Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
But by your argument, you create a paradox. By saying that because the universe can be infinitely large that everything has to happen at least once, then there's a chance that no other life could exist anywhere else in the universe. The chance of that seems to be almost inifinitesmal, but it is possible. Therefore it must have happened. That logic just doesn't work. Just because something -could- happen doesn't mean it does.
Now I'm not saying life -doesn't- exist anywhere else, I believe there is a chance that minimal levels of life exist, like bacteria and viruses... thinking, competent, intelligent life is completely different. But again, this is not science. This becomes a matter of what you want to believe. It can be proven neither way. You cannot prove life exists on other planets until you find it, likewise you can't prove life does not exist anywhere else - at all, since we'll never know every point of the universe at every point in time. In the same way, you cannot disprove that God exists, since you'll never be able to enter God's realm until you die, and by then it's too late to pass the news to the world, and likewise, you can't prove God doesn't exist until something happens that proves to you He does. I know God exists because I've experienced him. Whether you think I'm crazy or not makes no difference, but there is no possible way I can prove to you God exists until you experience it yourself.
Prove to me you love your parents... You can't, you just know you do.
Based on life on other planets, my reasoning is simply that God hasn't said that there isn't life on other planets. There may be, there may not be. Adam didn't name the bacteria. Adam named what he could find, the types of creatures that exist. Man was a unique creation in the image of God (not gods ourselves, far from it). Therefore there is acceptable reason to believe no intelligent life exists on other planets. But I believe God may have created life on other planets, in limited form, even if just to offer the other choice of whether to believe in Him, or to interpret that as proof of evolution.
Everything is a matter of individual interpretation. Science is fact. Origins are theory. You believe theories. You believe in evolution, or you believe in God.
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
I *still* don't see how starting from scratch poses any bigger or different ethical or moral questions than starting from bits of bacteria ADN
The difference is simply that unless you use raw material or energy, you are using pre-living material... you're using organic material, stuff that already IS life. You're not creating life, you're 'creating' a being using the building blocks. To create life, you need to do the impossible and mix that protoplasm, goo, lifeless chemicals, that are inorganic, in such a way to spark that 'breath of life' that God gave all living things. If you can do that, well, you can call yourself God! Not gonna happen... that's where the ethical or moral questions are posed.
So yes, keep up the experiments, it would be very intriguing to see if we can actually organize an organism under a controlled environment.
*** BUT *** You know what that means... if we as scientists 'create' this life, how does that prove that this all happened by chance? The scientist is the creator. God's gotta be the ultimate scientist
Re:Leaving Religion out of Science
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
This is one reason why I never refer to Christianity as 'religion' per se. I try to separate the two as much as possible. True Christianity only follows the bible and the laws God has placed on humanity as guidelines and protection for ourselves.
Christianty has absolutely no problem with science, as long as it doesn't label things, namely theories of origins, as scientific fact. Origins inherantly are unscientific - there is absolutely no way that we can prove how we, or the universe, came to be. As soon as science tries to explain it, it becomes a form of 'religion' since you decide to believe it is true based on the interpretation.
So yes, religion and science can be perfect working together, as long as they both don't try to explain the same thing differently, which is the area of origins. And, of course, the existance of God, which is completely out of the realm of provable, visible, experimentable science. Belief in God is faith, it is not explainable by tangible science
To bring God back into this thing:) there is nothing that says this is a big deal or proving God doesn't exist. Yes, cats are cats... they successfully bred cats. God said 'let every creature produce after it's own kind' - so yes, get a dog and cat to breed, you just broke the laws of nature God put in place. It's simply not possible.
So congratulations on your achievement of breeding the domestic and wild cat! I'm honestly sure it may not have been easy, and it's a good result.
Who says that a few scientists won't master the fundamentals enough to create viable life?
Again, we're not creating life... we're using life to 'create' an organism. There's a difference, and I'm interested to see the result, but I'm not upset by the idea. I'm upset that people want to do it constantly, because we just have to keep reaping the consequences; then science kicks in and tries to solve that problem, while creating a new one, and it keeps going from there.
We humans as a race should learn caution with what we tamper with...But not stop altogether.
Exactly. But curiosity killed the cat. We can't assume that everything has a solution. We can't assume that if we can 'create' this organsim that nothing negative will result, or that if something negative does result, that we'll be able to solve that, and so on. There are limits to everything, and not everything ends up good. One of these days, our scientific theory will unravel something we've never seen, never expected, and could never hope to understand and it will be the downfall of us all. I'm not saying this is it, but I'm positive that this endeavour will not be with it's side effects, insignificant or disastrous as they may be.
Re:The Science of Religion and Religion of Science
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
To close, a comment on ethics and god:
What it comes down to is that ethics are a matter of opinion. "good" and "evil" are concepts invented by humans, and can only be applied to humans actions in a particular frame work, and depeneding on circumstances (someone mentioned murder to be wrong... But again, its all circumstance. If I walked up to someone on the street and kille him, people will say i did something wrong. if that person walked into mcdonalds with a 12 guage, and strating murdering people, and i killed him, people will say i did something good. Theres nothing in the act of murder itself that is bad, its the circumstances in which it was done that makes the act "good or bad".) Along the same lines, technology and information is neither good or bad. Its the intent with which it is used that dertmine the "goodness" or "badness" of it, and even then it is a case by case thing.
Religion is also not the source of morality. For example, christians claim that god is "perfeclty good". In order to judge god to be "perfectly good" one needs a way to measure "goodness" that doesnt depened on that which is being measured (in this case god). So to judge god to be good, we need an idea of goodness before we judge him, or else the term "good" is totaly meaningless.
The thing that people tend to forget is that God is not 'human' - he is not bound by humanity. God created humanity, so He perfectly just to lay laws and guidelines to protect us. By saying God is "good", it is based on the fact that God created "good". What pleases God is good. Human decided, because many choose not to believe in God, that morality has to be a personal issue, that there is no source for morality and no one can dictate it because it's created by humanity. As soon as you realize and know God exists, the world opens up to you and you know that there is so much more than us, and our feelings. Ethics and morality aren't dictated by Christians, religion (at least it shouldn't be), or any one in particular. Ethics and morality exist to protect us because of our free will to choose. As was said earlier, it's not a matter of anything that happens which decides if it's good or bad - it's the intent, the motive and context of the event. For us, we have laws to follow, and those laws are made to make sure we do the right thing. These laws are man made, they are decided by man to be right and wrong. The laws God gave us precede that, and one of them is to respect authority, because it is given by God. In other words, whether you think it's right or not, you've got to follow the rules. If the result is undesirable, it's not an issue you need to be guilty about. God sees that you followed His rules above all else, and that is good.
Ethics and morality are simply Gods way of protecting us from ourselves. But we have to make sure we don't create our own 'ethics' and 'morality', or we're in big trouble.
Its quite an old argument, acctualy. Socrates phrased it roughly like this:
Is justice (he said peity acctualy...) good because god loves it; or does god love it because it is good?
God created good, which is what many don't see. God created what is right and wrong. You may ask why God does things that hurt people - the answer: God doesn't DO them, He let's them happen BECAUSE He's given us the freedom to make our own decisions. He could stop all the bad things from happening if He wants, but He loves us in such a way that He wants us to make the decisions for ourselves, not be dictated by God. It hurts Him to see us suffer, but it would hurt Him more to know He was forcing us to things we may not want to do. It's only justified in the fact that He isn't the one causing the pain - we are, and, yes, evil.
If its good because god loves it, then anything god loves (or commands us to do?) is good by default (so if he said to go out and muder 5 month old babies, are all you christians going to go out and do it? if you say you wouldnt, tell me why not. because in that case i think you have a problem with your faith...)
That doesn't stand up because God would never do that. You could say what if God told us to jump off a cliff? Well, I'd do it, because it's what God wants, and there's a good reason for it. But I know that God would not for one, command me to committ suicide. It's happened many times in the past. For example, when God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, he brought him to the brink, to know for sure that Abraham was totally devoted to Him. God would not have Abraham kill his own son, but because of Abraham's blind faith that God had a reason, he was going to do it. God doesn't give us more than we can take.
God would not command anyone to kill another man, unless that man was the essence of evil. (And if someone refers to events in the Old Testament, email me because that is a different issue - from the New Testament and on, after Jesus was crucified, things changed)
If he loves it because it is good, meaning god loves all good things, then he doesnt have a choice about loving it or not, and therefore cannot be all powerfull (and also cannot be used to determine "good" and "bad" since it would seem that they are properties of things, which he cannot grant or take away?).
Again, God is not bound by humanity. God created good and all things. God is good, but God defines good. God loves all things, all of his creation. But love is the way He protects and supports us, not for the moment, but for the future and for life - he knows the future, the consequences of certain events, and though things may happen now that make us angry at God, we can't see why He would let it happen, but God knows, He has a reason for it. God's love isn't limited to making us happy - it's love that extends for a lifetime, and we can't see that. We have to have faith that God has a good reason.
Now to relate this to genetics - God created life. He breathed the breath of life into us. There is no physical, tangible way that we can create life as God did. We can take bits and pieces of His creation, which already has life it - 'organic material' in other words - and shape it to 'create' a new life. But we are not creating life itself. Now, because God detests seeing us to be godlike, trying to prove we can do what God does, there are going to be consequences. We try to do things to better ourselves, science explores 'new frontiers' ignoring the guidelines God has set for us to protect us. When we go cross the line, which God does not stop us from doing, we reap the results. That sheep which was cloned, eventually began to age rapidly. Free sex resulted in the dramatic increase of STDs. Many things which God has shown not to be beneficial, we've toyed with and had to experience for ourselves. I belive we'll be able to 'create' a new life, but I don't believe we'll get anything beneficial from it. It either won't work, or it'll start something that science will again try to block or remedy. Science is a good thing, and it's great to explain how things work and exist, but trying to duplicate that extends into things we can't comprehend, and results can be disastrous.
I can't think of anything else to write, so...
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
That's not really the point.. if we can make an organism that does absolutely nothing but live, grow, and reproduce we can later add more genes to it to do other things
But this does not merit the term 'creating life', and is nowhere near it! Now if science can create a gene from raw materials, molecularly, or atomically, then hey, we have an argument. But right now, they are taking pre-existing elements of life, that are alive, and putting them together. They're using someone else's idea to create something - rather like licensing the Quake or Unreal graphics engine to create Duke Nukem Forever, et al.
You're not creating life, you're using life to produce something new.
Again, not my discussion, but... Also, "anti-God 'religions' " is an oxymoron, as it violates the definition of a religion as the worship of one or more dieties or other higher powers.
Actually, a religion is better defined as a strong belief in something, and following rules and/or guidelines which are required by the religion. I'm not quoting a dictionary, but religion is commonly used outside of the context of a god or deity, though most commonly understood in that context.
In this case, I think that anti-god religion is valid, because they believe there is no God, and live their life by that, most noticeably in discussions like this where it is necessary to make known that they do not believe in God or are essentially 'anti-god', and quite often in life make decisions based on that belief; otherwise, they could not call themselves, uh, whatever can be called an anti-god religion.
Along the same lines, many Christians coint he phrase 'it's not a religion, it's a relationship'. Which in this case is also valid. Relationships are intimiacies between two beings (most commonly, humans) from acquiantances, to friendships, to mates. Based on the Christian faith, Christianity is better described as a relationship, since it is not rules or laws you must abide by whether you like it or not, but the sincere desire to do so founded on the bible, and the type of relationship that exists between the person and God, which is best described as a friendship.
I don't think I explained it best, and it's getting late. ta-ta
I'm not actually in this argument (sorry, discussion), but a couple of comments peaked my attention...
>your God will take care of you when the time comes.
Who said I believed in that?
I find it interesting that people who don't believe in God, but freedom, say that you can believe in what you want, even if it's a God who will take you to heaven under certain conditions, and the rest will, well, go to hell. Yet because they don't believe it, they're exempt?
I don't see how you can let someone believe something, well founded, which condemnes you, and either not worry about it or not be bothered by it. In the same way, I can't see how someone who does believe in that and has the chance to save many people, won't, because they can believe what they want...
If you're a Christian and believe the bible, with God's love in you, you'll go out and save as many people as possible, not piss them off, pardon my french. If you're not a Christian, but say you can believe what you want, I'd be worried if someone believes you're going to hell because of it... that kind of God wouldn't pay attention only to the people who believe in Him, saying that the devil can take care of everyone else, except for the people who don't believe in me - they're safe. Just doesn't make any sense; it's a paradox. Anyway, number 2...
Where in the Bible does it say to execute someone unless they are doing something like invading your homeland?
Nowhere... at all... even if they are invading your homeland... I dunno where you got that, but it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you are allowed to pass judgement through death on another man (human, for those radical, nutty, right-wing feminists; or should I say huwoman; sorry, homosapien:) ok, person) anyway, only God can pass judgement. We can punish, that's what the law is for, but not take the life of another as judgement. Again, the Old Testemant, aside from the ten commandments, was for the culture of the time. The New Testament is the new covenent for us. The Old Testament does not govern the laws for today.
BTW, the laws for the United States for founded on the ten commandments, so our original basis for morality (here at least) came from God. But it's been morphed, exaggerated and tinkered with over time, essentially, to make everyone happy (the majority).
>..you don't have access to guns do you? hmm, christian fundamentalist, uh-oh.
When people start to attribute their actions to outside forces things get scary. You do make a good joke though.:-)
Persecution... guns... everyone seems to be talking about abortionists, and loads of others that apparently the Christians are at fault for opressing, or opposing.
How many people here remember Columbine?! A major blow, deeply disturbing, and a big hit to many many people. Two of the girls killed were killed knowingly because they were loved God. Rachel and Cassie were both asked before shot whether they believed in God. Both said yes and were murdered. They, along with so many more were killed that day. I'm not saying the world is against us - it was the fault of a couple screwed up kids who had nothing better to do. But they took the lives of two people who died for what they believed in. And it sparked a movement, a revival if you will. One thing that got me, for the past 5 years I've gone to a touring convention called Acquire the Fire. They had a massive gathering in Pontiac Michigan 3 days after that shooting. The whole mood of that weekend was changed because of it. They mounted a massive card for the entire school that everyone (well, most) signed, around the whole stadium. They also sent a couple truckloads of bibles to the school. A couple weeks ago I just learned when they came on their local tour, that Rachel was about to join their ministry team called Teen Mania. She had applied and was going around fundraising for support. The speaker, Ron, was fighting back the sadness knowing that she was killed before she could follow her heart and help spread the Word.
If this isn't persecution, what is? Of course, I'm sure the killers didn't go into the school looking for Christians to kill. They killed many other students who will be remembered deeply. But how many Christians will stand there with a gun pointed at their head, say they love God, and be killed because of it?
Whereas, along the lines of abortion, it kills a living being. I'm not an abortionist hater - I'm an abortion hater. This whole thing about a woman's body? Sure it's her body, and she has all the right in the world to protect it and take care of it, but when there is a living human being growing in her, even if it is just a fetus, or can't think for itself - it relies on her to survive, or it wouldn't - it doesn't deserve to be killed just because she doesn't want to go through with a birth. If she didn't want to go through with a birth, she wouldn't have done the deed in the first place! It's her body, she should know the possible consequences. If she takes the chance, she's aware of the outcome. In it's strictest sense, it is murder. She does it, knowing she may have a baby, but not wanting to go through with birth, she still has sex, and decides to have an abortion - planned. As long as you believe the conceived baby is a living human, it is, in its strictest sense, murder.
I'm not one to use bold terms like that, but there's no other way to say it. It's like saying if you don't accept Jesus, you're going to hell. I HATE saying that, but how else can you say it? I try to say, you're not going to heaven. I dunno.
Anyway, I'm way off topic again... this is still the flat universe discussion... argh!:)
> Relax. Consider getting a sense of humor. I hear all the best Irish jokes from Irish friends, and the same goes for every other ethnic and geographic group I know. Why can't Christians learn to laugh at themselves like the rest of us do?
Oh don't worry, we have fun, and lots of it... but not at the expense of God. If we laugh at ourselves (our faith more precisely), we are laughing at God, not ourselves. Yes, we do make fun of ourselves, as ourselves. Who in their right mind wouldn't? Well, obviously someone not in their right mind... it's healthy, and stops everyone else from doing it for you. No one's perfect, so don't try to be, just have fun!
This is so frustrating... I try my best to be civilized in this kind of discussion...
> Dammit, I don't remember where, but while St. Paul certainly said what you say he said, he did indeed at some point mention that gays should still be stomped . . . 1. You just swore 2. The Old Testament is exactly that - the Old Testament. Because of Jesus life and death, the New Testament was created. The Old was based on the culture at the time, the laws and regulations there-in. Because Jesus had not yet come and defeated death, laws were very strict. Even so, no where does it say thou shalt kill the homosexual. No where does it say thou shalt kill the jew. God is the only one who has the right to judge. We as humans are not God, and do not have the right to murder or judge, that is up to God. If the gay men are gay, practice homosexuality, and die homosexuals, they will deal with God then. Until then, we, as Christians can but try to help them and show them God. The SIN is what we kill, not the life! We want to save people, not send them to hell.
If you've seen Contact (the movie), I can only picture you as they freak white-supremecist who blew himself up to destroy the 'alien' machine. Using the bible in specific points, exerpts, and out of context is strictly what God warns us NOT to do. I hate to say it, but by defending Christianity and God the way you do, you're simply condemning yourself.
Williams, who killed the two gay men, is, unfortunately, going to reap the consequences. He may think he rid the world of two sub-humans, but he just sentenced himself to death, spiritually, and most likely physically. I see it as unfortunate, and a grave loss of two human beings who will now never get the chance to experience God's glory and live a full, decent life, and continue through death. I believe homosexuality is wrong, yes, but it does not deserve OUR judgement and verdict - it deserves riddance, and seperation from God's creation. Homosexuals are people too, yes:) homosexuality is wrong and sinful.
What this has to do with evidence for a flat universe, only God knows!:)
> IMHO he was a prick in a lot of ways. He didn't much like women, either.
I won't even comment on this... it's simply ridiculous, and I hope you didn't mean it like you were stating for the record that you are sexist too...
Anyway, all religion is bunk. What makes christianity any more valid than the Roman or Norse or Celtic pantheon? So evolution is bunk then... ok
BTW, Jesus is THE ONLY man in any religion to be born of a virgin, grow up sinless, be killed for no reason, and be raised to life again, and taken from earth.
On the same lines, Christianity is at least the most commonly abused form of cursing. Jesus Christ, oh my God, Holy whatever... how many times do you hear someone yell "Ahh, Buddha!" or "Holy Muhammed!" or "OH MY VOID!" (I like that last one:)
Anyway, on top of other posts I've made about this topic, I think the fact that Christianity is so unique is another sign of it truth. (Read some of my other posts for my other views about it)
I find it interesting that right off anything religious is credited to Roman Catholicism (ie priests in modern terms):) but that's another topic.
I'll get my views out in the open first. I don't believe in any universal origins of any kind, and the oldest thing I believe in the universe, is approximately 6000 years old. Laugh/scoff, etc... but I do, however thouroughly enjoy reading about all the theories of origins. Imagination is a powerful thing.
Ok, now, to clear things up, NOTHING related to origins is fact - everything, as stated (hopefully) by everyone in this topic is based on theory. Though we can observe and test laws now, we have no basis as to what happened before recorded history. We can speculate and 'guess' at events and occurances, but nothing is provable.
And as for Ockham's razor, all things being equal, I can't see how constantly changing theories and never coming up with something reliable to believe and all known laws and theories breaking down at a certain point and accepting that, can be easier than accepting the existence of a deity or God and that there is a purpose to everything. For one, obviously if everything was created, this God must be more intelligent than all life in the universe, and to control it must be more wise than anything in our comprehension could be.
I'm not accepting this because it's the 'easiest' solution (which I do see it as), and not because I 'know' it's true - which in a nutshell, is not possible scientifically. God is not provable until he shows himself and we can prove it. Until then, it's just as much belief as the big bang and all origin theories. It's simply a matter of which is more believable to you, until you're proven right (or wrong).
So, I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm just stating that I don't see how it could be right in this area. There is, and never will be, any way to prove the big bang, or any other origin theories. Life breaks down at death, so you'll never know until then. I'd rather die, believing I've got a purpose to life, that there is something bigger out there, that I know where I'm going, and that I lived a life that reflects that, rather than die happy that my life amounted to nothing in the end, except to help a lot of people in some cases, and by that pass on not knowing what's going to happen to generations beyond. It's more of a risk not believe in God if he exists that it is to believe in God if he doesn't exist. That's my point of view from life on earth. Spiritually, obviously I know He exists, and the only way I can prove it is to go out and have everyone prove it to themselves.
Scientifically, there is no proof either way. Spiritually, well, the only option is God, otherwise there is no 'spiritually'.
Ever think that maybe (well, obviously) if everything was created, it could be created old? If Eden was created, the trees were fully grown, no? In the same way, I think the fact that we try to trace the origins of the universe down to one point where everything breaks down is proof in the existence of God. He is so smart that He created everything in such a way to give us the choice of what to believe, which was His whole purpose - free will. And when it comes down to the breaking point, where it's either true or not, we're left undecided. He can't make the universe explainable, or He just disproves himself, which is not possible. The point where everything falls apart is where God comes in and shows you the alternative.
I believe the theories we have about the origins of the universe are well founded, thought out, and experimented, and to be honest, I can't say they're not true - but only because they were made that way. Look in a mirror - essentially, it's endless, like you're peering into another world; but there's nothing past the glass. If God created the universe with age, we can peer past that boundary into, well, God's purest most ingenious creation.
It seems to have morphed into a theological topic (again?) It seems anything related to the universe does... but that's how I see it. Prove it wrong.:)
> Same could be said for primitive tribes of aliens, maybe yesterday they invented the wheel. Abscence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence
(I like that last line BTW:)
Now if the universe is billions of years old, what are the chances 1) that an alien race would coincidentally begin evolving at the same time as us, or even, say, within 1000 years of us? 2) based on that assumption and people's estimate of the number of possible intelligent civilizations out there, that we haven't contacted anyone yet (sorry, they're all hiding from us until we're advanced enough ala Star Trek)
I think, personally, that sci-fi shows, like Star Trek, Star Wars, Lexx, B5, etc (which I'm fans of BTW), have given us such appealing possible explanations for our universe, that we've come to believe that it's the only possible explanation. No one wants to believe that we are alone, that the universe is a vast, amazing phenomenon created by God (no, not us). I know most people think 'how could you be so closed minded' - well, vice versa? I never said that life DOES NOT exist on other planets - I simply believe it doesn't because I don't see how it could. Until we come up with proof, I choose not to because I think it degrades our existence, and frankly, scares me. Plus, I've experienced things that prove to me that it's the only reasonable choice.
Just for the record, I believe in other planets, and I believe life exists by God on other planets, but I believe we are the only intelligent life we will ever find (and we'll be lucky sometimes with that:)
> With "proofs" like yours, I hope that you're not in any way associated with science.
Not that I agree with the way he originally posted that 'no life in the universe proof' reply (though I do believe it), you just said that you hope everyone who believes evolution is fact is not involved in science also!
FYI (currently) there is no physical, observable, demonstratable evidence for evolution, just as there is no physical, observable, demonstratable evidence for life on other planets, just as there is no physical, observable, demonstratable evidence for the existence of God other than the visible change in people's lives that can be explained no other way and the faith of those who believe.
Therefore, it is a 'belief' in life on other planets, a 'belief' we evolved from dirt, and a 'belief' that God exists; it is simply a choice of what you believe - being as scientific as you like to decide which is more reasonable, and believable.
Personally, I don't believe in evolution, but I believe in God, and I believe life - in it's simplest form - exists by God on other planets, so I obviosously believe in the existence of other planets. I do believe we are the only intelligent life. And until we get an intelligent response from an extra-terrestrial body, no one can say I'm wrong. I'm very objective and base everything I believe on what I experience, see, and understand to be true based on what is provable. And I love astronomy:)
> I'm sorry, but since when did Judge Jackson become an expert on the history of the high-tech industry
They would not have picked his name out of a hat for one. Judge selection is a highly important process for any case.
> His so-called "Findings of Fact" are really just his opinion, but since he's a judge he gets to call them "fact."
So if you re-wrote it, what would you say? It is fact that Microsoft made these deals with these companies. It is fact that Microsoft threatened these companies if they didn't comply. You cannot say those are not fact when they are documented by those involved and reported IN A COURT OF LAW ie they -cannot- be falsified or you can throw out our entire government.
> Spend five minutes reading things other than slashdot and you'll find out that many people who are in fact experts in things high-tech disagree with many of the "facts" in the afore-mentioned findings.
As have I been browsing the whole net looking through places just like this. And my findings show that the majority of techies who know what they are talking about hertily agree with the judge and are happily going about their work knowing that it's finally been confirmed. The people who are shocked or disagree are mainly the people who don't live in the techie world, who hear about Gates as the successful billionnaire who couldn't go wrong - but have no idea about his background or -how- he gets to his success.
This topic is obviously another big split in views, and mostly to the extremes. However, most people who agree with the findings are technically minded people who live on the net or in software, developers and the like.
I think we have to question whether you are serious or not with a comment like this. What the hell does the Findings of fact have to do with anything. I've read the findings and I disagree with them.
If you disagree with gravity, does that mean it's not fact?
Findings of Fact is exactly that. Judge Jackson has taken the events that have occured over time and documented them here, and added his professional opinions where necessary.
I'm assuming (hoping) you did actually read the FoF, and aren't serious about 'What the hell does the Findings of fact have to do with anything'.
Slashdot Mirror
But by your argument, you create a paradox. By saying that because the universe can be infinitely large that everything has to happen at least once, then there's a chance that no other life could exist anywhere else in the universe. The chance of that seems to be almost inifinitesmal, but it is possible. Therefore it must have happened. That logic just doesn't work. Just because something -could- happen doesn't mean it does.
Now I'm not saying life -doesn't- exist anywhere else, I believe there is a chance that minimal levels of life exist, like bacteria and viruses... thinking, competent, intelligent life is completely different. But again, this is not science. This becomes a matter of what you want to believe. It can be proven neither way. You cannot prove life exists on other planets until you find it, likewise you can't prove life does not exist anywhere else - at all, since we'll never know every point of the universe at every point in time. In the same way, you cannot disprove that God exists, since you'll never be able to enter God's realm until you die, and by then it's too late to pass the news to the world, and likewise, you can't prove God doesn't exist until something happens that proves to you He does. I know God exists because I've experienced him. Whether you think I'm crazy or not makes no difference, but there is no possible way I can prove to you God exists until you experience it yourself.
Prove to me you love your parents... You can't, you just know you do.
Based on life on other planets, my reasoning is simply that God hasn't said that there isn't life on other planets. There may be, there may not be. Adam didn't name the bacteria. Adam named what he could find, the types of creatures that exist. Man was a unique creation in the image of God (not gods ourselves, far from it). Therefore there is acceptable reason to believe no intelligent life exists on other planets. But I believe God may have created life on other planets, in limited form, even if just to offer the other choice of whether to believe in Him, or to interpret that as proof of evolution.
Everything is a matter of individual interpretation. Science is fact. Origins are theory. You believe theories. You believe in evolution, or you believe in God.
I *still* don't see how starting from scratch poses any bigger or different ethical or moral questions than starting from bits of bacteria ADN
The difference is simply that unless you use raw material or energy, you are using pre-living material... you're using organic material, stuff that already IS life. You're not creating life, you're 'creating' a being using the building blocks. To create life, you need to do the impossible and mix that protoplasm, goo, lifeless chemicals, that are inorganic, in such a way to spark that 'breath of life' that God gave all living things. If you can do that, well, you can call yourself God! Not gonna happen... that's where the ethical or moral questions are posed.
So yes, keep up the experiments, it would be very intriguing to see if we can actually organize an organism under a controlled environment.
*** BUT ***
You know what that means... if we as scientists 'create' this life, how does that prove that this all happened by chance? The scientist is the creator. God's gotta be the ultimate scientist
This is one reason why I never refer to Christianity as 'religion' per se. I try to separate the two as much as possible. True Christianity only follows the bible and the laws God has placed on humanity as guidelines and protection for ourselves.
Christianty has absolutely no problem with science, as long as it doesn't label things, namely theories of origins, as scientific fact. Origins inherantly are unscientific - there is absolutely no way that we can prove how we, or the universe, came to be. As soon as science tries to explain it, it becomes a form of 'religion' since you decide to believe it is true based on the interpretation.
So yes, religion and science can be perfect working together, as long as they both don't try to explain the same thing differently, which is the area of origins. And, of course, the existance of God, which is completely out of the realm of provable, visible, experimentable science. Belief in God is faith, it is not explainable by tangible science
To bring God back into this thing :) there is nothing that says this is a big deal or proving God doesn't exist. Yes, cats are cats... they successfully bred cats. God said 'let every creature produce after it's own kind' - so yes, get a dog and cat to breed, you just broke the laws of nature God put in place. It's simply not possible.
So congratulations on your achievement of breeding the domestic and wild cat! I'm honestly sure it may not have been easy, and it's a good result.
Who says that a few scientists won't master the fundamentals enough to create viable life?
Again, we're not creating life... we're using life to 'create' an organism. There's a difference, and I'm interested to see the result, but I'm not upset by the idea. I'm upset that people want to do it constantly, because we just have to keep reaping the consequences; then science kicks in and tries to solve that problem, while creating a new one, and it keeps going from there.
We humans as a race should learn caution with what we tamper with...But not stop altogether.
Exactly. But curiosity killed the cat. We can't assume that everything has a solution. We can't assume that if we can 'create' this organsim that nothing negative will result, or that if something negative does result, that we'll be able to solve that, and so on. There are limits to everything, and not everything ends up good. One of these days, our scientific theory will unravel something we've never seen, never expected, and could never hope to understand and it will be the downfall of us all. I'm not saying this is it, but I'm positive that this endeavour will not be with it's side effects, insignificant or disastrous as they may be.
To close, a comment on ethics and god:
What it comes down to is that ethics are a matter of opinion. "good" and "evil" are concepts invented by humans, and can only be applied to humans actions in a particular frame work, and depeneding on circumstances (someone mentioned murder to be wrong... But again, its all circumstance. If I walked up to someone on the street and kille him, people will say i did something wrong. if that person walked into mcdonalds with a 12 guage, and strating murdering people, and i killed him, people will say i did something good. Theres nothing in the act of murder itself that is bad, its the circumstances in which it was done that makes the act "good or bad".) Along the same lines, technology and information is neither good or bad. Its the intent with which it is used that dertmine the "goodness" or "badness" of it, and even then it is a case by case thing.
Religion is also not the source of morality. For example, christians claim that god is "perfeclty good". In order to judge god to be "perfectly good" one needs a way to measure "goodness" that doesnt depened on that which is being measured (in this case god). So to judge god to be good, we need an idea of goodness before we judge him, or else the term "good" is totaly meaningless.
The thing that people tend to forget is that God is not 'human' - he is not bound by humanity. God created humanity, so He perfectly just to lay laws and guidelines to protect us. By saying God is "good", it is based on the fact that God created "good". What pleases God is good. Human decided, because many choose not to believe in God, that morality has to be a personal issue, that there is no source for morality and no one can dictate it because it's created by humanity. As soon as you realize and know God exists, the world opens up to you and you know that there is so much more than us, and our feelings. Ethics and morality aren't dictated by Christians, religion (at least it shouldn't be), or any one in particular. Ethics and morality exist to protect us because of our free will to choose. As was said earlier, it's not a matter of anything that happens which decides if it's good or bad - it's the intent, the motive and context of the event. For us, we have laws to follow, and those laws are made to make sure we do the right thing. These laws are man made, they are decided by man to be right and wrong. The laws God gave us precede that, and one of them is to respect authority, because it is given by God. In other words, whether you think it's right or not, you've got to follow the rules. If the result is undesirable, it's not an issue you need to be guilty about. God sees that you followed His rules above all else, and that is good.
Ethics and morality are simply Gods way of protecting us from ourselves. But we have to make sure we don't create our own 'ethics' and 'morality', or we're in big trouble.
Its quite an old argument, acctualy. Socrates phrased it roughly like this:
Is justice (he said peity acctualy...) good because god loves it; or does god love it because it is good?
God created good, which is what many don't see. God created what is right and wrong. You may ask why God does things that hurt people - the answer: God doesn't DO them, He let's them happen BECAUSE He's given us the freedom to make our own decisions. He could stop all the bad things from happening if He wants, but He loves us in such a way that He wants us to make the decisions for ourselves, not be dictated by God. It hurts Him to see us suffer, but it would hurt Him more to know He was forcing us to things we may not want to do. It's only justified in the fact that He isn't the one causing the pain - we are, and, yes, evil.
If its good because god loves it, then anything god loves (or commands us to do?) is good by default (so if he said to go out and muder 5 month old babies, are all you christians going to go out and do it? if you say you wouldnt, tell me why not. because in that case i think you have a problem with your faith...)
That doesn't stand up because God would never do that. You could say what if God told us to jump off a cliff? Well, I'd do it, because it's what God wants, and there's a good reason for it. But I know that God would not for one, command me to committ suicide. It's happened many times in the past. For example, when God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, he brought him to the brink, to know for sure that Abraham was totally devoted to Him. God would not have Abraham kill his own son, but because of Abraham's blind faith that God had a reason, he was going to do it. God doesn't give us more than we can take.
God would not command anyone to kill another man, unless that man was the essence of evil. (And if someone refers to events in the Old Testament, email me because that is a different issue - from the New Testament and on, after Jesus was crucified, things changed)
If he loves it because it is good, meaning god loves all good things, then he doesnt have a choice about loving it or not, and therefore cannot be all powerfull (and also cannot be used to determine "good" and "bad" since it would seem that they are properties of things, which he cannot grant or take away?).
Again, God is not bound by humanity. God created good and all things. God is good, but God defines good. God loves all things, all of his creation. But love is the way He protects and supports us, not for the moment, but for the future and for life - he knows the future, the consequences of certain events, and though things may happen now that make us angry at God, we can't see why He would let it happen, but God knows, He has a reason for it. God's love isn't limited to making us happy - it's love that extends for a lifetime, and we can't see that. We have to have faith that God has a good reason.
Now to relate this to genetics - God created life. He breathed the breath of life into us. There is no physical, tangible way that we can create life as God did. We can take bits and pieces of His creation, which already has life it - 'organic material' in other words - and shape it to 'create' a new life. But we are not creating life itself. Now, because God detests seeing us to be godlike, trying to prove we can do what God does, there are going to be consequences. We try to do things to better ourselves, science explores 'new frontiers' ignoring the guidelines God has set for us to protect us. When we go cross the line, which God does not stop us from doing, we reap the results. That sheep which was cloned, eventually began to age rapidly. Free sex resulted in the dramatic increase of STDs. Many things which God has shown not to be beneficial, we've toyed with and had to experience for ourselves. I belive we'll be able to 'create' a new life, but I don't believe we'll get anything beneficial from it. It either won't work, or it'll start something that science will again try to block or remedy. Science is a good thing, and it's great to explain how things work and exist, but trying to duplicate that extends into things we can't comprehend, and results can be disastrous.
I can't think of anything else to write, so...
That's not really the point.. if we can make an organism that does absolutely nothing but live, grow, and reproduce we can later add more genes to it to do other things
But this does not merit the term 'creating life', and is nowhere near it! Now if science can create a gene from raw materials, molecularly, or atomically, then hey, we have an argument. But right now, they are taking pre-existing elements of life, that are alive, and putting them together. They're using someone else's idea to create something - rather like licensing the Quake or Unreal graphics engine to create Duke Nukem Forever, et al.
You're not creating life, you're using life to produce something new.
Again, not my discussion, but... Also, "anti-God 'religions' " is an oxymoron, as it violates the definition of a religion as the worship of one or more dieties or other higher powers.
Actually, a religion is better defined as a strong belief in something, and following rules and/or guidelines which are required by the religion. I'm not quoting a dictionary, but religion is commonly used outside of the context of a god or deity, though most commonly understood in that context.
In this case, I think that anti-god religion is valid, because they believe there is no God, and live their life by that, most noticeably in discussions like this where it is necessary to make known that they do not believe in God or are essentially 'anti-god', and quite often in life make decisions based on that belief; otherwise, they could not call themselves, uh, whatever can be called an anti-god religion.
Along the same lines, many Christians coint he phrase 'it's not a religion, it's a relationship'. Which in this case is also valid. Relationships are intimiacies between two beings (most commonly, humans) from acquiantances, to friendships, to mates. Based on the Christian faith, Christianity is better described as a relationship, since it is not rules or laws you must abide by whether you like it or not, but the sincere desire to do so founded on the bible, and the type of relationship that exists between the person and God, which is best described as a friendship.
I don't think I explained it best, and it's getting late. ta-ta
I'm not actually in this argument (sorry, discussion), but a couple of comments peaked my attention...
:) ok, person) anyway, only God can pass judgement. We can punish, that's what the law is for, but not take the life of another as judgement. Again, the Old Testemant, aside from the ten commandments, was for the culture of the time. The New Testament is the new covenent for us. The Old Testament does not govern the laws for today.
>your God will take care of you when the time comes.
Who said I believed in that?
I find it interesting that people who don't believe in God, but freedom, say that you can believe in what you want, even if it's a God who will take you to heaven under certain conditions, and the rest will, well, go to hell. Yet because they don't believe it, they're exempt?
I don't see how you can let someone believe something, well founded, which condemnes you, and either not worry about it or not be bothered by it. In the same way, I can't see how someone who does believe in that and has the chance to save many people, won't, because they can believe what they want...
If you're a Christian and believe the bible, with God's love in you, you'll go out and save as many people as possible, not piss them off, pardon my french. If you're not a Christian, but say you can believe what you want, I'd be worried if someone believes you're going to hell because of it... that kind of God wouldn't pay attention only to the people who believe in Him, saying that the devil can take care of everyone else, except for the people who don't believe in me - they're safe. Just doesn't make any sense; it's a paradox. Anyway, number 2...
Where in the Bible does it say to execute someone unless they are doing something like invading your homeland?
Nowhere... at all... even if they are invading your homeland... I dunno where you got that, but it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you are allowed to pass judgement through death on another man (human, for those radical, nutty, right-wing feminists; or should I say huwoman; sorry, homosapien
BTW, the laws for the United States for founded on the ten commandments, so our original basis for morality (here at least) came from God. But it's been morphed, exaggerated and tinkered with over time, essentially, to make everyone happy (the majority).
> ..you don't have access to guns do you? hmm, christian fundamentalist, uh-oh.
:-)
:)
When people start to attribute their actions to outside forces things get scary. You do make a good joke though.
Persecution... guns... everyone seems to be talking about abortionists, and loads of others that apparently the Christians are at fault for opressing, or opposing.
How many people here remember Columbine?! A major blow, deeply disturbing, and a big hit to many many people. Two of the girls killed were killed knowingly because they were loved God. Rachel and Cassie were both asked before shot whether they believed in God. Both said yes and were murdered. They, along with so many more were killed that day. I'm not saying the world is against us - it was the fault of a couple screwed up kids who had nothing better to do. But they took the lives of two people who died for what they believed in. And it sparked a movement, a revival if you will.
One thing that got me, for the past 5 years I've gone to a touring convention called Acquire the Fire. They had a massive gathering in Pontiac Michigan 3 days after that shooting. The whole mood of that weekend was changed because of it. They mounted a massive card for the entire school that everyone (well, most) signed, around the whole stadium. They also sent a couple truckloads of bibles to the school. A couple weeks ago I just learned when they came on their local tour, that Rachel was about to join their ministry team called Teen Mania. She had applied and was going around fundraising for support. The speaker, Ron, was fighting back the sadness knowing that she was killed before she could follow her heart and help spread the Word.
If this isn't persecution, what is?
Of course, I'm sure the killers didn't go into the school looking for Christians to kill. They killed many other students who will be remembered deeply. But how many Christians will stand there with a gun pointed at their head, say they love God, and be killed because of it?
Whereas, along the lines of abortion, it kills a living being. I'm not an abortionist hater - I'm an abortion hater. This whole thing about a woman's body? Sure it's her body, and she has all the right in the world to protect it and take care of it, but when there is a living human being growing in her, even if it is just a fetus, or can't think for itself - it relies on her to survive, or it wouldn't - it doesn't deserve to be killed just because she doesn't want to go through with a birth. If she didn't want to go through with a birth, she wouldn't have done the deed in the first place! It's her body, she should know the possible consequences. If she takes the chance, she's aware of the outcome. In it's strictest sense, it is murder. She does it, knowing she may have a baby, but not wanting to go through with birth, she still has sex, and decides to have an abortion - planned. As long as you believe the conceived baby is a living human, it is, in its strictest sense, murder.
I'm not one to use bold terms like that, but there's no other way to say it. It's like saying if you don't accept Jesus, you're going to hell. I HATE saying that, but how else can you say it? I try to say, you're not going to heaven. I dunno.
Anyway, I'm way off topic again... this is still the flat universe discussion... argh!
> Relax. Consider getting a sense of humor. I hear all the best Irish jokes from Irish friends, and the same goes for every other ethnic and geographic group I know. Why can't Christians learn to laugh at themselves like the rest of us do?
Oh don't worry, we have fun, and lots of it... but not at the expense of God. If we laugh at ourselves (our faith more precisely), we are laughing at God, not ourselves. Yes, we do make fun of ourselves, as ourselves. Who in their right mind wouldn't? Well, obviously someone not in their right mind... it's healthy, and stops everyone else from doing it for you. No one's perfect, so don't try to be, just have fun!
> At least you guys don't have to put up with Andrea Dworkin :)
:)
Care to enlighten us?
This is so frustrating... I try my best to be civilized in this kind of discussion...
:) homosexuality is wrong and sinful.
:)
> Dammit, I don't remember where, but while St. Paul certainly said what you say he said, he did indeed at some point mention that gays should still be stomped . . . 1. You just swore 2. The Old Testament is exactly that - the Old Testament. Because of Jesus life and death, the New Testament was created. The Old was based on the culture at the time, the laws and regulations there-in. Because Jesus had not yet come and defeated death, laws were very strict. Even so, no where does it say thou shalt kill the homosexual. No where does it say thou shalt kill the jew. God is the only one who has the right to judge. We as humans are not God, and do not have the right to murder or judge, that is up to God. If the gay men are gay, practice homosexuality, and die homosexuals, they will deal with God then. Until then, we, as Christians can but try to help them and show them God. The SIN is what we kill, not the life! We want to save people, not send them to hell.
If you've seen Contact (the movie), I can only picture you as they freak white-supremecist who blew himself up to destroy the 'alien' machine. Using the bible in specific points, exerpts, and out of context is strictly what God warns us NOT to do. I hate to say it, but by defending Christianity and God the way you do, you're simply condemning yourself.
Williams, who killed the two gay men, is, unfortunately, going to reap the consequences. He may think he rid the world of two sub-humans, but he just sentenced himself to death, spiritually, and most likely physically. I see it as unfortunate, and a grave loss of two human beings who will now never get the chance to experience God's glory and live a full, decent life, and continue through death. I believe homosexuality is wrong, yes, but it does not deserve OUR judgement and verdict - it deserves riddance, and seperation from God's creation. Homosexuals are people too, yes
What this has to do with evidence for a flat universe, only God knows!
> IMHO he was a prick in a lot of ways. He didn't much like women, either.
I won't even comment on this... it's simply ridiculous, and I hope you didn't mean it like you were stating for the record that you are sexist too...
Anyway, all religion is bunk. What makes christianity any more valid than the Roman or Norse or Celtic pantheon? So evolution is bunk then... ok
BTW, Jesus is THE ONLY man in any religion to be born of a virgin, grow up sinless, be killed for no reason, and be raised to life again, and taken from earth.
On the same lines, Christianity is at least the most commonly abused form of cursing. Jesus Christ, oh my God, Holy whatever... how many times do you hear someone yell "Ahh, Buddha!" or "Holy Muhammed!" or "OH MY VOID!" (I like that last one:)
Anyway, on top of other posts I've made about this topic, I think the fact that Christianity is so unique is another sign of it truth. (Read some of my other posts for my other views about it)
I find it interesting that right off anything religious is credited to Roman Catholicism (ie priests in modern terms) :) but that's another topic.
:)
I'll get my views out in the open first. I don't believe in any universal origins of any kind, and the oldest thing I believe in the universe, is approximately 6000 years old. Laugh/scoff, etc... but I do, however thouroughly enjoy reading about all the theories of origins. Imagination is a powerful thing.
Ok, now, to clear things up, NOTHING related to origins is fact - everything, as stated (hopefully) by everyone in this topic is based on theory. Though we can observe and test laws now, we have no basis as to what happened before recorded history. We can speculate and 'guess' at events and occurances, but nothing is provable.
And as for Ockham's razor, all things being equal, I can't see how constantly changing theories and never coming up with something reliable to believe and all known laws and theories breaking down at a certain point and accepting that, can be easier than accepting the existence of a deity or God and that there is a purpose to everything. For one, obviously if everything was created, this God must be more intelligent than all life in the universe, and to control it must be more wise than anything in our comprehension could be.
I'm not accepting this because it's the 'easiest' solution (which I do see it as), and not because I 'know' it's true - which in a nutshell, is not possible scientifically. God is not provable until he shows himself and we can prove it. Until then, it's just as much belief as the big bang and all origin theories. It's simply a matter of which is more believable to you, until you're proven right (or wrong).
So, I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm just stating that I don't see how it could be right in this area. There is, and never will be, any way to prove the big bang, or any other origin theories. Life breaks down at death, so you'll never know until then. I'd rather die, believing I've got a purpose to life, that there is something bigger out there, that I know where I'm going, and that I lived a life that reflects that, rather than die happy that my life amounted to nothing in the end, except to help a lot of people in some cases, and by that pass on not knowing what's going to happen to generations beyond. It's more of a risk not believe in God if he exists that it is to believe in God if he doesn't exist. That's my point of view from life on earth. Spiritually, obviously I know He exists, and the only way I can prove it is to go out and have everyone prove it to themselves.
Scientifically, there is no proof either way. Spiritually, well, the only option is God, otherwise there is no 'spiritually'.
Ever think that maybe (well, obviously) if everything was created, it could be created old? If Eden was created, the trees were fully grown, no? In the same way, I think the fact that we try to trace the origins of the universe down to one point where everything breaks down is proof in the existence of God. He is so smart that He created everything in such a way to give us the choice of what to believe, which was His whole purpose - free will. And when it comes down to the breaking point, where it's either true or not, we're left undecided. He can't make the universe explainable, or He just disproves himself, which is not possible. The point where everything falls apart is where God comes in and shows you the alternative.
I believe the theories we have about the origins of the universe are well founded, thought out, and experimented, and to be honest, I can't say they're not true - but only because they were made that way. Look in a mirror - essentially, it's endless, like you're peering into another world; but there's nothing past the glass. If God created the universe with age, we can peer past that boundary into, well, God's purest most ingenious creation.
It seems to have morphed into a theological topic (again?) It seems anything related to the universe does... but that's how I see it. Prove it wrong.
> Same could be said for primitive tribes of aliens, maybe yesterday they invented the wheel. Abscence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence
:)
:)
(I like that last line BTW
Now if the universe is billions of years old, what are the chances
1) that an alien race would coincidentally begin evolving at the same time as us, or even, say, within 1000 years of us?
2) based on that assumption and people's estimate of the number of possible intelligent civilizations out there, that we haven't contacted anyone yet (sorry, they're all hiding from us until we're advanced enough ala Star Trek)
I think, personally, that sci-fi shows, like Star Trek, Star Wars, Lexx, B5, etc (which I'm fans of BTW), have given us such appealing possible explanations for our universe, that we've come to believe that it's the only possible explanation. No one wants to believe that we are alone, that the universe is a vast, amazing phenomenon created by God (no, not us). I know most people think 'how could you be so closed minded' - well, vice versa? I never said that life DOES NOT exist on other planets - I simply believe it doesn't because I don't see how it could. Until we come up with proof, I choose not to because I think it degrades our existence, and frankly, scares me. Plus, I've experienced things that prove to me that it's the only reasonable choice.
Just for the record, I believe in other planets, and I believe life exists by God on other planets, but I believe we are the only intelligent life we will ever find (and we'll be lucky sometimes with that
> With "proofs" like yours, I hope that you're not in any way associated with science.
:)
Not that I agree with the way he originally posted that 'no life in the universe proof' reply (though I do believe it), you just said that you hope everyone who believes evolution is fact is not involved in science also!
FYI (currently) there is no physical, observable, demonstratable evidence for evolution, just as there is no physical, observable, demonstratable evidence for life on other planets, just as there is no physical, observable, demonstratable evidence for the existence of God other than the visible change in people's lives that can be explained no other way and the faith of those who believe.
Therefore, it is a 'belief' in life on other planets, a 'belief' we evolved from dirt, and a 'belief' that God exists; it is simply a choice of what you believe - being as scientific as you like to decide which is more reasonable, and believable.
Personally, I don't believe in evolution, but I believe in God, and I believe life - in it's simplest form - exists by God on other planets, so I obviosously believe in the existence of other planets. I do believe we are the only intelligent life. And until we get an intelligent response from an extra-terrestrial body, no one can say I'm wrong. I'm very objective and base everything I believe on what I experience, see, and understand to be true based on what is provable. And I love astronomy
> I'm sorry, but since when did Judge Jackson become an expert on the history of the high-tech industry
They would not have picked his name out of a hat for one. Judge selection is a highly important process for any case.
> His so-called "Findings of Fact" are really just his opinion, but since he's a judge he gets to call them "fact."
So if you re-wrote it, what would you say? It is fact that Microsoft made these deals with these companies. It is fact that Microsoft threatened these companies if they didn't comply. You cannot say those are not fact when they are documented by those involved and reported IN A COURT OF LAW ie they -cannot- be falsified or you can throw out our entire government.
> Spend five minutes reading things other than slashdot and you'll find out that many people who are in fact experts in things high-tech disagree with many of the "facts" in the afore-mentioned findings.
As have I been browsing the whole net looking through places just like this. And my findings show that the majority of techies who know what they are talking about hertily agree with the judge and are happily going about their work knowing that it's finally been confirmed. The people who are shocked or disagree are mainly the people who don't live in the techie world, who hear about Gates as the successful billionnaire who couldn't go wrong - but have no idea about his background or -how- he gets to his success.
This topic is obviously another big split in views, and mostly to the extremes. However, most people who agree with the findings are technically minded people who live on the net or in software, developers and the like.
I think we have to question whether you are serious or not with a comment like this. What the hell does the Findings of fact have to do with anything. I've read the findings and I disagree with them.
If you disagree with gravity, does that mean it's not fact?
Findings of Fact is exactly that. Judge Jackson has taken the events that have occured over time and documented them here, and added his professional opinions where necessary.
I'm assuming (hoping) you did actually read the FoF, and aren't serious about 'What the hell does the Findings of fact have to do with anything'.