put it best, you gotta choose between an douche and a turd sandwich...
Start with serious election law reform at the state level. Until we get that done, there's really no hope of having better choices.
I know it will cause a biologist flamewar, but can we describe studying viruses as "studying life" when it's arguable whether viruses are alive or not?
Did you miss the part that noted that viruses aren't the only things they can study with this tool?
How many times have you heard the Democrats claim the Health Care legislation was "bi-partisan" because handful (fewer than35% by far) of the Republicans voted for it?
Now ask me how many times I believed it.
And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers.
So did Republicans - it would have passed without NO votes from both sides.
This was not a Democratic block at all, it was a bi-partisan block with many people on both sides questioning the extent of the Act.
Bi-partisan? Barely. 89% of Republicans voted for it. 35% of Democrats did. Yes, it would have passed if some hadn't dissented, but saying that "Republicans" blocked it is highly disingenuous. A relative handful of Republicans voted against it, against the wishes of the party.
Pseudo-scientific garbage would be someone not willing to debate an issue with a theory. I would propose a measure of information that can be readily measured, such as the number of deviations a car exhibits from the original design. (To stay with the J-yard example.) This is easily measured and gives repeatable results. The control is the original design, with a value of zero deviations. Of course, we would prefer to limit confounding variables (mechanics, in this case.) who would reinsert design back in to the data set. We would probably also prefer to limit changes to the design we are comparing. (Newer models are right out.) There are some very interesting results that cannot be obtained without knowing something of the original state of things.
If you had an actual scientific theory, we'd have something to discuss. You don't have one. Your argument does nothing to support your claim that ID is testable.
I remember the debate that preceded the Voyager Magnetometer experiment. There was exactly one person who correctly predicted all measurements. His basis for estimation was derived from Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5. Could he publish the basis for his estimation? of course not! your compatriots in the evolution-only orthodoxy would never hear of such a thing! In order to publish his predictions and the agreement of the experiment with theory he had to hide the origin of the idea.
No idea what you're talking about here. Perhaps a link to some sort of explanation is in order.
You put an awful lot of faith in the "free market". History tells us that it doesn't remain free for long without regulation. As a democracy, we should be regulating in the interests of long-term prosperity and the maintenance of the free market. Free markets sound great in principle, as does your idea that we can influence them by choosing what to buy and who to buy from. That idea depends upon people having accurate and complete information upon which to make those decisions. That is so far from the way things actually are that it's a fantasy.
People don't have time to learn what the implications of any given purchase will be. They can't influence the market that way. They don't know what a company is doing with it's money, or what the highest paid executives at the top do with their money. They can't make the kinds of informed decisions you seem to think they can make because they don't have the necessary information, and they never will.
Even if all the information that was published was absolutely true and complete, we would be utterly overwhelmed by it. Of course it's not that way. It's both overwhelming and full of misinformation and outright lies, as well as gaping holes where we have no information at all. Depending on markets to solve everything is a complete fantasy. I wish people would stop acting like they're the solution to every problem.
A better approach would be to state your theory in a way that yields a testable hypothosis. You are correct in pointing out that saying "God did it" is precisely that same as saying "Life Evolved" Neither statement yields a testable proposition, since we cannot get God to do it again, nor can we wait the age of the universe for life to evolve.
What we can do is this: propose a test that distinguishes between two ideas, based on things we can test today. Creation claims that life arose by design. This would imply the presence of information and that information can be lost by a system, but a system gaining information is done only by a designer. Does this yield a testable hypothesis? It does: "In the absences of design, systems will become more disordered over time."
Do I need to continue? An examination of a junkyard will reveal the disorder that time brings to an ordered system in the absence of an ordering intelligence.
What a load of pseudo-scientific garbage. You have no control to test against, and you don't even define your terms, like information. How do you measure information in your experiment?
ID does make predictions about the world, the fundamental one being that there is design in life. There is order that can be discovered. ID also predicts that people are valuable as individuals, because we were designed as individuals, and there is a deeper purpose to our design than mere existence. Evolution reduces the value of the individual to zero, since there is nothing he could do that a sibling could not do as well. Even carrying a positive mutation is not enough, since that mutation could arise again making the individual's contribution moot.
With respect to the current generation of evolutionary theorists, there is no better statement of the theory than Darwins. (I reviewed it about a month ago, for a project I was working on.) The problem has gotten no easier over the centuries, indeed, now that we understand the complexity of life it is considerably harder that Darwin thought. There is no current idea in evolution that any better than Gould's punctuate equilibrium, But this is just ID by stages, not uniform process.
Let me clarify. When I say predictions, I mean scientific predictions. Testable, falsifiable predictions. You seem to have no understanding of science, and are obviously incapable of engaging in a discussion about it.
Sure, some of their tasks need to be done, but the vast majority of it is just bullshit. If you don't agree, then you better get on explaining how the endless piles of laws is useful, when our constitution was a whole couple of pages long.
Because the Constitution serves as a boundary for the laws that the government can make. It certainly wasn't intended to be the last word on law in this country. It's vague in many ways and we need specifics. Hence the laws. I'm not claiming that they're all useful. I'm sure there are tons that should be done away with, but someone believe they were useful at some point. I'd be glad to see some serious housecleaning when it comes to the laws on the books already. That doesn't mean that I think they're all useless or that we don't need regulation and enforcement.
This idea, of forcing freedom, i think is an oxymoron.
The idea that the Internet will remain free if left in the hands of corporations free of regulation is absolutely insane though.
as opposed to depending on the government who has enough trouble defending our first and second amendments.
I'm fully in favor of defending all our rights under the Constitution and its amendments. That certainly doesn't mean I trust the government, but we have more influence over the government than we do over the mega-ISPs that own the Internet infrastructure, and the government is more likely to pursue a path that will maintain the freedom for small companies to innovate, while the large companies have every incentive to lock it down as much as possible.
And if they keep providing me with a valueable service that i am willing to pay for, so what. BUt then, why haven't these things happened?
They're already trying to double and triple charge for data. You may be fine with paying more while they add nothing of value, but I'm not.
that's quite a contradiction in my eye. And what do you think will happen in a few years, when something else happens and the government wants more power? you think they'll jsut say, nah we can't do that? Nope, they'll just do it, after all it's for the good of the people.
If they can just do that, then what's to stop them from doing it now? That doesn't make sense.
I wonder how this will affect add-on developers. I have been holding off on moving to the beta releases of 4 because Tree Style Tab isn't available for it yet. Hope that it doesn't get harder for them to stay up to date.
Ok, you're basically talking out of your ass here. Come back with some scientific evidence to back up your claims.
Where to start? I'll start with your "alternative options." A person teaching something like a flat earth or a moon made of cheese is something that would indeed be absurd. Why? Because it has definitively been disproven. We have knowledge that directly contradicts those theories so much so that they could in no way be correct. Why is everyone now acting as though creationism or intelligent design has been disproven? Can you point to something in those theories that is directly at odds with something that is fact? No. And just on a side note, intelligent design uses evolution as the way the world was created. How is that at odds with anything you are saying other than it says God led the way for it to happen?
Considering that neither creationism nor ID are scientific theories, there's nothing to disprove as far as science is concerned. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, but that doesn't mean we should start teaching the truth of Pastafarianism in school.
Now let me get back to evolution. I will leave aside the problem of how the first living thing came into being.
As well you should, since that is not within the domain of the theory of evolution, but you knew that, right?
One of the problems I have with the evolutionary theory has to do with the energy required for new aspects of a species to come about through evolution. Let's start with the first cells. They likely had nothing for locomotion right? How were flagella developed in evolution? A cell with a flagellum moves by flapping the flagellum. How does it do so? It does so through the use of a small motor in its cell membrane. How did the cell get everything needed at the same time? Evolution would require the cell develop the flagellum in stages. Until every piece of the flagellum was present, it simply was using extra energy with zero benefit. Because of this, the cells with primitive flagella would have been at an evolutionary disadvantage than those without. So, how did something so simple as a flagellum evolve? Was it by pure and utter chance that all the parts evolved in the same generation? So, no, evolution has a lot of problems with it.
I encourage you to look into the problems with these theories. They are very enlightening.
So here we have your run-of-the-mill argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. You don't understand how it happened, therefore evolution has gaping holes and is wrong. Of course if you bothered to do even the most basic bit of research, you'd see that this subject has been covered all over the place, ad nauseum. Then you could at least frame your argument as a scientific rebuttal to those explanations. Since you haven't gotten past the hand-waving point, I don't think you're serious about finding answers, because you don't want a real answer. You want your beliefs to be validated. Sorry, but that's not what science is for.
At the end science cannot provide a sistem of values for us.
Neither can accepting on faith the writings of people hundreds or thousands of years ago and constantly trying to make them apply to society today. Sure, some things will fit. But many things won't, and by claiming that it's all divine dictate from God, we get stuck with at least as much bad as good. Let's have a more rational discussion about things rather than basing our morals on fairy tales.
Why should creation as a theory of origin be treated any different than evolution as a theory of origin? Both theories make claims about the world, and so should be provable based on their ability to predict the world we see. Why the emotion? Just apply scientific reasoning to the problem and see what you get. Please not that this is NOT the same thing as "believe every interpretation of data that is presented in a scientific journal". I say stick to the facts, and let either theory beware. In this forum anyone who questions evolution or AGW, even if that questioning is the result of careful thought and consideration is called an idiot. -- That is not science, that is polemic. --------- Tut was not using his head anyway.
In addition to the other replies you got, I'd like to point out that evolution is not a theory that covers the origin of life. If you knew anything about evolutionary theory, you'd know that. Unfortunately there are many people on various boards of education who are equally ignorant about evolutionary theory, if not more so, and seem to take some sort of pride in that. These people are determining what is to be taught in science class, and yet have no idea what science actually is! It's terrifying.
And you don't find those word scary? excluding clowns.
Actually, I find clowns to be extremely creepy. Nannies are generally useful, and sometimes they're hot too! Bureaucrats vary wildly in their usefulness, but generally perform tasks that need to be done. You just have to keep your eye on them, lest they run amok. As for control, I'd actually prefer that it be balanced in the interest of preserving openness. This is in direct conflict with the wishes of the largest ISPs. I obviously can't depend on them to preserve it. They want to lock it down and monetize every possible avenue they can. That leaves the other major power as the only recourse. I don't advocate giving the government the power to micromanage the net, or to shut it down at will, but I do think that telling the ISPs what they can't do is a good idea, and in the interest of keeping the net open for innovation and progress.
Well written.
Until you actually think about it.
They can teach about scientific weakness, right? How about teaching about scientific weakness of intelligent design? Now they can do it without reprimand. As for which theory is better: if you need to say evolution is right because it's right and not because it predicts things better, isn't it just a dogma?
Not good. While in theory, what you are saying could happen, in practice it generally won't, because that's not the point of this legislation, and it's not the driving force behind it. The idea is to give cover to those who want to push a religious point of view by pointing out areas where evolutionary theory is incomplete, and allow them to state, or at least strongly imply, that this invalidates the theory as a whole. This is, of course, ridiculous, but it would be protected by law. I think that would be completely insane, unless your intention is to further screw over this country's ability to compete in science and technology in the future. Students will be taught lies rather than science.
According to Darwin the geologic record should be filled with transitional forms, but it is not. His explanation is that the geologic record is imperfect, so we end up with evolution taking place 'off stage'. Contrary to Darwin's theory we can identify distinct species from the fossil record, and there is little in the way of transition to speak of. Philosophically it matters little, since one can either assign a new fossil to an old designation or create a new one by the whim of the observer. Even if one found a birdfish or a lizzardfrog, it could just as easily be assigned to a new designation as puffed as a transitional form.
Oh, and by the way, the fossil record certainly is imperfect, but it also is full of transitional forms. That's really not much of an avenue for attacking evolution.
According to Darwin the geologic record should be filled with transitional forms, but it is not. His explanation is that the geologic record is imperfect, so we end up with evolution taking place 'off stage'. Contrary to Darwin's theory we can identify distinct species from the fossil record, and there is little in the way of transition to speak of. Philosophically it matters little, since one can either assign a new fossil to an old designation or create a new one by the whim of the observer. Even if one found a birdfish or a lizzardfrog, it could just as easily be assigned to a new designation as puffed as a transitional form.
Darwin may have been the prime contributor to the beginnings of evolutionary theory, but his writings and understanding of it are very flawed compared to what we've learned since his time. Using only his understanding of evolution to attack it is just a straw-man argument. Either address modern evolutionary theory, or give up. Anything else is not scientific.
Evolution has randomicity at it's core, and so makes no prediction except chaos.
ID postulates design as the core premise, and so makes predictions about the world: there is order to be found. I prefer the idea that science works, that it works to find the design of things in the interest of making the world a better place.
There is no scientific theory behind ID. If you know of one, you should present it, because nobody else has. ID tries to shoot holes in the theory of evolution, but it is not scientific. It is only speculative. It presents no falsifiable hypotheses. It gives no evidence to falsify any hypothesis of evolutionary theory either. It's pretty useless for explaining anything.
Why would an evolutionist work to cure a disease? isn't it better to allow the disease to kill off the weaker individuals to create a better species?
In the interest of survival? Both his own, as it gets him a paycheck, which lets him support a family, as well as for society as a whole. Are we not more fit as a species for our ability to use our intelligence to combat threats to our existence? We may be raising all boats, but the weakest will still be more likely to die sooner, and so will many others, just due to chance. Your argument holds no water.
Personally, I believe in evolution. My problem is the way it is taught. It's not entirely the fault of those who set the credentials either. Because so many "theists" feel it is a threat to their beliefs, they insist on teaching "God did it" in the classroom. That's wrong. However, the problem comes in where people want to limit the teacher's ability to point out some of the shortcomings of evolution. And even in mentioning that evolution could possibly have shortcomings, there are people who would respond (had this been posted in a "live" thread) that there are no holes in evolution. They act the exact same way towards people threatening evolution as theists act when questioning their faith.
Sure. We see this behavior on many issues. No argument from me on that.
So you have two groups, both acting the exact same way on opposite sides of the issue. Then you have moderates in the middle getting labeled by both sides. If you believe in a god and evolution, you are labeled a heretic by your religious piers. At the same time, if you point out that evolution is not complete, you are labeled a religious nut job who wants to replace a science textbook by those who don't "believe".
If we let the morons on either side run things, we're doomed. The honest answer is that of course the theory of evolution is incomplete. There is no such thing as a complete scientific theory. They're always open to reevaluation in light of new evidence or new understanding. This may not satisfy some people, but those people have no business determining what should be included in science education because they have no understanding of science.
I believe in God AND evolution which puts me in the middle, getting attacked from both sides. To me, God simply saying "let it be" and it was is a bit too simplistic for me. I want to know how God did it. God is a mathematician and a scientist. I have no problems studying His disciplines and teaching them as math and science. There is no need to bring God into it. I also have no problems with a teacher explaining that science does not negate religion. I have enormous problems with someone saying "No God Required" as another posted did earlier.
I'm fine with the belief in a prime-mover sort of god. I just don't think that it belongs in the classroom. Making the claim that the laws of nature require a god is a faith-based claim that has no basis in science, and is, by definition, completely outside of the domain of science. Making the claim that it doesn't require a god also has no basis, as we don't know what the requirements for the creation of a universe are. However, since there is no evidence of supernatural intervention, there is no need to include it in any discussion of science. It explains nothing. It also brings up new problems, of the "turtles all the way down" variety.
The other group is those scientists, who may or may not believe in a deity but know that their religious beliefs don't matter. They keep the two basically separated because they don't feel that one is any kind of threat to the other. THERE IS NO CONFLICT in their minds. They either marvel at the universe as created by God or they marvel at the universe created by chance. But, just like the other group, if they are to point out that there are questions that our current understanding of evolution does not answer, they are ridiculed by their piers.
I don't believe that's true. There are many areas where we are still seeking answers, and those are valid areas for research. I don't know of anyone being ridiculed for researching areas where we still don't understand things. This research leads to better understanding all the time. The only people I see being ridiculed are those that suggest that because we don't currently understand something, that we should toss the whole thing out as wrong. Those people are rightly ridiculed.