Evolution is a model which explains how life changes over time.
However. That is not how it was presented. It was presented as straight up truth, not guess.
What was presented as straight up truth, and in what way?
Evolution is not a guess. If it were a "guess", it would be a hypothesis (although some random guess doesn't qualify as a hypothesis - it needs to be founded in reality). However, Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it is supported by all known facts, and contradicted by none. Furthermore, it makes true predictions and has practical applications. You can educate yourself about what these terms mean at notjustatheory.com.
In principal, science should normally go where evidence leads. But that assertion is irrelevent to the situation.
In practice, it does not always go that way.
In practice, it does go that way because science does not depend on humans, it depends on the process. Unlike religion, there are not unquestionable authorities, and as long as your research is done correctly, the results will speak for themselves.
Ye must remember that science is practiced by humans, not machines. I'm saying the association of scientists has become so dogmatic and shown so much antagonism for ID, that they may act with strong bias.
But this is patently false, because what humans think or believe is irrelevant. All that matter is what the evidence shows.
Humans are vulnerable to biases. Humans are vulnerable to ignoring evidence.
Humans are vulnerable to failing to draw the most likely conclusions warranted by that evidence due to bias.
Humans are vulnerable to drawing unwarranted conclusions due to bias.
Which is why we have peer review.
When you put multiple humans together into larger groups, they become even more vulnerable to these things -- groupthink, and any "theory", whether reasonable/or not that goes against the group theory is automatically wrong.
This is a dishonest argument on your part. There is no creationist/ID theory. Not even a hypothesis. All it is, is an attack on Evolution. Something which is not reasonable is not a theory. If it is reasonable, the facts will speak for themselves, and the peer review process can confirm that the research is indeed sound, which means that it will be accepted by other scientists.
The huge conspiracy about groupthink is nonsense. Creationism isn't kept out because of groupthink. It's kept out because it isn't science. It has no research, no explanations, no nothing.
I'm saying they sound so dogmatic, that even if evidence strongly favoring ID could be soundly shown through repeatable experiment, they would in all likelihood continue to reject it.
No, they would not. They could not, because the scientific process would dictate it.
Remember, there are a lot of religious scientists out there, including one of the biggest defenders of Evolution, Dr. Ken Miller, a devout Catholic. Do you really think all these scientists are going to insist on evidence which points to the existenfe of God? Of course not.
The argument you are using is nothing but a dishonest red herring, based on your own ignorance of the scientific process.
There is no conspiracy to keep creationism out of science. There is only the brutal machine that is the scientific process, which discards claims that do not hold up to scrutiny.
Fundamentalist atheists deify science, and believe that they possess "THE TRUTH" by virtue of science, without the "vice of faith" as Richard Dawkins characterizes it in his essay Is Science a Religion?.
That is interesting, considering that Dawkins has repeatedly stated that he is open to the existence of God, as long as someone can provide him with evidence. If Dawkins is a good representative of "fundamentalist atheists", the author of that text has bigger problems than anyone can imagine.
Dawkins, a man who says that he's open to anything as long as there is evidence for it, is a threat to science? Good one.
It's beyond unreasonable, they are dogmatic evolutionists to the point where it is a religious point of view of opposing the IDers.
You are mistaken, since science goes where the evidence leads. Evidence is not "dogma".
The facts don't matter; even if some evidence supporting ID appeared, they would hold true to the evolutionist dogma.
There is no "evolutionist dogma". Evolutionary scientists are arguing and sometimes even fighting over details like what this fabulous new fossil should be categorized as.
It is a teacher's job to teach the curriculum. It is not a teacher's job to ensure that a student's world view is strengthened. Why would a science teacher reconcile the conflicts between science and religion? That doesn't make sense. The science teacher is supposed to teach science, now how you can re-interpret your religion to fit (some of the) science.
The 9/11 truth movement is a load of crap because the dishonest techniques they use when arguing their points are a load of crap. It's the exact same techniques used by creationists to "disprove" Evolution. From the blatant ignorance of facts to the Gish Gallop to the straw men and ignoring the points people are making.
If you were to ignore everything coming from the 9/11 truth movement, read the oral histories (the interviews obtained by the NYT of firefighters/EMS personnel which span over 12,000 pages) and you'd come to your own conclusion that a lot more went on than the gov't tells.
Any specific examples? It's difficult to know what you are referring to because there is a lot of text there. "If you read these 12K pages of text you'll see that I am right" is basically the lazy man's Gish Gallop.
And if the people in the movement turn out to be right? What happens then? What would be done about all of the "lie" labels that had been applied to their content if the people making truth determinations had disagreed with their content?
The problem is that the 9/11 truther movement does lie. All the time. They behave exactly like creationists by repeating the same old refuted nonsense, factual errors, straw men, and when they are caught doing these things, they use the same tricks as creationists to get around it, like the Gish Gallop, etc. When I have engaged in debates with 9/11 truthers here on Slashdot, I have explained to them from the get go that I consider their position to be on the same intellectual level as creationism, and I have calmly pointed out for every single creationist tactic they are using what it is. Despite me pointing it out to their faces, they continue to fulfill every single prediction I have made regarding their debate techniques. They continue to confirm my hypothesis that truthers are exactly the same as creationists at heart.
It would be interesting to see some sources for some of the things you menion, such as the Taliban being invited to the US and Bush (which one?) defending the burqa. And that the Taliban wanted to get rid of Bin Laden.
You're right that it's not true innovation, but I would dispute that it "happens automatically". If it did, every browser would be virtually the same now, as every new version released would absorb all new features from the other browsers.
They would not absorb all new features, but they do borrow features from each other. But in addition to new features, you have an "identity" to take care of. The browser has a history. That makes it very hard to turn things upside down. However, Chrome has no history, and was free to simply do everything anew.
Firefox did something similar. Popup blocking, tabs, search field, etc. All those features already existed in browsers.
My critique was that many people on this site choose to attack creationism, not because it is wrong, but because the great majority seems to be taunting the creationists and you would not want to be on the wrong side of that would you!
I don't think your analysis is correct. When people attack creationism, it's because it's pseudoscience which is actively being sold as science, and they are attempting to force it into science class. This is dangerous indeed, and gets people very upset. This is the background for the attacks. The anger that religious fundamentalists are trying to destroy science and force their religion on everyone else.
In my opinion, religion is simply belief without logical questioning. The people who support science like a religion, might just as easily be religius if the majority of people here where.
No, because accepting science makes logical and rational sense. On a purely empirical basis, it makes sense to accept science because so far, it has worked brilliantly.
That's not innovation. Taking features from other browsers is the way you would go about creating a new browser. It happens automatically. There's no innovation involved.
Still, perhaps you can agree with me that some people on this site support science almost like a religion.
I completely disagree. Just because you defend something strongly doesn't mean that it is (almost like) a religion. Furthermore, religion would require a supernatural aspect.
The ID movement in the US/Europe is a Christian fundamentalist sect, or a loosely knit network of Christian fundamentalists who seek to undermine science, especially evolutionary theory, and replace it with religion. It's fairly well defined. Those are the people one would expect comments from on this subject.
I have been using Chrome on my work PC and find many of its features compelling, and wonder how soon we will see its best innovations in Firefox.
Could someone name some of these innovations?
One process per tab? IE8 did that before Chrome.
V8? Both Apple and Mozilla did those things before Chrome was announced.
Showing your favourite sites when opening a new tab? That's Opera's Speed Dial, except automatic and potentially constantly shuffling around, working against muscle memory.
Creating "standalone" applications from web pages? Mozilla and Apple were already doing that.
Ignoring the fact that the numbers from Net Applications are useless for a second (they are actively manipulating their own numbers to show what they want them to show), Chrome is being very visibly pushed on the Google front page. That's one of the most powerful distribution channels there is. In addition to that, Chrome is all new and existing, so people want to give it a try.
Let's wait for a few weeks when usage has stabilized a bit, and the come to a conclusion.
No, that is a pic from before the wreckage was being cleared.
I'm afraid you are mistaken. And once again it's creationism all over again: Misrepresent the evidence.
In the zoomed out version you can see a fireman on hand
They were around for a long time after the collapse.
The wishful thinking you are engaged in is that you really wish that the evil that transpired was committed by a few radical extremists from another country. You probably wish our government was not completely replaced by corporations starting with the Federal Reserve in 1912, and then later more directly when they replaced Kennedy.
The US government isn't even my government. I've been to the US once in my entire life, and that was for less than a week. So sorry to tell you, but once more your creationist tactic fails. Your argument here is the equivalent of the creationist red herring "you just believe in Evolution because it supports your atheism, and you are an atheist because you don't want to be responsible to God - you are just rebeling against him."
No, I have no reason to engage in wishful thinking regarding your government. Just like I have no reason to rebel against an imaginary being which I do not believe in.
You probably wish that Dick Cheney was NOT an insane war criminal with direct connections to every oil company and defense contractor enabling him to not only run the operation, but to fund it, cover it up, and then make a mint on the subsequent war and invest over seas while our economy folded. I imagine you wish a lot of that wasn't true, but wishing and the facts don't add up. You cannot refute that picture alone, and it was certainly taken before any debris had been cleared.
Whether Cheney is a war criminal or not is irrelevant to what the facts in this matter point to. Like creationists, you are now trying to change the subject. It's a half-assed Gish Gallop, and you of course completely failed to address the points in my previous reply as well as the comment I linked to.
But keep it up. You are just confirming my hypothesis that truthers and creationists are driven by the same irrational mindset.
You didn't address the point I made in my other reply to you. How come? This is how creationists behave: Ignore the points you are making and change the subject.
Believing that a plane crashing into the top of a building can make it explode from the top down in under 10 seconds
Straw man, another creationist tactic. Gee, how unexpected.
And gee, the Gish Gallop. How unexpected too. You see, it seems that truthers share another trait with creationists: They spew out lots of already refuted claims and arguments. Observe:
Ignoring the evidence for thermite at the scene
There is none. All the claimed evidence does not show thermite, but rather materials that are common in buildings.
and ALL the eye witness testimonies, particularly the firemen stating, "It was like they had detonators in the building, the floors were poppin out one by one, BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG!" seems a far more egregious, stupid, less scientific, and more "bury your head in the sand" kind of response.
It's the "it's self-evident" creationist argument, addressed in an earlier comment. To quickly summarize, bombs are not the only thing that explode, and lound bangs aren't necessarily explosions. Just because some random guy thinks something look or sound like it was detonated doesn't mean that he is right. See the ghost example in the post I linked to. Eye witness testimonies must be combined with other kinds of evidence because people have an amazing ability to interpret things they way they feel like.
I have questions and am highly skeptical of the official story, as are many of the widows and widowers of the actual victims of these heinous acts.
So what? Am I supposed to ignore the evidence just because some random people question it? I'm not going to ignore the evidence of Evolution either just because someone happens to be "skeptical" of it.
Wanting more information and demanding valid scientific evidence besides "more and further exploration is required to explain this" and "the resulting amount of money was of little practical consequence" in the official investigation are just prudent, moral and reasoned reasons to want more information.
Creationism again. This report was just released, but you choose to dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the conclusion.
Why did Dick Cheney tell the fighters that NORAD scrambled to stand down, the order stands?
I don't know. Did he? And if so, what is the relevance?
Do you seriously expect me to believe that all of this is coincidence
Another creationist argument: "It's improbable, so it didn't happen!"
A lot of things that have never been observed before in the history of the world happen all the time. For example, for a lame example, check out some of the documentaries about plane crashes. They discover new reasons every time. A series of "improbable" and unfortunate events that caused the crash. Had merely one part of the chain not happened, the crash would have been avoided. But it happened, and they learned from it, and ensured that the same chain of events, however unlikely, would not take place in planes in the future.
"Improbable" chains of events happen all the time. "Improbable" is completely invalid as an argument when the facts speak for themselves.
particularly considering all the put options placed on the airline industry mere days before the event,
Another part of the Gish Gallop. There was nothing odd about this. It was traced back to a specific US based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on September 9.
I think the AC answered your comment very well. You have obviously come up with a conclusion in advance, just like creationists. And like creationists, you play the victim card. The more "truthers" I engage in debates with, the more they prove to be just the same as creationists. You confirm this by using the standard creationist tactic of spewing out already refuted arguments and claims. I'm waiting for your Gish Gallop.
Slashdot Mirror
So do it, then.
The point here, I believe, is that McCain tries to distance himself from Bush, when the fact is that he's just more of the same.
In what way?
The same way conservatives believe even more strongly in lies they have been told when faced with facts to the contrary?
Evolution is a model which explains how life changes over time.
What was presented as straight up truth, and in what way?
Evolution is not a guess. If it were a "guess", it would be a hypothesis (although some random guess doesn't qualify as a hypothesis - it needs to be founded in reality). However, Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it is supported by all known facts, and contradicted by none. Furthermore, it makes true predictions and has practical applications. You can educate yourself about what these terms mean at notjustatheory.com.
Evolution deals with biology, not cosmology.
In practice, it does go that way because science does not depend on humans, it depends on the process. Unlike religion, there are not unquestionable authorities, and as long as your research is done correctly, the results will speak for themselves.
But this is patently false, because what humans think or believe is irrelevant. All that matter is what the evidence shows.
Which is why we have peer review.
This is a dishonest argument on your part. There is no creationist/ID theory. Not even a hypothesis. All it is, is an attack on Evolution. Something which is not reasonable is not a theory. If it is reasonable, the facts will speak for themselves, and the peer review process can confirm that the research is indeed sound, which means that it will be accepted by other scientists.
The huge conspiracy about groupthink is nonsense. Creationism isn't kept out because of groupthink. It's kept out because it isn't science. It has no research, no explanations, no nothing.
No, they would not. They could not, because the scientific process would dictate it.
Remember, there are a lot of religious scientists out there, including one of the biggest defenders of Evolution, Dr. Ken Miller, a devout Catholic. Do you really think all these scientists are going to insist on evidence which points to the existenfe of God? Of course not.
The argument you are using is nothing but a dishonest red herring, based on your own ignorance of the scientific process.
There is no conspiracy to keep creationism out of science. There is only the brutal machine that is the scientific process, which discards claims that do not hold up to scrutiny.
That is interesting, considering that Dawkins has repeatedly stated that he is open to the existence of God, as long as someone can provide him with evidence. If Dawkins is a good representative of "fundamentalist atheists", the author of that text has bigger problems than anyone can imagine.
Dawkins, a man who says that he's open to anything as long as there is evidence for it, is a threat to science? Good one.
You are mistaken, since science goes where the evidence leads. Evidence is not "dogma".
There is no "evolutionist dogma". Evolutionary scientists are arguing and sometimes even fighting over details like what this fabulous new fossil should be categorized as.
If so, they must simultaneously claim that science == atheism.
The answer to all what?
It wasn't actually from a time before we existed. It was supposed to show what that time could have looked like. Surely, you understand that?
Best guess at what?
It is a teacher's job to teach the curriculum. It is not a teacher's job to ensure that a student's world view is strengthened. Why would a science teacher reconcile the conflicts between science and religion? That doesn't make sense. The science teacher is supposed to teach science, now how you can re-interpret your religion to fit (some of the) science.
Any specific examples? It's difficult to know what you are referring to because there is a lot of text there. "If you read these 12K pages of text you'll see that I am right" is basically the lazy man's Gish Gallop.
The problem is that the 9/11 truther movement does lie. All the time. They behave exactly like creationists by repeating the same old refuted nonsense, factual errors, straw men, and when they are caught doing these things, they use the same tricks as creationists to get around it, like the Gish Gallop, etc. When I have engaged in debates with 9/11 truthers here on Slashdot, I have explained to them from the get go that I consider their position to be on the same intellectual level as creationism, and I have calmly pointed out for every single creationist tactic they are using what it is. Despite me pointing it out to their faces, they continue to fulfill every single prediction I have made regarding their debate techniques. They continue to confirm my hypothesis that truthers are exactly the same as creationists at heart.
It would be interesting to see some sources for some of the things you menion, such as the Taliban being invited to the US and Bush (which one?) defending the burqa. And that the Taliban wanted to get rid of Bin Laden.
Not at all. Bush is bad, but that doesn't mean that he blew up the twin towers.
They would not absorb all new features, but they do borrow features from each other. But in addition to new features, you have an "identity" to take care of. The browser has a history. That makes it very hard to turn things upside down. However, Chrome has no history, and was free to simply do everything anew.
Firefox did something similar. Popup blocking, tabs, search field, etc. All those features already existed in browsers.
How about LHC@home? :)
Well, you can install Opera Mobile 9.5 on any touchscreen WM device. Phones like the HTC Touch Diamond and Samsung Omnia have it preinstalled.
I don't think your analysis is correct. When people attack creationism, it's because it's pseudoscience which is actively being sold as science, and they are attempting to force it into science class. This is dangerous indeed, and gets people very upset. This is the background for the attacks. The anger that religious fundamentalists are trying to destroy science and force their religion on everyone else.
No, because accepting science makes logical and rational sense. On a purely empirical basis, it makes sense to accept science because so far, it has worked brilliantly.
That's not innovation. Taking features from other browsers is the way you would go about creating a new browser. It happens automatically. There's no innovation involved.
I completely disagree. Just because you defend something strongly doesn't mean that it is (almost like) a religion. Furthermore, religion would require a supernatural aspect.
The ID movement in the US/Europe is a Christian fundamentalist sect, or a loosely knit network of Christian fundamentalists who seek to undermine science, especially evolutionary theory, and replace it with religion. It's fairly well defined. Those are the people one would expect comments from on this subject.
Could someone name some of these innovations?
One process per tab? IE8 did that before Chrome.
V8? Both Apple and Mozilla did those things before Chrome was announced.
Showing your favourite sites when opening a new tab? That's Opera's Speed Dial, except automatic and potentially constantly shuffling around, working against muscle memory.
Creating "standalone" applications from web pages? Mozilla and Apple were already doing that.
Incognito mode? IE8 again.
So what are these innovations?
Let's wait for a few weeks when usage has stabilized a bit, and the come to a conclusion.
I'm afraid you are mistaken. And once again it's creationism all over again: Misrepresent the evidence.
They were around for a long time after the collapse.
The US government isn't even my government. I've been to the US once in my entire life, and that was for less than a week. So sorry to tell you, but once more your creationist tactic fails. Your argument here is the equivalent of the creationist red herring "you just believe in Evolution because it supports your atheism, and you are an atheist because you don't want to be responsible to God - you are just rebeling against him."
No, I have no reason to engage in wishful thinking regarding your government. Just like I have no reason to rebel against an imaginary being which I do not believe in.
Whether Cheney is a war criminal or not is irrelevant to what the facts in this matter point to. Like creationists, you are now trying to change the subject. It's a half-assed Gish Gallop, and you of course completely failed to address the points in my previous reply as well as the comment I linked to.
But keep it up. You are just confirming my hypothesis that truthers and creationists are driven by the same irrational mindset.
Straw man, another creationist tactic. Gee, how unexpected.
And gee, the Gish Gallop. How unexpected too. You see, it seems that truthers share another trait with creationists: They spew out lots of already refuted claims and arguments. Observe:
There is none. All the claimed evidence does not show thermite, but rather materials that are common in buildings.
It's the "it's self-evident" creationist argument, addressed in an earlier comment. To quickly summarize, bombs are not the only thing that explode, and lound bangs aren't necessarily explosions. Just because some random guy thinks something look or sound like it was detonated doesn't mean that he is right. See the ghost example in the post I linked to. Eye witness testimonies must be combined with other kinds of evidence because people have an amazing ability to interpret things they way they feel like.
So what? Am I supposed to ignore the evidence just because some random people question it? I'm not going to ignore the evidence of Evolution either just because someone happens to be "skeptical" of it.
Creationism again. This report was just released, but you choose to dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the conclusion.
I don't know. Did he? And if so, what is the relevance?
Another creationist argument: "It's improbable, so it didn't happen!"
A lot of things that have never been observed before in the history of the world happen all the time. For example, for a lame example, check out some of the documentaries about plane crashes. They discover new reasons every time. A series of "improbable" and unfortunate events that caused the crash. Had merely one part of the chain not happened, the crash would have been avoided. But it happened, and they learned from it, and ensured that the same chain of events, however unlikely, would not take place in planes in the future.
"Improbable" chains of events happen all the time. "Improbable" is completely invalid as an argument when the facts speak for themselves.
Another part of the Gish Gallop. There was nothing odd about this. It was traced back to a specific US based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on September 9.
I think the AC answered your comment very well. You have obviously come up with a conclusion in advance, just like creationists. And like creationists, you play the victim card. The more "truthers" I engage in debates with, the more they prove to be just the same as creationists. You confirm this by using the standard creationist tactic of spewing out already refuted arguments and claims. I'm waiting for your Gish Gallop.