digital distribution will have even less adoption by the general populace than blu-ray. no one has gotten it right yet and there are no promising plans on the horizon.
last i checked, DVD was/is patented as well. just didn't have as much fierce competition. the slow spread was due to the format war, not 'cause its patented.
the ones you mention that are currently upgradable are all much more expensive than the ps3. if you go for price, yea, there are cheaper ones. if you want upgradable and don't care about price, yea, there are others. but right now, the ps3 has one of the highest ratings, is the cheapest upgradable unit, and can stream media from computers on your network to boot (to mention a non-gaming feature). it also has the playstation store which if they play their cards right will become a spot where you can buy/rent movies from in the future. it has everything a standalone player has AND more. and right now, its cheaper AND better than most. you're still not convincing anyone that a ps3 isn't worth the price right now. i can only assume you are an xbox fanboy. no one else would be fighting tooth and nail like you are (replying to multiple people who have pointed out that the ps3 is one of the more smarter purchases for a blu-ray player)
The content is not the same, technically. The programming is different, hence different features available between HD-DVD and Blu-ray. If you read the data and pressed it onto the other, it would *not* work.
Following the pricing of DVD players, where I found the average to be $200 in the year 2000 (approx. 3 years after it came out) and INCLUDING inflation, i'd say a year from now, they should be in the $250-$300 range.
well, they had to agree to a time frame to even be allowed to bid. if they say they can't do it, they shouldn't have agreed in the first place. if they do that, they should take away the license (probably won't happen). so yea, this might happen. THOUGH, it'd really only be in their best interest to not use the c-block with the open access restrictions. even then, its a trade off. the c-block spectrum is great at penetrating walls, etc. so, to not use it, sucks. however, if they DO decide to not use it, i wouldn't be surprised to see Google get all huffy puffy about it. i have a feeling too many eyes will be on the c-block spectrum for them to do anything shady with it.
i'm not sure, but i believe you license it by region, so your first reason is flawed (assuming i'm right, though). and nationwide cellphone companies will can *not* implement it *immediately*. they can implement it fairly quickly. definitely much more quickly than a small company, but not immediately. also, your reasoning that the person who can help the most people should get a specific resource is also faulty. if thats the case, we should take any spectrum ANY small provider has and give it to the biggest cell phone company in the country. it'd help more people that way.
Nonetheless, I agree with you that it is better for everyone. I just don't think small companies should automatically be shoved out of the way. the big companies would win in the end anyway cause the small ones still won't be able to outbid them.
this whole "blu-ray monopoly" thing is getting old. prices went up because they don't have to undercut their costs anymore. now, prices will eventually go down when the technology is actually cheaper. DVDs were expensive at one point too, but had no competition at the time (if you really want to count VHS, thats up to you). They started high (in some categories, higher than hi-def dvds), but due to never having to undercut their costs, they started as high as they could and then went down. Blu-ray didn't start as high as it could. It noticed it had to cut profits to try to win first. Now, they don't have to. Prices are now controlled by the actual cost of the equipment. Competing formats is *NOT* good for the consumer unless all content is available on all formats. The fact that one of the hi-def formats died is *GOOD* for the consumer. Competition isn't automatically good for the consumer and a so-called 'monopoly' (which is most definitely isn't) isn't automatically bad. When HD was around, it was a terrible situation. People were torn between choosing various studios. What if I liked movies from two studios that weren't on the same format? I'd have to buy a dual-player or even just two players. How can you justify saying its a good thing for consumers that they'd have to pay twice as much money on equipment?
Anyhow, on the topic at hand, is anyone really surprised it got cracked? DRM will eventually die at some point. Right now its just something that we gotta continue fighting until companies realize they lose more money by utilizing it. Music has begun dropping DRM. Some book companies have started releasing straight pdf's of books without any DRM. Video will eventually follow.
not every movie copied has to be stolen. and i doubt he was planning on stealing. especially since he said he also wants to wait for the prices of the movies to come down. which he has a point with. i mean, i've seen some movies go for $35.
i'm pretty sure "undocumented" means it's *not* in the tech notes... though, i don't write stuff for macs, so maybe you guys use a different definition...
the hubble doesn't bring profit. its not like it's making more money then they are spending on it. we pay taxes, yes. yes, some it goes to nasa. however, nasa is putting that money into a project that isn't making extra money, therefore its not a profit.
You assume religion has no observable phenomenon, yet many people say they see god or God or whatever. Just because *you* don't see it doesn't mean they don't see it. Granted, I also don't believe in religion due to logic (because *I* don't see it either). However, I have no way of knowing whether they don't actually see it. They may just be more open to something that I am. I do know that most religions are bloated with things added on by corrupted men, but at the heart, there still may be truth. I just don't know. I wasn't around back then. Maybe there was a talking burning bush or maybe some guy did go around healing people. I've no time machine to observe these events. Any how, just because *I* don't see evidence doesn't mean someone else shouldn't believe something. It just means I don't believe something. Religion is only illogical if you believe it without reason. They have a reason to believe (some of them at least, I have no delusions about there being a huge amount of brain washed fools). So its a logical fallacy for you or I to believe in religion. Its not necessarily a logical fallacy for someone else.
I wasn't trying to convince you that religion is actually true. Just that it might be. I don't believe it to be so, but that doesn't mean its not. I'm with you on the whole science thing. I think its really hard to not believe in it, but i can't see the world through others eyes, so I don't know what 'proof' they're looking at.
wow. i can't even respond to something as intellectually bankrupt as your statements.
You offer no reasoning for any of your conjectures. You throw around insults as if that means something. You're hatred and narrow-mindedness pretty much disallow me from continuing any sort of semi-intelligent debate. I say semi-intelligent because up until now, I really only heard anything remotely intelligent on one side of this argument, mine. I am the only one stating that I 'know' very little. I can only build educated responses based off of experience and observation (you know, sorta like what science does). However, since 'cause & effect' is not 100% incontrovertible ('uncontrovertible' isn't a real word), anything based off of the act of observation is in doubt. Not a reasonable doubt, but a doubt nonetheless. Observation itself has doubt cast upon it by the mere fact that you can't prove that what you interpret through your senses isn't your brain fooling you. I can't even prove to you that I exist, nor you to I. Or I might be suffering from a delusion of your existence. Though, those things aren't reasonable conclusions, but that doesn't mean they're impossible, only unlikely. It would be foolish to act on least useful one. Even if the outside world does not exist, it serves no purpose to act as if it did not. Everything you know outside your own head is based off the assumption that your brain isn't lying to you. Prove that that assumption is fact and then maybe I'll give your opinion a little more respect. Until then, I have to save my energy for more fruitful pursuits other than trying to educate somewhere who is as stubborn and ridiculous as the religious people.
And in response to your second cute little blog post you linked to, yes, *you* can't be absolutely certain of anything the same way a robot can't be absolutely certain of anything. I can't prove you actually have a mind to even think the words "I am." And beyond that, who says thinking implies existence anyway. for all i know, its just speaking on a level only i can hear and i'm programmed to respond to it in various ways. i can't even prove they're my thoughts.
I believe nothing with absolute certainty, though I act as if I was about certain things. I'm not absolutely certain existence is what I see before me, but I will act as if I am. There's no point in not. There are plenty of ideas out there that *could* be true, but they're just not useful. Maybe we're all one persona in someone's split personality and we all reside in that person's head. Maybe you and I are the same being. Personally, I'd hope not, because I'd rather have nothing to do with you. The FACT of the matter is that I have no reliable proof either way because it could still be just a trick being played on my brain and I am trapped inside. Reality could be my own little prison and inane entities such as yourself were sent to torment me. I 'believe' certain things without being absolutely certain of them.
Hmm... I will admit, there is a flaw in my belief. It assumes that 'logic' is a universal truth. I guess you *could* believe you could have absolute certainties, but that would be illogical to do so. But since I can't prove that illogical events can't happen, well, I guess maybe you're right... but only if you don't believe in logic.
Btw, you've shown me beyond a reasonable doubt that you're at best, an ill educated scientist who should really give back his degree in whatever concentration of science you've decided to plague... but most likely, you probably only have your bachelors in some engineering or science major. I'm curious as to what school you graduated. I'll have to make sure not to send any future children I may have there. Its obvious their standards aren't that high (despite whatever reputable school you'll most likely respond with).
you're missing the point. you use science as evidence that it should be held in higher regard. thats faulty. you can not justify something with itself. i do agree with you that religion shouldn't be used in making laws, classrooms (unless its a class ABOUT religion or some other similar subject, but definitely not science), etc. the thing with science is that its the only thing that isn't manipulated by man, nor would it have a hidden agenda, etc. its the only objective solution out there. there are multiple contradictory religions and therefore, its obvious you can't base anything off of any of them. science has taken no sides, therefore its the only impartial foundation to build laws, etc. since religion *is* a personal thing, it really should be kept that way. i can't say they can't try to get laws passed, cause thats against what this country was founded on. i just get upset when they *do* get laws passed.
Unnecessarily complex theories are *not* invalid. You deem it unnecessary, yet you don't understand the full subject at hand. To know whether a higher power is unnecessary or not, you'd need to understand the universe and all of its existence. This, i'm fairly certain, is knowledge you don't have, therefore you cannot deem it unnecessary. I really can't stand when science-folk pull the same mistakes that religious zealots do. you're really just as bad as they are. you feel you have all the evidence in the world and are convinced you're right, so do they. you probably will claim something about solid evidence, yet its only evidence under a certain framework of belief and assumptions. hell, you can't even prove you're not a brain in a jar, why should i assume you can prove anything else?
Well, at least now I know you're not a scientist... or at least I hope you're not. If you are, you're a damn bad one and close-minded as well.
It is not retarded to believe in something that cannot be proven. Mathematics are built upon a few HUGE assumptions (look up the postulates and axioms of mathematics). They're impossible to prove. We just assume they are because they allow the rest of mathematics to actually work. Hell, the existence of anybody outside my own head is impossible to prove. Everything can technically be explained away by impulses to the brain. Everything I'm experiencing can be false. There's no way I can prove otherwise. Just as there's no way you can prove to me you're actually a thinking being (well, actually, you're starting to do a pretty good job of that though). I cannot prove that your mind exists, neither can you. Cause & Effect is an assumption. It cannot be proven. The scientific method heavily relies on this. This basically throws almost every scientific principle into the realm of uncertainty. You talk to any scientist worth his salt and ask him what he knows to be absolutely certain and i highly doubt he'll say much at all.
I never EVER said evolution does not exist. You *really* need to learn to read. I guess you're just one of those scientists who has bad reading comprehension to. Denying that something is certain does not deny its existence. Everything you believe is based off huge assumptions (such as "if its true in x amount of cases, it must be true with all cases", "if its true here, its true there", "if its true now, it'll be true then"). So please, find a better job, cause if you are an actual scientist (which I find hard to believe), you're probably doing more harm than good.
The line also summarizes evolution. You're really making me question if you're a talented scientist, or even a scientist at all.
That does *not* summarize evolution. That line doesn't even touch on the subject of mutation and the creation of new species from an already existing one. That line summarizes battle royals more than it does evolution. Throw a bunch of guys in a ring, tell them to fight to the death. Trust me, they're not evolving whilst fighting. You're severely over simplifying evolution. I do believe in evolution, though it still cannot be proven. If it was as simple as semantics (which science never is), I'm fairly certain more pro-evolution people would be proclaiming it as proof. However, most of them admit there are gaps and wholes. Most of them admit that it cannot be proven. Moreover, I've *never* met anybody in any branch of science that claimed anything as an absolute truth. Science NEVER proves anything. It only can give the best explanation available at the time. Thats why science is constantly evolving. Thats why scientists debate about results. Plus, any scientific 'proof' that can be categorized as a semantical argument is weak. Even now, that I re-read your definition of evolution, I realize that not only does it not talk about mutation, it doesn't even imply survival of the fittest. NOTHING in that statement implies that the strongest and most able to survive, survive and that the weakest die off.
Anyone who calls themselves a scientist, but then uses an argument thats not even remotely scientific, makes the speaker a liar.
I disagree with the guy saying they both should be taught in class. this is obvious because only one of them is a scientific theory and it is a science class after all. however, i have to disagree with your reasoning for disagreeing with him. you're using science as evidence of itself, whereas you're saying religion doesn't make sense because there is no scientific evidence. Religion isn't scientific. Scientific evidence isn't technically necessary. The guy you responded to is probably wrong with why he equates evolution & creationism as equal, however, at the root of the problem they are. Science is based off an assumption that truth can be determined through observation and cause & effect. While this is a very strong argument due to not really finding anything to disprove it (except *possibly* the beginning of the universe... if there is such a beginning, its quite difficult to justify cause & effect as a universal constant and that kind of throws scientific theory for a loop), it has never been proven. It's only been going through proof through exhaustion and due to there being an infinite amount of possibilities, its impossible to every finish that proof. now, its possible that just as we (i follow science, not religion. i'm only arguing cause i don't like your argument and i don't find religion to be inherently wrong... it just usually has stupid followers) see observations to base theories off of, religious folk may be open to other kinds of interpretations that our minds are shut off from. if we tell ourselves that something is impossible, its quite possible that we can look right at it and not know its there. religious folk could possibly have actual religious experiences that we're not capable of or that we can only simulate it, though technically may not be able to recreate. moreover, science & religion don't even have to be at odds with each other. its difficult to know which is right though, cause in the end, *both* could end up being tricks on our minds as our brains sit in jars on a counter top. Anyway, the point is, don't use science to prove science as fact. same way as you shouldn't use lack of science to disprove religion. I'm fine with a whole lot of attacks on various churches, because after all, they're created by humans and as such are filled with the same corruption, but just because its been corrupted does not mean there's no truth at its core.
And to throw out any theory based on the 'accoutrement' (which means clothing by the way) of something that we have no reason to believe exists, is quite frankly ridiculous. To say something doesn't exist just because you haven't seen any proof is somewhat silly. We didn't know about quarks for a long time and for a lot of that time, we had no reason to even assume they existed. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Occam's Razor is only a suggestion and generalization. There are and always will be exceptions to it.
Ok, I understand your point of not knowing. In fact, I've pulled that argument in these forums many a time to defend religion (as in, it doesn't make you dumb). However, the problem lies in wanting to teach creationism in a science class. this i *cannot* back-up. i'm not saying creationism is not possible, because, i've never built a time machine or some sort of wormhole to see into the past. what i *do* know is that it *isn't* science. science has one theory, religion has another (some people make them co-exist, others find them mutually exclusive). Science should teach *only* science. want to teach it in philosophy? go ahead. create a religion class? why not, though you might get issues with people if you don't cover *every* single goddamn religion out there, cause someone is gonna cry that they're being left out. but it is NOT a scientific theory. there's *no* scientific evidence to back it up. i don't care if there's 'evidence' to say evolution is faulty. you can teach that if you want (assuming its actually a sound argument), but you can't use it as evidence of creationism.
Remember, its a science class. People think that they're being taught the beginning of humanity and therefore they should cover all bases. Problem with that is A) it's a science class, so only the scientific theory should be taught and B) there are way too many theories out there, and creationism is only one. Evolution is the only one with scientific evidence, therefore it stands out to begin with. Every other theory is taken on faith and don't belong in the science classroom.
because I'm not sure there is i believe you said you weren't sure. therefore, its agnostic.
Plus, how does engineer describe you adequately? I have no clue what kind of engineer you are. as a label it leaves more questions. Atheist just means you don't believe in a higher power. its not trying to describe anything else. its not trying to be more descriptive than that. Engineer can mean software engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, biomedical engineer, hell, it could even mean you drive a goddamn train. Am I wrong in assuming you do not believe in a higher power? Cause thats ALL the word atheist implies. Nothing more. Its not making any other assumptions other than that. I mean, its like saying calling a girl a blond isn't descriptive enough of their person, therefore you can't say they're blond. Its one adjective describing one facet of a person. its not trying to describe them as a whole. its not trying to describe your lifestyle. Engineer does NOT describe you adequately, neither does atheist. Its just describing a small portion of what one person is. Seriously, I think some people wish they lived back in the 60s so they're just TRYING to find things to rebel against.
I am uncomfortable calling myself an agnostic because I'm not sure there is anything to know, whether we are capable of understanding it or not! Isn't that the definition of agnostic? Agnostic - Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists.
Labels exist to simplify things and make them easier to understand. its easier saying "atheist" instead of "a person who does not believe in a higher power" all the time. the same way its easier to say "pancake" instead of "a flat cake of thin batter fried on both sides on a griddle." Labels aren't necessarily a bad thing. It's like using a variable in mathematics to stand for something else that is longer or more complex. I just don't understand the big deal about being called an atheist or agnostic. To me, its on the same level of whether you call someone an engineer or athlete. It's a partial description about a very small portion of that individual's persona or belief structure.
Slashdot Mirror
digital distribution will have even less adoption by the general populace than blu-ray. no one has gotten it right yet and there are no promising plans on the horizon.
last i checked, DVD was/is patented as well. just didn't have as much fierce competition. the slow spread was due to the format war, not 'cause its patented.
the ones you mention that are currently upgradable are all much more expensive than the ps3. if you go for price, yea, there are cheaper ones. if you want upgradable and don't care about price, yea, there are others. but right now, the ps3 has one of the highest ratings, is the cheapest upgradable unit, and can stream media from computers on your network to boot (to mention a non-gaming feature). it also has the playstation store which if they play their cards right will become a spot where you can buy/rent movies from in the future. it has everything a standalone player has AND more. and right now, its cheaper AND better than most. you're still not convincing anyone that a ps3 isn't worth the price right now. i can only assume you are an xbox fanboy. no one else would be fighting tooth and nail like you are (replying to multiple people who have pointed out that the ps3 is one of the more smarter purchases for a blu-ray player)
The content is not the same, technically. The programming is different, hence different features available between HD-DVD and Blu-ray. If you read the data and pressed it onto the other, it would *not* work.
Following the pricing of DVD players, where I found the average to be $200 in the year 2000 (approx. 3 years after it came out) and INCLUDING inflation, i'd say a year from now, they should be in the $250-$300 range.
well, they had to agree to a time frame to even be allowed to bid. if they say they can't do it, they shouldn't have agreed in the first place. if they do that, they should take away the license (probably won't happen). so yea, this might happen. THOUGH, it'd really only be in their best interest to not use the c-block with the open access restrictions. even then, its a trade off. the c-block spectrum is great at penetrating walls, etc. so, to not use it, sucks. however, if they DO decide to not use it, i wouldn't be surprised to see Google get all huffy puffy about it. i have a feeling too many eyes will be on the c-block spectrum for them to do anything shady with it.
i'm pretty sure they're required to use it within a certain timeframe.
i'm not sure, but i believe you license it by region, so your first reason is flawed (assuming i'm right, though). and nationwide cellphone companies will can *not* implement it *immediately*. they can implement it fairly quickly. definitely much more quickly than a small company, but not immediately. also, your reasoning that the person who can help the most people should get a specific resource is also faulty. if thats the case, we should take any spectrum ANY small provider has and give it to the biggest cell phone company in the country. it'd help more people that way.
Nonetheless, I agree with you that it is better for everyone. I just don't think small companies should automatically be shoved out of the way. the big companies would win in the end anyway cause the small ones still won't be able to outbid them.
this whole "blu-ray monopoly" thing is getting old. prices went up because they don't have to undercut their costs anymore. now, prices will eventually go down when the technology is actually cheaper. DVDs were expensive at one point too, but had no competition at the time (if you really want to count VHS, thats up to you). They started high (in some categories, higher than hi-def dvds), but due to never having to undercut their costs, they started as high as they could and then went down. Blu-ray didn't start as high as it could. It noticed it had to cut profits to try to win first. Now, they don't have to. Prices are now controlled by the actual cost of the equipment. Competing formats is *NOT* good for the consumer unless all content is available on all formats. The fact that one of the hi-def formats died is *GOOD* for the consumer. Competition isn't automatically good for the consumer and a so-called 'monopoly' (which is most definitely isn't) isn't automatically bad. When HD was around, it was a terrible situation. People were torn between choosing various studios. What if I liked movies from two studios that weren't on the same format? I'd have to buy a dual-player or even just two players. How can you justify saying its a good thing for consumers that they'd have to pay twice as much money on equipment?
Anyhow, on the topic at hand, is anyone really surprised it got cracked? DRM will eventually die at some point. Right now its just something that we gotta continue fighting until companies realize they lose more money by utilizing it. Music has begun dropping DRM. Some book companies have started releasing straight pdf's of books without any DRM. Video will eventually follow.
not every movie copied has to be stolen. and i doubt he was planning on stealing. especially since he said he also wants to wait for the prices of the movies to come down. which he has a point with. i mean, i've seen some movies go for $35.
well... hopefully he's not *fully* erect... though i guess one can consider it an 'exciting' opportunity...
technically, you're subject title should be "technically," not "techincally." =P
i'm pretty sure "undocumented" means it's *not* in the tech notes... though, i don't write stuff for macs, so maybe you guys use a different definition...
the hubble doesn't bring profit. its not like it's making more money then they are spending on it. we pay taxes, yes. yes, some it goes to nasa. however, nasa is putting that money into a project that isn't making extra money, therefore its not a profit.
You assume religion has no observable phenomenon, yet many people say they see god or God or whatever. Just because *you* don't see it doesn't mean they don't see it. Granted, I also don't believe in religion due to logic (because *I* don't see it either). However, I have no way of knowing whether they don't actually see it. They may just be more open to something that I am. I do know that most religions are bloated with things added on by corrupted men, but at the heart, there still may be truth. I just don't know. I wasn't around back then. Maybe there was a talking burning bush or maybe some guy did go around healing people. I've no time machine to observe these events. Any how, just because *I* don't see evidence doesn't mean someone else shouldn't believe something. It just means I don't believe something. Religion is only illogical if you believe it without reason. They have a reason to believe (some of them at least, I have no delusions about there being a huge amount of brain washed fools). So its a logical fallacy for you or I to believe in religion. Its not necessarily a logical fallacy for someone else.
I wasn't trying to convince you that religion is actually true. Just that it might be. I don't believe it to be so, but that doesn't mean its not. I'm with you on the whole science thing. I think its really hard to not believe in it, but i can't see the world through others eyes, so I don't know what 'proof' they're looking at.
wow. i can't even respond to something as intellectually bankrupt as your statements.
You offer no reasoning for any of your conjectures. You throw around insults as if that means something. You're hatred and narrow-mindedness pretty much disallow me from continuing any sort of semi-intelligent debate. I say semi-intelligent because up until now, I really only heard anything remotely intelligent on one side of this argument, mine. I am the only one stating that I 'know' very little. I can only build educated responses based off of experience and observation (you know, sorta like what science does). However, since 'cause & effect' is not 100% incontrovertible ('uncontrovertible' isn't a real word), anything based off of the act of observation is in doubt. Not a reasonable doubt, but a doubt nonetheless. Observation itself has doubt cast upon it by the mere fact that you can't prove that what you interpret through your senses isn't your brain fooling you. I can't even prove to you that I exist, nor you to I. Or I might be suffering from a delusion of your existence. Though, those things aren't reasonable conclusions, but that doesn't mean they're impossible, only unlikely. It would be foolish to act on least useful one. Even if the outside world does not exist, it serves no purpose to act as if it did not. Everything you know outside your own head is based off the assumption that your brain isn't lying to you. Prove that that assumption is fact and then maybe I'll give your opinion a little more respect. Until then, I have to save my energy for more fruitful pursuits other than trying to educate somewhere who is as stubborn and ridiculous as the religious people.
And in response to your second cute little blog post you linked to, yes, *you* can't be absolutely certain of anything the same way a robot can't be absolutely certain of anything. I can't prove you actually have a mind to even think the words "I am." And beyond that, who says thinking implies existence anyway. for all i know, its just speaking on a level only i can hear and i'm programmed to respond to it in various ways. i can't even prove they're my thoughts.
I believe nothing with absolute certainty, though I act as if I was about certain things. I'm not absolutely certain existence is what I see before me, but I will act as if I am. There's no point in not. There are plenty of ideas out there that *could* be true, but they're just not useful. Maybe we're all one persona in someone's split personality and we all reside in that person's head. Maybe you and I are the same being. Personally, I'd hope not, because I'd rather have nothing to do with you. The FACT of the matter is that I have no reliable proof either way because it could still be just a trick being played on my brain and I am trapped inside. Reality could be my own little prison and inane entities such as yourself were sent to torment me. I 'believe' certain things without being absolutely certain of them.
Hmm... I will admit, there is a flaw in my belief. It assumes that 'logic' is a universal truth. I guess you *could* believe you could have absolute certainties, but that would be illogical to do so. But since I can't prove that illogical events can't happen, well, I guess maybe you're right... but only if you don't believe in logic.
Btw, you've shown me beyond a reasonable doubt that you're at best, an ill educated scientist who should really give back his degree in whatever concentration of science you've decided to plague... but most likely, you probably only have your bachelors in some engineering or science major. I'm curious as to what school you graduated. I'll have to make sure not to send any future children I may have there. Its obvious their standards aren't that high (despite whatever reputable school you'll most likely respond with).
you're missing the point. you use science as evidence that it should be held in higher regard. thats faulty. you can not justify something with itself. i do agree with you that religion shouldn't be used in making laws, classrooms (unless its a class ABOUT religion or some other similar subject, but definitely not science), etc. the thing with science is that its the only thing that isn't manipulated by man, nor would it have a hidden agenda, etc. its the only objective solution out there. there are multiple contradictory religions and therefore, its obvious you can't base anything off of any of them. science has taken no sides, therefore its the only impartial foundation to build laws, etc. since religion *is* a personal thing, it really should be kept that way. i can't say they can't try to get laws passed, cause thats against what this country was founded on. i just get upset when they *do* get laws passed.
Unnecessarily complex theories are *not* invalid. You deem it unnecessary, yet you don't understand the full subject at hand. To know whether a higher power is unnecessary or not, you'd need to understand the universe and all of its existence. This, i'm fairly certain, is knowledge you don't have, therefore you cannot deem it unnecessary. I really can't stand when science-folk pull the same mistakes that religious zealots do. you're really just as bad as they are. you feel you have all the evidence in the world and are convinced you're right, so do they. you probably will claim something about solid evidence, yet its only evidence under a certain framework of belief and assumptions. hell, you can't even prove you're not a brain in a jar, why should i assume you can prove anything else?
Well, at least now I know you're not a scientist... or at least I hope you're not. If you are, you're a damn bad one and close-minded as well.
It is not retarded to believe in something that cannot be proven. Mathematics are built upon a few HUGE assumptions (look up the postulates and axioms of mathematics). They're impossible to prove. We just assume they are because they allow the rest of mathematics to actually work. Hell, the existence of anybody outside my own head is impossible to prove. Everything can technically be explained away by impulses to the brain. Everything I'm experiencing can be false. There's no way I can prove otherwise. Just as there's no way you can prove to me you're actually a thinking being (well, actually, you're starting to do a pretty good job of that though). I cannot prove that your mind exists, neither can you. Cause & Effect is an assumption. It cannot be proven. The scientific method heavily relies on this. This basically throws almost every scientific principle into the realm of uncertainty. You talk to any scientist worth his salt and ask him what he knows to be absolutely certain and i highly doubt he'll say much at all.
I never EVER said evolution does not exist. You *really* need to learn to read. I guess you're just one of those scientists who has bad reading comprehension to. Denying that something is certain does not deny its existence. Everything you believe is based off huge assumptions (such as "if its true in x amount of cases, it must be true with all cases", "if its true here, its true there", "if its true now, it'll be true then"). So please, find a better job, cause if you are an actual scientist (which I find hard to believe), you're probably doing more harm than good.
That does *not* summarize evolution. That line doesn't even touch on the subject of mutation and the creation of new species from an already existing one. That line summarizes battle royals more than it does evolution. Throw a bunch of guys in a ring, tell them to fight to the death. Trust me, they're not evolving whilst fighting. You're severely over simplifying evolution. I do believe in evolution, though it still cannot be proven. If it was as simple as semantics (which science never is), I'm fairly certain more pro-evolution people would be proclaiming it as proof. However, most of them admit there are gaps and wholes. Most of them admit that it cannot be proven. Moreover, I've *never* met anybody in any branch of science that claimed anything as an absolute truth. Science NEVER proves anything. It only can give the best explanation available at the time. Thats why science is constantly evolving. Thats why scientists debate about results. Plus, any scientific 'proof' that can be categorized as a semantical argument is weak. Even now, that I re-read your definition of evolution, I realize that not only does it not talk about mutation, it doesn't even imply survival of the fittest. NOTHING in that statement implies that the strongest and most able to survive, survive and that the weakest die off.
Anyone who calls themselves a scientist, but then uses an argument thats not even remotely scientific, makes the speaker a liar.
i know what a tautology is. i'm just wondering what tautology he's getting mad at being labeled as 'theory'
I disagree with the guy saying they both should be taught in class. this is obvious because only one of them is a scientific theory and it is a science class after all. however, i have to disagree with your reasoning for disagreeing with him. you're using science as evidence of itself, whereas you're saying religion doesn't make sense because there is no scientific evidence. Religion isn't scientific. Scientific evidence isn't technically necessary. The guy you responded to is probably wrong with why he equates evolution & creationism as equal, however, at the root of the problem they are. Science is based off an assumption that truth can be determined through observation and cause & effect. While this is a very strong argument due to not really finding anything to disprove it (except *possibly* the beginning of the universe... if there is such a beginning, its quite difficult to justify cause & effect as a universal constant and that kind of throws scientific theory for a loop), it has never been proven. It's only been going through proof through exhaustion and due to there being an infinite amount of possibilities, its impossible to every finish that proof. now, its possible that just as we (i follow science, not religion. i'm only arguing cause i don't like your argument and i don't find religion to be inherently wrong... it just usually has stupid followers) see observations to base theories off of, religious folk may be open to other kinds of interpretations that our minds are shut off from. if we tell ourselves that something is impossible, its quite possible that we can look right at it and not know its there. religious folk could possibly have actual religious experiences that we're not capable of or that we can only simulate it, though technically may not be able to recreate. moreover, science & religion don't even have to be at odds with each other. its difficult to know which is right though, cause in the end, *both* could end up being tricks on our minds as our brains sit in jars on a counter top. Anyway, the point is, don't use science to prove science as fact. same way as you shouldn't use lack of science to disprove religion. I'm fine with a whole lot of attacks on various churches, because after all, they're created by humans and as such are filled with the same corruption, but just because its been corrupted does not mean there's no truth at its core.
And to throw out any theory based on the 'accoutrement' (which means clothing by the way) of something that we have no reason to believe exists, is quite frankly ridiculous. To say something doesn't exist just because you haven't seen any proof is somewhat silly. We didn't know about quarks for a long time and for a lot of that time, we had no reason to even assume they existed. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Occam's Razor is only a suggestion and generalization. There are and always will be exceptions to it.
Ok, I understand your point of not knowing. In fact, I've pulled that argument in these forums many a time to defend religion (as in, it doesn't make you dumb). However, the problem lies in wanting to teach creationism in a science class. this i *cannot* back-up. i'm not saying creationism is not possible, because, i've never built a time machine or some sort of wormhole to see into the past. what i *do* know is that it *isn't* science. science has one theory, religion has another (some people make them co-exist, others find them mutually exclusive). Science should teach *only* science. want to teach it in philosophy? go ahead. create a religion class? why not, though you might get issues with people if you don't cover *every* single goddamn religion out there, cause someone is gonna cry that they're being left out. but it is NOT a scientific theory. there's *no* scientific evidence to back it up. i don't care if there's 'evidence' to say evolution is faulty. you can teach that if you want (assuming its actually a sound argument), but you can't use it as evidence of creationism.
Remember, its a science class. People think that they're being taught the beginning of humanity and therefore they should cover all bases. Problem with that is A) it's a science class, so only the scientific theory should be taught and B) there are way too many theories out there, and creationism is only one. Evolution is the only one with scientific evidence, therefore it stands out to begin with. Every other theory is taken on faith and don't belong in the science classroom.
what tautology?
Plus, how does engineer describe you adequately? I have no clue what kind of engineer you are. as a label it leaves more questions. Atheist just means you don't believe in a higher power. its not trying to describe anything else. its not trying to be more descriptive than that. Engineer can mean software engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, biomedical engineer, hell, it could even mean you drive a goddamn train. Am I wrong in assuming you do not believe in a higher power? Cause thats ALL the word atheist implies. Nothing more. Its not making any other assumptions other than that. I mean, its like saying calling a girl a blond isn't descriptive enough of their person, therefore you can't say they're blond. Its one adjective describing one facet of a person. its not trying to describe them as a whole. its not trying to describe your lifestyle. Engineer does NOT describe you adequately, neither does atheist. Its just describing a small portion of what one person is. Seriously, I think some people wish they lived back in the 60s so they're just TRYING to find things to rebel against.
Agnostic - Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists.
Labels exist to simplify things and make them easier to understand. its easier saying "atheist" instead of "a person who does not believe in a higher power" all the time. the same way its easier to say "pancake" instead of "a flat cake of thin batter fried on both sides on a griddle." Labels aren't necessarily a bad thing. It's like using a variable in mathematics to stand for something else that is longer or more complex. I just don't understand the big deal about being called an atheist or agnostic. To me, its on the same level of whether you call someone an engineer or athlete. It's a partial description about a very small portion of that individual's persona or belief structure.
what?