I wonder whom you mean by "wackos". Environmentalists, people concerned with diminishing energy supplies, people concerned with 3rd world hunger & 3rd world farmers, and people concerned with global warming have all expressed dismay over corn ethanol.
That's a common wheeze -- days and nights were longer. Why is just days and nights that mean different things? Maybe when the Book said "light", it meant "girls in madras shorts" or "spumoni".
If you are going to try and argue science, at least state your assumptions and your line of reasoning, otherwise you are no better than those that claim the world was created in six 24 hour days when the bible doesn't even divide day and night till something like the 3rd day.
A post in slashdot is hardly the spot for a dissertation on the philosophy of Science.
Your "no better" makes an assumption about the insignificance of the physical world that would startle David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. I agree that Science is for those who think a physical world with set, discoverable laws is the ground on which we operate. Which is why Reason matters. If the world is the insubstantial thing you imagine, have fun. People who believe in the precedence of Revelation in determining their values still must account for why they choose 1 set of revealed truths over another. There's a smorgasboard. Without an actual, physical world + Reason + discoverable laws that choice becomes a game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey (guesswork)or simply blindly accepting the Faith of Our Fathers (habit).
Even the issue of authority is ignorable if you're willing to accept that the work is not literal.
Which means, of course, that it isn't when people don't.
You seem to want to consider your position privileged. It isn't. People are single points from which entire universes spring.
When people say there are conflicts between religion and Science, they do so from the practical position that some people assert the primacy of one over the other. That isn't an abstraction.
They're just different examples of the same problem: when a literal interpretation of what is clearly a work of religion, philosophy and oral tradition is applied, yes you will have an incompatibility with reason. That does not mean that subscription to such works is inherently incompatible with reason.
Which is a completely different problem. Certain kinds of subscriptions are incompatible with reason since some people consider revealed truth as primary authority. You seem to think that if some people treat revelation in a certain "reasonable" way then that's it. It isn't. It might be useful to think of them to use different words when discussing the differences.
Your solution to the conflict just sweeps the issue into a different corner: reasonable workarounds don't work on people for whom Reason isn't primary.
And please note that the issue I brought up doesn't deal with the narrow question of physical creation but the moral issue of the origin of evil. Science doesn't address evil, unless you're in a movie and have evil scientists, but certain scientific facts would definitely clobber revealed notions about it. You apparenly want to define away what a conflict is or reduce it to triviality over the issue of the number of people for whom the conflict exists.
Actually, there's a grave conflict between Science and the religions which depend upon revealed truths. Take the Judeo-Christian Creation story. In it, Man is the source of woe in the world due to disobedience. Science shows that woe (sickness, old age, death, pain) is just part of the whole package from the git-go. That's a pretty serious conflict. What ill is the promised Messiah supposed to rectify? Etc. The creation of human life isn't the only religious question that Science has jumbled the accepted answer.
Wow, to go against reason AND God's decree, they must really hate embryonic stem cell a lot... or perhaps they just want to rake in some more donation from crazy people who want to blame ESC for the moral degeneration of our society.
You're truncating his argument to make it sound ridiculous. What's hated is the use of embryos. He's arguing that a human embryo has the same dignity the rest of us do. You may reject that -- and that rejection has its own moral danger -- but you shouldn't mis-state his argument.
The real reason the music industry is dying is because of the crap they have been putting out. Why buy an entire CD when only one track is worth listening to.
One track? I've never consciously listened to a single song by Garth Brooks. How can someone be the #1 or #2 best selling music artist and not have his music simply fill the air around you? I know he's country, chunky, and wears a big hat. That's music? I've never bought an Elvis record, but I know what his music sounds like. You'd have to be deaf not to know lots of Beatle's music. But songs since, oh, 1980? Who cares? Who sings [modern artist] songs in the shower? Do people "rap" to themselves?
You slander Joan Osborne, an excellent r&b singer, and the song's writers. The notion has a good pedigree.
Stephen jerked his thumb towards the window, saying: - That is God. Hooray! Ay! Whrrwhee! - What? Mr Deasy asked. - A shout in the street, Stephen answered, shrugging his shoulders.
Cheney, on the other hand, is widely well regarded as an evil mastermind.
Several years ago, someone published a list of Cheney's boneheaded actions and they were many. The alternative view of Cheney is that he simply has absolute confidence in himself and cows the think thank minds and policy wonks. That's the effect of testosterone: irrational confidence. (Consider how much trouble the GOP has gotten into recently over their worship of testosterone. It's a wide stance.)
On the issue of Bush's intelligence, there's nothing anywhere suggesting that he's smarter than the average gangster. Before he entered politics, he had an unbroken record of losing his partners hundreds of millions of dollars. Including failing to find oil in the Mid East. (The Texas Rangers deal was a gift to Bush not an investment or business decision. He put up borrowed money, had no responsibilities except to sit in his owner's box and pick his nose, and when the franchise was sold Richard Rainwater simply gave his own profits in the enterprise to Bush as a "bonus". This is a matter of record.)
Publication of the idea makes it unpatentable "prior art;" once published, the idea can never be patented by anyone.
Single click purchasing?
Loading subroutines into a browser?
A recent Joni Mitchell album uses Rudyard Kipling's "If" as lyric to a song. The liner notes thank The Kipling Estate. I presume that means that a 19th century poem is still under the control of the author's heirs. A mere 71 years after the old boy croaked. And over 100 years after the poem was written.
Not that anyone has asked, but after the absurd extensions of copyright law, intellectual property means spit to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder whom you mean by "wackos". Environmentalists, people concerned with diminishing energy supplies, people concerned with 3rd world hunger & 3rd world farmers, and people concerned with global warming have all expressed dismay over corn ethanol.
That's a common wheeze -- days and nights were longer. Why is just days and nights that mean different things? Maybe when the Book said "light", it meant "girls in madras shorts" or "spumoni".
If you are going to try and argue science, at least state your assumptions and your line of reasoning, otherwise you are no better than those that claim the world was created in six 24 hour days when the bible doesn't even divide day and night till something like the 3rd day.
A post in slashdot is hardly the spot for a dissertation on the philosophy of Science.
Your "no better" makes an assumption about the insignificance of the physical world that would startle David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. I agree that Science is for those who think a physical world with set, discoverable laws is the ground on which we operate. Which is why Reason matters. If the world is the insubstantial thing you imagine, have fun. People who believe in the precedence of Revelation in determining their values still must account for why they choose 1 set of revealed truths over another. There's a smorgasboard. Without an actual, physical world + Reason + discoverable laws that choice becomes a game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey (guesswork)or simply blindly accepting the Faith of Our Fathers (habit).
Even the issue of authority is ignorable if you're willing to accept that the work is not literal.
Which means, of course, that it isn't when people don't.
You seem to want to consider your position privileged. It isn't. People are single points from which entire universes spring.
When people say there are conflicts between religion and Science, they do so from the practical position that some people assert the primacy of one over the other. That isn't an abstraction.
They're just different examples of the same problem: when a literal interpretation of what is clearly a work of religion, philosophy and oral tradition is applied, yes you will have an incompatibility with reason. That does not mean that subscription to such works is inherently incompatible with reason.
Which is a completely different problem. Certain kinds of subscriptions are incompatible with reason since some people consider revealed truth as primary authority. You seem to think that if some people treat revelation in a certain "reasonable" way then that's it. It isn't. It might be useful to think of them to use different words when discussing the differences.
Your solution to the conflict just sweeps the issue into a different corner: reasonable workarounds don't work on people for whom Reason isn't primary.
And please note that the issue I brought up doesn't deal with the narrow question of physical creation but the moral issue of the origin of evil. Science doesn't address evil, unless you're in a movie and have evil scientists, but certain scientific facts would definitely clobber revealed notions about it. You apparenly want to define away what a conflict is or reduce it to triviality over the issue of the number of people for whom the conflict exists.
Actually, there's a grave conflict between Science and the religions which depend upon revealed truths. Take the Judeo-Christian Creation story. In it, Man is the source of woe in the world due to disobedience. Science shows that woe (sickness, old age, death, pain) is just part of the whole package from the git-go. That's a pretty serious conflict. What ill is the promised Messiah supposed to rectify? Etc. The creation of human life isn't the only religious question that Science has jumbled the accepted answer.
So far, that's the funniest post on this I've seen. (Currently rated "3"? Sheesh.)
At Uranus, things come out a little differently!
Brown 25!
Lack of timeliness is a genuine defense. A patent holder can't simply pick a convenient moment.
Wow, to go against reason AND God's decree, they must really hate embryonic stem cell a lot... or perhaps they just want to rake in some more donation from crazy people who want to blame ESC for the moral degeneration of our society.
You're truncating his argument to make it sound ridiculous. What's hated is the use of embryos. He's arguing that a human embryo has the same dignity the rest of us do. You may reject that -- and that rejection has its own moral danger -- but you shouldn't mis-state his argument.
Wikipedia is run by human beings. And that means trouble.
The real reason the music industry is dying is because of the crap they have been putting out. Why buy an entire CD when only one track is worth listening to.
One track? I've never consciously listened to a single song by Garth Brooks. How can someone be the #1 or #2 best selling music artist and not have his music simply fill the air around you? I know he's country, chunky, and wears a big hat. That's music? I've never bought an Elvis record, but I know what his music sounds like. You'd have to be deaf not to know lots of Beatle's music. But songs since, oh, 1980? Who cares? Who sings [modern artist] songs in the shower? Do people "rap" to themselves?
So, now, as they say, get off my lawn.
Either Monte Verde is bogus or it means that an earlier population just simply died out.
The song "Happy Birthday to You" is under copyright.
... wait a real long time ...) 2030.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
By one extension and another, a tune first written in 1893 will not fall out of copyright until (wait for it
That's a fairly depressing vision of our political landscape.
You slander Joan Osborne, an excellent r&b singer, and the song's writers. The notion has a good pedigree.
Stephen jerked his thumb towards the window, saying:
- That is God.
Hooray! Ay! Whrrwhee!
- What? Mr Deasy asked.
- A shout in the street, Stephen answered, shrugging his shoulders.
Cheney, on the other hand, is widely well regarded as an evil mastermind.
Several years ago, someone published a list of Cheney's boneheaded actions and they were many. The alternative view of Cheney is that he simply has absolute confidence in himself and cows the think thank minds and policy wonks. That's the effect of testosterone: irrational confidence. (Consider how much trouble the GOP has gotten into recently over their worship of testosterone. It's a wide stance.)
On the issue of Bush's intelligence, there's nothing anywhere suggesting that he's smarter than the average gangster. Before he entered politics, he had an unbroken record of losing his partners hundreds of millions of dollars. Including failing to find oil in the Mid East. (The Texas Rangers deal was a gift to Bush not an investment or business decision. He put up borrowed money, had no responsibilities except to sit in his owner's box and pick his nose, and when the franchise was sold Richard Rainwater simply gave his own profits in the enterprise to Bush as a "bonus". This is a matter of record.)
Well, 2 remedies.
1) Grow a backbone, Congress
2) Contempt citations
Publication of the idea makes it unpatentable "prior art;" once published, the idea can never be patented by anyone. Single click purchasing? Loading subroutines into a browser?
Gratuitous insinuation.
You forgot the notorious Anselmo Pederasty case.
What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period?
People walk and talk! A lot! Just like in The Lord of the Rings.
A recent Joni Mitchell album uses Rudyard Kipling's "If" as lyric to a song. The liner notes thank The Kipling Estate. I presume that means that a 19th century poem is still under the control of the author's heirs. A mere 71 years after the old boy croaked. And over 100 years after the poem was written.
Not that anyone has asked, but after the absurd extensions of copyright law, intellectual property means spit to me.
Well, I thought your comment was funny.
Maybe if you had used a headline like "It's Miller Time!"