Also, the code you provided has much higher specified complexity than a couple of Java API calls. Anyone could wrap some logic in a function and call it from any other language, but what matters is the actual logic inside (which would be completed encapsulated in the Java version).
[This is essentially the same problem as SLOC count comparisons between languages]. There's no question Java is way more verbose, and I suppose even the most complicated program could be expressed in two lines if we allow arbitrary library usage:
#import UberLib
class Main{
public static void main(){ UberLib.doSomethingFabulouslyComplex(); } }
There just isn't anything I could do with either that I wouldn't be able to do more easily with another more 'mainstream' language.
He said nothing about academic--the statement was quite general ('there isn't anything...'). And, the poster is simply flat-out wrong. Everything that you can do easily in Python or Ruby (like list processing, map/reduce, lambdas, etc.) can be done *more* easily in Haskell. And, then there's the other more esoteric/academic stuff that poster #2 cited--lazy evalution, infinite lists, etc. But, Haskell is also much faster than the scripting languages. All the productivity of the scripting languages and speed rivaling C++. How could you not like that?
And if you think that list processing and lambdas are academic, go talk to some scripters (Python, Ruby, Perl).
Why should we dumb code down? If I'm writing my own code at home, then I take pride and enjoyment in writing stuff that only hackers can read.
And, if I am running my own business, I do not want to hire or work with 'still wet-behind-the-ears' programmers.
Granted, in the existing business world where mediocrity reigns, it would be hard to justify using such esoteric languages. But, why should we cater to the lowest common denominator because it is entrenched? Great minds think alike--if you really want to be doing Haskell (or other functional langs), I'm sure you can find some like-minded people to start a business with (and you'll blow away the competition because your code will be 10x shorter and take 1/3 the time to write).
And it should be noted that you can implement infinite sequences in C++, etc. - generally the way to do this is with iterators, and the use case would be for feeding those iterators to algorithms that expect iterators... What Haskell brings to the table is that it encourages you to think of problems and solutions in those terms - learn the method and what you can do with it, how it affects the expression of your code - if you find it a useful idea it's easy enough to implement in most object-oriented languages...
And, I would add that modern C++ programming in fact encourages this style of programming. Take a look at Alexandrescu's _Modern C++_ for more info. All of the good C++ programmers these days are doing lots of generic and functional programming and even C#/.NET now has LINQ.
There are a couple of big differences between C++ and Haskell though.
Syntax. Haskell is much tighter.
Automation. C++ is still an imperative language so you're still required to drive (i.e., implement yourself) such things as lazy evaluation if you want that.
And, Richard Dawkins (author of _God Delusion_) is another extremist who thinks that the beloved theory is the death of religion. There also seems to be no shortage of their followers here on Slashdot--I'm surprised you haven't read any of their posts. There is certainly such a thing as 'evangelical atheism' and at the heart of it is the theory of evolution (or more specifically--Dawinism, which is the potent combination of evolution and the philosophy of materialism). The two are inseparable--evolution in today's context almost exclusively refers also to greater Darwinism/naturalism/materialism/secular humanism/atheism.
Don't be fooled by their sleight of hand and bait/switch tactics. Proponents of the theory feel it quite natural (and proper, mind you) to slide at will between the various forms and strengths of the theory and its supporting philosophy (especially when you start to pin them down on specifics, asking tough questions and/or exposing their true motives, ignorance, or disingenuousness).
"It's very hard to prove negatives (and historical events)--you know that."
But it's very easy to falsify a set of theories that make many many positive claims. Strangely nobody has managed this.
It's obvious to me now that we're talking about two different forms of evolution. Yes, variation and mutation obviously occur (no one can disprove that--just look at viruses for example). But, we're talking about a theory that claims that some primordial material suddenly formed a working 'cell' which then started replicating and evolving from there. But, it's a chicken and egg problem, you see? A working cell doesn't appear from nowhere (let alone a replicating and functional cell). And, until you have a working cell, natural selection cannot do its thing. What makes one non-functional pile of garb any better than the next?
Have you ever heard of von Neuman's universal constructor? He set out to design in a purely artificial environment (i.e., that of mathematics) the minimal self-replicating automaton possible. Now, he may or may not have actually done so. But, two things are for sure--he came darn close and it's rather complex (on the order of 2 or 3 hundred moving parts). One missing bit and it does not work--how can that evolve? [And, this was in a purely intellectual environment (without the normal constraints of physics.]
"No one has the amount of time required to test and prove it though"
FAIL. Speciation has been observed in the wild and recreated in the lab. A huge wealth of fossil and DNA evidence helps. Evolution is proven. The fine tuning of the mechanisms behind it are still being discovered. You probably get evolution mixed up with the big bang, abiogenesis and pretty much the whole of scientific knowledge and method though. A typical creationist thing, blur the terms of the debate and mix everything together.
Once again, we are talking about two different forms of evolution. The form I argue against is more properly referred to as Darwinism (and it is the combination of evolution and the philosophy of materialism as put forth by such extremist atheists as Dawkins, Dennett, & Hitchens). I agree most people are more reasonable that that (and even you seem to be). You don't really believe it all appeared out of nowhere do you? (If so, just where did the atoms that make up the primordial soup come from)? That form of extreme atheism is simply irrational--no matter how much they want to call it 'rationalism'. Anyone who thinks that evolution (major or minor) disproves theism is simply intellectually dishonest.
Maybe he's saying that the online material and actual courses are two different beasts owned by the university (though yes, that's not a complete sentence).
I agree completely with your two posts. If these systems were more widely in place, I think that not only the below average students would benefit, but so would the above average ones (by not having to wade through slow paced material).
And, you're wrong about what evolution is put forth as. If it weren't put forth as an explanation of the 'origin' of life, then it wouldn't have lead to so much anti-religious fervor (and it wouldn't be championed and cherished by secular humanists and atheists the way it is). If evolutionists would just admit that the theory cannot actually address philosophical/theological questions, then we'd all be much better off. But, as it is, they put their full weight on this theory as a refutation of religious belief (and the unthinking masses let them get away with it). With so much weight on one idea, they sure should hope that it is right. Otherwise, it will be the greatest embarrassment of all time.
Even a small child can ask enough questions to reach the end of science's explanation of such matters, yet the population is entirely content with its supposed implications for 'God' and religion. How much more damage can an expert do to this theory? (Hint: Watch some debates. They are few and hard to find, but when the scientific establishment does consent, they are typically slaughtered).
Evolution is rarely mentioned without the undertones of an attack on religion--to think otherwise is simply willful ignorance.
Right, so they're in it for the notoriety, divas as you say, but nobody's going to rock the boat and contradict evolution. You've managed to be inconsistent with yourself by sentence three. If there was a single scarp of evidence that contradicted, or even contraindicated evolution, you don't thinkg some "diva" would jump on it for the notoriety?
It's very hard to prove negatives (and historical events)--you know that. And, evolution is a very clever idea. No one has the amount of time required to test and prove it though (i.e., billions of years). Working professors have deadlines and they are not going to take such a long shot. [Not to mention that these professors work for those already sold out to the idea and who would not support research to the contrary (and the idea of materialism happens to sit quite well with their own personal biases--why would they work to disprove something they want to believe in?).]
I think our best shot at disproving evolution will come from mathematicians and information scientists (and there is work being done in this area). It is inevitable really. Until then, we simply don't have the time or resources to exhaust all the possibilities required to prove evolution.
Counterexamples do wonders for disproving positive statements but it will take rather an elegant mathematical proof (which as I said, we are working on) to convince scientists. We will soon have very tangible ways of measuring and/or computing 'specified complexity' and cranking the appropriate numbers to show that even billions of years is not enough time. [And, of course, Creationists have been offering counterexamples for a while a la Darwin's statement 'if it can be shown that one of these creatures could not have possibly evolved over time via a series of slight modifications, then my entire theory would fall apart'.] The key here is that natural selection cannot 'select' a mutation unless there is a working machine to start from.
yes, that's all it is, because of the heaps of evidence showing it to be nonsense. Oh, wait, no, everything's pointing towards it being not only a real phenomenon but caused by human activities. The only people with a problem with it are those with a financial interest in denial.
There's actually quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. 1 - The earth goes through cycles on its own. 2 - The sun is heating up. How do you think all of our carbon emissions caused the sun to starting heating up?
This isn't just about God. Last I checked, psychology was still a field of 'science' (and there's considerable evidence that a mind is greater the the sum of its atoms--i.e., that something akin to a 'soul' exists). Even the great 'bright' Daniel Dennett seems to concede that (and I say seems because I was left somewhat confused as to whether he had proved or disproved the existence of the soul after I read one of his books).
The best definition of science that have is simply "the search for truth or knowledge". Once you start trying to draw lines beyond that on what is and what is not science, you quickly reach either contradiction or inappropriate exclusion of fields which would otherwise be intuitively and uncontroversially deemed 'science'.
The problem we face is that the word has been hijacked by naturalists (materialists) which is a philosophy, not a science. This is rather ironic because if you were to go with a strict materialistic definition of science, then fields such as psychology would be *excluded*.
Scientists are still human. They are still prone to fads and popular opinion. In fact, when you take a close look at them, most are in it for the notoriety--divas, if you will. They are on par with the barbie doll pageant contestants--the only difference is the 'idol'--it is intelligence in their case instead of beauty.
Most scientists do not have the time or energy to rock the boat with regards to evolution--there's just too much already invested in it (and it fits too nicely with the secular worldview which is so convenient). The fact is scientists *want* Darwinism (i.e., materialism) to be true.
And as for climate change-- it's simply a pivot point for the Democrats/liberals. It's a symbiotic relationship between unscrupulous politicians and scientists (who are in it for the funding).
My experience has generally been exactly the opposite. Religious folk (at least the educated ones) tend to have a better understanding of the different modes of knowing and arriving at knowledge. Scientists, however, tend to covertly market a materialistic philosophy and pretend that it is the only philosophy and the only way of arriving at knowledge. In fact, this form of extreme fundamentalism, blind faith and censorship really borders on religion--secular humanism is a religion. It's time that people wake up and the courts treat it as such and apply the establishment clause to it as equally as its applied to ID/Creationism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
[P.S. Rationalists it seems are also quite reluctant to accept the inherent limitations of their methods as imposed by Godel's theorems (either that or ignorant of the implications of his theorems)].
Like the politician in the movie The Hunt for Red October (which ironically had one of the Republican Presidential candidates before McCain sewed it up, former actor Senator Fred Thompson), "Son, I'm a politician. When I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their candy". (Thompson played a boat captain, not the politician, the line I quote was a different actor)
Oh great. Now you tell me. After I'd already read it in Fred Thompson's signature voice.
Significant alterations in radioacitve decay rates would imply events that have not been observed; for example, alterations of decay rates posited by some creationists would imply that the earth's crust should have melted a few thousand years ago yet evidence of such a catastrophic destruction of the planet has not been observed.
But, as I mentioned previously, we've only 'observed' 1.45x10^-8 of the supposed billions of years that have passed. Wouldn't it be quite the jackpot to actually 'observe' these (or any really) events in that amount of time? Furthermore, these 'alterations of decay rates as posited by some creationists' are obviously incorrect if they would imply the melting of the crust. However, there must be a nearly infinite number of possible 'alterations'. That's why I challenged you all to use your imagination a little more.
You say 'evolutionist' and 'old-earth geologist' as if there was any kind of rational alternative.
There are plenty of rational alternatives (even if you limit yourself to materialistic methods, although I would recommend using your reasoning faculties to the fullest without placing artificial boundaries on them).
What makes me think that the decay rates have remained constant? You can apply that idea to anything and the net result would be....? Yes. Zero knowledge.
Not quite. The knowledge of historical science (especially when we're talking about billions and billions of years) might approach zero but it still wouldn't reach it. And, that would be a good thing--there's way too much speculation in this particular area of science. It's quite ridiculous really the imaginations put forth as science in the popular media. An idea so preposterous as evolution only begins to seem reasonable when you introduce an almost infinite amount of time.
Grow up you imbecile and stop wasting everyones time with your 'theories'.
Who's the one stooping to name-calling? Seems rather childish to me.
It's not my job to teach you reality, so instead I'll simply tell you that you are wrong and move on.
The problem with your view of 'reality' is that it cannot be both complete and consistent. That should be enough to encourage you to include philosophy in your studies.
I was basing my analysis of Dawkins on his own summaries as given on Colbert Report and several other channels (as stated previously).
I have not read the book, but I know people who have (some of whom are atheists), and even by their account, Dawkins is about as extreme as they come. He's the atheist version of a fundamentalist extremist to put it bluntly (and that's rather ironic given his an Hitchens' hatred of their counterparts--they're just as extreme and evangelical as they come).
Well, you apparently didn't read what I said either.:-) dynamic != evolving from primordial soup. In fact, you could throw evolution out of the discussion completely and the world would still be rather 'dynamic'.
My point is simply that the mode of creation and the mode of operation are two separate things. No one says that mode of operation of this universe is not dynamic (except maybe schizos). And, it's the word 'could' that I took exception to. God 'could' have designed a universe that evolved over billions of years into its current form, but rather didn't.
I am curious about where you base your belief that He did--because every reasoning I've seen on this topic comes from atheists who start with the assumption that there is no god. Why would a theist accept a theory that starts from and is built upon the assumption that there is no God? The atheist interprets all empirical data through the lens of his atheism and does not even consider for a millisecond that he might want to re-consider his base assumptions.
That's quite some extrapolating you're doing there. That's much more tenable to do with radioactive decay (though even that seems quite dubious to me). What makes you think that the rates of decay have always and will always be the same? We've been keeping records for only 1.45x10^-8 of the time that you people claim the universe has been existent.
Why can't you evolutionists and old-earth geologists have more imagination when it comes rates of decay and the vast amounts of time past? You always claim that we ID theorists do not have the mental facilities to 'imagine' evolution, but this is one direction that you do not want to turn those immense powers of imagination towards.
On what evidence are murderers convicted? Is it not the evidence of intelligent activity (i.e., the elimination of chance and necessity as causes)? Modern science simply excludes design as an explanation for our origin. But, you do not have to look very far or hard to see many other fields where design is a perfectly valid explanation (forensics, cryptography, archaeology, etc). So then, why is it off limits for explaining origin?
Easy-- scientists are materialists and atheists and could not come to grips with a conclusion they do not want to believe (and besides, they've worked very hard in coming up with and mass marketing a believable theory to stifle their consciences and promote indulgences--we all know that sex and evolution go hand in hand). When these frauds stop letting their personal 'beliefs' and deviant desires bias their conclusions (and in some cases the 'evidence' itself), then they will start doing 'true' *science*.
No one says God couldn't do anything, we say rather that He didn't do something (i.e., create the species through macro-evolution). There's a big difference there.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the code you provided has much higher specified complexity than a couple of Java API calls. Anyone could wrap some logic in a function and call it from any other language, but what matters is the actual logic inside (which would be completed encapsulated in the Java version).
[This is essentially the same problem as SLOC count comparisons between languages]. There's no question Java is way more verbose, and I suppose even the most complicated program could be expressed in two lines if we allow arbitrary library usage:
#import UberLib
class Main{
public static void main(){ UberLib.doSomethingFabulouslyComplex(); } }
There just isn't anything I could do with either that I wouldn't be able to do more easily with another more 'mainstream' language.
He said nothing about academic--the statement was quite general ('there isn't anything...'). And, the poster is simply flat-out wrong. Everything that you can do easily in Python or Ruby (like list processing, map/reduce, lambdas, etc.) can be done *more* easily in Haskell. And, then there's the other more esoteric/academic stuff that poster #2 cited--lazy evalution, infinite lists, etc. But, Haskell is also much faster than the scripting languages. All the productivity of the scripting languages and speed rivaling C++. How could you not like that?
And if you think that list processing and lambdas are academic, go talk to some scripters (Python, Ruby, Perl).
Why should we dumb code down? If I'm writing my own code at home, then I take pride and enjoyment in writing stuff that only hackers can read.
And, if I am running my own business, I do not want to hire or work with 'still wet-behind-the-ears' programmers.
Granted, in the existing business world where mediocrity reigns, it would be hard to justify using such esoteric languages. But, why should we cater to the lowest common denominator because it is entrenched? Great minds think alike--if you really want to be doing Haskell (or other functional langs), I'm sure you can find some like-minded people to start a business with (and you'll blow away the competition because your code will be 10x shorter and take 1/3 the time to write).
And it should be noted that you can implement infinite sequences in C++, etc. - generally the way to do this is with iterators, and the use case would be for feeding those iterators to algorithms that expect iterators... What Haskell brings to the table is that it encourages you to think of problems and solutions in those terms - learn the method and what you can do with it, how it affects the expression of your code - if you find it a useful idea it's easy enough to implement in most object-oriented languages...
And, I would add that modern C++ programming in fact encourages this style of programming. Take a look at Alexandrescu's _Modern C++_ for more info. All of the good C++ programmers these days are doing lots of generic and functional programming and even C#/.NET now has LINQ.
There are a couple of big differences between C++ and Haskell though.
Well, you really should watch Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza debate the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-NduvegITQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vMeAwpTW1I
And, Richard Dawkins (author of _God Delusion_) is another extremist who thinks that the beloved theory is the death of religion. There also seems to be no shortage of their followers here on Slashdot--I'm surprised you haven't read any of their posts. There is certainly such a thing as 'evangelical atheism' and at the heart of it is the theory of evolution (or more specifically--Dawinism, which is the potent combination of evolution and the philosophy of materialism). The two are inseparable--evolution in today's context almost exclusively refers also to greater Darwinism/naturalism/materialism/secular humanism/atheism.
Don't be fooled by their sleight of hand and bait/switch tactics. Proponents of the theory feel it quite natural (and proper, mind you) to slide at will between the various forms and strengths of the theory and its supporting philosophy (especially when you start to pin them down on specifics, asking tough questions and/or exposing their true motives, ignorance, or disingenuousness).
"It's very hard to prove negatives (and historical events)--you know that."
But it's very easy to falsify a set of theories that make many many positive claims. Strangely nobody has managed this.
It's obvious to me now that we're talking about two different forms of evolution. Yes, variation and mutation obviously occur (no one can disprove that--just look at viruses for example). But, we're talking about a theory that claims that some primordial material suddenly formed a working 'cell' which then started replicating and evolving from there. But, it's a chicken and egg problem, you see? A working cell doesn't appear from nowhere (let alone a replicating and functional cell). And, until you have a working cell, natural selection cannot do its thing. What makes one non-functional pile of garb any better than the next?
Have you ever heard of von Neuman's universal constructor? He set out to design in a purely artificial environment (i.e., that of mathematics) the minimal self-replicating automaton possible. Now, he may or may not have actually done so. But, two things are for sure--he came darn close and it's rather complex (on the order of 2 or 3 hundred moving parts). One missing bit and it does not work--how can that evolve? [And, this was in a purely intellectual environment (without the normal constraints of physics.]
"No one has the amount of time required to test and prove it though"
FAIL. Speciation has been observed in the wild and recreated in the lab. A huge wealth of fossil and DNA evidence helps. Evolution is proven. The fine tuning of the mechanisms behind it are still being discovered. You probably get evolution mixed up with the big bang, abiogenesis and pretty much the whole of scientific knowledge and method though. A typical creationist thing, blur the terms of the debate and mix everything together.
Once again, we are talking about two different forms of evolution. The form I argue against is more properly referred to as Darwinism (and it is the combination of evolution and the philosophy of materialism as put forth by such extremist atheists as Dawkins, Dennett, & Hitchens). I agree most people are more reasonable that that (and even you seem to be). You don't really believe it all appeared out of nowhere do you? (If so, just where did the atoms that make up the primordial soup come from)? That form of extreme atheism is simply irrational--no matter how much they want to call it 'rationalism'. Anyone who thinks that evolution (major or minor) disproves theism is simply intellectually dishonest.
Maybe he's saying that the online material and actual courses are two different beasts owned by the university (though yes, that's not a complete sentence).
I agree completely with your two posts. If these systems were more widely in place, I think that not only the below average students would benefit, but so would the above average ones (by not having to wade through slow paced material).
Umm, isn't junior-level 3rd year? And, that seems entirely reasonable for an upper class-man course.
And, you're wrong about what evolution is put forth as. If it weren't put forth as an explanation of the 'origin' of life, then it wouldn't have lead to so much anti-religious fervor (and it wouldn't be championed and cherished by secular humanists and atheists the way it is). If evolutionists would just admit that the theory cannot actually address philosophical/theological questions, then we'd all be much better off. But, as it is, they put their full weight on this theory as a refutation of religious belief (and the unthinking masses let them get away with it). With so much weight on one idea, they sure should hope that it is right. Otherwise, it will be the greatest embarrassment of all time.
Even a small child can ask enough questions to reach the end of science's explanation of such matters, yet the population is entirely content with its supposed implications for 'God' and religion. How much more damage can an expert do to this theory? (Hint: Watch some debates. They are few and hard to find, but when the scientific establishment does consent, they are typically slaughtered).
Evolution is rarely mentioned without the undertones of an attack on religion--to think otherwise is simply willful ignorance.
Right, so they're in it for the notoriety, divas as you say, but nobody's going to rock the boat and contradict evolution. You've managed to be inconsistent with yourself by sentence three. If there was a single scarp of evidence that contradicted, or even contraindicated evolution, you don't thinkg some "diva" would jump on it for the notoriety?
It's very hard to prove negatives (and historical events)--you know that. And, evolution is a very clever idea. No one has the amount of time required to test and prove it though (i.e., billions of years). Working professors have deadlines and they are not going to take such a long shot. [Not to mention that these professors work for those already sold out to the idea and who would not support research to the contrary (and the idea of materialism happens to sit quite well with their own personal biases--why would they work to disprove something they want to believe in?).]
I think our best shot at disproving evolution will come from mathematicians and information scientists (and there is work being done in this area). It is inevitable really. Until then, we simply don't have the time or resources to exhaust all the possibilities required to prove evolution.
Counterexamples do wonders for disproving positive statements but it will take rather an elegant mathematical proof (which as I said, we are working on) to convince scientists. We will soon have very tangible ways of measuring and/or computing 'specified complexity' and cranking the appropriate numbers to show that even billions of years is not enough time. [And, of course, Creationists have been offering counterexamples for a while a la Darwin's statement 'if it can be shown that one of these creatures could not have possibly evolved over time via a series of slight modifications, then my entire theory would fall apart'.] The key here is that natural selection cannot 'select' a mutation unless there is a working machine to start from.
yes, that's all it is, because of the heaps of evidence showing it to be nonsense. Oh, wait, no, everything's pointing towards it being not only a real phenomenon but caused by human activities. The only people with a problem with it are those with a financial interest in denial.
There's actually quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. 1 - The earth goes through cycles on its own. 2 - The sun is heating up. How do you think all of our carbon emissions caused the sun to starting heating up?
This isn't just about God. Last I checked, psychology was still a field of 'science' (and there's considerable evidence that a mind is greater the the sum of its atoms--i.e., that something akin to a 'soul' exists). Even the great 'bright' Daniel Dennett seems to concede that (and I say seems because I was left somewhat confused as to whether he had proved or disproved the existence of the soul after I read one of his books).
The best definition of science that have is simply "the search for truth or knowledge". Once you start trying to draw lines beyond that on what is and what is not science, you quickly reach either contradiction or inappropriate exclusion of fields which would otherwise be intuitively and uncontroversially deemed 'science'.
The problem we face is that the word has been hijacked by naturalists (materialists) which is a philosophy, not a science. This is rather ironic because if you were to go with a strict materialistic definition of science, then fields such as psychology would be *excluded*.
Scientists are still human. They are still prone to fads and popular opinion. In fact, when you take a close look at them, most are in it for the notoriety--divas, if you will. They are on par with the barbie doll pageant contestants--the only difference is the 'idol'--it is intelligence in their case instead of beauty.
Most scientists do not have the time or energy to rock the boat with regards to evolution--there's just too much already invested in it (and it fits too nicely with the secular worldview which is so convenient). The fact is scientists *want* Darwinism (i.e., materialism) to be true.
And as for climate change-- it's simply a pivot point for the Democrats/liberals. It's a symbiotic relationship between unscrupulous politicians and scientists (who are in it for the funding).
My experience has generally been exactly the opposite. Religious folk (at least the educated ones) tend to have a better understanding of the different modes of knowing and arriving at knowledge. Scientists, however, tend to covertly market a materialistic philosophy and pretend that it is the only philosophy and the only way of arriving at knowledge. In fact, this form of extreme fundamentalism, blind faith and censorship really borders on religion--secular humanism is a religion. It's time that people wake up and the courts treat it as such and apply the establishment clause to it as equally as its applied to ID/Creationism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
[P.S. Rationalists it seems are also quite reluctant to accept the inherent limitations of their methods as imposed by Godel's theorems (either that or ignorant of the implications of his theorems)].
Like the politician in the movie The Hunt for Red October (which ironically had one of the Republican Presidential candidates before McCain sewed it up, former actor Senator Fred Thompson), "Son, I'm a politician. When I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their candy". (Thompson played a boat captain, not the politician, the line I quote was a different actor)
Oh great. Now you tell me. After I'd already read it in Fred Thompson's signature voice.
Significant alterations in radioacitve decay rates would imply events that have not been observed; for example, alterations of decay rates posited by some creationists would imply that the earth's crust should have melted a few thousand years ago yet evidence of such a catastrophic destruction of the planet has not been observed.
But, as I mentioned previously, we've only 'observed' 1.45x10^-8 of the supposed billions of years that have passed. Wouldn't it be quite the jackpot to actually 'observe' these (or any really) events in that amount of time? Furthermore, these 'alterations of decay rates as posited by some creationists' are obviously incorrect if they would imply the melting of the crust. However, there must be a nearly infinite number of possible 'alterations'. That's why I challenged you all to use your imagination a little more.
You say 'evolutionist' and 'old-earth geologist' as if there was any kind of rational alternative.
There are plenty of rational alternatives (even if you limit yourself to materialistic methods, although I would recommend using your reasoning faculties to the fullest without placing artificial boundaries on them).
What makes me think that the decay rates have remained constant? You can apply that idea to anything and the net result would be....? Yes. Zero knowledge.
Not quite. The knowledge of historical science (especially when we're talking about billions and billions of years) might approach zero but it still wouldn't reach it. And, that would be a good thing--there's way too much speculation in this particular area of science. It's quite ridiculous really the imaginations put forth as science in the popular media. An idea so preposterous as evolution only begins to seem reasonable when you introduce an almost infinite amount of time.
Grow up you imbecile and stop wasting everyones time with your 'theories'.
Who's the one stooping to name-calling? Seems rather childish to me.
It's not my job to teach you reality, so instead I'll simply tell you that you are wrong and move on.
The problem with your view of 'reality' is that it cannot be both complete and consistent. That should be enough to encourage you to include philosophy in your studies.
Ok. That seems reasonable enough (if true).
Are you saying that there are multiple independant methods of radiometeic dating that agree on the ages of organic material?
I was basing my analysis of Dawkins on his own summaries as given on Colbert Report and several other channels (as stated previously). I have not read the book, but I know people who have (some of whom are atheists), and even by their account, Dawkins is about as extreme as they come. He's the atheist version of a fundamentalist extremist to put it bluntly (and that's rather ironic given his an Hitchens' hatred of their counterparts--they're just as extreme and evangelical as they come).
Well, you apparently didn't read what I said either. :-) dynamic != evolving from primordial soup. In fact, you could throw evolution out of the discussion completely and the world would still be rather 'dynamic'.
My point is simply that the mode of creation and the mode of operation are two separate things. No one says that mode of operation of this universe is not dynamic (except maybe schizos). And, it's the word 'could' that I took exception to. God 'could' have designed a universe that evolved over billions of years into its current form, but rather didn't.
I am curious about where you base your belief that He did--because every reasoning I've seen on this topic comes from atheists who start with the assumption that there is no god. Why would a theist accept a theory that starts from and is built upon the assumption that there is no God? The atheist interprets all empirical data through the lens of his atheism and does not even consider for a millisecond that he might want to re-consider his base assumptions.
Not only the rates of decay, but the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-14 (which scientists assume has always been 1:1 trillion).
See this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
The 'A Critical Assumption' section is where it starts getting interesting (if you are already familiar with the basics).
That's quite some extrapolating you're doing there. That's much more tenable to do with radioactive decay (though even that seems quite dubious to me). What makes you think that the rates of decay have always and will always be the same? We've been keeping records for only 1.45x10^-8 of the time that you people claim the universe has been existent.
Why can't you evolutionists and old-earth geologists have more imagination when it comes rates of decay and the vast amounts of time past? You always claim that we ID theorists do not have the mental facilities to 'imagine' evolution, but this is one direction that you do not want to turn those immense powers of imagination towards.
On what evidence are murderers convicted? Is it not the evidence of intelligent activity (i.e., the elimination of chance and necessity as causes)? Modern science simply excludes design as an explanation for our origin. But, you do not have to look very far or hard to see many other fields where design is a perfectly valid explanation (forensics, cryptography, archaeology, etc). So then, why is it off limits for explaining origin?
Easy-- scientists are materialists and atheists and could not come to grips with a conclusion they do not want to believe (and besides, they've worked very hard in coming up with and mass marketing a believable theory to stifle their consciences and promote indulgences--we all know that sex and evolution go hand in hand). When these frauds stop letting their personal 'beliefs' and deviant desires bias their conclusions (and in some cases the 'evidence' itself), then they will start doing 'true' *science*.
[Pls ignore run-on sentence. The first ',' should've been a ';'.]
No one says God couldn't do anything, we say rather that He didn't do something (i.e., create the species through macro-evolution). There's a big difference there.