Evolution is a historical science so figuring out whether there is design or not can't be done with traditional experiments. With that in mind, there has to be a way to say "if I find something in nature with the following characteristics it is more than likely to have been designed."
That can't be done currently because teleology (design) is not allowed a priori. This actually makes Darwinism unfalsifiable because lack of design is part of its theory.
Roe v. Wade is allegedly based on a right to privacy in regards to medical decisions. I guess that only applies to aborting babies but for anything else it doesn't exist.
So let's assume I don't have a problem with common descent but I have a problem with random mutation being a driver of evolution. How would I go about falsifying such an assertion?
It seems the problem is that it doesn't matter what is discovered "neo-Darwinism did it". That's not science. That's philosophy interpreting results. It seems we know nothing was designed because it evolved (blindly). And how do we know it evolved blindly? Well, because nothing is designed.
For all the engineering problems at Chernobyl, what happened was this: some grad student wanted to run an experiment. The people at the plant told him "no", because it was not a good idea. They were overruled because his father was a big-time Communist in Moscow.
My friend's sister was a high-level engineer at Chernobyl, who unfortunately died of cancer.
So that was just human stupidity more than engineering breaking down.
Derived from Superman (1978 Richard Donner version)
1) Main character is established. 2) He gets super powers. 3) He has fun showing them off for the first time. 4) He runs into his first super-villian and has trouble. 5) He exercises his awesomeness and overcomes whatever was the problem in 4).
If I like a character, all I really want is more movies to be made in the future. And so I don't care how many tickets are sold. I care that the studio thinks it can make a profit.
A better analogy would be someone would like to feed a homeless person but gets a fine from the government for having a food catering business without a license.
Was there some freak storm somewhere? Let's blame it on global warming. It's the secular equivalent of the Westboro Baptist outfit blaming every single bad thing that happens in America to God hating something about America.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like Britain's with higher death rates?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-rates-times-higher-US.html
I'm looking forward to the day when the federal government runs all of healthcare with their awesome efficiency and competence.
Usage determines meaning. If people start using it in a way, guess what? The meaning changed. Roll with it.
It's been literally used like that since the late 18th century.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/03/06/literally_definition_has_changed_over_the_years_dictionaries_recognize_this.html
I agree with you. But the only way your statement works is with God.
Evolution is a historical science so figuring out whether there is design or not can't be done with traditional experiments. With that in mind, there has to be a way to say "if I find something in nature with the following characteristics it is more than likely to have been designed."
That can't be done currently because teleology (design) is not allowed a priori. This actually makes Darwinism unfalsifiable because lack of design is part of its theory.
Roe v. Wade is allegedly based on a right to privacy in regards to medical decisions. I guess that only applies to aborting babies but for anything else it doesn't exist.
So let's assume I don't have a problem with common descent but I have a problem with random mutation being a driver of evolution. How would I go about falsifying such an assertion?
It seems the problem is that it doesn't matter what is discovered "neo-Darwinism did it". That's not science. That's philosophy interpreting results. It seems we know nothing was designed because it evolved (blindly). And how do we know it evolved blindly? Well, because nothing is designed.
For all the engineering problems at Chernobyl, what happened was this: some grad student wanted to run an experiment. The people at the plant told him "no", because it was not a good idea. They were overruled because his father was a big-time Communist in Moscow.
My friend's sister was a high-level engineer at Chernobyl, who unfortunately died of cancer.
So that was just human stupidity more than engineering breaking down.
And in Ancient Greece, teaching students involved some other activities we would frown on today if you get my drift.
They can figure out who you without your fingerprint.
You are focusing on the differences but ignoring the similarities which Whitehurst was concerned about.
CentOS doesn't put money in Red Hat's pocket directly, but it helps cement Red Hat as a standard for enterprise Linux distributions.
When he released diplomatic communiques he also gave up who was working with the State Department and helping us, especially people in hostile areas.
Snowden, at least so far, has only been giving up capabilities, not actual peoples.
So without any reference to any god, God, or religion, how would we go about defining a meaningful morality? And I stress meaningful.
A bunch of atoms interact with a bunch of atoms. Whoop-de-doo!
And what country do you suggest we use?
Apparently anything that happens under the hood doesn't count.
It was on their last conference call that they believe it is very important. That's going to involve a lot of voice interaction.
Derived from Superman (1978 Richard Donner version)
1) Main character is established.
2) He gets super powers.
3) He has fun showing them off for the first time.
4) He runs into his first super-villian and has trouble.
5) He exercises his awesomeness and overcomes whatever was the problem in 4).
For all the whining and moaning about rich people, that seems to be how society advances often. A rich person's fad then becomes a commodity.
This "deserve" word you are using. What are you basing that on? Anything beyond your own personal preferences?
Studios care about money not number of tickets.
Just an observation: most reviews I've read liked the flashbacks as a storytelling device.
Also, what do mean by low-brow? Was it worse than how Superman dispatched Zod in Superman II?
If I like a character, all I really want is more movies to be made in the future. And so I don't care how many tickets are sold. I care that the studio thinks it can make a profit.
You're missing the point.
A better analogy would be someone would like to feed a homeless person but gets a fine from the government for having a food catering business without a license.
Was there some freak storm somewhere? Let's blame it on global warming. It's the secular equivalent of the Westboro Baptist outfit blaming every single bad thing that happens in America to God hating something about America.