it's just not realistic anymore to expect to have a parent at home at all the same times as the children
WHAT!?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?! It is hard, to be sure, but it is absolutely realistic and possible to have one parent at home when the kids are home
(assuming a two-parent household where there's a good relationship between the parents, and both parents are physically and emotionally healthy - where healthy is defined as behavior within currently acceptable social norms)
This is about life choices, people. You (generally) choose the quality of your relationship with your spouse; you choose where to live, what kind of cars to drive, how much you spend on yourself, and what your priorities are!
Our family of six lives on my income alone. We own a relatively small home, we drive used cars, we shop for bargains - yardsales, freecycle, etc - and we have healthy, well adjusted kids where mom is home with them.
It's my job to earn an income, and then to come home and co-parent my kids. That means after a tough day at the office I come home, take the baby from my wife, and keep the rest of the kids entertained while she finishes preparing dinner. We play as a family together until time for bed when it's my responsibility to share the workload with my wife. I grocery shop after the kids are in bed or I take the kids with me so that she gets some rest.
The point is we CHOSE to live a more fiscally conservative lifestyle so that our kids could have a parent at home. Our income is above 'average' but I am sure that we could do this on an 'average' income. If it was too expensive to live in a metro area, we could move someplace cheaper. It's all a choice.
Almost everyone could choose this, too. There ARE exceptions as noted above. Some of those exceptions could be eliminated. Got a bad marriage? Work on turning it around! Bad health? Most health problems are related to lack of activity and obesity. Perhaps there's a place to start.
Let's avoid some of the knee-jerk responses, while I'm at it. If you have serious illness - HIV/AIDS, Cancer, MS, and a whole host of others, it's going to be MUCH harder to make it work having a parent at home. If you have a drug-addicted or absent partner, having a parent at home is impossible.
Let's talk about the middle of the bell curve, not the extremes. People can make financial and personal sacrifices to provide a present parent. Most are simply too selfish to do so, or they have never thought through the fact that they ARE making choices. With appropriate self-evaluation, and a willingness to do without, most two-parent families could have both parents at home. They just don't.
This is not a lack of realism, but rather a lack of wisdom.
BTW - it IS good parenting to lock away guns, cleaners, prescription medicines, etc. This software helps parents with some kids, by choice, and I consider that a good thing.
I agree that the civil war was about state's rights (primarily) but as reasonable people we must acknowledge that economics played a part, and so did the burgeoning idea that slavery was exploitive. Do you acknowledge that there were other factors involved besides states' rights?
Our culture DOES NOT teach that the founding fathers were Christians. Our textbooks have been cleansed of information about religion so that we can be politically correct and not offend anyone, even if what is written is true. It's those right-wing fundamentalists who teach that the founding fathers were men of faith.
Also, only God knows for certain, but I believe that Washington was a Christian. Many of the founding fathers were not, and it's possible that he was not. Based on what I've read of his writings, he sounds like one to me.
Even those founding fathers who were not Christians believed in a creator God and absolute definitions of right and wrong.
The problem that us 'right-wing fundamentalists' have with the current conventional wisdom about the founding fathers and deconstructionism with respect to constitutional interpretations is that our society was grounded in the idea of absolute truth. In the post-modern society in which we live, there is 'no such thing as Truth.'
Inconceivably, this denial of Truth is the only truth that is acceptable in the marketplace of ideas. Anyone who says that they have a superior idea when it comes to making a decision on a moral issue is branded a fanatic.
Let's not throw stones at each other. I acknowledge that there are thinking people on the other side of the debate from me. I happen to think that they are wrong:) but I understand that they have the right to their ideas.
Where I get really bent out of shape is when the school system, in the name of the unconstitutional * 'separation of church and state' removes factual information about what motivated the Puritans, or the founding fathers, to architect the framework of the constitution.
* unconstitutional merely because it does not appear in the constitution, although you'd think it did, based on what the media says....
In the following email to Staples after they had this problem:...my comment about the in-store experience: I thought you would like to know that after I bought $350 worth of merchandise, rung up by the store general manager, no less, that the anti-theft system at the front door started going off as I departed.
I stopped, turned around, and went in hoping that someone from the store would help, as indicated by the automatic alarm warning message. I'm telling you, even though there were a gaggle of sales people standing around, no one FLINCHED.
I finally started to approach one of the cashiers. From 20 feet away he called out (over the din of the alarm) "Did you pay for that?" I called back "Yes"
He said "Why did you stop? Just keep going!"
I turned and walked out. Presumably the shoplifters would have done the same except they would not have paused at the door.
How much money does Staples have invested in this system that is completely ignored? If it's all the same to you, would you please stop installing these systems and lower your prices? I'd rather not pay more than I have to.
When we participate in the "free as in speech" and or "free as in beer" communities, our compensation is non-monetary. We have jobs so that we have the luxury of participating in the not-for-profit activities above.
The question you have to answer is "do the people who work for Apple deserve to get paid for their labor?"
That's the reason that people buy the family pack.
I saw that this was completely controlled by computers a long time ago. There was this episode of '24' where they took control of the subway and kept the bad guys from getting away.
I'm not going to ask you to accept it at face value, but the Bible says "The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands"
It seems to me that the universe itself is a solid apologetic for a designer/creator.
Let's talk about this, for a moment, laying aside the Bible. If we were to find an obelisk on Mars or on the moon, what would we surmise? a) either it was an extremely unusual natural formation, or, b) if the markings were too unnatural, that someone must have put it there!
If you are walking along a beach and find a watch, I'm pretty sure that you'd assume someone lost it.
There are also a great number of aspects of the known universe that seem consistent with design. The very idea that there is a 'natural order of things' that our minds can comprehend indicates to me that science is possible because of the order. The order, in my mind, implies the designer. I'd be glad to elaborate, if you are interested.
There are a number of philosophical and historical things that support my faith in the Hebrew scriptures (aka the Old Testament, and the Christian Gospel - the New Testament.)
Let me be clear. The Bible is NOT a science or history textbook. It contains things consistent with science, and some parts are historical. It is complex literature, and must be interpreted wisely. Based on considerable study, I am convinced that the Bible is trustworthy. This lends credence to my belief in a designer.
Speaking of following the evidence, have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever read literature from Intelligent design proponents to see if their claims make sense? To see if they provide evidence that you consider valid?
I think that a great deal of evidence is already available, but most 'science types' reject it because it does not fit their model of the universe.
you said "you are proposing an incredibly complex entity that nobody can show exists (let alone describe properties of)"
I'd like to ask "What evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate that a designer/creator exists?" but it looks from your sentence above that there is no evidence which could convince you.
Please tell me that I'm misunderstanding your position, and please answer my question, or I'll be forced to assume that your philosophy precludes your searching for truth if it conflicts with your philosophy.
Let me provide an example of a biological structure that makes no sense because of irreducible complexity.
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberration , could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible" (Origin of Species, Darwin)
The human eye has a lens, a complex retina, cornea, iris, a system to maintain pressure inside the eye, to rotate fluid every four hours, tear glands clean the outside, and an eyelid keeps it moist and eyelashes keep foreign objects out. In addition, there are tuned muscles that surround the eye to help point it and to help focus.
None of these have a distinct advantage without the others being present. In fact, this amazingly complex structure is connected to the optic nerve, which is then connected to a part of the brain that can interpret the signals sent from the retina.
You cannot explain the origin of vision without first accounting for the structure that supports it. You cannot explain that structure without the minimum number of components being present to provide the signals. It's a catch-22. Behe takes 3 pages to describe the biochemistry of vision in humans. To suggest that this type of system evolved because of favorable mutation is.... not merely unlikely, it's so unlikely that it seems slightly separated from impossibility.
Irreducible complexity is not to be discarded without thought. You may disagree, but I submit to you that you should give it thought rather than discard the concept with "meh"
But if you have a preconceived notion that natural phenomena is the ONLY way that changes can occur or species could appear, then you could possibly have removed the real way that this happened.
Specifically I believe that the current conventional wisdom about this explanation of origin of species will one day be as outdated thought as the geocentric solar system. Initially the heliocentric model was resisted strongly by the scientific community. The model was the best explanation they had, even though it required retrograde motion in order to make the data add up. Today it is as accepted as daylight.
While small changes over time provides one explanation of the origin of diverse species, it is not the best, and the data points do not add up completely.
My money says that a much simpler model is the likely cause.
Remember that Coppedge says chance requires 10B tries to count to ten.
If you had 10 coins numbered 1-10, and if you could draw and record one coin every 5 seconds, 24 hours per day, it would take more than 1,500 years for chance, on average, to count to ten.
Coppedge continutes to say that if we postulate a primordial sea with every single component necessary, and speeding up the rate of bonding a TRILLION times, "The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10^161, using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began.....For a minimum set of the required 239 protien molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10^119,879 It would take 10^119,841 years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10^119,831 TIMES the assumed age of the earth!" (emphasis added by me)
4B years is simply a trivial amount of time by comparison, and that is talking about the smallest possible life form - before we have the 'benefit' of 'favorable mutation' which is in and of itself extremely uncommon.
The line of reasoning is valid, but the evidence does not completely line up with that.
There are two ways to accomplish the radical differences between creatures: 1. Throw HUGE amounts of time at the problem so that occasional favorable mutations can bring the differences. 2. Move to puncutate equilibrium where radical changes happen within a single breeding cycle. For example, this suggests that I should make sure that the windows are closed when my wife gives birth in case she has a bird instead of a baby human.
Neither seems probable to me. Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the most likely, and I think that it's more reasonable to suggest that there is a designer/creator that set up the universe and creatures of different types.
Some problems with the chance and time combination are: a) to go from the "basic building blocks of life" to complex structures would take immense periods of time. In fact, an expert in statistical probability, Dr. James Coppege says that chance is *so* bad at doing things that "Chance requires ten billion tries on the average in order to count to ten" (See "Evolution, Possible or impossible? Northridge CA: Probability research inmolecular biology 1993")
b) Michael Behe's concept of 'irreducible complexity' - there are a certain number of parts that need to be assembled in a particular order to work and therefore be favorable. Behe's example is a mousetrap - you must have a spring, board, bar, and release for a mousetrap to work. If you don't have those part, in that order, it won't work. Many biological structures are far more complex than this simple device. How can it be that these came to be? (see Darwin's Black Box for more on this topic.)
What stops the little changes from adding up? It takes too long, it's too hard, and sometimes you just can't get there from here because the parts by themselves, until they are assembled in order don't provide any benefit to the creature.
I am a relatively educated man. I'm not a theologian, nor am I a scientist by trade. I do consider myself a thinker. I also want to put on the table that I have a bias. Philosophically I object to the concept that time and chance are the cause of life, or differentiation within kinds of life. Lets be fair. Some of you reading this have an opposite bias. Let's try to lay that bias aside for this discussion, shall we?
We need to define terms clearly.
Evolution is a broad topic. I consider that there are two major components described as 'evolution' The first is 'adaptation' which I will define as relatively small changes observed within a type of creature. I accept this because it can be confirmed through pure application of the scientific method.
We can clearly observe and repeat circumstances in which the environment is such that a creature with attributes more fit for the environment tends to persist - where those traits can be passed on and eventually (generations later) a creature exists that is similar to, but discernably different from the original. Look at the differentiation between a snowshoe rabbit and the european common rabbit. It makes sense to me, based on observation, and scientific principles that they are variations within a type of creature.
The second is what I refer to as 'macro-evolution' or the change from one type of creature to another - say - from a cat to a dog. There is some doubt about how this works, even within the community of evolutionists. Did we see gradual change over time from one type to another, or did we see a substantive change all at once? There's a reason that the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory exists, and it was not a creationist who came up with the idea. In fact, it was an atheist who said 'phyletic gradualism' 'was not seen in the rocks' - in other words, the evidence was not compelling, so a new theory was developed.
If we start from the perspective (as did Carl Sagan) that 'the cosmos is all that there is, all that ever was, and all that ever will be' we are making a philosophical statement rather than a scientific one. Science is unable to comment on anything that cannot be tested via the scientific method.
I see a number of problems with assuming that time and chance got us here. I'll be happy to elaborate without appeal to philosophy.
To me, evolution as the 'origin of species' is one explanation, but it appears to be a particularly *bad* explanation, based on the way that the data points fail to line up. I look forward to the day that the conventional wisdom within the scientific community sees this issue in the same way that it sees the geocentric model of planetary movement. A bad explanation that was the best that had been found at the time.
This idea made no sense to me back in the days when I worked for a 'Big Six' accounting firm - you know, when dinosaurs roamed the earth?
However, at the time, this organization was legally a limited liability partnership. As such, any assets were problematic for a couple of reasons. 1. Capital expenditures must be depreciated over a multiple year cycle - you may pay $10K for that box, but you have to treat the box as if it's worth $10K this year, $6K next year, $3K the next, etc. We all know that computers depreciate more rapidly than cars, and there's no way that you could recoup 60% of the purchase price 12 months after purchase of a box. Expenses, however, are written off as they happen. Spend $10K on a lease this year, and you write off $10K THIS year.
2. You also show no value for that asset because it's not yours. This matters when the partners are concerned that a lawsuit loss might cause assets to be liquidated and LLCs like to have as few assets as possible. The less there is, the less that can be taken - or so the thinking goes.
So, it may cost more actual dollars the way you're doing it, but I bet that the accountants and lawyers have it figured out so that it's really in the best interest of your organization to 'waste' that money.
I checked http://www.macrumors.com and found that the 1.25 GHz PowerBook was released on 16 Sept 2003 and that 10.3 was released on 21 Oct 2003.
This is exactly 5 weeks apart. Should Apple have offered me an OS upgrade at a discount, given that I bought a high-end system from them a few weeks before and that 10.3 was a substantial improvement over the OS that shipped on my PowerBook? I think so. Did they? no. They essentially told me to 'talk to the hand.'
Anyone have any whining tips for my future reference?
I bought my first mac (a 15" PowerBook 1.25 GHz) as soon as they were announced. As I recall, it was only about 4-6 weeks later that 10.3 was released. I called Apple and asked about using my 'OS Upgrade certificates" to be told "we currently are not running any promotions with those."
{rant mode on} I was very upset to think that they would not offer me the option to upgrade at a discounted rate so soon after I bought a top-of-the-line notebook. I've never dropped $3K on a PC before, and it was shocking.
I subsequently contacted customer relations, the apple store, the apple on line store, and even though I was polite and respectful, I got nowhere.
Today my PowerBook sits running 10.2 and I'm counting the days until I can get the 10.4 discs. A couple of months ago, I was at an Apple store, and told my tale of woe to the employees there while they were demo-ing iLife '05 for me.
I was wowed by iLife '05, and proceeded to buy a copy. I was really frustrated when I got home and it would not install!
Now, before you ding me by saying 'it clearly says 10.3 on the box' remember that I was not dealing with Linux where you'd better check compatibility VERY closely. I was in a high touch sales situation where I expected that the sales team would tell me that the software would not work.
On top of that, I have a PC that is less that 18 months old. I bought the top of the line OS from the vendor, and applications from that same vendor won't run on it? Ridiculous! Even Microsoft doesn't act that way.
I've got apps on Linux that have not been recompiled in 6 years. They run just fine in spite of hardware, kernel, and distribution changes.
The idea that Apple would leave me stranded, and offer me no options other than to drop an additional $129 on 10.3 which will be obsoleted VERY soon seems outrageous!
Oh, and I can't return iLife '05 because I broke the seal on the box. Gotta love Apple's support. I loved the way that during my 90 days of free customer support they told me "we don't support network printing." High touch, and extremely helpful - NOT...
I've got my home network set up behind DansGuardian/Squid and I've been VERY pleased with the results. Dansguardian was easy to get running, and I have been able to apply a large blacklist as well as easily configure allowed and blocked sites.
On the email side, I don't run my own mailserver (ISP blocks port 25) but I use fetchmail to grab POP mail from them, then use procmail rules and Smapassassin to kill SPAM. Works pretty darn well.
I've been meaning to write a howto on this, but.... life intervened. If you want to know more about how/why I did this, please email or post a reply.
Of course scientific theories are not necessairly half-baked ideas. Let's talk about this for a moment.
I watched a "Modern Marvels" program this week where a NASA scientist talked about how the earth is running out of food due to overpopulation and how it would be necessary for us to move to other planets to survive. This is clearly an opinion which may or may not be supported by facts. This is a theory which I would not call scientific, but this man presented it as if it was objective fact. This is what makes me (as a fundamentalist) crazy. Real science is good. "I've got a political philosophy so I need to present my ideas as absolute truth in the guise of science" is propaganda of the worst sort, and too many times this is what occurs in "science" media.
This so-called scientist went on to opine about fleets of Mars-based vehicles that would pick up Martian soil and use that as fuel to emit carbon dioxide. This carbon-dioxide would then be used to warm the planet and make way for plant life that could emit oxygen in preparation for human life.
Look at the furor on this planet about greenhouse gas emissions! Imagine the impact of intentionally modifying an entire planet to meet our desires. This was presented as a realistic option. He DID mention in passing that no one knew how to convert Martian dirt to carbon dioxide. This program talked about this as if it was a planned thing. What ROT. This is the kind of pseudo-science that causes people like me to shun so-called scientific films.
In my opinion, "scientists" make themselves propagandists rather than seekers of knowledge when they employ practices like this.
To those who think that 'fundies' are closed-minded dolts, please open your mind to consider that perhaps we are sentient beings who have given these issues some thought.
Just because someone has a PhD or is engaged in "research," that does not make him/her objective, or a good scientist.
In terms of media literacy, I like to ask "why did the filmmaker make this film?" What is the story being told? Is there an agenda that should be exposed? All too often there is a "wholistic naturalism" agenda being advanced.
Naturalism is a good description of what we observe in the physical realm, but it is inadequate to model the human experience of the natural world.
If you make the assumption that these films present objective truth, then it's reasonable to object to what appears to be censorship.
This assumption is unreasonable. After all, we all have a bias - whether we are conservative, liberal, religious, atheist, etc. Is it possible to maintain a sense of detachment when making a film? I'd assert that it is not.
My objection, as a religious fundamentalist, is not that the films are 'science' but rather where the films depart from science and insert their makers' worldview that is NOT science.
For example, when the filmmakers present information about the origin of the universe as fact rather than theory. Frankly no one can demonstrate with science about origins.
Also, many times scientific theories (not just evolution, but theories about cosmology, biology, etc) are presented as if they are fact rather than hypothesis.
Where the movies show science, let them play. Where they are a polemic for the maker's bias, let the market decide.
If the market does not want those polemics - Farenheit 911, anyone? - it makes sense for the IMAX theaters to skip them.
Why are you SO angry? If what I believe is irrational, unintelligent, and foolishness, then my worldview should be irrelevant. Why can't you merely dismiss what I believe in the same way you (and I) dismiss meduims and psychics?
The facts are that evolution remains unproven, but is the best materialistic explanation that naturalists propose. This is the case with all of science. Hypothesis gives way to testing, and if the phenomenon are observable and repeatable, it gives credence to the hypothesis.
This is rational and reasonable. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe based on your last post that we are in violent agreement on this issue.
An ordered universe presents itself in a way that ordered examination prevails in exposing and describing natural phenomena. It makes sense to me that everything that exists had a creator, and that a designer is a good explanation for the order and precision in the universe.
Also, naturalism as a world view fails when it comes to describing anything nonmaterial. What is the purpose of life? What gives life meaning? If materialism is true, then why shouldn't you kill anyone who opposes you? If genetic mutation is the pathway to improvements in the progression of living things, why not bombard all living things with radiation in an effort to speed evolution along?
What about those things that are not naturally explainable or describable? For example, love, duty, honor, passion, fear, and self-sacrifice are experiences common to all people, and yet completely nonmaterial. How does one with a naturalistic worldview fit those components together?
Evolution is a fact which results from the study of vast amounts of data
That species adapt *is* clearly fact. Whether species develop from a great deal of adaptation is *not* demonstrable fact based on the fossil record. There is debate about such things.
Attacking my mental health is poor form. Leaning on ad hominem attacks indicates to me that you may lack of belief in the substance of your argument.
Are your preconceived notions about the universe aso fixed that they are not open to new ideas?
I am left with the following question for you: "What if Christianity is true?"
Slashdot Mirror
it's just not realistic anymore to expect to have a parent at home at all the same times as the children
WHAT!?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!
It is hard, to be sure, but it is absolutely realistic and possible to have one parent at home when the kids are home
(assuming a two-parent household where there's a good relationship between the parents, and both parents are physically and emotionally healthy - where healthy is defined as behavior within currently acceptable social norms)
This is about life choices, people. You (generally) choose the quality of your relationship with your spouse; you choose where to live, what kind of cars to drive, how much you spend on yourself, and what your priorities are!
Our family of six lives on my income alone. We own a relatively small home, we drive used cars, we shop for bargains - yardsales, freecycle, etc - and we have healthy, well adjusted kids where mom is home with them.
It's my job to earn an income, and then to come home and co-parent my kids. That means after a tough day at the office I come home, take the baby from my wife, and keep the rest of the kids entertained while she finishes preparing dinner. We play as a family together until time for bed when it's my responsibility to share the workload with my wife. I grocery shop after the kids are in bed or I take the kids with me so that she gets some rest.
The point is we CHOSE to live a more fiscally conservative lifestyle so that our kids could have a parent at home. Our income is above 'average' but I am sure that we could do this on an 'average' income. If it was too expensive to live in a metro area, we could move someplace cheaper. It's all a choice.
Almost everyone could choose this, too. There ARE exceptions as noted above. Some of those exceptions could be eliminated. Got a bad marriage? Work on turning it around! Bad health? Most health problems are related to lack of activity and obesity. Perhaps there's a place to start.
Let's avoid some of the knee-jerk responses, while I'm at it. If you have serious illness - HIV/AIDS, Cancer, MS, and a whole host of others, it's going to be MUCH harder to make it work having a parent at home. If you have a drug-addicted or absent partner, having a parent at home is impossible.
Let's talk about the middle of the bell curve, not the extremes. People can make financial and personal sacrifices to provide a present parent. Most are simply too selfish to do so, or they have never thought through the fact that they ARE making choices. With appropriate self-evaluation, and a willingness to do without, most two-parent families could have both parents at home. They just don't.
This is not a lack of realism, but rather a lack of wisdom.
BTW - it IS good parenting to lock away guns, cleaners, prescription medicines, etc. This software helps parents with some kids, by choice, and I consider that a good thing.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I agree that the civil war was about state's rights (primarily) but as reasonable people we must acknowledge that economics played a part, and so did the burgeoning idea that slavery was exploitive. Do you acknowledge that there were other factors involved besides states' rights?
:) but I understand that they have the right to their ideas.
Our culture DOES NOT teach that the founding fathers were Christians. Our textbooks have been cleansed of information about religion so that we can be politically correct and not offend anyone, even if what is written is true. It's those right-wing fundamentalists who teach that the founding fathers were men of faith.
Also, only God knows for certain, but I believe that Washington was a Christian. Many of the founding fathers were not, and it's possible that he was not. Based on what I've read of his writings, he sounds like one to me.
Even those founding fathers who were not Christians believed in a creator God and absolute definitions of right and wrong.
The problem that us 'right-wing fundamentalists' have with the current conventional wisdom about the founding fathers and deconstructionism with respect to constitutional interpretations is that our society was grounded in the idea of absolute truth. In the post-modern society in which we live, there is 'no such thing as Truth.'
Inconceivably, this denial of Truth is the only truth that is acceptable in the marketplace of ideas. Anyone who says that they have a superior idea when it comes to making a decision on a moral issue is branded a fanatic.
Let's not throw stones at each other. I acknowledge that there are thinking people on the other side of the debate from me. I happen to think that they are wrong
Where I get really bent out of shape is when the school system, in the name of the unconstitutional * 'separation of church and state' removes factual information about what motivated the Puritans, or the founding fathers, to architect the framework of the constitution.
* unconstitutional merely because it does not appear in the constitution, although you'd think it did, based on what the media says....
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But we'd better start worrying now.
Really, this is little more than sensationalized rank speculation. Volcanoes could destroy the environment before 2029, too.
Space is REALLY BIG, people. No matter how big the asteroid, the chances of hitting earth are VERY small.
We have lots of things to worry about that are more urgent, and more LIKELY than an asteroid impact 30 years from now.
Has slashdot turned into the Weekly World News of science reporting?
In the following email to Staples after they had this problem: ...my comment about the in-store experience:
I thought you would like to know that after I bought $350 worth of merchandise, rung up by the store general manager, no less, that the anti-theft system at the front door started going off as I departed.
I stopped, turned around, and went in hoping that someone from the store would help, as indicated by the automatic alarm warning message. I'm telling you, even though there were a gaggle of sales people standing around, no one FLINCHED.
I finally started to approach one of the cashiers. From 20 feet away he called out (over the din of the alarm) "Did you pay for that?" I called
back "Yes"
He said "Why did you stop? Just keep going!"
I turned and walked out. Presumably the shoplifters would have done the same except they would not have paused at the door.
How much money does Staples have invested in this system that is completely ignored? If it's all the same to you, would you please stop
installing these systems and lower your prices? I'd rather not pay more than I have to.
Thought you'd like to know.
When we participate in the
"free as in speech" and or
"free as in beer"
communities, our compensation is non-monetary. We have jobs so that we have the luxury of participating in the not-for-profit activities above.
The question you have to answer is "do the people who work for Apple deserve to get paid for their labor?"
That's the reason that people buy the family pack.
I saw that this was completely controlled by computers a long time ago. There was this episode of '24' where they took control of the subway and kept the bad guys from getting away.
Boy, slashdot has GOT to keep up.
I'm not going to ask you to accept it at face value, but the Bible says "The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands"
It seems to me that the universe itself is a solid apologetic for a designer/creator.
Let's talk about this, for a moment, laying aside the Bible. If we were to find an obelisk on Mars or on the moon, what would we surmise?
a) either it was an extremely unusual natural formation, or,
b) if the markings were too unnatural, that someone must have put it there!
If you are walking along a beach and find a watch, I'm pretty sure that you'd assume someone lost it.
There are also a great number of aspects of the known universe that seem consistent with design. The very idea that there is a 'natural order of things' that our minds can comprehend indicates to me that science is possible because of the order. The order, in my mind, implies the designer. I'd be glad to elaborate, if you are interested.
There are a number of philosophical and historical things that support my faith in the Hebrew scriptures (aka the Old Testament, and the Christian Gospel - the New Testament.)
Let me be clear. The Bible is NOT a science or history textbook. It contains things consistent with science, and some parts are historical. It is complex literature, and must be interpreted wisely. Based on considerable study, I am convinced that the Bible is trustworthy. This lends credence to my belief in a designer.
Speaking of following the evidence, have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever read literature from Intelligent design proponents to see if their claims make sense? To see if they provide evidence that you consider valid?
I think that a great deal of evidence is already available, but most 'science types' reject it because it does not fit their model of the universe.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
you said "you are proposing an incredibly complex entity that nobody can show exists (let alone describe properties of)"
I'd like to ask "What evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate that a designer/creator exists?" but it looks from your sentence above that there is no evidence which could convince you.
Please tell me that I'm misunderstanding your position, and please answer my question, or I'll be forced to assume that your philosophy precludes your searching for truth if it conflicts with your philosophy.
I hope that I'm incorrect about that.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Philosophically and intellectually. Typically abiogenesis is assumed by those who have an a priori commitment to naturalism.
I overstated the case. I agree that your description of irreducible complexity is more accurate than mine. I apologize for the error.
Let me provide an example of a biological structure that makes no sense because of irreducible complexity.
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberration , could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible" (Origin of Species, Darwin)
The human eye has a lens, a complex retina, cornea, iris, a system to maintain pressure inside the eye, to rotate fluid every four hours, tear glands clean the outside, and an eyelid keeps it moist and eyelashes keep foreign objects out. In addition, there are tuned muscles that surround the eye to help point it and to help focus.
None of these have a distinct advantage without the others being present. In fact, this amazingly complex structure is connected to the optic nerve, which is then connected to a part of the brain that can interpret the signals sent from the retina.
You cannot explain the origin of vision without first accounting for the structure that supports it. You cannot explain that structure without the minimum number of components being present to provide the signals. It's a catch-22. Behe takes 3 pages to describe the biochemistry of vision in humans. To suggest that this type of system evolved because of favorable mutation is.... not merely unlikely, it's so unlikely that it seems slightly separated from impossibility.
Irreducible complexity is not to be discarded without thought. You may disagree, but I submit to you that you should give it thought rather than discard the concept with "meh"
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But if you have a preconceived notion that natural phenomena is the ONLY way that changes can occur or species could appear, then you could possibly have removed the real way that this happened.
Specifically I believe that the current conventional wisdom about this explanation of origin of species will one day be as outdated thought as the geocentric solar system. Initially the heliocentric model was resisted strongly by the scientific community. The model was the best explanation they had, even though it required retrograde motion in order to make the data add up. Today it is as accepted as daylight.
While small changes over time provides one explanation of the origin of diverse species, it is not the best, and the data points do not add up completely.
My money says that a much simpler model is the likely cause.
Remember that Coppedge says chance requires 10B tries to count to ten.
If you had 10 coins numbered 1-10, and if you could draw and record one coin every 5 seconds, 24 hours per day, it would take more than 1,500 years for chance, on average, to count to ten.
Coppedge continutes to say that if we postulate a primordial sea with every single component necessary, and speeding up the rate of bonding a TRILLION times, "The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10^161, using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began.....For a minimum set of the required 239 protien molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10^119,879 It would take 10^119,841 years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10^119,831 TIMES the assumed age of the earth!" (emphasis added by me)
4B years is simply a trivial amount of time by comparison, and that is talking about the smallest possible life form - before we have the 'benefit' of 'favorable mutation' which is in and of itself extremely uncommon.
The line of reasoning is valid, but the evidence does not completely line up with that.
There are two ways to accomplish the radical differences between creatures:
1. Throw HUGE amounts of time at the problem so that occasional favorable mutations can bring the differences.
2. Move to puncutate equilibrium where radical changes happen within a single breeding cycle. For example, this suggests that I should make sure that the windows are closed when my wife gives birth in case she has a bird instead of a baby human.
Neither seems probable to me. Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the most likely, and I think that it's more reasonable to suggest that there is a designer/creator that set up the universe and creatures of different types.
Some problems with the chance and time combination are:
a) to go from the "basic building blocks of life" to complex structures would take immense periods of time. In fact, an expert in statistical probability, Dr. James Coppege says that chance is *so* bad at doing things that "Chance requires ten billion tries on the average in order to count to ten" (See "Evolution, Possible or impossible? Northridge CA: Probability research inmolecular biology 1993")
b) Michael Behe's concept of 'irreducible complexity' - there are a certain number of parts that need to be assembled in a particular order to work and therefore be favorable. Behe's example is a mousetrap - you must have a spring, board, bar, and release for a mousetrap to work. If you don't have those part, in that order, it won't work. Many biological structures are far more complex than this simple device. How can it be that these came to be? (see Darwin's Black Box for more on this topic.)
What stops the little changes from adding up? It takes too long, it's too hard, and sometimes you just can't get there from here because the parts by themselves, until they are assembled in order don't provide any benefit to the creature.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I am a relatively educated man. I'm not a theologian, nor am I a scientist by trade. I do consider myself a thinker. I also want to put on the table that I have a bias. Philosophically I object to the concept that time and chance are the cause of life, or differentiation within kinds of life. Lets be fair. Some of you reading this have an opposite bias. Let's try to lay that bias aside for this discussion, shall we?
We need to define terms clearly.
Evolution is a broad topic. I consider that there are two major components described as 'evolution' The first is 'adaptation' which I will define as relatively small changes observed within a type of creature. I accept this because it can be confirmed through pure application of the scientific method.
We can clearly observe and repeat circumstances in which the environment is such that a creature with attributes more fit for the environment tends to persist - where those traits can be passed on and eventually (generations later) a creature exists that is similar to, but discernably different from the original. Look at the differentiation between a snowshoe rabbit and the european common rabbit. It makes sense to me, based on observation, and scientific principles that they are variations within a type of creature.
The second is what I refer to as 'macro-evolution' or the change from one type of creature to another - say - from a cat to a dog. There is some doubt about how this works, even within the community of evolutionists. Did we see gradual change over time from one type to another, or did we see a substantive change all at once? There's a reason that the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory exists, and it was not a creationist who came up with the idea. In fact, it was an atheist who said 'phyletic gradualism' 'was not seen in the rocks' - in other words, the evidence was not compelling, so a new theory was developed.
If we start from the perspective (as did Carl Sagan) that 'the cosmos is all that there is, all that ever was, and all that ever will be' we are making a philosophical statement rather than a scientific one. Science is unable to comment on anything that cannot be tested via the scientific method.
I see a number of problems with assuming that time and chance got us here. I'll be happy to elaborate without appeal to philosophy.
To me, evolution as the 'origin of species' is one explanation, but it appears to be a particularly *bad* explanation, based on the way that the data points fail to line up. I look forward to the day that the conventional wisdom within the scientific community sees this issue in the same way that it sees the geocentric model of planetary movement. A bad explanation that was the best that had been found at the time.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
This idea made no sense to me back in the days when I worked for a 'Big Six' accounting firm - you know, when dinosaurs roamed the earth?
However, at the time, this organization was legally a limited liability partnership. As such, any assets were problematic for a couple of reasons.
1. Capital expenditures must be depreciated over a multiple year cycle - you may pay $10K for that box, but you have to treat the box as if it's worth $10K this year, $6K next year, $3K the next, etc. We all know that computers depreciate more rapidly than cars, and there's no way that you could recoup 60% of the purchase price 12 months after purchase of a box. Expenses, however, are written off as they happen. Spend $10K on a lease this year, and you write off $10K THIS year.
2. You also show no value for that asset because it's not yours. This matters when the partners are concerned that a lawsuit loss might cause assets to be liquidated and LLCs like to have as few assets as possible. The less there is, the less that can be taken - or so the thinking goes.
So, it may cost more actual dollars the way you're doing it, but I bet that the accountants and lawyers have it figured out so that it's really in the best interest of your organization to 'waste' that money.
Hope this helps!
Regards,
Anomaly
I'm glad that someone's happy with Apple
Apparently 4-6 was a reasonable estimate.
I checked http://www.macrumors.com and found that the 1.25 GHz PowerBook was released on 16 Sept 2003 and that 10.3 was released on 21 Oct 2003.
This is exactly 5 weeks apart. Should Apple have offered me an OS upgrade at a discount, given that I bought a high-end system from them a few weeks before and that 10.3 was a substantial improvement over the OS that shipped on my PowerBook? I think so. Did they? no. They essentially told me to 'talk to the hand.'
Anyone have any whining tips for my future reference?
I bought my first mac (a 15" PowerBook 1.25 GHz) as soon as they were announced. As I recall, it was only about 4-6 weeks later that 10.3 was released. I called Apple and asked about using my 'OS Upgrade certificates" to be told "we currently are not running any promotions with those."
{rant mode on}
I was very upset to think that they would not offer me the option to upgrade at a discounted rate so soon after I bought a top-of-the-line notebook. I've never dropped $3K on a PC before, and it was shocking.
I subsequently contacted customer relations, the apple store, the apple on line store, and even though I was polite and respectful, I got nowhere.
Today my PowerBook sits running 10.2 and I'm counting the days until I can get the 10.4 discs. A couple of months ago, I was at an Apple store, and told my tale of woe to the employees there while they were demo-ing iLife '05 for me.
I was wowed by iLife '05, and proceeded to buy a copy. I was really frustrated when I got home and it would not install!
Now, before you ding me by saying 'it clearly says 10.3 on the box' remember that I was not dealing with Linux where you'd better check compatibility VERY closely. I was in a high touch sales situation where I expected that the sales team would tell me that the software would not work.
On top of that, I have a PC that is less that 18 months old. I bought the top of the line OS from the vendor, and applications from that same vendor won't run on it? Ridiculous! Even Microsoft doesn't act that way.
I've got apps on Linux that have not been recompiled in 6 years. They run just fine in spite of hardware, kernel, and distribution changes.
The idea that Apple would leave me stranded, and offer me no options other than to drop an additional $129 on 10.3 which will be obsoleted VERY soon seems outrageous!
Oh, and I can't return iLife '05 because I broke the seal on the box. Gotta love Apple's support. I loved the way that during my 90 days of free customer support they told me "we don't support network printing." High touch, and extremely helpful - NOT...
In spite of that, I still love the PowerBook
{rant mode off}
I've got my home network set up behind DansGuardian/Squid and I've been VERY pleased with the results. Dansguardian was easy to get running, and I have been able to apply a large blacklist as well as easily configure allowed and blocked sites.
On the email side, I don't run my own mailserver (ISP blocks port 25) but I use fetchmail to grab POP mail from them, then use procmail rules and Smapassassin to kill SPAM. Works pretty darn well.
I've been meaning to write a howto on this, but.... life intervened. If you want to know more about how/why I did this, please email or post a reply.
Regards,
Anomaly
Of course scientific theories are not necessairly half-baked ideas. Let's talk about this for a moment.
I watched a "Modern Marvels" program this week where a NASA scientist talked about how the earth is running out of food due to overpopulation and how it would be necessary for us to move to other planets to survive. This is clearly an opinion which may or may not be supported by facts. This is a theory which I would not call scientific, but this man presented it as if it was objective fact. This is what makes me (as a fundamentalist) crazy. Real science is good. "I've got a political philosophy so I need to present my ideas as absolute truth in the guise of science" is propaganda of the worst sort, and too many times this is what occurs in "science" media.
This so-called scientist went on to opine about fleets of Mars-based vehicles that would pick up Martian soil and use that as fuel to emit carbon dioxide. This carbon-dioxide would then be used to warm the planet and make way for plant life that could emit oxygen in preparation for human life.
Look at the furor on this planet about greenhouse gas emissions! Imagine the impact of intentionally modifying an entire planet to meet our desires. This was presented as a realistic option. He DID mention in passing that no one knew how to convert Martian dirt to carbon dioxide. This program talked about this as if it was a planned thing. What ROT. This is the kind of pseudo-science that causes people like me to shun so-called scientific films.
In my opinion, "scientists" make themselves propagandists rather than seekers of knowledge when they employ practices like this.
To those who think that 'fundies' are closed-minded dolts, please open your mind to consider that perhaps we are sentient beings who have given these issues some thought.
Just because someone has a PhD or is engaged in "research," that does not make him/her objective, or a good scientist.
In terms of media literacy, I like to ask "why did the filmmaker make this film?" What is the story being told? Is there an agenda that should be exposed? All too often there is a "wholistic naturalism" agenda being advanced.
Naturalism is a good description of what we observe in the physical realm, but it is inadequate to model the human experience of the natural world.
If you make the assumption that these films present objective truth, then it's reasonable to object to what appears to be censorship.
.02
This assumption is unreasonable. After all, we all have a bias - whether we are conservative, liberal, religious, atheist, etc. Is it possible to maintain a sense of detachment when making a film? I'd assert that it is not.
My objection, as a religious fundamentalist, is not that the films are 'science' but rather where the films depart from science and insert their makers' worldview that is NOT science.
For example, when the filmmakers present information about the origin of the universe as fact rather than theory. Frankly no one can demonstrate with science about origins.
Also, many times scientific theories (not just evolution, but theories about cosmology, biology, etc) are presented as if they are fact rather than hypothesis.
Where the movies show science, let them play. Where they are a polemic for the maker's bias, let the market decide.
If the market does not want those polemics - Farenheit 911, anyone? - it makes sense for the IMAX theaters to skip them.
Just my
Anomaly
You can file state taxes for free on line at http://www.marylandtaxes.com
I found that the tool works well, and that the state employees were helpful and interested in my feedback on the user experience.
Why are you SO angry? If what I believe is irrational, unintelligent, and foolishness, then my worldview should be irrelevant. Why can't you merely dismiss what I believe in the same way you (and I) dismiss meduims and psychics?
The facts are that evolution remains unproven, but is the best materialistic explanation that naturalists propose. This is the case with all of science. Hypothesis gives way to testing, and if the phenomenon are observable and repeatable, it gives credence to the hypothesis.
This is rational and reasonable. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe based on your last post that we are in violent agreement on this issue.
An ordered universe presents itself in a way that ordered examination prevails in exposing and describing natural phenomena. It makes sense to me that everything that exists had a creator, and that a designer is a good explanation for the order and precision in the universe.
Also, naturalism as a world view fails when it comes to describing anything nonmaterial. What is the purpose of life? What gives life meaning? If materialism is true, then why shouldn't you kill anyone who opposes you? If genetic mutation is the pathway to improvements in the progression of living things, why not bombard all living things with radiation in an effort to speed evolution along?
What about those things that are not naturally explainable or describable? For example, love, duty, honor, passion, fear, and self-sacrifice are experiences common to all people, and yet completely nonmaterial. How does one with a naturalistic worldview fit those components together?
Again I ask, what if Christianity is true?
Evolution is a fact which results from the study of vast amounts of data
That species adapt *is* clearly fact.
Whether species develop from a great deal of adaptation is *not* demonstrable fact based on the fossil record. There is debate about such things.
Attacking my mental health is poor form. Leaning on ad hominem attacks indicates to me that you may lack of belief in the substance of your argument.
Are your preconceived notions about the universe aso fixed that they are not open to new ideas?
I am left with the following question for you: "What if Christianity is true?"
Respectfully,
Anomaly