Science and religion, apples and oranges. They operate with different rules and definitions, and hence verity in one is irrelevant to the other domain. (1) and (2) does not negate each other and your (3) is meaningless.
I don't like the idea of creationism being taught in a science class, but I wouldn't mind them both (and other compelling theories) being presented in an "Origins and Development of Life" class.
Who do you think should teach such a class, the Spanish teachers maybe?
And for all intensive purposes (commercially available chips/cards), any single Nvidia and ATI card will outperform any of Intel's current offerings (sli'ed or not).
Yeah, yeah, science at work, and it's all preaching to the choir here, but it'd be good if the researchers actually be conservative in the reports of their finding, especially in those fields where evidence is so circumstantial like cosmology, medical research, etc., lest people think scientists and salespeople are all the same.
Some science news gets posted, and a commentor or two pop up saying something along the line of "hey, I know that dudette, I worked with her on this and that. And here some more stuff related to this..."
What other sites have such audience, eh?!
Not that I can vouch for these comments, you understand, but these seem to happen with some regularity here.
...So if we have theories which point to the possibility of a metaphysical component, these should not be thrown out...
That's fine, as long as the metaphysical component can be empirically verified. Oh wait, then it wouldn't be metaphysical, it would be physical. Nevermind. What do you mean by "metaphysical" anyway?
...Science is driven by evidence and if the evidence leads to a metaphysical something or to god...
Good point about importance of evidence, but I think metaphysics/god and science are orthogonal by definition - metaphysics/god cannot even be defined in a meaningful scientific manner, and hence the impossibility of empirical evidence pointing to metaphysics/god.
Dude, now you're being a dick. You asked a good question, and Ray and others have responded - "disabled" describes the difficulty she faces in mounting a defense, better than "poor", and it is relevant since it factors into how RIAA targets its victims.
That's right, not being supported by scientific evidence would be, well, without scientific support, unsupported by science, without scientific base. Scientifically null. But why did you bring science into this?
From the rough discussions I've seen is that Georgia has been historically very territorially aggressive, only limited by the fact that the Russians directly sit next to them. The region of Ossetia at least is from a different ethnic group (not sure about Abkhazia) and by the standard of Kosovo have the right to self determination. The most cynical view that I've seen is that Georgia wanted to make sure that any referendum on the future of Ossetia goes their way by essentially wiping out anyone who would vote to join Russia.
Well, that's the pro-Russia side's story. Despite "cease-fire", things seem to be still in flux, and no evidence of the damage due to Georgian bombing of S. Ossetia, which the Russian claims is a genocide, seems to be coming through.
Slashdot Mirror
When did sex ed become religion?
I present the parent post as exhibit A. See what happens if you teach kids religion in science classes?
Science and religion, apples and oranges. They operate with different rules and definitions, and hence verity in one is irrelevant to the other domain. (1) and (2) does not negate each other and your (3) is meaningless.
Who do you think should teach such a class, the Spanish teachers maybe?
Unless it's not intesnive.
Throw us a bone, will ya? Come on, god damn PC history every other day. Give us more of that Netherlands Neanderthal Cow magnet stuff. Those are good.
Was that supposed to be some sorta scientific theory?
You seem to have an esp that I don't have.
This corroborates the finding that the so-called Noah's ark remains are actually debris of the "second" spaceship that left early.
OMG Diabolical!!
Wrong room. Religion is down the hall.
Yeah, yeah, science at work, and it's all preaching to the choir here, but it'd be good if the researchers actually be conservative in the reports of their finding, especially in those fields where evidence is so circumstantial like cosmology, medical research, etc., lest people think scientists and salespeople are all the same.
We are all still using "ethernet", you know.
That's right, C++ is the Perl of programming language.
Spoken like a true primadonna.
What he say?
Take that, BadAnalogyGuy. Might as well give up your id and retire now.
Some science news gets posted, and a commentor or two pop up saying something along the line of "hey, I know that dudette, I worked with her on this and that. And here some more stuff related to this..."
What other sites have such audience, eh?!
Not that I can vouch for these comments, you understand, but these seem to happen with some regularity here.
That's fine, as long as the metaphysical component can be empirically verified. Oh wait, then it wouldn't be metaphysical, it would be physical. Nevermind. What do you mean by "metaphysical" anyway?
Good point about importance of evidence, but I think metaphysics/god and science are orthogonal by definition - metaphysics/god cannot even be defined in a meaningful scientific manner, and hence the impossibility of empirical evidence pointing to metaphysics/god.
Dude, now you're being a dick. You asked a good question, and Ray and others have responded - "disabled" describes the difficulty she faces in mounting a defense, better than "poor", and it is relevant since it factors into how RIAA targets its victims.
What's wrong with "whiny, shallow, pseudo-intellectual, metrosexual, idiotic, and gay?" What are you, homophobe or something?
What?
That's right, not being supported by scientific evidence would be, well, without scientific support, unsupported by science, without scientific base. Scientifically null. But why did you bring science into this?
Mindshare, innovation may lead to profit, but not necessarily, and financial market is all about profit (and bubbles and scams and rumors :-).
Well, that's the pro-Russia side's story. Despite "cease-fire", things seem to be still in flux, and no evidence of the damage due to Georgian bombing of S. Ossetia, which the Russian claims is a genocide, seems to be coming through.
Just balancing it out - no dog in the fight.