Well, thank goodness science is so sure about cosmology. I was beginning to feel a bit ashamed of all the creationist-bashing I was doing.
So it's epicyc... I mean, "inflation". Got it.
Provided, at least, that myopic, jealous Luddites don't get them banned or suppressed because they're offended that they can't reap the benefits on day one like someone who has a few more zeroes in their bank account.
And, of course, that's the only reason anybody could question the safety or utility of "the next big thing".
Thanks to all those who responded. It now turns out that some much more authoritative and better-informed people than I are already doing this! Please, if you're posting some pet theory about why all this peer-reviewed science is baloney to this story, do yourself a favour and check one of these sites out before you make a fool of yourself in front of your peers.
Your absolute faith is touching. I'm not sure it's in the right thing, but it is really touching.
But where's the justification? I mean, these guys were criminals and bad people and I don't particularly want them in society with me. But come on--rapists don't go away that long for one count, and this was just attempted. There's just no logic to it.
Yeah, but you've come to the opposite conclusion as me. Lock up the rapists for much longer.
Every time this topic comes up, the denial machine kicks into full gear.
Whether you like it or not, this is what happens when lots of kids have lots of access to lots of computers; in the real world. List all the exceptions that you want, blame bad parenting and teaching, say "well if you use them this way (i.e. not the way people statistically actually use them), it's fine", blah, blah. That won't change the reality.
Yep. I think many people seriously underestimate themselves and their options here.
When you encounter a subject or a level that you feel you can't teach, you can:
Review/learn it - come on, it's K-12 level, shouldn't most adults know it (or benefit from it)?
Co-op with other homeschooling parents - somebody will be able to teach it.
Hire a tutor, or find some institution that offers just that class in some form.
The sense of helplessness that some people display makes me all the more determined to show that we don't need to throw our kids into the maw of institutional schools.
And make sure your state doesn't mess with the homeschool law(s).
It's not like there's really any educational excellence to be missed there (the fallacy of the false alternative). Public schools don't have the power to protect your kids, and as this story illustrates, you wouldn't want them to have the kind of power that they would need anyway.
There are other possibilities, such as applying standards of process perfection that are easily reachable in the real world, such as requiring a verifiable paper trail.
I have nothing against that. It's not going to stop the left's claims of having elections stolen, though. I don't think the left wants a truly verifiable paper trail, in fact - might be some problems with dead people and illegal immigrants voting.
Unfortunately, there's something in the limbic system that makes people want to conform and seek the approval of others in their social groupings, something hardwired in the primate brain.
Creationists are rubes! You all suck! You say things like "intarweb"... oops, no, we're the only ones who *really* ever say that. But you're still rubes! Ha ha!
Science is not a belief. Science follows the scientific method. Accepted principles in science can be independently verified by testing and re-testing hypotheses using the scientific method.
Yes, that is true of *science*. Historical "science", however, doesn't satisfy those characteristics. Measure the percentage of a radioactive decay child in a sample, sure, that's science. Imagine what the original percentage of the parent radioisotope was, to "prove" how old the sample is, that isn't the same process.
Both evolutionists and (technically inclined) creationists use theories to fit data (the *same* data) to a worldview. For evolutionists, that worldview is the absence of a Creator. This means that extremely improbable events need to have happened (and the very first self-reproducing cell must have been an *event*, not a "process"), so the only way to even make that remotely plausible is very, very long periods of time. But the long periods are required by the worldview, not the data.
The use of science to explain a worldview *is*, to use your terminology in this context, a belief.
And now, a parody of your words:
Except evolutionists are not true scientists, because they come to the table with a hypothesis, the truth of which they are highly invested in proving(1). That is not the scientific method, because they do not approach their hypothesis with neutrality. Therefore, they find exactly the answers they seek. That is not science.
(1) That there is no Creator, and only currently observed natural processes operating over immense ages can be allowed to explain the complexity of life and the universe.
Apparently it is a photo of humans hugging. It would be perfectly ok if they pointed guns and shot at each other, as usual.
Actually, they're not "hugging"; they're just sort of standing there looking stoned.. Or maybe that's supposed to be an attitude - "we're tough, we're rebels, we're naked - and we have varying skin tones, so we're oh so enlightened".
I would find it less annoying if there were some actual sexuality there. Instead, you have all of the immorality of one naked guy and two naked girls, with none of the fun.
When those Islamic armoured divisions began rolling up the eastern seaboard, we all thought the USA was done for. But you guys sure showed them!
So, how is a nation that refuses to defend itself going to be preserved, again? Magic?
I, er, share your doubt that we'll initially fall to a frontal assault. It'll probably start with this or that immigrant neighborhood declaring sharia, while the liberal municipality refuses to do anything, because of how sensitive and understanding they are, of course (that and being scared *less of bombs, etc.).
If we go with the Kerry plan of refusing to recongnize the threat, I have no confidence that we'll resist the gradual combination of terrorism and exploitation of our legal and political systems that will ensue.
That was it; thanks! I read it in some collection of "taboo" scifi stories (most of which would seem quite tame now, but a few were just really weird...)
Was it Piers Anthony? A whole *town* had women wearing transparent, incredibly thin bodysuits.
The story was set in the 50's, I think. The whole moral structure of this town had changed, because women could just, er, pop stuff right back out, without the slightest danger or even evidence. Some guy wandered into the town and was amazed at what he found.
Of course, most of modern society is that town now anyway, but without the bodysuits:(
While I'd love to have somebody/thing else to mow my grass, I'm not sure that I trust an autonomous mechanical device with lethal whirling blades on it to wander about my lawn. Silly of me, I know...
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that 'campaign finance reform' is turning out to be the biggest Trojan Horse in the campaign to regulate free speech.
I seem to remember some of us fat cat theocrat Republicans warning you about this ...
Well, thank goodness science is so sure about cosmology. I was beginning to feel a bit ashamed of all the creationist-bashing I was doing. So it's epicyc ... I mean, "inflation". Got it.
Audio Bible
Scourby's reading just rocks.
Um, at best this program could help theistic evolutionists. The program was created by an intelligent designer, after all ...
Provided, at least, that myopic, jealous Luddites don't get them banned or suppressed because they're offended that they can't reap the benefits on day one like someone who has a few more zeroes in their bank account.
And, of course, that's the only reason anybody could question the safety or utility of "the next big thing".
How many flippin' times are you going to repeat this comment? If it's such a clear consensus then give it a rest.
Thanks to all those who responded. It now turns out that some much more authoritative and better-informed people than I are already doing this! Please, if you're posting some pet theory about why all this peer-reviewed science is baloney to this story, do yourself a favour and check one of these sites out before you make a fool of yourself in front of your peers.
Your absolute faith is touching. I'm not sure it's in the right thing, but it is really touching.
But where's the justification? I mean, these guys were criminals and bad people and I don't particularly want them in society with me. But come on--rapists don't go away that long for one count, and this was just attempted. There's just no logic to it.
Yeah, but you've come to the opposite conclusion as me. Lock up the rapists for much longer.
Every time this topic comes up, the denial machine kicks into full gear.
Whether you like it or not, this is what happens when lots of kids have lots of access to lots of computers; in the real world. List all the exceptions that you want, blame bad parenting and teaching, say "well if you use them this way (i.e. not the way people statistically actually use them), it's fine", blah, blah. That won't change the reality.
Yep. I think many people seriously underestimate themselves and their options here.
When you encounter a subject or a level that you feel you can't teach, you can:
The sense of helplessness that some people display makes me all the more determined to show that we don't need to throw our kids into the maw of institutional schools.
And make sure your state doesn't mess with the homeschool law(s).
It's not like there's really any educational excellence to be missed there (the fallacy of the false alternative). Public schools don't have the power to protect your kids, and as this story illustrates, you wouldn't want them to have the kind of power that they would need anyway.
There are other possibilities, such as applying standards of process perfection that are easily reachable in the real world, such as requiring a verifiable paper trail.
I have nothing against that. It's not going to stop the left's claims of having elections stolen, though. I don't think the left wants a truly verifiable paper trail, in fact - might be some problems with dead people and illegal immigrants voting.
Alright lefties, you're going to try this again?
Which outcome exactly are you hoping for?
Son of Reagan shows up at the DNC to promote stem cells... and people are SHOCKED.
Not those who were familiar with him before ... he IS lefty, on many issues. Disappointed, maybe, but not shocked.
Unfortunately, there's something in the limbic system that makes people want to conform and seek the approval of others in their social groupings, something hardwired in the primate brain.
You mean like Slashdot karma?
Creationists are rubes! You all suck! You say things like "intarweb" ... oops, no, we're the only ones who *really* ever say that. But you're still rubes! Ha ha!
There, can I have my karma now?
Science is not a belief. Science follows the scientific method. Accepted principles in science can be independently verified by testing and re-testing hypotheses using the scientific method.
Yes, that is true of *science*. Historical "science", however, doesn't satisfy those characteristics. Measure the percentage of a radioactive decay child in a sample, sure, that's science. Imagine what the original percentage of the parent radioisotope was, to "prove" how old the sample is, that isn't the same process.
Both evolutionists and (technically inclined) creationists use theories to fit data (the *same* data) to a worldview. For evolutionists, that worldview is the absence of a Creator. This means that extremely improbable events need to have happened (and the very first self-reproducing cell must have been an *event*, not a "process"), so the only way to even make that remotely plausible is very, very long periods of time. But the long periods are required by the worldview, not the data.
The use of science to explain a worldview *is*, to use your terminology in this context, a belief.
And now, a parody of your words:
Except evolutionists are not true scientists, because they come to the table with a hypothesis, the truth of which they are highly invested in proving(1). That is not the scientific method, because they do not approach their hypothesis with neutrality. Therefore, they find exactly the answers they seek. That is not science.
(1) That there is no Creator, and only currently observed natural processes operating over immense ages can be allowed to explain the complexity of life and the universe.
Good lord; do we really need to read any further?
If ((today=="Monday") && (moon="FULL")) {
CLAIM=position(1);
}
else
{
CLAIM=position(2);
}
Apparently it is a photo of humans hugging. It would be perfectly ok if they pointed guns and shot at each other, as usual.
Actually, they're not "hugging"; they're just sort of standing there looking stoned.. Or maybe that's supposed to be an attitude - "we're tough, we're rebels, we're naked - and we have varying skin tones, so we're oh so enlightened".
I would find it less annoying if there were some actual sexuality there. Instead, you have all of the immorality of one naked guy and two naked girls, with none of the fun.
When those Islamic armoured divisions began rolling up the eastern seaboard, we all thought the USA was done for. But you guys sure showed them!
So, how is a nation that refuses to defend itself going to be preserved, again? Magic?
I, er, share your doubt that we'll initially fall to a frontal assault. It'll probably start with this or that immigrant neighborhood declaring sharia, while the liberal municipality refuses to do anything, because of how sensitive and understanding they are, of course (that and being scared *less of bombs, etc.).
If we go with the Kerry plan of refusing to recongnize the threat, I have no confidence that we'll resist the gradual combination of terrorism and exploitation of our legal and political systems that will ensue.
I vote that we fix SS, healthcare for all, edcation for all AND mars.
We just have to stop bombing so many people to pay for it.
But will the United Caliphates of America share your research priorities?
Up Schist Crick, Piers Anthony 1972
That was it; thanks! I read it in some collection of "taboo" scifi stories (most of which would seem quite tame now, but a few were just really weird ...)
Was it Piers Anthony? A whole *town* had women wearing transparent, incredibly thin bodysuits.
The story was set in the 50's, I think. The whole moral structure of this town had changed, because women could just, er, pop stuff right back out, without the slightest danger or even evidence. Some guy wandered into the town and was amazed at what he found.
Of course, most of modern society is that town now anyway, but without the bodysuits :(
Hmm, I guess I'm out of luck ;)
It does not work well on hilly or overgrown yards.
Anyway, if I could afford this thing, I think I'd have my yard leveled instead :)
While I'd love to have somebody/thing else to mow my grass, I'm not sure that I trust an autonomous mechanical device with lethal whirling blades on it to wander about my lawn. Silly of me, I know ...